A Seminar Report on

Seismic vulnerability assessment of residential

buildings and historical masonry structural systems

Submitted by

Haradhan Maiti
Reg No: 1705030049
Structural Engineering

Department of Civil Engineering

Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology
Burla -768018, Odisha
2018
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

2. Seismic vulnerability 2

3. Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings 3

4. Seismic vulnerability assessment and building classification 6

5. Seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings 11

An application to Mahabad city: Iran
5.1. Material and methods 12
5.2. Methodology 14
5.3. Vulnerability assessments and seismic damage of residential
Building parameters 17
5.4. Results and discussion 27

6. Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry structural systems 32

6.1. General methodology 33
6.2. Mathematical issues 38
6.3. Technological issues 44
6.4. Case studies 48
6.5. Results and discussion 55

7. Conclusion 55

8. References 58
1. INTRODUCTION

Most cities around the world are grappling with the problem of natural disasters. Earthquakes
are considered as the most destructive natural phenomenon in most countries. Earthquakes
are hazardous and full of risk especially when population exposed to those is vulnerable.
Since the majority of population in each country lives in residential buildings of cities, they
generally incur heavy losses during earthquakes. Population growth and the increasing
willingness of people to migrate from rural to urban areas in recent decades have caused
rapid and unbridled growth in cities. Urbanization problems are considered sensitive and
important when no sustainable development of cities is possible. The majority of the main
structural systems for historical structures are masonry elements, composed of stone, bricks,
adobe and mortar. For many old historical masonry structures (including monuments) erected
in zones of moderate to high seismicity, earthquake is one of their principal threats due to
their limited earthquake resistance capacity. A successful intervention on a monument
requires a good comprehension of its structural behavior under static and dynamic
(earthquake) loading. Successful modeling of a masonry historical structure is a prerequisite
for a reliable earthquake resistant design or assessment. For modern structures, with new
industrial materials (reinforced concrete, steel, etc.), the development of a reliable
mathematical model is possible, due to the fact that materials and member characteristics are
more uniform and mostly explicitly known. On the other hand, for the case of masonry, and
especially for the traditional plain one, it seems that there is a lot to be done in this field, until
Engineers become more confident about the accuracy of the modeling. The earthquake
resistance of buildings greatly influences seismic losses. The overwhelming majority of
deaths and injuries in earthquakes occur because of the disintegration and collapse of
buildings, and much of the economic loss and social disruption caused by earthquakes is also
attributable to the failure of buildings and other human-made structures. Studies of
earthquake damage show that some types of construction tend to be more vulnerable than
others. Early efforts were based on identifying damage/loss pattern from existing earthquake
data and predicting it for future earthquake. In order to predict the likely impact of an
earthquake on the built environment in any part of the country, it is essential to know the
seismic vulnerability of the built environment on the affected areas. This information depends
on the structural systems of the buildings to resist vertical and lateral loads, performance of
similar buildings in past earthquakes, and engineering standards adopted during construction.

1|Page
The assessment of likely impact also depends on the location and distribution of vulnerable
building stock in the affected areas.

2. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY

Seismic vulnerability of a building or a group of buildings is defined as their proneness to

manifest damage in occurrence of a seismic event. The proneness of some categories of
elements at risk to undergo adverse effects inflicted by potential earthquakes. This kind of
definition, which is definitely vague, requires of course considerable refinements in order to
become an operational tool for various purposes, like estimate of seismic risk, development
of earthquake scenarios, or development of strategies of risk mitigation. The evaluation of the
seismic risk of built-up areas is associated to the level of earthquake hazard, building
vulnerability and level of exposure. Seismic vulnerability means that inability of historical
and monumental buildings to withstand the effects of seismic forces. The concept of
vulnerability pertains to a system of basic concepts involved in risk analysis. In
understanding the seismic risk there is a need to determine the vulnerability of prevalent
construction types against earthquakes. When classes of buildings are considered for risk
assessment, the vulnerability can be established in terms of the structural characteristics, and
suitable modifiers to the vulnerability function can be established in terms of the geometrical
characteristics. Seismic vulnerability analysis of buildings in the inelastic range of
deformations can best be conducted through dynamic analysis, which requires detailed
nonlinear modeling to simulate the behavior of buildings. Within this holistic approach that
defines seismic risk, building vulnerability is from all three variables, the one that assumes
great importance not only because of its obvious physical consequences in the occurrence of
a seismic event, but because it is the potential aspect, for which the engineering research can
intervene, improve and even control seismic behavior of existing buildings, reducing the level
of vulnerability and consequently the level of physical damage, life loss and economical loss.
Development of vulnerability studies in urban centers can be conducted aiming to identify
building fragilities and reduce the seismic risk. The form of construction of the main vertical
load-bearing elements is one of the main determinants of vulnerability of a building. For
instance, a building with unreinforced masonry walls can be expected to be much more
vulnerable than a timber frame building. Thus, the total risk can be expressed simply in the
following conceptual form.
Risk = Hazard × Vulnerability × Exposure (1)

2|Page
The absolute risk can be expressed as the results of the mathematical convolution between
hazard, vulnerability and exposure (Coburn and Spence, 2002).
Rie |T =| (Hi *Ve)*E |T (2)
Where,
R, is defined as the probability of exceedance of a certain level of absolute loss of an exposed
element e, as consequence of an occurrence of a seismic event of certain intensity i.
H, is defined as the probability of exceedance of a certain level of seismic intensity i, during a
specified recurrence period, T and area.

V, is the vulnerability, that is an intrinsic predisposition of a certain element e, to suffer

damage result of a seismic event with intensity i.

E, is the exposure of the elements in risk, reflecting the value of the elements exposed.

Seismic hazard quantifies the ground motions generated due to an earthquake. Any local
effect such as due to soil properties is incorporated in hazard assessment. The seismic
vulnerability quantifies the propensity of types of buildings to be damaged due to specified
ground motions. Exposure of an area struck by earthquake depends upon the human
population and economic activity affected by it. A metro city has more exposure compared to
rural region. When carrying out risk assessment of large areas, where the built environment
information may be available only at low resolution, vulnerability of the buildings implied in
Macro-seismic intensity scales is most commonly used. The method utilizes damage
probability matrices that estimate the level of damage corresponding to ground motion
intensity as a conditional probability factor.

3. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESMENT OF BUILDINGS

Different buildings vary in their degree of vulnerability to earthquake ground motions as a

function of geometrical or qualitative characteristics (such as height, plan dimensions and
elevation configurations, age etc.), and structural characteristics (such as material of
construction, mass, stiffness, quality of construction, strength, intrinsic ductility, state of
stress, seismic displacements, non-linear behavior parameters and other structural
information). Vulnerability assessment thus provides an important input to seismic risk
assessment. Vulnerability assessment is also useful in estimation of consequences of building
damage such as casualties and economic losses. Fig 1 shows Seismic damage of a typical
residential building and Fig 2 shows seismic damage of a typical masonry building, historical
building and monumental building.

3|Page
 Fig. 1. Seismic damage of residential building, (www.google.com)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. Seismic damage of (a) Masonary building, (b)Historical building and (c) Monumental
Building,(www.google.com).

Early efforts were based on identifying damage/loss pattern from existing earthquake data
and predicting it for future earthquake. These data were limited to a small area and particular
intensity of earthquake, which made application of such methods highly localized. These
early vulnerability assessment methods tried to find damage in a building type due to
predetermined earthquake. This damage was then extrapolated to evaluate city-based or
region-based damage. Such methods are usually called as “Empirical Methods” because they
are largely dependent on the observed post-earthquake damage data.

4|Page
With the advancement of computation and data collection techniques more comprehensive
methods were proposed. These methods dealt with nonlinear analysis of structures,
probabilistic modeling of earthquake, and generalizing results of smaller area to a region or
other cities etc. These types of methods are usually referred as “Analytical Methods” because
they have sound mathematical formulation as base. There is another class of methods which
lie in between empirical and analytical methods, and known as semi-analytical or hybrid
methods. Some earthquake scenarios are difficult to simulate on computer and hence part of
analysis result must rely on observed damage pattern. Sometimes analytical results are
calibrated using on-field damage records and analysis methods are improved. Similarly,
based on the observed damage, computer analysis is used to estimate damage of higher
earthquake intensity, which cannot be verified with the available observed damage. Thus,
empirical methods play the role of a bridge between analytical and empirical methods.
A special class of method is known as Expert-Opinion based method. In such methods
earthquake damage scenario are created using knowledge of the experts in this field. A
questionnaire or series of questionnaires are designed to seek their opinion on probable
damage to various classes of building for different earthquake intensity. This type of method
relies on knowledge and experience of the participant experts (ATC-13, 1985). Apart from
above broad categorization vulnerability assessment methods can be classified based on other
factors. These include deterministic and probabilistic analytical methods, and methods based
on onsite assessment, known as visual assessment methods, that include quick or detailed
survey methods. There are also several different classes of analytical methods such as failure
mechanism-based methods, etc. Different vulnerability assessment methods have many
common or overlapping features and above mentioned classifications are not strict. Calvi et
al. (2006) performed detailed study of available vulnerability assessment methods and
classified them broadly as empirical, analytical and hybrid methods. The main features of the
most suitable vulnerability assessment procedure were summarized as:
 Incorporation of most recent developments in the field of seismic hazard assessment.
 Explicit accounting of all sources of uncertainty.
 Easy adaptability of model in different regions around the world.
 Balance between computational intensity and detailed survey.

5|Page
Fig 3 shows the classification of vulnerability assessment methods proposed by Calvi et al.
(2006)

Fig. 3. The components of seismic risk assessment and choices for the vulnerability
Assessment procedure; the bold path shows a traditional assessment method,
(Calvi et al.,2006)

4. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESMENT AND BUILDING CLASSIFICATION

Seismic vulnerability assessment is a time consuming and extensive exercise which should
address different requirements using the same questionnaire. Hence it is of utmost importance
to decide clear objectives of the survey. Some of the main objectives can be to assess direct
economic loss due to building collapse and damage to internal contents, indirect economic
loss due to loss of production or estimation of casualties for scenario earthquake. (Yamin et
al., 2017). Secondary objectives can be to spread awareness among common people after the
survey, help governing bodies to make policy, identifying the most vulnerable areas within a
city/region or prepare ground work for more detailed future vulnerability assessment.

