Review Not peer-reviewed version

Assessing Seismic Vulnerability

Methods for RC-Frame Buildings in Pre-
and Post-Earthquake

Mabor Achol Achol Samuel , Ergang Xiong * , Haris Mahmood , Lekeufack Beco Chenadaire , Yupeng Xie ,
Yufei Han

Posted Date: 16 September 2024

doi: 10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

Keywords: damage; post-earthquake; mitigation strategies; seismic risk; empirical method; analytical
method; earthquake

Preprints.org is a free multidiscipline platform providing preprint service that

is dedicated to making early versions of research outputs permanently
available and citable. Preprints posted at Preprints.org appear in Web of
Science, Crossref, Google Scholar, Scilit, Europe PMC.

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting
from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Review

Assessing Seismic Vulnerability Methods for

RC-Frame Buildings in Pre- and Post-Earthquake
Mabor Achol Samuel 1, Ergang Xiong 1,*, Mahmood Haris 1, Lekeufack Beco Chenadaire 1,
Yupeng Xie 1 and Yufei Han 1
School of Civil Engineering, Chang’an University, 75 Chang’an Road, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710061, P.R. China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13992846804

Abstract: In metropolitan regions, which are particularly vulnerable to seismic damage, numerous reinforced
concrete (RC) buildings are being constructed. Public safety has been an important consideration to safeguard
and protect people, buildings, and infrastructure from the potential effects of earthquakes. The assessment of
seismic vulnerability within urban areas encompassed an analysis of both building vulnerability and the scale
of seismic hazards prevalent in the locality. This assessment aimed to ascertain the likelihood of building
damage resulting from ground motion induced by an earthquake of a specific magnitude. In recent decades,
considerable efforts have been made to develop and improve methods for assessing earthquake damage to
reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. These efforts included the creation of seismic hazard and seismic risk
indices that were used to quantify the potential destruction of individual building components or the entire
building. This scholarly review article presents an in-depth analysis and concise summary of the primary
techniques (including qualitative or empirical, quantitative, analytical, and experimental test methods) devised
for appraising the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete frame buildings, pre- and post-earthquake
occurrences. It is a valuable reference for policymakers, engineers, researchers, and specialists engaged in
earthquake risk mitigation efforts.

Keywords: damage; post-earthquake; mitigation strategies; seismic risk; empirical method;

analytical method; earthquake

1. Introduction
Ancient civilizations, including the Greeks, Chinese, and Romans, had already begun to observe
and record seismic activity before the advent of modern scientific methods in recent decades [1].
Although the destructive potential of earthquakes was acknowledged, the level of scientific
knowledge required to assess the associated risk was insufficient [2]. Damage inflicted by natural
disasters such as earthquakes has increased significantly on a global scale in recent decades [3–5].
The 2008 Sichuan earthquake was distinguished by its extensive economic devastation and
substantial human casualties [6–13]. This seismic activity caused the displacement of over 17,923
individuals and claimed the lives of approximately 69,226 individuals. In addition, approximately
124 billion U.S. dollars were directly affected economically.
The 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan resulted in significant economic devastation amounting
to $140 billion, in addition to 20,475 fatalities and the displacement of 1.108 million individuals [14–
19]. The Van earthquake in 2011 incurred a financial loss of 2.2 billion dollars for Turkey [20–24],
whereas the Sikkim earthquake in India was estimated to have caused a loss of 1.7 billion dollars in
the same year [25–28]. The 2015 Gorkha earthquake and its strong aftershocks have caused severe
destruction of lives and property near the epicenter in Barpak, Gorkha [29–34]. The total impact of
the main quake and subsequent aftershocks caused over 9,000 deaths, more than 22,000 injuries, and
the destruction of 500,000 buildings. The Northridge earthquake that occurred in 1994 in California,
United States [35–44], caused an estimated $14 billion in insured earthquake loss, the highest sum
ever recorded.

