SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri / 2025 / Volume: 5 Issue: 2

Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of a typical RC school building using hybrid-based fragility curves

Ali Yesilyurt(İSTANBUL TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9442-1687
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-07-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The proposed methodology and findings, if extended to other similar typologies, can facilitate the development of a comprehensive and regional-scale seismic risk assessment framework for school buildings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Seismic risk assessment is a critical process for quantifying the expected structural damage and economic losses resulting from seismic events.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Such studies are essential for developing effective pre-earthquake preparedness strategies and ensuring the efficient implementation of post-earthquake response plans.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The proposed methodology and findings, if extended to other similar typologies, can facilitate the development of a comprehensive and regional-scale seismic risk assessment framework for school buildings.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:fragility curve · vulnerability assessment · Seismic Risk

Abstract

Seismic risk assessment is a critical process for quantifying the expected structural damage and economic losses resulting from seismic events. Such studies are essential for developing effective pre-earthquake preparedness strategies and ensuring the efficient implementation of post-earthquake response plans. In this study, the seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of a typical low-rise reinforced concrete school building with shear wall systems, located at various locations in the province of Adıyaman, was carried out. First, a three-dimensional finite element model of the school building was developed. Subsequently, a nonlinear static (pushover) analysis was performed to obtain the capacity curve of the building. Based on three different empirical models, hybrid-based fragility curves were derived as a function of spectral acceleration. Furthermore, vulnerability curves were constructed using twelve different consequence models. A scenario-based seismic hazard analysis was conducted for the Narince segment, one of the active fault lines in the South-eastern Anatolia Thrust. As a result of the risk assessment, considering the proposed vulnerability models, the expected loss ratio values were computed at different locations. When the results are evaluated as a whole, it is observed that the loss values of the building vary significantly depending on the location. While certain locations are expected to experience irreparable damage, others are likely to sustain only minor, repairable damage. This study serves as a significant example for assessing the seismic risk of typical school building types. The proposed methodology and findings, if extended to other similar typologies, can facilitate the development of a comprehensive and regional-scale seismic risk assessment framework for school buildings.

Özet

Seismic risk assessment is a critical process for quantifying the expected structural damage and economic losses resulting from seismic events. Such studies are essential for developing effective pre-earthquake preparedness strategies and ensuring the efficient implementation of post-earthquake response plans. In this study, the seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of a typical low-rise reinforced concrete school building with shear wall systems, located at various locations in the province of Adıyaman, was carried out. First, a three-dimensional finite element model of the school building was developed. Subsequently, a nonlinear static (pushover) analysis was performed to obtain the capacity curve of the structure. Based on three different empirical models, hybrid-based fragility curves were derived as a function of spectral acceleration. Furthermore, vulnerability curves were constructed using twelve different consequence models. A scenario-based seismic hazard analysis was conducted for the Narince segment, one of the active fault lines in the South-eastern Anatolia Thrust. As a result of the risk assessment, considering the proposed vulnerability models, the expected loss ratio values were computed at different locations. When the results are evaluated as a whole, it is observed that the loss values of the structure vary significantly depending on the location. While certain locations are expected to experience irreparable damage, others are likely to sustain only minor, repairable damage. This study serves as a significant example for assessing the seismic risk of typical school building types. The proposed methodology and findings, if extended to other similar typologies, can facilitate the development of a comprehensive and regional-scale seismic risk assessment framework for school buildings.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yesilyurt, A. (2025). Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of a typical RC school building using hybrid-based fragility curves. Yenilikçi Mühendislik ve Doğa Bilimleri, Volume: 5 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.61112/jiens.1679569