Buildings are designed based on design-level vertical and lateral loads considering its usage.
Hence every building can be seen as having two aspects: engineering and social function. The

6|Page
main engineering characteristics of a building need to be evaluated to assess its seismic
vulnerability are:

 Construction material (strength and weight)

 Soil / foundation material
 Structural foundation
 Height
 Structural framing system
 Configuration
 Structural continuity
 Design and detailing
 Construction quality
 Age and maintenance
 Proximity to other structures
The functional usage of building indicates the non-structural components as well as number
of users of the building. A building can be broadly classified based on usage as:
 Residential buildings
 Commercial buildings
 Industrial building
 Critical facilities (i.e. fire brigade, police station, communication towers etc.)
 Lifeline buildings (i.e. hospitals, water supply system etc.)

ATC-13 classified buildings into 78 classes of structures based on engineering classification

and into 35 classes based on functional classification. Table 1 and 2 list both the classification
used in the ATC-13 report (for buildings only).

Table 1: Earthquake Engineering Facility Classification (ATC-13, 1985)

A. BUILDINGS
1. Wood Frame (Low Rise)
2. Light Metal (Low Rise)
3. Unreinforced Masonry (Bearing Wall)
o Low Rise (1-3 Stories)
o Medium Rise (4-7 Stories)
4. Unreinforced Masonry (With Load Bearing Frame)

7|Page
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise (8+ Stories)
5. Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall (Without Moment Resisting Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
6. Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall (Without Moment Resisting Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
7. Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall (With Moment Resisting Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
8. Braced Steel Frame
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
9. Moment Resisting Steel Frame (Perimeter Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
10. Moment Resisting Steel Frame (Distributed Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
11. Moment Resisting Ductile Concrete Frame (Distributed Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
12. Moment Resisting Non-ductile Concrete Frame (Distributed Frame)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise
13. Precast Concrete (Other than Tilt-up)
o Low Rise
o Medium Rise
o High Rise

8|Page
14. Long-Span (Low Rise)
15. Tilt-up (Low Rise)
16. Mobile Homes

B. STORAGE TANKS

1. Underground
o Liquid
o Solid
2. On ground
o Liquid
o Solid
3. elevated
o Liquid
o Solid

Table 2: Social Function Classification (ATC-13, 1985)

A. RESIDENTIAL
Permanent Dwelling
Temporary Lodging
Group Institutional Housing

B. COMMERCIAL
Retail Trade
Wholesale Trade
Personal and Repair Services
Professional, Technical and Business Services
Health Care Services
Entertainment and Recreation
Parking

C. INDUSTRIAL
Heavy Fabrication and Assembly
Light Fabrication and Assembly
Food and Drugs Processing
Chemical Processing
Metal and Minerals Processing
High Technology
Construction

9|Page
 Petroleum

D. AGRICULTURE
E. RELIGION AND NON-PROFIT
F. GOVERNMENT

General Services
Emergency Response Services

G. EDUCATION
H. UTILITIES
Electrical
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Natural Gas
Telephone and Telegraph

I. COMMUNICATION (Radio and TV)

Apart from classifying the buildings into various structural and functional categories, it is
equally important to have a reliable building database of area of interest. There are various
sources which could provide data for vast number of buildings. It has been observed that
while it is easier to get data about the functional utility of a building, its structural details are
often very difficult to obtain. In India functional utility can be obtained from census data,
municipal records and other sources. However, it is very difficult to get engineering data of
buildings as good record keeping of these details does not exist. In the USA and European
countries structural details have been obtained through insurance data also. It has been
possible because of deeper penetration of insurance industry and better record maintenance.
The ATC-13 methodology used a three level approach to build facility inventory.

Level-1: Use of existing facility specific database

Level-2: Synthesis of facility inventories from FEMA and EEA economic data
Level-3: Synthesis of facility inventories from population or other data

These levels are applied progressively, i.e. higher level sought only if facility inventory was
not available at lower level. Level-1 was considered as most reliable and most of the
inventory data was obtained from this level itself.

10 | P a g e
5. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESMENT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING :
APPLICATION TO MAHABAD CITY, IRAN

Most cities around the world are grappling with the problem of natural disasters.
Earthquakes are hazardous and full of risk especially when population exposed to those is
vulnerable. Earthquakes are considered as the most destructive natural phenomenon in most
countries including Iran. Iran is located in a region that is prone to natural disasters. Recent
earthquakes have revealed the high vulnerability of its cities and villages. Since majority of
population in Iran lives in residential buildings of cities; they generally incur heavy losses
during earthquakes. Population growth and the increasing willingness of people to migrate
from rural to urban areas in recent decades have caused rapid and unbridled growth in cities
of Iran. Urbanization problems are considered sensitive and important when no sustainable
development of cities is possible. In Iran, central regions of the cities form their main and old
cores that generally have old structures and narrow streets with narrow and nested alleys.
Another shortcoming of these regions is the lack of open spaces, parks, open green areas, and
many other factors which can reduce the risk during earthquakes. Inappropriate establishment
of physical elements and urban land use, inefficient road network within the city, old and
compact structures in the city, high urban density, poor establishment of infrastructures, and
poor distribution of urban open spaces play important role in the seismic vulnerability of
cities. Statistics show that residential buildings are more vulnerable to earthquakes. So, there
is a need to assess the seismic vulnerability of residential buildings in urban areas within
cities as an essential component of a comprehensive earthquake disaster risk management
policy. Understanding and formulating urban earthquake vulnerability needs a wide range of
vulnerability aspects, which can be handled by developing an integrated approach. In such an
integrated approach, an interdisciplinary view should be incorporated in the vulnerability
assessment. Detailed seismic vulnerability evaluation is a technically complex and expensive
procedure; it can only be performed on a limited number of buildings. It is, therefore, very
important to use simpler procedures that can rapidly evaluate the vulnerability profile of
different types of buildings so that more complex evaluation procedures remain limited to the
most critical buildings. There have been several attempts to explore the development of
vulnerability assessment methodologies and their use in earthquake hazard assessment by
considering the physical, social, and economic aspects of such vulnerability. Moreover, the
developed methodologies vary in terms of local, regional, national, and international scales.
Then, recently conducted seismic vulnerability research studies are discussed and compared

11 | P a g e
in order to indicate the limitations and various approaches of vulnerability studies over the
last 10 years. Despite numerous studies in the field of seismic vulnerability assessment of
buildings, it is essential to have the number of parameters considered in several studies and
the failure to provide a comprehensive and applicable method including all effective
parameters studied in previous studies to get a comprehensive assessment of the seismic
vulnerability of buildings. In addition, the inability to implement existing vulnerability
assessment methodologies for countries like Iran, where the required data is usually missing
or inadequate for decision-makers motivates to develop an integrated urban earthquake
vulnerability assessment framework for residential buildings. Bahadori et al.(2017)
developed an integrated model for seismic assessment of residential buildings and applied
this to Mahabad City, Iran. The detail vulnerability assessment residential building (of
Mahabad City, Iran.) is summarized in below (Bahadori et al., 2017).

5.1 Material and methods

5.1.1 Study area

Iran is located in the west–south region of Asia and is subdivided into 31 provinces. West–
Azerbaijan province, located in west–north Iran, is one of them. Mahabad city is one of the
17 cities of West- Azerbaijan province; it lies south of the Urmia lake in a narrow valley that
is 1300 m above sea level. Owing to its strategic position and proximity with the border,
Mahabad is a stop for many travelers. It is the fourth biggest city in West-Azerbaijan
province. The location of Mahabad city in West-Azerbaijan province, along with its eight
districts, has been presented in Fig. 4. However, the villages Surrounding Mahabad city have
not been shown. The study area was kept between East latitude of 450 23" and 36046" and
North latitude of the Greenwich meridian. According to Fig. 5, most residential buildings in
Mahabad have been developed at foothill slopes due to special topographical conditions. In
addition, old parts of the city are not perfectly poised in terms of quality and vulnerability.
New buildings are also sometimes associated with non-compliance of seismic standards.
According to the seismo tectonic map of Iran, as presented in Fig. 6, Mahabad city shows
different levels of seismicity due to different tectonic changes. The location of faults toward
the study area is shown in Fig. 6.

12 | P a g e
 Fig. 4. Location map of the study area, Mahabad city, (Bahadori et al., 2017).

Fig. 5. View of Mahabad city (Bahadori et al., 2017).

13 | P a g e
 Fig. 6. Location of Faults toward the study area, Mahabad city. (Bahadori et al., 2017).

5.2 Methodology

Various methods were used to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of cities against earthquakes.
In this research, Saaty's Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, which is a multi-
criteria mathematical evaluation method in the decision-making process, was utilized. AHP
enables decision makers to assign a relative priority to each factor through pairwise
comparison, and the results are used to calculate the geometric mean and normalized weight
of parameters. The weight of each factor was determined with AHP in accordance with
expert opinions. AHP can be used to make decisions that are complex, unstructured, and
contain multiple attributes. In this regard, the survey-analytical based on qualitative and
quantitative factors was utilized to investigate and evaluate seismic damage and structural
vulnerability of residential buildings as well as the population vulnerability of Mahabad city.
The spatial map of city structures was created and used as a basis for collecting information.
After collecting information and producing the spatial map of structures, a database was
prepared by producing special information fields in the GIS environment. Accordingly, in a
complete and comprehensive evaluation in this study, five groups of parameters—
geotechnical and seismological, structural, social, distance to dangerous facilities, and access
to vital facilities parameters were selected in such a way that each category had its own sub-
parameters, as listed in Fig. 7. In this method, the aim to estimate the seismic hazard

14 | P a g e
potential, though the combination of the effect of non-seismic and non-structural parameters
such as morphological and population parameters, seismic parameters such as earthquake
hazard, faults, liquefaction, landslides, and structural parameters such as the type of building,
number of floors, quality and age of buildings through applying weighting coefficients on
them. After extensive literature review and data analysis, a comprehensive questionnaire was
developed and experts were asked to complete it.

Fig. 7. Flowchart of vulnerability assessment and seismic damage of residential buildings

(Bahadori et al., 2017).

