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, Natalino
Penultimo
;
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 in questo prodotto:
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3113848
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact