Seismic events worldwide have shown that school buildings can exhibit vulnerability levels even higher than ordinary buildings. This highlights the urgent need for reliable risk analyses to guide decision-making in the implementation of large-scale mitigation policies. Developing seismic fragility curves that accurately reflect their typological and structural features is essential to achieve this. In this context, the paper compares two different mechanical-analytical methods, namely the “DBV-Masonry” and “Firstep-M_PRO”, which have been independently developed at the University of Genoa and at the University of Trieste, respectively. Among various possible methods, the mechanical-analytical approach is chosen for its computational efficiency in assessing large portfolios and its flexibility in capturing the features of specific buildings, such as schools (i.e. significant inter-storey height and spacing between internal transversal walls). Both methods are applied to the same sample consisting of 101 unreinforced masonry (URM) schools located in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). One of key-goals of the paper is to provide a very comprehensive comparison of the similarities and differences between two methods for deriving seismic fragility curves which refer only to the global in-plane response. The impact of such an epistemic model uncertainty, together with the inter-building variability, is thus quantified and fragility curves are also validated against results from previous studies.
Derivation of seismic fragility curves through mechanical-analytical approaches: the case study of the URM school buildings in Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy)
Boem, Ingrid
Secondo
;Gattesco, NatalinoPenultimo
;
2025-01-01
Abstract
Seismic events worldwide have shown that school buildings can exhibit vulnerability levels even higher than ordinary buildings. This highlights the urgent need for reliable risk analyses to guide decision-making in the implementation of large-scale mitigation policies. Developing seismic fragility curves that accurately reflect their typological and structural features is essential to achieve this. In this context, the paper compares two different mechanical-analytical methods, namely the “DBV-Masonry” and “Firstep-M_PRO”, which have been independently developed at the University of Genoa and at the University of Trieste, respectively. Among various possible methods, the mechanical-analytical approach is chosen for its computational efficiency in assessing large portfolios and its flexibility in capturing the features of specific buildings, such as schools (i.e. significant inter-storey height and spacing between internal transversal walls). Both methods are applied to the same sample consisting of 101 unreinforced masonry (URM) schools located in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). One of key-goals of the paper is to provide a very comprehensive comparison of the similarities and differences between two methods for deriving seismic fragility curves which refer only to the global in-plane response. The impact of such an epistemic model uncertainty, together with the inter-building variability, is thus quantified and fragility curves are also validated against results from previous studies.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
s10518-025-02137-6.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
3.17 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
3.17 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