The most important parameters controlling the seismic vulnerability were identified and
qualified by means of coefficients affected by weights that try to emphasize their relative
importance. Since the involved parameters in the final output of the seismic vulnerability
assessment of Mahabad city are varied, a digital system of information layer was formed after
making the values equivalent for five mentioned groups of parameters. Then, the weight of
each layer was selected according to the principles of urban planning, urban management,
disaster management, geotechnical engineering, and earthquake engineering based on the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Accordingly, in the procedure of selection, priorities were
selected regarding conditions for geotechnical and seismological, structural, social, distance
to dangerous facilities, and distance from vital facilities, all of which have been shown in

15 | P a g e
Table 3. To combine the vulnerability parameters of the developed model, each group
parameter and its sub-parameters were rescaled linearly from 0 to 1 and then summed to
produce an equally weighted combined vulnerability score using AHP. A consistency ratio
(CR) as an indicator of the degree of consistency or inconsistency was obtained. The CR for
the all group parameters was less than 0.1.

Table 3
Classification of parameters for vulnerability assessment (Bahadori et al., 2017).

Main Category Sub-components w

Geotechnical and PGA 0.420

Seismological(w=0.368)
Slope 0.260

Liquefaction 0.9

Landslide 0.13

Fault 0.1

Structural(w=0.282) Building Density 0.122

Building Age 0.32

Building Type 0.358

Numbers of floor 0.125

Building quality 0.75

Social(w=0.2) Population Density 0.482

Gender 0.12

Age 0.398

Distance to dangerous E-Power 0.362

facilities(w=0.075)
Gas stations 0.326

16 | P a g e
 Fuel stations 0.312

Access to vital Hospitals 0.372

facilities(w=0.75)
Fire Stations 0.223

Road Networks 0.126

Open spaces 0.279

The Expert Choice software was used for this purpose. Next, by applying the superposition of
layers, a combination of values was performed. To assess the vulnerability of residential
buildings in Mahabad, the basis was to apply a combination of the weight coefficient, and the
final sum was a combination of numerical values of zones in each informational layer. The
final product can be considered as the final product of vulnerability assessment that
represents the seismic vulnerability zone for residential buildings within the range of
Mahabad based on selected parameters.

5.3 Vulnerability assessment and seismic damage of residential building parameters

In this section, five parameters and their sub-parameters will be presented and studied for the
evaluation of the seismic vulnerability and damage of residential buildings (Fig. 7).

5.3.1. Geotechnical and seismological parameters

In this study, geotechnical and seismological parameters were investigated as the most
important parameters in the evaluation of seismic vulnerability and damage in five sub-
parameters, namely maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA), slope, liquefaction,
landslides, and faults. Geotechnical and seismological parameters have not been studied by
most of the previous studies in the available literature (Fig. 8).

1. Peak ground acceleration (PGA)

One of the important information layers of the seismic hazard analysis is the distribution of
maximum peak ground acceleration (PGA) within a return period, including return periods of
75, 475, and 2475 years. In this study, the return period of 475 years was considered.

17 | P a g e
 Fig. 8. Vulnerability assessment parameters: Geotechnical and seismological parameters.
(Bahadori et al., 2017).

2. Slope

Slope is an important parameter in natural and geographical side effects, especially in geo-
morphological and geotechnical studies. The mountainous topography of Iran with its high

18 | P a g e
tectonic and seismic activities along with various geological and climatic conditions of the
country, provides a wide range of natural conditions for the occurrence of landslides. The
foothills of Mahabad provide appropriate conditions for landslides due to their proximity to
active fault systems and relatively high slopes. Population growth and the rise of construction
in foothills and mountainside regions of Mahabad have significantly increased the risks and
losses because of the occurrence of landslides in these areas.

3. Landslide

In studies on the seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings in Mahabad,

identifying locations prone to landslides is important and accordingly areas prone to landslide
were considered. Based on the results of geotechnical studies, the landslide phenomenon was
examined in the form of geotechnical studies, and zoning map of Mahabad was prepared
based on the TC4 instruction.

4. Liquefaction

In studies exploring the seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings in Mahabad,

identifying locations prone to liquefaction is an important parameter and accordingly areas
prone to liquefaction were considered. Based on the results of geotechnical studies, the
liquefaction phenomenon was examined in the form of geotechnical studies, and the zoning
map of Mahabad was prepared based on the TC4 instruction.

5. Faults

Based on geological and tectonic conditions of the studied area, seismic sources of the
studied zone, seismic parameters in the 150 km area of Mahabad and seismo-tectonic zones
were calculated. Through the digital map of region fault and by adapting the passage of faults
in Mahabad city area, the failure zone was determined and considered as a band prone to
failure.

5.3.2.Structural parameters

In this study, structural parameters were considered in the form of five main and important
sub-parameters, namely building density, building types, age of buildings, number of floors,
and quality of buildings (Fig. 9).

19 | P a g e
 Fig. 9. Vulnerability assessment parameters: Structural parameters.(Bahadori et al., 2017).

1. Building density

In the vulnerability assessment of residential buildings, it is important to have a thorough

knowledge of the infrastructures of such buildings for the calculation of seismic forces.

20 | P a g e
Recently, the willingness to construct buildings with low-area infrastructures is increasing in
this city, leading to increased residential density. Therefore, since the area and infrastructure
of residential buildings happen to low, the vulnerability to earthquakes will be high. Owing to
the increase in the density of buildings and land separation to small scales, open spaces have
reduced. As a result, open useful space for escaping and finding shelter during earthquakes
has reduced. Accordingly, the density of residential buildings of Mahabad was calculated and
prepared.

2. Buildings type

The collapse of structural elements in buildings during an earthquake can cause damage to
people residing in the buildings as well as to pedestrians. In assessing the seismic
vulnerability of residential buildings of Mahabad, building materials are divided into three
main categories, namely steel, concrete, and masonry brick buildings. Accordingly, 62% of
residential buildings of Mahabad are made of masonry bricks, 12% are made of steel, and
14% are made of concrete (12% of the buildings lack information about material types and
structures).

3. Number of floors of buildings

Knowing the number of floors of buildings is important in terms of resistance against

earthquakes. A high number of floors is usually associated with a high population density.
High-rise buildings collapse during earthquakes and block passages. Even if the height of
such buildings is based on the rules and appropriate calculations, it is a difficult task to search
for and rescue victims during evacuation. Hence, the number of floors of residential buildings
is a negative factor in terms of vulnerability, and it increases the vulnerability. Based on the
data obtained from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are 30,959
buildings in Mahabad city. Accordingly, most of these buildings have one floor (62.25%) and
there are 24 buildings having 12 floors in district 4. In general, an important portion of
buildings in the city have one and two floors.

4. Quality of buildings

The most influential index for the vulnerability of a building to earthquakes is the quality of
the building. There is a close relationship between the materials used in a building and its
quality. In this study, buildings of city are classified into three major categories in terms of
quality: new, ruined, and reconstruction buildings (repairable buildings). Accordingly, most

21 | P a g e
building in 8 districts of Mahabad are repairable. District 1 has the highest number of old
buildings, while District 5 lacks old buildings.

5. Age of buildings

Age of a building in relation to materials used in it indicates the wear of housing units. The
components of old of buildings in Mahabad are divided into three categories: less than 10
years, 10 years to less than 20 years, and 20 years and over. Accordingly, 23% of residential
areas in Mahabad are 10 years old (new). In addition, more than 50% of residential areas in
Mahabad are more than 20 years old. The rests of the buildings are 10–20 years old.

5.3.3. Social parameters

In this study, social parameters were considered in the form of three main and important sub-
parameters, including population density, age density, and gender density (Fig. 10).

1. Population density

The most important non-seismic and non-structural factor to assess vulnerability is

population. Population assigned to each zone representing the population density was
considered in the calculation of seismic hazard. In this regard, for each zone, population was
calculated using the Statistics Center of Iran. According to the 2011 census report generated
by the Statistical Center of Iran, Mahabad has 148,230 residents, 74,361 of them are male and
73,869 female. There are 38,521 households in urban areas.

2. Age density

In this study, the age density for Mahabad population has been considered in three age group
ranges (0–14 years, 15–64 years, and more than 65 years). In this regard, children, teenagers,
and old people have been considered vulnerable in earthquakes much more than the others.

3. Gender density

In this study, a gender density for Mahabad population has been considered separately for
men and women in two different maps. Here, women have been considered vulnerable in case
of earthquakes much more than men.

22 | P a g e
 Fig. 10. Vulnerability assessment parameters: Social parameters (Bahadori et al., 2017).

5.3.4. Distance to dangerous facilities parameters

In case of every risk, there are areas known as critical and sensitive spots. Although these
areas are not dangerous in normal conditions, each of them aggravates critical situations and
may increase the associated damage and losses due to their features. In critical conditions
caused by an earthquake these critical and risky spots can increase the negative effects of risk
and losses by creating fire and explosions. According to field studies conducted in Mahabad
and available information, the parameters of the distance to dangerous facilities were
considered in terms of three important sub-parameters: fuel stations (gas station and CNG
[compressed natural gas]), distance from power stations (distribution, transmission, and

23 | P a g e
mobile stations), and gas pressure reduction stations (T.B.S [town board station] and
C.G.S[city gate station]). These important parameters have been given less attention in
previous studies. A vulnerability assessment map for the parameters of distance to dangerous
facilities has been presented in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. Vulnerability assessment parameters: Distance to dangerous facilities parameters.

(Bahadori et al., 2017).

24 | P a g e
1. Distance to fuel stations (Gas stations and CNG)

In these stations, the possibility of explosion and fire at the time of an earthquake is very high
due to the high volume of flammable and explosive materials. If it happens, it can affect a
wide range of areas around the situation and make the critical situation worse.

2. Distance to electricity power station

Owing to the production of electrical current in an earthquake, power stations may catch fire
and paves the way for gas explosion that would leave heavy casualties.

3. Distance to gas pressure reduction stations (T.B.S and C.G.S)

T.B.S and C.G.S, have also a high risk of explosion and fire as fuel stations can aggravate the
risk.

5.3.5. Access to vital facilities parameters

In this study, parameters of access to vital facilities were considered in the form of four sub-
parameters including access to hospitals and health centers, distance to fire stations, road
network, and access to open spaces such as access to parks and green spaces. These
parameters are crucial after an earthquake for disaster management. The vulnerability
assessment map for access to vital facilities parameters has been presented in Fig 12.