© 2024 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

Although the financial ramifications of economic losses in other regions may be considerably
diminished in comparison to Japan and the United States, the effect on the domestic economy may
be more substantial [45]. Seismologists have shown significant interest in the seismic evaluation of
existing buildings and infrastructure, primarily due to the documented vulnerability and suboptimal
performance observed on a global scale over the past decade. As a result, an increasing focus has
been placed on the assessment of seismic vulnerability of buildings via the enhancement of
assessment methodologies [46–54]. Seismology distinguished itself as a scientific discipline during
the late 18th and early 19th centuries by achieving notable progress [55]. The Modified Mercalli
Intensity Scale (MMI) was a measure of intensity that aided in the comprehension of the
environmental and building effects of earthquakes [56].
The evaluation methods utilized for a specific structure are contingent upon a multitude of
parameters or factors [57] and typically determined evaluation protocols for a specific building. The
parameters under consideration pertained directly to the building system, encompassing aspects
such as seismic capacity, soil characteristics, regularity in plan and height, and limitations in field
data collection. These attributes contributed to a detailed representation or an accurate estimation of
the building system's response. The differentiation between building integrity and safety resulting
from seismic degradation became apparent through the implementation of building code policies
following significant seismic events. The criteria about the building framework, seismic resilience,
soil conditions, vertical and horizontal uniformity, and the field data collection process, all of which
are subjected to specific limitations. Their objective was to accurately portray or estimate the building
system's behavior.
Put differently, they evaluated the likelihood of encountering significant losses over a specified
timeframe due to seismic hazards. As an economic indicator, these losses are quantified and must be
incorporated into the building integrity evaluation before any seismic event. Indirect recognition of
the variation in building safety and integrity caused by earthquake deterioration is achieved via
construction identification methodologies, which are commonly applied in the aftermath of
significant seismic incidents. In addition to being essential for risk mitigation strategies, the
development of a damage model for a particular region was valuable for predicting the financial
repercussions of future earthquakes. For a national authority's emergency response and disaster
preparedness, a damage prediction model able to estimate the impact on the built environment and
essential infrastructure in each scenario (e.g., a large historical earthquake) could be of the utmost
importance [58]. To determine the extent and severity of damage, post-earthquake protection
mitigation strategies typically consisted of a thorough visual inspection, in-depth building
evaluations, and nondestructive testing techniques. Field survey inspections yielded significant
insights into the performance of buildings, encompassing the detection of potentially hazardous
areas, frail components, and building irregularities [59–61].
The exploration into the seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings
encompassed several key objectives: (1) to evaluate the seismic susceptibility of reinforced concrete
(RC) frame buildings. This involved conducting a thorough analysis of their seismic response,
potential building degradation, and the likelihood of various levels of damage. Professionals and
engineers sought to comprehend these susceptibilities to enhance safety and reduce potential
dangers for occupants and buildings. (2) to mitigate the potential for fatalities and property damage
caused by seismic activity. The subject matter at hand pertained to retrofitting mitigation strategies.
As a result, the evaluation of building susceptibility to seismic activity has emerged as a significant
area of focus due to the advancements in seismic assessment methodologies. Seismic investigation
and assessment were a crucial component of any crisis management program. The hazard assessment
identified potential susceptibilities to seismic hazards that may arise during the relief phase and
contributed to the development of emergency preparations [62–64].
However, it is crucial to incorporate comprehensive vulnerability into a standardized
quantitative assessment framework when contemplating it. To predict damage, researchers have
developed a range of methodologies for evaluating the building integrity, capacity, and response
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

characteristics of buildings that are susceptible to seismic activity. These methodologies fall into three
primary categories: experimental, analytical, or quantitative, and empirical or qualitative methods.
Empirical or qualitative vulnerability methods, such as nonlinear static and dynamic analyses,
facilitated comprehensive modeling of building behavior when subjected to fluctuating levels of
ground motion intensity. Furthermore, these methods employed the extent of damage as a means of
inquiry to gather data on post-event building damage that was derived from statistical investigations.
Analytical or quantitative methods, such as probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and fragility
analysis, utilized limit states and mechanical properties or quality of the buildings to generate
information regarding the likelihood and severity of damage in the event of seismic hazard scenarios.
Experimental testing methods, including laboratory experiments and tremble table tests, provided
valuable data that could be utilized to validate and enhance the accuracy of analytical and numerical
models.
This review article comprehensively examined and investigated experimental, analytical,
quantitative, empirical, or qualitative testing methodologies employed for assessing the seismic
vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings. Through a comparative analysis of
methodologies employed before and following an earthquake, policymakers, experts, engineers, and
scholars may acquire significant knowledge regarding the significance, constraints, and potential of
analytical or quantitative and empirical or quantitative and experimental methods. Ultimately, this
knowledge can contribute to enhancing urban infrastructure in regions susceptible to earthquakes
[65]. These methods are broadly classified into three main categories: empirical or qualitative,
analytical, or quantitative, and experimental methods presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The procedure of seismic risks and seismic vulnerability index assessment.