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Chrysostomou CZ, Kyriakides N, Papanikolaou VK, Kappos AJ, Dimitrakopoulos EG, Giouvanidis AI (2015) Vulnerability assessment and feasibility analysis of seismic strengthening of school buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13: 3809-3840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9791-5
  2. Saler E, Follador V, Carpanese P, Donà M, da Porto F (2024) Development of mechanics-based fragility curves for the Italian masonry school asset. Earthquake Spectra 40(3): 1905-1932. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241245720
  3. Fotopoulou S, Karafagka S, Petridis C, Manakou M, Riga E, Pitilakis K (2023) Vulnerability assessment of school buildings: Generic Versus building-specific fragility curves. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 27(11): 2994-3023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2022.2121791
  4. Yesilyurt A, Zulfikar AC, Tuzun C (2021) Seismic vulnerability assessment of precast RC industrial buildings in Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 141: 106539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106539
  5. Azizi-Bondarabadi H, Mendes N, Lourenço PB, Sadeghi NH (2016) Empirical seismic vulnerability analysis for masonry buildings based on school buildings survey in Iran. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14: 3195-3229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9944-1
  6. Giordano N, De Luca F, Sextos A, Ramirez CF, Fonseca FC, Wu J (2021) Empirical seismic fragility models for Nepalese school buildings. Natural hazards 105: 339-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04312-1
  7. Giordano N, De Luca F, Sextos A (2021) Analytical fragility curves for masonry school building portfolios in Nepal. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19: 1121-1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00989-8
  8. Giusto S, Boem I, Alfano S, Gattesco N, Cattari S (2025) Derivation of seismic fragility curves through mechanical-analytical approaches: the case study of the URM school buildings in Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 23(6): 2611-2646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-025-02137-6
  9. Yesilyurt A, Zulfikar AC, Tuzun C (2021) Site classes effect on seismic vulnerability evaluation of RC precast industrial buildings. Earthquakes and Structures 21(6): 627-639. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2021.21.6.627
  10. Di LM, Cattari S, Verderame G, Del Vecchio C, Ottonelli D et al (2023). Fragility curves of Italian school buildings: derivation from L’Aquila 2009 earthquake damage via observational and heuristic approaches. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 21(1): 397-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01535-4
  11. Sediqi Z, Harmandar E (2025) Improving the seismic resilience index of a school building. Natural Hazards 121(2): 2397-2417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06990-7
  12. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, Report ATC 13, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
  13. ATC-21 (1988) Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, Applied Technology Council, CA, FEMA 154.
  14. Alcocer SM, Murià-Vila D, Fernández-Sola LR, Ordaz M, Arce JC (2020) Observed damage in public school buildings during the 2017 Mexico earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 36(2): 110-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020926183
  15. Domaneschi M, Noori AZ, Pietropinto MV, Cimellaro GP (2021) Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing school buildings. Computers & Structures 248:106522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2021.106522
  16. Gioiella L, Morici M, Dall’Asta A (2023) Empirical predictive model for seismic damage and economic losses of Italian school building heritage. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 91:103631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103631
  17. O'Reilly GJ, Perrone D, Fox M, Monteiro R, Filiatrault A (2018) Seismic assessment and loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy. Engineering Structures 168:142-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.056
  18. Adhikari R, Gautam D (2019) Component level seismic fragility functions and damage probability matrices for Nepali school buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 120:316-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.009
  19. Samadian D, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Naderpour H, Eghbali M (2019) Seismic resilience evaluation based on vulnerability curves for existing and retrofitted typical RC school buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 127:105844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105844
  20. Ruiz-García J, Olvera RN, Frías AD (2021) Seismic assessment of school buildings with short captive RC columns under subduction seismic sequences. Structures 34:2432-2444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.019
  21. Sathurshan M, Thamboo J, Mallikarachchi C, Wijesundara K (2023) Seismic fragility of lightly reinforced concrete school building typologies with different masonry infill configurations. Structures 47:1710-1728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.12.014
  22. Zain M, Dackermann U, Prasittisopin L (2024) Machine learning (ML) algorithms for seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in high-intensity seismic zones. Structures 70:107639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107639
  23. Mazılıgüney L (2020) Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete School Buildings in Turkey. Dissertation, Middle East Technical University
  24. Oyguc R, Guley E (2017) Performance assessment of two aseismically designed RC school buildings after the October 23, 2011, Van, Turkey Earthquake. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 31(1): 04016076. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000938
  25. Oyguc R (2016) Seismic performance of RC school buildings after 2011 Van earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14(3): 821-847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9857-4