1. Access to hospitals and health centers

Important medical and relief centers during earthquakes can be defined as centers whose
being re-used after such disasters is very important. Any cessation of their exploitation can
increase the number of casualties indirectly. Assuming that at the time of designing relief,
medical, and health centers, all the required standards have been observed by builders and
observers, only the radius of access to these centers was considered in this study.

2. Access to fire stations

In the event of an earthquake, the first action that will be performed to control and contain the
risk is rescue and relief operations, since lack of timely assistance will increase the number of
victims. Distance to fire stations is one of the most important components in relief and rescue
operations during an earthquake, and it was considered in this study.

25 | P a g e
 Fig. 12. Vulnerability assessment parameters: Access to vital facilities parameters.
(Bahadori et al., 2017).

3. Access to road network

Passages, one of the most important elements of a city, are very crucial since relief and rescue
operations, along with the need to evacuate the wounded and deliver the goods, after an
earthquake is of utmost importance in this period. Therefore, the displacement of people and
goods is done between roads and inner-city streets; in case of closure of one of these paths,
both inside and outside the city, the damage caused by earthquakes will be reduced several
times. As the level of servicing plays an important role in the mobility of in case of passages

26 | P a g e
in the earthquake, only the main thoroughfare networks that include three main classes of
arterial passageways, such as Grade 1 arterial roads, Grade 2 arterial roads, and collector and
distributor roads were considered in this analysis. After determining the effective network in
movement and displacement and then considering the service level coefficient for these
passages based on the analytic hierarchy process, the distance of each of inter-city point from
this network was analyzed and accordingly the city was zoned.

4. Access to open spaces including access to entertainment centers and parks

Big urban parks can be used as relief centers for operating forces and also as large settlements
and camps in case of any emergency. Medium and small parks can be used by aid workers;
these can also be used as evacuation places for rescue, places for emergency
accommodations, and temporary housing sites. Urban open spaces in Mahabad can be
divided into four main categories, each of which can play an important role in reducing
casualties and improving the management of seismic hazards at different stages of the risk
caused by earthquakes. These four categories include public urban green spaces (parks and
gardens), urban wastelands, orchards, and farming city limits.

5.4 Results and discussion

Mahabad has been broadly classified into three zones—high, moderate, and low— in terms
of seismic hazards regarding theoccurrence of future earthquakes. Some parts of Mahabad
fall in seismically moderate to high hazard areas (Figs. 13 and 14). The seismic vulnerability
of eight districts of Mahabad indicates that most parts of this city are located in low and
medium damage ranges. In this regard, highly damaged areas have been distributed among
Districts 8, 3, 7, 6, 5, 1, 2 and 4. The highest seismic vulnerability is seen in District 4 due to
the higher number of buildings in this district, which is considered as one of the old districts
of Mahabad. The highest number of population among the eight districts of Mahabad is in
district 4, which has increasing chances of human casualties from possible earthquakes in this
area. Other highly populated districts of Mahabad are 8, 7, 1, 3, and 2. Additionally, the
highest number of buildings in the city of Mahabad is district 4, followed by 6, 2, 1, 3, 5, 7,
and 8, respectively. The most dominant type of structure in the city of Mahabad is masonry
brick buildings, distributed from high to low, in Districts 1, 6, 2, 4, 3, 7, 8 and 5. Over 50% of
buildings in Districts 1, 6, 2, 4, and 3 are made of masonry bricks, and most of them have
been constructed without considering the seismic regulations. Therefore, a particular plan is
required to reconstruct buildings in these areas. The number of high quality steel and concrete

27 | P a g e
buildings in Mahabad city is also low. The largest number of steel and concrete buildings can
be found in Districts 2 and 5, respectively, and most of these buildings have low quality of

Fig. 13. Seismic microzonation of Mahabad city: Damage distribution

(Bahadori et al., 2017).

28 | P a g e
construction without observing the requirements of the standard. Therefore, it is necessary to
comply with the requirements of the construction standards of new buildings. In terms of
geotechnical and seismological parameters, Districts 7, 1, 4, and 2 face inappropriate
situations. Owing to a combination of factors including the high level of PGA and the
possibility of liquefaction, landslides, high slope, and proximity to seismic faults, these
districts are susceptible to seismic damage.

Fig. 14. Damage distribution in eight districts of Mahabad city,(Bahadori et al., 2017).

However, most 12-storey buildings and nine-storey buildings are distributed in Districts 4
and 2, respectively, making it difficult to deliver relief and rescue operations during an
earthquake in Mahabad. It is urgent to completely stop or at least confine the construction of
high-rise buildings in these districts if standard principles and seismic regulations are not
observed. Fig. 15 illustrates typical 3D visualization realizations. The main expected benefits
of this pilot visualization application are demonstration of the positive effect of well-balanced
3D models on the decision makers as a communication tool. This provides a better way for
communicating with decision-makers. The proposed methodology serves well for this
purpose. In this regard, vector layers from the Mahabad municipality digital city information
system, street and building footprint layers, and 1:25,000 digital contour maps were used.
Some of needed information were also collected by a field survey. Two pictures of Fig. 15
are the obtained city vulnerability model from two different views of the Mahabad city. It is
to clarify how residential buildings in different parts of the city are vulnerable to earthquake.

29 | P a g e
The results obtained in this study shows that some assumed features in the developed model
can increase the confidence level of the results of the seismic vulnerability assessment of
residential buildings. For instance, the developed model conceptually considers various
aspects of seismic vulnerability and response capacity—this makes the model more
comprehensive. In addition, group parameters and their sub parameters are selected and
quantified in a way to represent their relevant concept. Moreover, the weights of the
parameters are determined using appropriate expert judgments. Hence, it implicitly includes
the impacts of previous earthquakes and the local characteristics of the studied areas.

Fig. 15. Visualization of vulnerabilities in the 3D city model of Mahabad

(Bahadori et al., 2017).

30 | P a g e
Developing a seismic vulnerability map for residential buildings in urban areas is one of the
most efficient methods in seismically active areas. In this paper, seismic vulnerability and
structural damage were examined within a comprehensive study through multiple parameters
using the most important parameters involving the vulnerability degree of residential
buildings, including geotechnical and seismological, structural, social, distance to dangerous
facilities and access to vital facilities parameters. To evaluate the practicability and
applicability of the newly developed model, a practical use of the model was carried out in
Mahabad city, Iran. Eight districts of Mahabad city were investigated in terms of five groups
of parameters including several sub-parameters. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was
used to determine the weight of the sub parameters belong to the five groups of parameters.
Finally, eight districts of Mahabad were divided based on low, moderate, and high
vulnerability; they were displayed in the form of GIS maps. The application of the developed
vulnerability assessment methodology indicates that an urban area may have various
vulnerability patterns in terms of geotechnical and seismological, structural, social, distance
todangerous facilities, and access to vital facilities parameters. According to the results,
geotechnical and seismological and structural parameters have the highest contributions to
the seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings.

However, group parameters and their sub parameters differ in eight districts of Mahabad city.
Such results provide an appropriate guide for city managers and decision-makers to perceive
the influence of each parameter in the seismic vulnerability assessment of residential
buildings and to realize the critical deficiencies in each district that need to be improved in
risk reduction programs. The results also indicate the lack of proper distribution of spaces in
Mahabad city and the lack of adequate open spaces such as parks and open spaces there. The
developed model can become a significant tool for confronting crises resulting from future
earthquakes. The results have important implications for disaster management in Iran or
countries with the same conditions. The model can be applied to other countries easily by
applying some modifications in the parameters, sub-parameters, and their relevant weights.

31 | P a g e
6. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESMENT OF HISTORICAL MASONRY
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM.

The majority of the main structural systems for historical structures are masonry elements,
composed of stone, bricks, adobe and mortar. For many old historical masonry structures
(including monuments) erected in zones of moderate to high seismicity, earthquake is one of
their principal threats due to their limited earthquake resistance capacity (Asteris PG,2008).
A successful intervention on a monument requires a good comprehension of its structural
behavior under static and dynamic (earthquake) loading. Masonry constructions are typically
complex structures and there is lack of knowledge and information concerning the behavior
of their structural systems, particularly in what regards their seismic response. Typically,
these structures are more massive than today’s structures and usually carry their actions
primarily in compression. Successful modeling of a masonry historical structure is a
prerequisite for a reliable earthquake resistant design or assessment. For modern structures,
with new industrial materials (reinforced concrete, steel, etc.), the development of a reliable
mathematical model is possible, due to the fact that materials and member characteristics are
more uniform and mostly explicitly known. On the other hand, for the case of masonry, and
especially for the traditional plain one, it seems that there is a lot to be done in this field, until
Engineers become more confident about the accuracy of the modeling. For the purpose of
masonry analysis and design, an operationally simple strength criterion is essential, taking
into account the many uncertainties of the problem. Systematic experimental and analytical
investigations on the response of masonry and its failure modes have been conducted in the
last decades. Numerous analytical criteria have been proposed for masonry structures (Asteris
et al.,2014). As can be concluded, various researchers have been working on the earthquake
resistant design of masonry structural systems and especially on determining a strength
criterion, but there is still a lot ongoing research on this field. In addition, aspects regarding
the in and out-of-plane behavior of 2- or 3-leaf masonry are not yet covered in detail. In the
present study, masonry is considered as a single leaf one and is modeled as a homogeneous
elastic material. In this paper the framework of thought for such interventions is first
discussed and then the steps of the proposed methodology are outlined. Following these,
mathematical modeling issues, including failure criteria, are presented. Possible intervention
techniques are described and then the results of the application of the proposed methodology
in three case-studies are presented, followed by a comparison of the results and conclusions
(Asteris et al., 2014).

32 | P a g e
6.1 General methodology

Structures of architectural heritage present a number of challenges in conservation, diagnosis,

analysis, monitoring, repair and strengthening that limit the application of modern codes and
building standards. Recommendations are desirable and necessary to both ensure rational
methods of analysis and intervention methods appropriate to the cultural context (Asteris et
al.,2014).

6.1.1. Framework of thought

Our research has adopted the rationale resulted from the work developed within the ICOMOS
2001 scientific committee ISCARSAH (International Scientific Committee of the Analysis
and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage) and, in particular, by the ICOMOS
Charter: Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural
Heritage (ISCARSAH Principles). This framework of thought is delineated by the principles
of: research and documentation, authenticity and integrity, compatibility (both visual and
physical and/or chemical), minimal intervention and the degree of reversibility, as it is very
seldom possible to achieve a fully reversible technique. They are in harmony with those that
are the foundation of the Athens and Venice Charters and The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Historic Preservation Projects .

