PSI - Issue 78

Caterina Carbone et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1175–1182

1179

shakemaps, therefore not accounting for the maximum level of the available information. Despite this procedure presents several limitations, as highlighted by Iervolino et al. (2024), it is considered appropriate within this work, simply aiming to compare the seismic vulnerability of different classes of RC buildings. To account for the earthquake sequences, the date of the field survey of each building was compared with the date of main shocks and the maximum PGA value estimated at the site before the inspection was associated with each building (Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of surveyed buildings with identification of damage level sustained by vertical structures and infills/partitions following the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake (a, d), the 2012 Emilia seismic sequence (b, e) and the 2016 -2017 Central Italy seismic sequence (c, f).

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of surveyed buildings with identification of experienced PGA following the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake (a), the 2012 Emilia seismic sequence (b) and the 2016-2017 Central Italy seismic sequence (c). 4. Derivation of fragility curves In this work, fragility curves were empirically derived using the procedure proposed by Rosti et al. 2021. First, the ground shaking range was subdivided into equally spaced bins of 0.05 g width. The probability of reaching or