  26. Bal IE, Smyrou E (2016) Simulation of the earthquake-induced collapse of a school building in Turkey in 2011 Van Earthquake. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14:3509-3528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0001-x
  27. Altıok TY, Şevik M, Demir A (2024) Seismic performance of retrofitted and non-retrofitted RC school buildings after the February 6th, 2023, Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01941-w
  28. Republic of Türkiye, Governorship of Istanbul (2023) Press Release (2023-18) Directorate of Provincial Press and Public Relations. http://www.istanbul.gov.tr/basin-aciklamasi-2023-18
  29. Hancilar U, Çaktı E, Erdik M, Franco GE, Deodatis G (2014) Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: Probabilistic structural fragility analyses. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 67:169-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.09.005
  30. Mazılıgüney L, Yakut A, Kadaş K, Kalem İ (2013) Fragility analysis of reinforced concrete school buildings using alternative intensity measure-based ground motion sets. 2nd Turkish conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Hatay, Turkey, September 25-27.
  31. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş, Şaroğlu F (2013) Active Fault Map of Turkey. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA), Ankara.
  32. Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V et al (2014) OpenQuake engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters 85(3):692-702. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130087
  33. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 30(3):1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M
  34. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4:415–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z
  35. Vicente R (2008) Estrat´e’gias e Metodologias para Intervençoes ˜ de Reabilitacao ˜ Urbana—Avaliaç˜ ao da Vulnerabilidade e do Risco Sı’smico do Edificado da Baixa de Coimbra. Dissertation, University of Aveiro
  36. Lamego P, Lourenço PB, Sousa ML, Marques R (2017) Seismic vulnerability and risk analysis of the old building stock at urban scale: application to a neighbourhood in Lisbon. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15:2901-2937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0072-8
  37. Mouroux P, Brun BL (2006) Presentation of RISK-UE project. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 4:323-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9020-3
  38. Günay S, Mosalam KM (2013) PEER performance-based earthquake engineering methodology, revisited. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 17(6):829-858. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2013.787377
  39. Yesilyurt A, Cetindemir O, Akcan SO, Zulfikar AC (2023) Fragility-based rapid earthquake loss assessment of precast RC buildings in the Marmara region. Structural Engineering and Mechanics 88(1):13-23. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2023.88.1.013
  40. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News, Spring 2000.
  41. Krawinkler H, Deierlein GG (2014) Challenges towards achieving earthquake resilience through performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Fischinger M (ed) Performance-based seismic engineering: Vision for an earthquake resilient society, Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, Vol 32. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8875-5_1
  42. Gurpinar A, Abalı M, Yucemen MS, Yesilcay Y (1978) Feasibility of mandatory earthquake insurance in Turkey. Report No 78-05, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Middle East Technical University.
  43. Askan A, Yucemen MS (2010) Probabilistic methods for the estimation of potential seismic damage: Application to reinforced concrete buildings in Turkey. Structural Safety 32(4):262-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.04.001
  44. DEE-KOERI (2003) Earthquake risk assessment for the Istanbul metropolitan area. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University Press, Istanbul, Turkey.
  45. Bal İE, Crowley H, Pinho R, Gülay FG (2008) Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28(10-11): 914-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005
  46. FEMA HMM (2010) Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology/Earthquake Model/Technical Manual, Wasington DC, USA
  47. Bramerini F, Di PG, Orsini A, Pugliese A, Romeo R, Sabetta F (1995) Rischio sismico del territorio italiano: Proposal of a methodology and preliminary results. National Seismic Survey Report, SSN/RT/ 95/01, Roma. https://hdl.handle.net/11576/1892999
  48. Bommer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, Del RD, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J. Seismol 6:431–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020095711419
  49. Tyagunov S, Grünthal G, Wahlström R, Stempniewski L, Zschau J, (2006) Seismic risk mapping for Germany. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 6(4):573-586. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-6-573-2006
  50. Eleftheriadou AK, Karabinis AI (2011) Development of damage probability matrices based on Greek earthquake damage data. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 10(1):129-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-011-0052-6
  51. Martins L, Silva V (2021) Development of a fragility and vulnerability model for global seismic risk analyses. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 19(15):6719-6745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00885-1
  52. Smyth AW, Altay G, Deodatis G, Erdik M, Franco G, Gülkan P et al (2004) Probabilistic benefit-cost analysis for earthquake damage mitigation: Evaluating measures for apartment houses in Turkey. Earthquake Spectra 20(1):171-203. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1649937
  53. Yesilyurt A, Akcan SO, Cetindemir O, Zulfikar AC (2024) Probabilistic earthquake risk consideration of existing precast industrial buildings through loss curves. Geomechanics and Engineering 37(6):565-576. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2024.37.6.565