PSI - Issue 44

Carolina Bazzani et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 171–178 Carolina Bazzani et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

174

4

to the highest vulnerability class (A) and smaller percentages belong to other vulnerability classes (B=15%, C=21%, D=13%, E=7% up to 3% of buildings in the lowest vulnerability class F) (Fig. 4).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

41%

21%

15%

13%

7% 3%

A B C D E F

Fig. 4. Percentage of buildings belonging to the EMS98 vulnerability classes According to the Macroseismic Method and the updated Macroseismic Method, the average value of the vulnerability index (between 0 and 1) can be calculated for each building typology. This value was found to be very high and close to 1 for building type M1, the most vulnerable typology in the area. The value of the vulnerability index decreases as the building’s structural characteristics improve and goes down to very low values of less than 0.5 for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings (Fig. 5). (a) (b)

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

0,89 0,75

0,99

0,82 0,76

0,63

0,52 0,54

0,52 0,55

0,44

0,41

0,19

0,16

M1

M3

M5

M6

M1

M3

M5

M6

RC1-RC4

RC2-RC5

RC3-RC6

RC1-RC4

RC2-RC5

RC3-RC6

Fig. 5. Vulnerability index of building types according to Macroseismic Method (a) and updated Macroseismic Method (b) Following the S.A.V.E. method, the vulnerability class is defined according to the EMS98 classification, as a function of the numerical value obtained for each building type. According to the version proposed by Zuccaro & Cacace (2015), it is obtained that 49% of the buildings in the municipal area belong to EMS98 vulnerability class A, the most vulnerable, and 41% to vulnerability class D, the least vulnerable; the remaining small percentage is divided between vulnerability classes B and C. Using the version updated by Zuccaro et al. (2020), the percentage of buildings belonging to vulnerability class A and D is about 46% and about 35%, respectively; the remaining 18% of buildings belong to vulnerability classes B and C. Results show how the two methods (S.A.V.E. and updated version of S.A.V.E.) differ only slightly, with only a more pronounced difference in vulnerability class B (Fig. 6).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

49%

46%

40%

35%

10%

8%

8%

2%

A

B

C

D

Zuccaro e Cacace (2015)

Zuccaro et al. (2020)

Fig. 6. Percentages of buildings in high (A), medium-high (B), medium-low (C) and low (D) vulnerability classes according to Zuccaro & Cacace (2015) and Zuccaro et al. (2020)