6.1.2. ICOMOS recommendations

Differing opinions has been a characteristic of the field throughout its long history in its
attempts to establish criteria for rehabilitation of historic and monumental structures.
Nevertheless, a widely accepted framework is the Venice Charter (ICOMOS, 1964), which
was formulated in May of 1964, as a result of deliberations of many specialists and
technicians in the restoration of historic monumental structures. During that congress, among
many issues discussed for the preservation of historic structures, the Charter focused on
achieving harmony between the existing structure and the new rehabilitation work performed
upon it. According to the Charter, such interventions must follow the following basic
principles: material compatibility, conservation of overall lay-out or decoration and mass–
color relationship, avoidance of the removal of any part, or additions to the building. The
Charter requires detailed documentation of all rehabilitation works by means of critical
reports (including drawings and photographs) and recommends its publication. According to
ICOMOS recommendations, a thorough understanding of the structural behavior and material

33 | P a g e
characteristics is essential for any project related to the architectural heritage. It is
recommended that the work of analysis and evaluation should be done with the cooperation
of specialists from different disciplines, such as earthquake specialists, architects, engineers
and art historians. In addition, it is considered necessary for these specialists to have common
knowledge on the subject of conserving and upgrading or strengthening the historical
buildings. The methodology puts emphasis on the importance of an ‘‘Explanatory Report’’,
in which all the acquired information, the diagnosis, including the safety evaluation, and any
decision to intervene should be fully detailed and justified. This is essential for future
analysis of continuous processes affecting the structure (such as decay processes or slow soil
settlements or other side-effects), temperature or moisture content) and even phenomena that
can suddenly occur (such as earthquakes or hurricanes), as well as for future evaluation and
understanding of the remedial measures adopted at present.

6.1.3. Proposed methodology

Based on ICOMOS principles and recommendations, as well as on other similar works, a

restoration methodology for historical masonry structures has been developed and presented
here as a contribution to the solution of this complex problem. A flowchart of the proposed
methodology is illustrated in Fig. 16. In the framework of the proposed methodology, the
following eight distinct steps are included:

Step 1: Historical and experimental documentation

There are some aspects that should be followed before carrying out a rigorous structural
analysis, which are listed below.

(a) Experience shows that the structural analysis regarding the seismic response of a
Monument is an integral part of the broader study of the Monument; history and architecture
of the Monument are indispensable prerequisites for then structural analysis, in order to
account for all initial and consecutive construction phases, previous interventions or
additions, etc.

(b) Description of existing damages and/or previous interventions (visible or possibly hidden
ones), together with their in-time evolution; monitoring may be helpful.

(c) Systematic description of the materials, including their interconnections. Connections of

perpendicular walls or of walls and floors should be thoroughly investigated.

34 | P a g e
Fig. 16. Flowchart with the applied methodology for vulnerability and restoration assessment.
(Asteris et al., 2014).

(d) Results of experimental investigations regarding: geometrical data, in situ evaluation of

the strength of materials, structural properties of masonry walls, dynamic response of the
construction, subterranean data, as well as results of possible previous monitoring
(displacements, settlements, internal forces, humidity, groundwater level, cracks’ opening,
seismic accelerations, environmental data, etc.).

(e) Description of the structural system, in a systematic and detailed way.

(f) Description of the subsoil and the foundation, including basic characteristics.

35 | P a g e
Step 2: Material characteristics

The characteristics of materials composing the structure are basic input data for structural
analysis. Namely, the compressive/tensile strength of the materials, the modulus of elasticity
and Poisson ratio are of primary importance, at least as far as a linear/elastic analysis is
concerned. For the estimation of those parameters, combination of analytical or semi-
empirical methods and experimental data have to be used. For the determination of the
masonry compressive and tensile strength, several semi-empirical expressions are available in
the literature. In the majority of these expressions, global effects contributing to the system
resistance, such as buckling- effects or local-compression resistance are not considered. The
formulae for the estimation of the compressive strength, fw, of low-strength stone-masonry,
with a single leaf, are presented, and combines several parameters affecting the strength:

fwc = ξ[(2/B)*(fbc )0.5 –α) +β* fmc ], [in Mpa] (3)

fwt = (2/3)* fmt (4)

where fwc, fwt are the compressive and tensile strength of masonry respectively, fmc, fmt are the
compressive and tensile strength of mortar respectively, fbc is the compressive strength of the
block/ stone material, a is a reduction factor due to non-orthogonality of blocks (α = 0.5 for
block stones and α = 2.5 for rubble stones), b is a mortar-to-stone factor (β = 0.5 for rough
stones and β = 0.1 for very smooth-surface stones) and n is a factor expressing the adverse
effect of thick mortar joints, ξ = 1/[1 + 3.5(k-k0)], (k = volume of mortar/volume of masonry)
and k0 = 0.3. However, for well-built and regular masonry structures, the expression for the
estimation of the compressivestrength, namely:

– for fbc > fmc

fwc = [fmc + 0.4(fbc- fmc)]*(1-0.8* α(1/3)) (5)
and
– for fbc  fmc
fwc = fbc*(1-0.8* α(1/3)) (6)

where fbc, fmc are the compressive strength of blocks and mortar, respectively. α = tjm/hbm is
the ratio between average bed (horizontal) joint thickness tjm, and average block height hbm.

36 | P a g e
Step 3: Structural model

The simplest approach to the modeling of complex historic buildings is given by the
application of different structural elements, employing truss, beam, panel, plate or shell
elements to represent columns, piers, arches and vaults, with the assumption of homogeneous
material behavior. A 3-D finite element model (with elastic materials), as used in this study,
as well, seems to be generally the most suitable for the analysis, at least as far as a global
assessment is concerned. For higher model reliability, specific simulation parameters, such as
the rotation capacity of the wooden floor or roof connection with the masonry wall, the
degree of connections between intersected walls and the influence of spandrel beams, have
always to be taken into account. An interesting and straight-forward alternative approach
which requires our attention is the use of equivalent frames. In any case, the equivalent frame
approach is most times hardily applicable (for instance it is not suited for churches, bridges,
bell-towers, light houses, etc.). Finite Element model is very efficient and much more
advanced for the non-linear analysis of masonry structures where a full pushover analysis
with damaging materials is performed on several masonry churches by means of rigid
elements interconnected by damaging interfaces.

Step 4: Actions

Different loading cases have to be taken into consideration, including seismic actions for
structures built in seismic areas. Combinations of dead loads, live loads and earthquake
demands, have to be used. Earthquake has to be considered along all unfavorable directions
for the building. Nevertheless, certain issues are still open, regarding e.g. the poor hysteretic
behavior of masonry or the adverse influence of the simultaneous vertical component of the
seismic action.

Step 5: Analysis

Using input data of the previous steps a Finite Element Analysis is performed and stresses
(normal-shear)–displacements at the joints of the mesh are calculated. Due to the actual
behavior of plain masonry and the high degree of uncertainty in the previous steps, elastic
analysis is a first valuable tool for such structures, especially before any repair and/or
strengthening.

37 | P a g e
6.1.3. 6. Step 6: Failure criterion and assessment

A failure criterion must be established for the definition of the damaged regions of the
structure (as a first insight). Taking into account the conclusions of Step 2 concerning
materials’ characteristics, such a criterion is proposed, and will be used as an input to carry
out the analysis. These failure results are used as input data for the development of a damage
index. Based on this index the possibility of a structure to be damaged beyond a specified
level (heavy, moderate, insignificant) for various levels of ground acceleration is determined.
This information is important during the analysis and redesign process for a historical
structure since it gives the opportunity to investigate different scenarios with different options
regarding repair/strengthening.

Step 7: Repairing and/or strengthening decisions and reanalysis

According to the results of Steps 5 and 6, all the damaged regions are repaired and/or
strengthened. The method to be used, the extent of the interventions, the type of the materials,
etc., could be directly related to the results and are based on semi-empirical expressions for
the final mechanical characteristics of masonry. Last, a new structural analysis has to be
performed including all the final materials, loading and structural data. Results of the analysis
have subsequently to be used in the process of Steps 5 and 6, leading to a final approval (or
rejection) of the decisions already taken for repair or strengthening of the existing structure.

Step 8: Explanatory report

The last step, as a result of the proposed methodology, includes the detailed ‘Explanatory
Report’, where all the collected information, the diagnosis, including the safety evaluation,
and any decision to intervene should be fully detailed. This document is essential for eventual
future analyses and interventions’ measures in the structure.

6.2. Mathematical issues

6.2. 1. Failure criterion

The proposed quantitative methodology is based on the damage evaluation of masonry.

Damage is estimated using a cubic polynomial function. In this method, the failure surface in
the stress space can be described by the following equation :

38 | P a g e
 f (σx, σy, σz)= 2.27 σx + 9.87 σy +0.573 σx2 + 1.32 σy2 +6.25τ2
– 0.3 σx σy + 0.009585 σx2 σy +0.003135 σx σy2
+0.28398 σx τ2+0.4689 σy τ2=1 (7)

However, this anisotropic failure criterion may apply only to certain types of masonry
material. This disadvantage can be reversed if this criterion is expressed in a non-dimensional
form, and, as so, it can be applied more generally to other types of masonry materials. This
can be achieved by dividing and multiplying (at the same time) each term in Eq. (7) by one
material uniaxial strength raised in the sum of the exponents of the variables σx, σy, - τ (as
appeared in each term). To this end, it is selected the uniaxial vertical to the bed joints
0
compressive strength denoted with the symbol f wc90 and the equation (7) takes the following
form:
0 0 0 0
f (σx, σy, σz) = 17.15( σx / f wc90 ) + 74.57( σy / f wc90 ) +32.71 (σx / f wc90 )2 + 75.34 (σy / f wc90 )2
0 0 0 0 0
+356.74(τ / f wc90 )2 – 17.12 ( σx / f wc90 )( σy / f wc90 ) + 4.13 (σx / f wc90 )2( σy / f wc90 )
0 0 0 0
+ 1.35 ( σx / f wc90 )(σy / f wc90 )2 + 122.46 ( σx / f wc90 )(τ/ f wc90 )2
0 0
+202.20( σy / f wc90 )( τ/ f wc90 )2 =1 (8)

Fig. 17. Non-dimensional failure surface of masonry in normal stress terms

(= 0.00 up to 0.45 by step = 0.05), (Asteris et al., 2014).

