PSI - Issue 44

Giorgia Cianchino et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 219–226 Giorgia Cianchino et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

220

2

different results in terms of accuracy (Formisano &Marzo, 2017). For single buildings, the application of vulnerability methods can be easily carried out through sophisticated models. However, this requires an in-depth knowledge of the relevant structural characteristics of the building elements (Cascini et al., 2020). Achieving such a knowledge when a very large population of buildings is examined, as in the case of evaluations at the regional scale, could result time consuming, arduous and, in the worst cases, unpracticable. As such, large-scale evaluations are usually carried out through rapid empirical approaches that rely on the definition of specific indicators and are based on engineering judgments (Brando et al., 2017). A trade-off solution is to define a representative set of buildings featuring the most widespread and important characteristics of the whole stock, thus applying, in a viable way, numerical/analytical analyses to a reduced number of archetype buildings (Morais et al., 2021). In fact, analyses on archetype buildings have a level of accuracy and time cumbersomeness that is intermediate between the one needed for large-scale analyses and the one to be applied for sophisticated analyses on single buildings (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1. Different level of structural analysis, from large to building scale

In order to define the structural and geometric characteristics of archetypes buildings for large territorial areas, existing databases can be used. In Italy, for example, Istat census-based data, i.e. an important source for the definition of the inventory, which is updated every 10 years, has been used for risk assessment at the national scale by several Researchers (Polese et al., 2019). In recent years, a remarkable advancement towards the compilation of reliable databases has been made through the CARTIS form (Zuccaro et al., 2015). This form was developed in 2014 by the Italian Plinius Study Centre and was used in several research activities funded by the Italian Civil Protection Department (Brando et al., 2021). Data retrieved through the CARTIS form have been progressively collected within an online database currently available for consultation upon permission. The Authors of this paper have recently developed an automated procedure to extract from this database archetype buildings to be used for analytical vulnerability assessment at the regional scale (Basaglia et al., 2021). In this work, this procedure is applied to the Abruzzi region, in Central Italy, and vulnerability evaluations are conducted on six archetypes representative of the typical unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings found across the investigated area. The archetype buildings are analyzed using both linear and nonlinear kinematic approaches. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the selection process of the structural and geometric features of the considered archetype buildings. Sections 3 outlines the methodology employed for the identification of the most likely collapse mechanisms that can be activated for the analyzed archetypes along with their maximum displacement capacities. Finally, Section 4 reports the obtained results in terms of fragility curves. 2. URM archetype buildings in the Abruzzi Region The Abruzzi region, located in central Italy, is a territory characterized by different altimetric levels that go from the sea level, on the Adriatic coast, to thousands of meters in the Apennines. This variable orography influenced both the building materials and the construction techniques of the masonry buildings (Corlito et al., 2021) built before 1860 and featuring 2 to 4 stories. In the coastal area, the presence of clays led to a frequent use of brick masonry. On the contrary, in the inner parts of the region, the employed masonry is made of irregular stones kept together by poor