2. Methodologies
It is undeniable that regions with high levels of seismic activity have suffered significant
economic and human losses because of buildings collapsing and massive damage. The insufficient
seismic performance of these buildings can be attributed to various issues, such as failure to comply
with building codes about seismic activity during construction, lax adherence to construction
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

methods, and the use of inferior materials. Ensuring the availability of necessary resources and tools
to minimize the impact of earthquakes is crucial for advancing our understanding and assessment of
seismic risk.
This section explores the introduction of three efficient methods for assessing the seismic
susceptibility of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, both pre-and post-earthquake events:
analytical or quantitative, experimental, and empirical or qualitative methods. This review paper
aims to clarify the advantages, disadvantages, and possible synergies of different methods of seismic
vulnerability assessment by thoroughly analyzing empirical, qualitative, analytical, and
experimental methods. To effectively improve the ability of reinforced concrete buildings to
withstand earthquakes and reduce the negative impacts on urban infrastructure and communities, it
is crucial to fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

2.1. Empirical or Qualitative method

Contemporary research often focuses on discussing empirical or qualitative methodologies such
as damage probability matrices (DPMs), vulnerability index techniques, continuous vulnerability
curves, and rapid visual screening methods [66]. The field of earthquake engineering and seismic
risk evaluation has a strong historical foundation that dates to the early 1970s. During this time,
empirical or qualitative methodologies were developed and refined, mostly using macroseismic
intensities as a basis. The understanding of how buildings respond to seismic forces was mostly
derived from anecdotal knowledge and observations of past earthquakes, as there were few
systematic studies or extensive databases documenting earthquake-related damage.
The seismic event known as the San Fernando earthquake, which took place in California in
1971, played a pivotal role in shaping and progressing empirical or qualitative methodologies within
the field [67]. The collection of comprehensive damage data after the disaster led to remarkable
progress in understanding the response of different building types and construction methods to
seismic loads. After major earthquakes, conducting damage surveys became a common practice that
provided important insights into building performance, infrastructure, and vital services [68].
Today, empirical, or qualitative methods have become an indispensable part of seismic risk
assessment and are used alongside sophisticated engineering assessments and numerical
simulations. They helped to improve disaster preparedness, land use planning, and prioritization of
seismic retrofits, thus increasing the resilience of communities to earthquakes. Despite the
advantages of empirical or qualitative methods, challenges such as limited data availability,
earthquake characteristics variations, and building response uncertainties are still limited. However,
the review study on empirical or qualitative methods highlights these challenges as opportunities for
advances in data collection, innovative sensor technologies, and the incorporation of machine
learning to improve the reliability and robustness of empirical or qualitative seismic hazard
assessment.

2.1.1. Damage Probability Matrices

Qu and Sun [69,70] established a vulnerability probability matrix by analyzing sample data from
typical earthquake-prone regions. This analysis followed earthquake damage inspections conducted
after the 2013 Lushan earthquake in China. The focus was on investigating and analyzing the damage
characteristics of adobe and timber (AT), brick wood (BW), wooden roof truss structures (WRTS),
and reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings. In another seismic event, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake
struck Wenchuan County, Sichuan Province, China, on May 12, 2008, causing significant damage to
many buildings. Subsequently, the China Earthquake Administration coordinated a multinational
team of experts and scholars to conduct an on-site assessment of building damage caused by the
earthquake. This effort resulted in the collection of extensive inspection data for reinforced concrete
(RC), masonry structures (MS), bottom frame seismic wall masonry (BFM), and brick wood (BW), as
compiled by Li and Chen [7,48].
An empirical vulnerability database and a damage matrix model for typical buildings were
developed based on the varying intensity regions of the Wenchuan earthquake. Various research
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