39 | P a g e
Fig. 17 depicts the contour map of Eq. (8) that is the non-dimensional failure surface of
0
masonry in normal stress terms (with τ/ f wc90 taking values of 0 up to 0.45 by steps of 0.05).

6.2. 2. Structural modeling

Masonry may exhibit distinct properties for different directions, mainly due to the influence
of mortar joints (bed and head ones) acting as planes of weakness. Depending on the relative
orientation of the joints regarding the loading stress direction, as well as on the dimensions
and properties of the units, failure can occur only in the joints, or can affect both the joints
and units. The large number of factors influencing the masonry behavior, such as dimension
and anisotropy of the bricks, joint width and arrangement of bed and head joints, material
properties of both stone and mortar, and quality of workmanship, make the simulation of
plain masonry an extremely difficult task, especially in the case of rubble stone masonry.

As referred by Asteris et al.(2014), the brick masonry models commonly adopted could be
grouped in the following three groups, according to the level of refinement:

1. Macro-modeling (masonry as one-phase material)

Units, mortar and unit–mortar interface are smeared out in a homogeneous continuum (Fig.
18b). No distinction between the individual units and joints is made, and masonry is
considered as a homogeneous, isotropic or anisotropic continuum. While this procedure may
be preferred for the analysis of large masonry structures, it is not suitable for the detailed
stress analysis of a small panel, due to the fact that it is difficult to capture all the possible
failure mechanisms. The influence of the mortar joints acting as planes of weakness cannot
be addressed.

2. Simplified micro-modeling (masonry as a two-phases material)

Expanded units are represented by continuum elements whereas the behavior of the mortar
joints and unit–mortar interfaces is lumped in dis-continuum elements (Fig. 18c). According
to these procedures, which are intermediate approaches, the properties of the mortar and the
unit/mortar interface (masonry as a two-phase material) are lumped into a common element,
while expanded elements are used to represent the brick units. This approach leads to the
reduction in computational intensiveness, and yields a model, which is applicable to a wider
range of structural systems.

40 | P a g e
 Fig. 18. Masonry modeling strategies: (a) masonry sample; (b) macro-modeling; (c)
Simplified micro-modeling and (d) detailed micro-modeling, (Asteris et al., 2014).

3. Detailed micro-modeling (masonry as a three-phase material)

Units and mortar in the joints are represented by continuum elements whereas the unit–
mortar interface is represented by discontinuum elements (Fig. 18d). While this leads to
accurate results, the level of refinement means that any analysis will be computationally
intensive, and so will limit its application to small laboratory specimens and structural details.
Asteris et al.(2014) has proposed simplified micro- modeling procedures to overcome the
problem.

6.2. 3. Damage index

Damage control in a building is a complex task, especially under seismic action. There are
several response parameters that can be instrumental in determining the level of damage that
a particular structure suffers during a ground motion; the most important ones are:
deformation, relative velocity, absolute acceleration, and plastic energy dissipation (viscous
or hysteretic). Controlling the level of damage in a structure consists primarily in controlling
its maximum response. Damage indices establish analytical relationships between the

41 | P a g e
maximum and/or cumulative response of structural components and the level of damage they
exhibit. A performance-based numerical methodology is possible if, through the use of
damage indices, limits can be established to the maximum and cumulative response of the
structure, as a function of the desired performance of the building for the different levels of
the design ground motion. Once the response limits have been established, it is then possible
to estimate the mechanical characteristics that need to be supplied to the building so that its
response is likely to remain within the limits. For the case of masonry structures a new
damage index is proposed by Asteris et al.(2014), which employs as response parameter the
percentage of the damaged area of the structure relatively to the total area of the structure.
The proposed damage index, [DI], for a masonry structure can be estimated by:

[DI] = (Afail/Atot)*100 (9)

Where, Afail is the damaged surface area of the structure and Atot the total surface area of the
structure.

6.2. 4. Structural performance levels

As practiced today, performance-based seismic design is initiated with an interplay between

demands and appropriate performance objectives. The Engineer then has to develop a design
capable of meeting these objectives. Performance objectives are expressed as an acceptable
level of damage, typically categorized as one of several performance levels, such as
immediate occupancy, life safety or collapse prevention, given that ground shaking of
specified severity is experienced. In the past, the practice of meeting performance-based
objectives was already included in design practice, but it was rather informal simplistic and
non-standard. Some Engineers would characterize performance as life-safety or not; others
would assign ratings ranging from poor to good. This qualitative approach adopted for
performance prediction was appropriate given the limited capability of seismic-resistant
design technology to deliver building designs capable of quantifiable performance. We
consider three structural performance levels: (a) heavy damage, (b) moderate damage and (c)
insignificant damage, in a similar way to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA 273, 1997). The performance levels are defined by the values of DI (as shown in
Table 4). Especially a value of [DI] less than 10% can be interpreted as insignificant damage;
from 10% to less than 20%, as moderate damage; and larger or equal than 20% as heavy
damage. In fact, other approaches could be used, according to the recent European Codes
(EC8, 2005), based on a more engineered (and more detailed) estimation of damage.

42 | P a g e
Table 4
Proposed structural performance levels for unreinforced masonry, (Asteris et al., 2014).
Over all damage Heavy damage Moderate damage Insignificant damage

Extensive cracking; Extensive cracking; Minor cracking of

face course and Noticeable in-plane veneers; minor
veneer may peel off. offsets of masonry spalling in veneers at
Noticeable in-plane and minor out-of- a few corner
and out-of-plane plane offsets openings. No
offsets observable out-of-
plane offsets
[DI]  20% 10%  DI<20% <10%
Collapse prevention Life safety Immediate
occupancy

6.2.5. Fragility curves

One of the problems to be faced and resolved at later stages of the global analysis has to do
with the quantitative vulnerability assessment of the building as it is (damaged or not) as well
as if will be ‘‘modified’’ after interventions. One of the most important tools seems to be
fragility analysis, which provides a measure of the safety margin of the structural system
above specified structural performance/hazard levels. A number of methodologies for
performing fragility analysis have been proposed in the past which have been used to assess
the behavior of structural systems. These methodologies assume that the spectral ordinates
are log-normally distributed, assuming the variability is represented by the logarithmic
standard deviation. The importance of fragility analysis in various stages of risk assessment,
loss estimation, and decision making in consequence- based engineering to achieve the
desirable long-term objectives of loss reduction and mitigation. Fragility functions were
developed to identify the method of repair required for older reinforced concrete beam–
column joints damaged due to earthquake demands. Evaluating seismic fragility information
curves for structural systems involves: (a) information on structural capacity, and (b)
information on the seismic hazard. Due to the fact that both the aforementioned contributing
factors are uncertain to a large extent, the fragility evaluation cannot be carried out in a
deterministic manner. A probabilistic approach, instead, needs to be utilized in the cases in

43 | P a g e
which the structural response is evaluated and compared against ‘‘limit states’’ that is,
limiting values of response quantities correlated to structural damage. Fragility curves can be
obtained from a set of data representing the probability that a specific response variable R
(e.g. displacement, drift, acceleration, damage) exceeds predefined limit states rlim for various
earthquake hazards on a specific structure or on a family of structures. Numerical calculation
of fragility requires information on the expected response and its variability. This involves
the creation of a detailed model of the structure and the application of numerical techniques
for probabilistic evaluation of the structural response. Fragility is evaluated as the total
probability of a response parameter R exceeding the allowable response value rlim (limitstate),
for various earthquake intensities I. In mathematical form, this is simply a conditional
probability given by:

Fragility = P[R  rlim I] = ∑ P[R  rlim I,C](C=cj) (10)

where P(C = cj) is the probability that capacity cj occurs. In the following examples basic
steps for the development of the fragility curves, are shortly presented.

6.3. Technological issues

6.3. 1. General principles

Due to the significant differences regarding the applied approaches and methodologies as
well as the relevant basic data (actions, resistances, etc.) concerning the assessment and the
redesign of old masonry structures, different techniques and materials could be applied, of
various levels, not to mention recent possibilities related to structural control techniques
(mainly passive, e.g. by means of fluid viscous or other dampers). Therefore, emphasis
should be given on certain basic issues and aspects, as follows: (a) Analysis and verification
has to cover not only the superstructure of the building but also its basement (if any) and its
foundation; after all, in many cases, major problems are faced due to high-action-effects or
adverse ground conditions, heavy new adjacent buildings or deep excavations, etc.

(b) Problems of structural irregularity, in plan and/or in elevation, have to be properly

identified and faced, since local demands under a severe earthquake could be excessive and
difficult to be ‘captured’ by means of a conventional redesign (based, e.g., on elastic/linear
approaches, in terms of forces or stresses).

44 | P a g e
(c) The overall structural integrity and proper connection (and function) between all primary
load-bearing elements (of all kinds, vertical and horizontal ones) should be studied in detail.

(d) All predominant weaknesses of the old masonry, i.e. those due to cavity or double-leaf
walls or due to premature out of- plane failures, should be eliminated (as far as possible).

(e) Finally, the extent or the degree of structural ‘improvement’ or upgrading (strengthening)
should be carefully examined and decided, based on clear and quantitative performance
levels (target structural behavior/level of expected damage), compatible with the overall
‘value’, importance and use of the building. To this end, various techniques and materials
(ranging from lower to higher levels) have been used (successfully or not) and reported in the
technical literature, while an inventory of some of the possible structural interventions could
be found in the Euro code 8 – Part 3 (CEN, 2005) (informative Annex C). Nevertheless,
normative (or even informative) guidelines or rules regarding mechanical characteristics,
modeling, re-dimensioning, minimum/maximum requirements, etc. are still missing. Within
this framework, a combination of simple and conventional interventions is commonly applied
for old masonry buildings, with emphasis on the following two principles:

i. Proper justification of the type of the foreseen intervention and quantitative estimation of
its expected effect on the structural response, at global and/or local level, on a type by- type
basis and not collectively (i.e. not for the combined effect of all of them).

ii. Proper selection of materials and techniques, again on a case-by-case basis, combined with
clear quantitative requirements and provisions regarding the quality control and the
assessment of the workmanship and the real effectiveness of the intervention scheme.

