Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A critical review and comparison of existing seismic vulnerability assessment techniques for buildings are carried out to evaluate their suitability for use in seismic risk assessment. The methods considered are “Hybrid” vulnerability assessment method, FEMA 154 (Rapid Visual Screening), Euro Code 8, New Zealand Guidelines, Modified Turkish method and NRC Guidelines. A scoring system is proposed to select the suitable vulnerability assessment technique to be utilized for three different case studies conducted in different seismicity and geological zones, that is, Dhaka, and Rangamati cities, in Bangladesh, and Kelowna, in Canada. The ranking considers general description of vulnerability, building response factors, variance in output, applicability and ease of use, which are identified as the key characteristics required for vulnerability scales used in seismic risk evaluation. A sensitivity analysis has been carried out for the different methods with regard to different weighting criteria. Furthermore, a multi-criteria decision-making tool AHP has also been utilized to find out the suitable alternatives for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings. It was observed that the Hybrid method adequately satisfies all the criteria necessary for their use in seismic risk assessment. Vulnerability maps of different study areas using Hybrid method have been integrated into a GIS framework to visualize the building vulnerabilities in a spatial manner, which will facilitate the authority to manage effective seismic hazard risk reduction measures, including upgrading, repairing and retrofitting of structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alam MN, Mashfiq K, Rahman A, Haque SM (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings in heritage and non-heritage areas in the older part of Dhaka city. 3rd International Earthquake Symposium, Bangladesh Dhaka, 5–6 March 2010, ISBN: 978-984-8725-01-6

  • ATC (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Applied Technological Council. Palo Alto, CA

  • ATC-21 (1988) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Applied Technology Council, Redwood city, CA, USA

  • Bapat A (2008) Damage to tall structures situated at long distance from epicenter due to long period seismic waves and effect on structures on filled lands. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference of Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, University of Missouri, Arlington, Washington,USA

  • Bertogg M, Hitz L, Schmid E (2002) Vulnerability functions derived from loss data for insurance risk modelling: findings from recent earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the twelfth European conference on earthquake engineering (paper 281), London, September 2002

  • Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, DelRe D, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6:431–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Velez L, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43(3):75–104

    Google Scholar 

  • CDMP (2009) http://www.cdmp.org.bd/

  • Cockburn G, Tesfamariam S (2011) Earthquake disaster risk index for Canadian cities using Bayesian belief networks. Georisk: assessment and management of risk for engineered systems and Geohazards (accepted)

  • CEN, Comité Européen de Normalization (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998–1), Brussels

  • Durgesh CR (2005) IITK-GSDMA guidelines for seismic evaluation and strengthening of buildings. IITK-GSDMA Project on Building Codes, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority and Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

  • FEMA (1992) NEHRP handbook for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC

  • FEMA 310 (1998) Handbook for the seismic evaluation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  • FEMA (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology—earthquake HAZUS99. Service release 2 (SR2) technical manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  • FEMA (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  • FEMA 154 (2002) Rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic hazards: a handbook. Edition 2, ATC 154 (originally published in 1988), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  • Gueguen P, Michel C, Lecorre L (2007) A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):467–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill M, Rossetto R (2008) Comparison of building damage scales and damage descriptions for use in earthquake loss modelling in Europe. Bull Earthq Eng 6(2):335–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IITK-GSDMA (2007) Iitk-gsdma guidelines for seismic design of liquid storage tanks. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority and Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

  • Jalayer F, Iervolino I, Manfredi G (2010) Structural modeling uncertainties and their influence on seismic assessment of existing RC structures. Struct Saf 32:220–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan H, Yilmaz S, Akyol E, Sen G (2008) A new rapid seismic vulnerability assessment method for Turkey. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China

  • Lang K, Bachmann H (2004) On the seismic vulnerability of existing buildings: a case study of the city of Basel. Earthq Spectra 20(1):43–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantada N, Irizarry J, Barbat AH, Goula X, Roca A, Susagna T, Pujades LG (2010) Seismic hazard and risk scenarios for Barcelona, Spain, using the risk-UE vulnerability index method. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):201–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli A, Cifani G, Cialone G, Corazza L, Petracca A, Petrucci G (2008) Building vulnerability assessment and damage scenarios in Celano (Italy) using a quick survey data-based methodology. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(10–11):875–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEHRP (1994) Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC

  • NRCC 36943 (1993) Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, p 88

  • NZSEE (2000) An initial evaluation process for identifying buildings not safe in earthquake. August, p 27. (Prepared for Building Industry Authority), New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington

  • NZSEE (2003) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes [draft]. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington

  • Okada S, Takai N (2000) Classifications of structural types and damage patterns of buildings for earthquake field investigation. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering (paper 0705), Auckland

  • Roca A, Goula X, Susagna T, Chavez J, Gonzalez M, Reinoso E (2006) A simplified method for vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings and estimation of damage scenarios in Catalonia, Spain. Bull Earthq Eng 4(2):141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadat MR, Huq MS, Ansary MA (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings of Dhaka city. J Civil Eng (IEB) 38(2):159–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK, Mena E, Castro R (1988) Some aspects of source characteristics of the 19 September 1985 Michioacan earthquake and ground motion amplification in and near Mexico City from strong motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(2):451–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence R, So E, Jenny S, Castella H, Ewald M, Booth E (2008) The global earthquake vulnerability estimation system (GEVES): an approach for earthquake risk assessment for insurance applications. Bull Earthq Eng 6(3):463–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sucuoglu H, Yazgan U, Yakut A (2007) A screening procedure for seismic risk assessment in urban building stocks. Earthq Spectra 23(2):441–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M (2008) Risk-informed seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 24(3):795–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M (2010) Seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using hierarchical fuzzy rule base modeling. Earthq Spectra 26(1):235–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uniform Building Code (1997) Uniform building code. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA

  • Yakut A (2004) A preliminary seismic assessment procedure for reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Download references

Acknowledgments

The financial support from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) under Discovery Grant Program is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

    N. Alam, M. Shahria Alam & S. Tesfamariam

Authors
  1. N. Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Shahria Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Tesfamariam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Tesfamariam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alam, N., Alam, M.S. & Tesfamariam, S. Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods: a comparative study. Nat Hazards 62, 405–424 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0082-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0082-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation