Derivation of seismic fragility curves through mechanical-analytical approaches: the case study of the URM school buildings in Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy).
Saved in:
| Title: | Derivation of seismic fragility curves through mechanical-analytical approaches: the case study of the URM school buildings in Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Giusto, Sofia1 (AUTHOR), Boem, Ingrid2 (AUTHOR) INGRID.BOEM@dia.units.it, Alfano, Sara1 (AUTHOR), Gattesco, Natalino2 (AUTHOR), Cattari, Serena1 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. Apr2025, Vol. 23 Issue 6, p2611-2646. 36p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Epistemic uncertainty, *School buildings, *Exhibition buildings, *Models & modelmaking, *Masonry |
| Abstract: | Seismic events worldwide have shown that school buildings can exhibit vulnerability levels even higher than ordinary buildings. This highlights the urgent need for reliable risk analyses to guide decision-making in the implementation of large-scale mitigation policies. Developing seismic fragility curves that accurately reflect their typological and structural features is essential to achieve this. In this context, the paper compares two different mechanical-analytical methods, namely the "DBV-Masonry" and "Firstep-M_PRO", which have been independently developed at the University of Genoa and at the University of Trieste, respectively. Among various possible methods, the mechanical-analytical approach is chosen for its computational efficiency in assessing large portfolios and its flexibility in capturing the features of specific buildings, such as schools (i.e. significant inter-storey height and spacing between internal transversal walls). Both methods are applied to the same sample consisting of 101 unreinforced masonry (URM) schools located in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). One of key-goals of the paper is to provide a very comprehensive comparison of the similarities and differences between two methods for deriving seismic fragility curves which refer only to the global in-plane response. The impact of such an epistemic model uncertainty, together with the inter-building variability, is thus quantified and fragility curves are also validated against results from previous studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Database: | Energy & Power Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Seismic events worldwide have shown that school buildings can exhibit vulnerability levels even higher than ordinary buildings. This highlights the urgent need for reliable risk analyses to guide decision-making in the implementation of large-scale mitigation policies. Developing seismic fragility curves that accurately reflect their typological and structural features is essential to achieve this. In this context, the paper compares two different mechanical-analytical methods, namely the "DBV-Masonry" and "Firstep-M_PRO", which have been independently developed at the University of Genoa and at the University of Trieste, respectively. Among various possible methods, the mechanical-analytical approach is chosen for its computational efficiency in assessing large portfolios and its flexibility in capturing the features of specific buildings, such as schools (i.e. significant inter-storey height and spacing between internal transversal walls). Both methods are applied to the same sample consisting of 101 unreinforced masonry (URM) schools located in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). One of key-goals of the paper is to provide a very comprehensive comparison of the similarities and differences between two methods for deriving seismic fragility curves which refer only to the global in-plane response. The impact of such an epistemic model uncertainty, together with the inter-building variability, is thus quantified and fragility curves are also validated against results from previous studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570761X |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10518-025-02137-6 |
