An appraisal of existing seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies

• Main Author: Kathotia, Vaibhav
• Other Authors: Li, Bing
• Format: Final Year Project
• Language: English
• Published: 2014
• Subjects: DRNTU::Engineering::Civil engineering::Structures and design
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/61051
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

The growing risks and overall damaging capacity of natural disaster’s cause huge losses of human life, social ecosystems and have large financial implications. The damage an earthquake can cause by its seismic activity on infrastructure can be catastrophic for everyone affected. Although the growth in construction technology has helped create new buildings and structures to be more equipped to deal with the seismic activity, there is still a large requirement for data and research on probable damage levels for structures in certain zones that might be prone to strong earthquake activities. This research is just as important for the older generation of buildings, which need to be retrofitted for protection if they seem highly vulnerable to sustain extensive damages. Researchers, developers, governments, etc. use seismic vulnerability analysis, or fragility analysis, to try to substantiate the potential risk of damage a given building model might sustain in its given environment. Various factors such as the Intensity Measure (IM), Damage Measure (DM), Damage States, Seismic Fragility Function Method, building specifications, etc. have to be specified in the risk assessment method to reach accurate conclusions of risk and damage probabilities. The probabilities of risk and damage are displayed using fragility curves, which plots the probability of a given damage state vs. the chosen Intensity Measure unit. In this study, the author has analyzed the available seismic vulnerability risk assessment methods and how they compare with each other when the building model and Intensity Measure (IM) in concern are similar. Due to the large amount of variables involved (such as Damage Measure (DM), Seismic Fragility Function Methods, the actual building structure design and design of materials used and the physical environment of the building area under consideration, among other variables) during the development of a research study/paper, it can be very hard at times to get similar data points and even then, external physical factors of the model, can cause large differences to occur between results of two similar studies. These results are then compared to the fragility curve results produced in the ongoing research paper by Professor Li Bing et al. This comparison is carried out to see the relevancy and accuracy of the data produced using the new risk assessment method in the research paper mentioned.