6.3. 2. Structural interventions, repair and strengthening techniques

Structural ‘improvement’ and strengthening (beyond repair), from an engineering point of

view, could be classified in quite a few main categories for the superstructure of old masonry
buildings, as it is shortly presented here below;

1. Techniques for the upgrading of diaphragmatic action of roofs and floors

Although a diaphragmatic action is not a prerequisite for an adequate seismic response of

quasi-regular and low-rise masonry buildings, it is well recognized that an increased
horizontal strength and stiffness of roof and floors is favorable, especially if this is combined
with proper connections between these elements and the masonry walls in all directions. In

45 | P a g e
addition, the need for ‘diaphragms’ could be increased, in cases of heavy roofs and floors
and/or discontinuities in plan or in elevation. In this respect, double or even triple planking
may be used together with horizontal bracing elements, made of wood or steel, while in the
majority of cases the intervention is supplemented with the instatement of horizontal frames
or trusses with dense or continuous connections and anchorages to the walls, combined with
ties, belts, etc. Special attention should be given at all connections between the horizontal and
the vertical load-bearing elements, while in many cases there is a need for an enhancement of
the characteristics of the masonry layers at eaves as well as at floors level, not to mention
possible additional problems due to ‘free’ façade walls or pediments.

2. Techniques for the upgrading of structural connections, between intersecting walls or

walls and roofs/floors

For any connection to be effective, the conjugate structural elements should present adequate
mechanical characteristics; therefore, local (at least) strengthening of the diaphragms as well
as of the related zones of the walls (horizontal and vertical ones) is needed (see the previous
and the next paragraph). Various techniques and materials could be used for the improvement
of connections or the instatement of new ones, such as:

 Partial rebuilding in successive steps, in turns, etc.

 Instatement of external steel ties, straps, etc.

 Instatement of ‘blind’ connectors, anchors, dowels, etc., especially in the cases of

separation cracks between walls.

 Construction of belts, vertical and/or horizontal, external or partly embedded in the

masonry walls, etc.

Nevertheless, most of these techniques have not been studied in detail, while certain bad
experiences are reported. In any case, the materials and the techniques should be carefully
selected and applied, covering all related problems and connections, in an almost uniform
way throughout the whole of the building.

46 | P a g e
3. Techniques for the enhancement of the response and the characteristics of masonry walls
(in-plane and out-of-plane)

The construction of external buttresses, with adequate foundation and connection to the walls
is seldom the case in structural interventions, even for ‘‘isolated’’ buildings or structures. In
addition, the instatement of new elements aiming at ‘‘transforming’’ the masonry into a really
confined or reinforced one is not the case at all. Therefore, old masonry traditional buildings
have to ‘‘survive’’ with a limited dissipation capacity and ductility, offered through the
techniques according to the previous paragraphs and certain additional ones for the walls
themselves, as follows:

 Partial or local rebuilding and recovering, reestablishment of the structural continuity.

 Closing/building of openings, doors and windows, with proper connectors, shear keys,
etc.

 Deep repointing/re-jointing (on both faces of the wall, with a limited thickness), probably
combined with the insertion of small diameter deformed or helical reinforcement in bed
joints.

 Overall upgrading of cavity or double-leaf walls or of thick rubble stone masonry, by

means of grout injections and impregnation, securing a reliable degree of monolithic and
continuous response.

 Combination of the above technique and that of inserting of dense transversal (with
respect to the wall’s planes) connectors, made of masonry units and/or special ties,
leading to enhanced effectiveness.

 Application of stitching belts in turns, vertical and horizontal, or of mortar coats with
light reinforcement, on both faces of the wall, if this is permitted.

6.3.3. Use of innovative materials for the protection of monuments Innovative materials, such
as dampers, shape memory alloys and FRPs, provide a viable solution for the protection of
monuments.

Such solutions are inconspicuous and reversible, which are two very important attributes that
any method used for the retrofitting of monuments should possess. The effectiveness of

47 | P a g e
aramidic and glass FRPs for the strengthening of masonry monuments was studied both
analytically and experimentally.

6.4. Case studies

In this section, the application of the proposed method in the case of representative masonry
structures in three different regions (namely: Crete, Greece; Aveiro, Portugal; and Askas,
Cyprus) will be presented. The methodological steps applied to each structure, as well as the
specific characteristics of each masonry structure (and the country’s regulatory framework)
will be presented in detail. The seismic activity occurring in each country will be also
presented, because the aforementioned countries show a multitude of (distinct) levels of
seismic activity, which constitute the primary risk factor affecting the masonry structures. In
particular, analyses have been performed by means of elastic FEMs, while stresses have been
used in an automatic manner, while fragility curves have been derived and compared.

Case study : Historical masonry structure in Greece

The proposed methodology has been applied in a historical and monumental masonry
structure in Crete, Greece. In this section, the entire procedure is presented through a step-by-
step approach:

Step 1 – Identity of the structure

This structure is typically a neoclassical building from the late 19th century. This is a
representative sample of the architectural heritage of the city of Chania, as it was developed
outside the walls of the Old City at the end of Turkish occupation. Its general form is
characterized by symmetry and regularity, and has a uniform and compact size. It includes
semi-basement, ground floor and first floor. As it concerns the masonry walls, there are made
of local soft limestone and low quality mortar. Noteworthy is the presence of iron ties which
are at the levels of the top floor and roof deck at the four corners of the building. The ties,
until today, and despite the corrosion and the subsequent decay, offered a certain degree of
consolidation. The floors and roof are wooden structures. The roof is hipped, based on the
perimeter bearing walls of the building. Moreover, two additional buildings are attached
laterally to the main one, as shown in Fig. 19. The main building has dimensions of 15.2
*15.85 m2, the west building 2.65 * 5.05 m2 and the east 5.65 *7.00 m2. The height of the
main building is 10.87 m and the maximum height including the roof is equal to 13.30 m. The
ground floor shows almost completely symmetry with a wide main hallway that divides the

48 | P a g e
 Fig. 19. South facade of the building, (Asteris et al., 2014).

building into two symmetrical wings. As regards the morphological description, complete
symmetry is observed in the facades, which are characterized by elaborated ornamentation.
Most architectural and decorative elements are concentrated on the front façade whereas the
rest are distinguished by simplicity. Generally, the condition of the building is good although
the structural materials of the bearing walls have limited capacity. Several local problems or
defect are identified, but not very seriously damages by seismic or geological reasons. As a
summary of the damage that has been found in the structure, it includes cracks, wall
disconnections, and deterioration of mortar or stone, masonry disruption, traces of moisture,
wear and damage of linear elements on doors and windows, deterioration of wooden roof
elements and wooden flooring, and corrosion of embedded iron ties at the corners of the
walls.

Step 2 – Material characteristics

The materials composing the structure are: natural stone, reinforced concrete elements,
wooden roof, timber planking and steel elements. In the present construction, masonry is the
dominant material and its mechanical characteristics are essentially shaping the response of
the building. The properties of the masonry are determined by the materials that compose it
(natural stone and mortar). Especially for masonry material the mechanical characteristics
are: fwk = 3.050 MPa, γ= 22 kN/m3, ν = 0.3.

49 | P a g e
Step 3–5 – Structural modeling

The program used to simulate the structure is the software SAP2000 v14 Nonlinear. With this
software an appropriate FEM model to calculate the response of the structure was formed.
The development of the finite elements mesh was such that the ideal concentration of masses
at the nodes simulates well the real mass distribution. This ensures a reliable simulation of the
inertial loads for dynamic analysis. To fully determine the deformation of the system, six
degrees of freedom for each node were considered. The six degrees of freedom correspond to
three translations, along the axes x, y, z and three rotations of vectors, parallel to the same
axes. The model of the building is shown schematically in Fig. 20. The geometrical
simulation was done by isotropic surface members (shell elements) and isotropic linear
members (frame elements), which are considered to represent with sufficient reliability the
properties of the real body. The model used to analyze the building is spatial. The
discretization of the finite element mesh was through flat quadrilateral and triangular
elements. Depending on the geometry and loading conditions prevailing at each region of the
model the condensation of the data was chosen. In this way the anisotropic behavior of the
masonry structure was better simulated. Specifically, condensation occurred on the following
areas: locations of concentrated loads, perimeter of the openings, corner areas (wall
compounds). For the simulation model 5745 nodes, 5197 surface elements, and 120 beam
elements were used. For the analysis of the structure both, static and dynamic loads were
taken into account. For static loads apart from the weight of materials, permanent and live-
loads were also added. More specifically, dead loads were considered at floors and roofs,
whereas live loads were considered only at the floors since at the roofs they are negligible.
More specifically, live loads were taken equal to 2.5 kN/m2, while for the dead loads it was
assumed: unreinforced concrete floor 3.00 kN/m2, wooden floor 0.6 kN/m2, roof tiles 0.5
kN/m2. For dynamic loading, seismic design actions were taken into account. Due to the lack
of data of recent seismic events, the seismic loads were considered according to Greek
Seismic Code (EAK 2000). It is well known that Greece is one of the most seismically active
countries in the world and the most active in Europe. The long documented seismic history of
Greece reports many catastrophes due to earthquakes. It could be stated that it is an ‘‘ideal
seismological laboratory’’ for the structural engineer. Namely, earthquakes in Greece are
strongly related to everyday life, within the country’s course in history. The strong
earthquakes that have occurred in this, relatively limited, area of the eastern Mediterranean
have affected the history, tradition, religion, arts, building habits, political, social and

50 | P a g e
Fig. 20. Colors on the model based on material and thickness of the profiles (southwest
corner). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.), (Asteris et al., 2014).
economic status for a very long time. 5% of the seismic activity worldwide is exhibited in
Greece, whereas 50% of the seismic activity in Europe is exhibited in Greece. It is worth
mentioning that the vast majority of the past earthquakes are exhibited within the eastern
Mediterranean region. From the west, the Adria microplate rotates counterclockwise. As a
consequence, the Aegean microplate moves fast towards SW. The external Aegean area is
subject to a general compressional stress field and the inner Aegean area experiences a
general extensional stress field. Greece often hosts large magnitude earthquakes, whilst a
moderate or small magnitude earthquake is felt every 2–3 days on average. Major shallow
earthquakes (M > 8, return period of about 1000 years), which can cause such extensive
destructions, occur rarely. Although the majority of these earthquakes are shallow, only a few
have been recorded as «devastating» for the human environment or for life loss (e.g., the
1881 Chios, 1953 Cephalonia, 1999 Athens earthquakes). This is due to the fact that the
majority of these earthquakes are located in the sea and thus most of the energy released is
effectively dissipated prior to reaching the populated areas.

Step 6 – Determination of the seismic vulnerability

Failure analysis of the structure: The failure analysis for the existing structure as well as for
the studied interventions’ scenarios was based on the failure criteria explained in previous
sections. In addition to the main computer program used for the analysis (SAP2000), a

51 | P a g e
special computer program, capable of producing a ‘‘visual’’ representation of the failed
regions within the structure, has been developed from scratch. The program takes the
SAP2000 analysis results as input and gives statistics for the number of failure points, as well
as of the type of failure, providing a general view of the probable damage level and the main
type of damages within the structure. As an example, the failed points of the internal wall of
the temple are depicted in Fig. 21. These diagrams have been proven very useful for the
extraction of the required conclusions about the general type of failures in the structure, as
well as for decision making concerning the type and the extent of interventions. It can be
concluded from Fig. 21 that the particular wall has failed mainly under biaxial tension
compression. The analysis concerns a range of peak ground accelerations between 0.08g to
0.40g and masonry tensile strength ranging from 0.05 MPa to 0.55 MPa. Failure results refer
to a percentage of the overall failure, as well as to the overall picture, as such of Fig. 21 (type,
extent and position of damage).

Fig. 21. Typical failure areas for the front facade of the structure before and after
Interventions (PGA = 0.40g), (Asteris et al., 2014).

52 | P a g e
 Probabilistic analysis – Fragility curves:

The results concerning the failure areas of the structure were analyzed with probabilistic
methods. Especially the Probability Distribution Function and the associated Probability
Density Function were estimated for each level of peak ground acceleration applied at the
structure. Using these Probability Distribution Functions, the probabilities of structure
damage for the three structural performance levels (insignificant, moderate and heavy
damage) have been determined and the results are presented in Table 5. Figs. 22 and 23 show
the damage or fragility curves of the structure before and after interventions, respectively.

Fig. 22. Fragility curves for the existing structure (before intervention), (Asteris et al., 2014).

Fig. 23. Fragility curves for the repaired structure (after intervention), (Asteris et al., 2014).

53 | P a g e
 Fig. 24. Fragility curves for the case of heavy damage (before and after intervention),
(Asteris et al., 2014).

These figures show that the fragility curves are important tools in evaluating and ranking the
efficiency of the remedial proposals, to address the seismic protection of masonry structural
systems. It should be indicatively mentioned that the probability of heavy damage from a
seismic motion with demand represented by PGA = 0.20g is reduced by 44% (that is, from
71% probability of damage to 40% probability of damage, as can be seen in both in Table 5
and Figs. 22–24) for one of the studied scenarios. of the results from Table 2 and Figs. 22–24
will be discussed in more detail, but first another two case studies will be fully presented.

Table 5
Probability of exceeding the damage state for the structure in Greece, ( Asteris et al., 2014).

Case Damage Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)(g)

state 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Before Insignificant 0.47 0.75 0.89 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.995
intervention Moderate 0.32 0.57 0.74 0.86 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.99
Heavy 0.2 0.4 0.57 0.71 0.83 0.91 0.96 0.07
After Insignificant 0.38 0.65 0.83 0.92 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.9785
intervention Moderate 0.19 0.39 0.56 0.71 0.82 0.9 0.92 0.92
Heavy 0.04 0.12 0.25 0.4 0.53 0.67 0.77 0.81

54 | P a g e
6.5. Results and discussion

The probability of insignificant damage from a seismic motion with demand represented by
PGA = 0.20g is reduced by 100% (that is, from 12% probability of damage to 0% probability
of damage, as can be seen in Figs. 22, 23 and 17, when the structure is fitted with fluid
viscous dampers. This is a considerable reduction, which indicates that fluid viscous dampers
can be effective in seismic protection of monumental structures in regions that are at high risk
from earthquakes. Table 5 shows the decrease of seismic vulnerability for each level of
damage (damage level) and for each value of the PGA.

On the basis of this table, the following can be concluded:

 As the value of the PGA increases, the achieved seismic vulnerability reduction is
decreased.

 In the case of severe damages, the use of modern intervention techniques (such as the use
of innovative materials [i.e. linear dampers] applied in the case of repaired structure in
Cyprus) leads to greater reduction of seismic vulnerability compared with traditional
retrofitting techniques applied in the other two cases.

7. CONCLUSION

Study of some of the important vulnerability methods clearly shows that there is no unique or
best solution for assessing vulnerability of selected building stock. Various methods have
been evolved in the different parts of world to address different issues of seismic risk
assessment. A clear trend can be seen that with the advent of faster computational facilities
researchers are applying advance mathematical tools for vulnerability assessment. Probability
based assessment is being tried out by many in recent past and current advancement is the
introduction of fuzzy logic to assess vulnerability. It is also evident that with increased
awareness about earthquake risk there are more attempts to collect field data of existing
buildings stock. A clear definition of chosen earthquake intensity scale and damage scale
should be decided for chosen vulnerability assessment method. Empirical methods are not
recommended for Indian scenario because of lack of quality post-earthquake damage data.
Analytical method has limited applicability for only RCC or steel buildings, and masonry
building up to some extent. Expert opinion procedure is an iterative procedure, where greater
consensus is tried to be built up with each iteration. Hence the criteria to terminate iterations

55 | P a g e
should be decided beforehand. Valid criteria can be pre-decided range of expert opinions or
number of iterations. A separate tech-doc is submitted for details of expert-opinion method.
Study of vulnerability assessment methods shows that it needs careful application of
mathematical models to ground reality. Extrapolation of data from few chosen building to
entire city or region is a task that requires great care, structural understanding, judgment and
experience. Conclusively it can be said that vulnerability assessment methods are ample and
one needs to choose carefully depending on its need, building type, available technical skill,
time frame and resources. Currently the main challenge seems to be the verification and
calibration of results obtained from various probabilistic models using available data. Post-
earthquake data collection could be only tool to verify various probability density functions.
Finally, it can be said that there is still a long way to go before we can reach the appropriate
level of confidence in vulnerability assessment. Developing a seismic vulnerability map for
residential buildings in urban areas is one of the most efficient methods in seismically active
areas. In this paper, seismic vulnerability and structural damage were examined within a
comprehensive study through multiple parameters using the most important parameters
involving the vulnerability degree of residential buildings, including geotechnical and
seismological, structural, social, distance to dangerous facilities and access to vital facilities
parameters. To evaluate the practicability and applicability of the newly developed model, a
practical use of the model was carried out in Mahabad city, Iran. Eight districts of Mahabad
city were investigated in terms of five groups of parameters including several sub-parameters.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to determine the weight of the sub parameters
belong to the five groups of parameters. Finally, eight districts of Mahabad were divided
based on low, moderate, and high vulnerability; they were displayed in the form of GIS maps.
The application of the developed vulnerability assessment methodology indicates that an
urban area may have various vulnerability patterns in terms of geotechnical and
seismological, structural, social, distance to dangerous facilities, and access to vital facilities
parameters. According to the results, geotechnical and seismological and structural
parameters have the highest contributions to the seismic vulnerability assessment of
residential buildings. However, group parameters and their sub parameters differ in eight
districts of Mahabad city. Such results provide an appropriate guide for city managers and
decision-makers to perceive the influence of each parameter in the seismic vulnerability
assessment of residential buildings and to realize the critical deficiencies in each district that
need to be improved in risk reduction programs. The results also indicate the lack of proper
distribution of spaces in Mahabad city and the lack of adequate open spaces such as parks and

56 | P a g e
open spaces there. The developed model can become a significant tool for confronting crises
resulting from future earthquakes. The results have important implications for disaster
management in Iran or countries with the same conditions. The model can be applied to other
countries easily by applying some modifications in the parameters, sub-parameters, and their
relevant weights, (Bahadori et al.,2017)
The vulnerability and assessment of historical masonry structures (before and after structural
interventions) remains a considerable challenge from the engineering point view, despite the
substantial effort that has taken place in research in the last two decades. According to the
analysis of results for the strengthened structures provided here, it can be concluded that the
methodology followed, has been proved helpful to the analysis of existing masonry historical
buildings. Furthermore, it has been shown that the proposed approach offers a ranking
method, which helps civil authorities to optimize decisions on choosing, among a plethora of
structures, which ones present the higher levels of vulnerability and are in need of immediate
strengthening. It also helps the practicing engineer to choose the optimal repairing scenario
among a number of competing scenarios, (Asteris et al.,2014)

57 | P a g e
8. REFERENCES

1. A.W. Coburn, R. Spence, Earthquake Protection; John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester,
England. 2002.
2. ATC-13 “Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California.” Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, California, USA. 1985.
3. G.M. Calvi, R. Pinho, G. Magenes, J.J. Bommer, L.F. Restrepo-Vélez, and H. Crowley,
“Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies over 30 years.”
ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 2006. 43(3), 75-104.

4. Luis E. Yamin, Alvaro Hurtado, Rahul Rincon, Juan F. Dorado, Juan C. Reyes.
Probabilistic Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings in terms of economic losses. Eng.
Struct. 2017; 138: 308-323.

5. Hadi Bahadori, Araz Hasheminezhad, Amjad Karimi. Development of an integrated model

for seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: Application to Mahabad City,
Iran. Journal of build. Eng. 2017; 12: 118-131.

6. P.G. Asteris. On the structural analysis and seismic protection of historical masonry
structures. Journal of Open Constr. Build. Technol. 2008; 2: 124–33.
7. P.G. Asteris, M.P. Chronopoulos, C.Z. chrysostomou, H. Varum, V. Plevris, N.
Kyriakides, V. Silva. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry structural
systems. Eng. Struct. 2014; 62-63:118-134.
8. ICOMOS Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of
architectural heritage. 2001.
9. ICOMOS The Venice charter for the restoration of historic monuments. Adopted at the
second international congress of architects and technicians of historic monuments, Venice,
Italy. 1964.
10. FEMA-273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. 1997.
11. CEN ComitéEuropéen de Normalisation Ed. Eurocode 8: design of structures for
earthquake resistance – part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. En 1998-3: 2005 EN,
Brussels. 2005.
12. www.google.com

58 | P a g e