approaches were employed to analyze the fragility and susceptibility of these buildings, contributing
to the global enhancement of seismic resilience and the revision of building design codes. However,
much of the research primarily focused on the empirical susceptibility characteristics of specific
building categories during specific earthquakes. There were ambiguities and uncertainties noted in
aspects like dynamic modulus, hazard models, and parameter configurations in theoretical and risk
analyses. Moreover, a pattern emerged towards standardization in the process of identifying
vulnerability parameters when employing ground peak acceleration (PGA) values. This trend posed
difficulties in fully understanding the seismic vulnerability of various buildings in the area by solely
examining the seismic damage of a single construction type during a specific earthquake occurrence.
The damage probability matrix used for loss and risk analysis by Miano [71] showed a
correlation between seismic intensity and the likelihood of building damage for specific building
types. Whitman [72] introduced the concept of damage probability matrices to anticipate the
destruction of buildings caused by tectonic plates. This methodology allocated a precise probability
of a specific building type encountering a particular level of damage at a given magnitude of an
earthquake. Braga [73] was credited with developing the initial iteration of a damage probability
matrix in Europe. The damage probability matrix was developed based on observations of building
damage in Italy following the 1980 Irpinian earthquake. The authors utilized the binomial
distribution to model damage distributions across different classes in response to varying seismic
intensities. One advantage of the binomial distribution was its requirement of a single parameter
within the 0 to 1 range. However, a disadvantage of the damage probability matrix was its
dependence on a single parameter for both mean value and standard deviation.
Buildings were divided into three hazard categories (A, B, and C), and a damage probability
matrix (DPM) was created for each category based on the modified Mercalli scale (MSK), which
linked building types to observed damage levels. The underlying concept of a DPM was that a given
building type had an equal chance of experiencing any level of damage when subjected to a specific
earthquake intensity. It is important to highlight that the damage ratio here refers to the ratio of repair
expenses compared to replacement costs.
Giovinazzi and Lagomarsino [74] introduced a new macroseismic methodology for deriving
damage probability functions based on the EMS-98 macroseismic scale. This scale offered qualitative
delineations such as "few," "many," and "most" within the context of five damage levels (V to XII),
spanning various classes indicating decreasing susceptibility. Table 1 presents damage matrices that
visually represent the distribution of structures across different levels of damage, with varied degrees
of severity.

Table 1. The damage model of a seismic vulnerability class, as defined within the framework [75].

Damage Classification
Intensity of Damage
Severity
1 2 3 4 5
V
VI Few
VII Few
VIII Many Few
IX Many Few
X Many Few
XI Many
XII Most

Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs) are useful methods for assessing the seismic susceptibility
of reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, both pre- and post-earthquake events. Their importance
has increased in recent years due to their capacity to accurately represent the relationship between
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

seismic intensity and the probability of building damage. DPMs provide a systematic method for
assessing the vulnerability of RC-framed buildings to earthquakes by combining empirical data,
analytical analysis, and experimental tests. During the period before an earthquake occurs, engineers
use DPMs (Damage Probability Matrices) to create fragility curves. These curves show the likelihood
of different levels of damage (such as small, moderate, or extensive) occurring based on seismic
intensity factors like peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration.
The fragility curves are derived by statistically analyzing historical earthquake records,
conducting on-site investigations, and doing experimental trials. They allow engineers to assess the
vulnerability of reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings under different seismic hazard scenarios.
Following an earthquake, Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs) play a crucial role in swiftly assessing
the extent of damage and determining the order of importance for emergency response and recovery
actions. Through the process of comparing the observed damage to pre-determined fragility curves,
individuals involved may quickly assess the magnitude of the damage, assess the safety of the
building, and allocate resources for immediate response and repair of the building. In addition, DPMs
enable the improvement of vulnerability models by including observed damage patterns, hence
increasing the accuracy of future assessments, and assisting in decision-making related to retrofitting
and mitigation options.
DPMs, or damage probability matrices, are frequently employed to evaluate seismic risk in
reinforced concrete frame buildings. Nevertheless, they possess some disadvantages such as:
1. Simplified representation: Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs) streamline the complex
behavior of buildings during seismic events by categorizing them into distinct damage states
according to specified attributes, such as building qualities, ground motion intensity, and building
materials. This oversimplification can result in crucial factors that can impact the true extent of
earthquake damage being overlooked.
2. Restricted precision: The accuracy of DPMs is limited due to their dependence on empirical
data and assumptions to predict the probability of different levels of damage. These assumptions
may not accurately reflect the performance of reinforced concrete buildings during actual seismic
events, leading to inaccuracies about the expected probabilities of damage.
3. Dependence on input parameters: The accuracy of DPMs relies heavily on input data like as
building attributes, seismic hazard levels, and soil conditions. Fluctuations or unidentified elements
in these parameters might significantly impact the dependability of vulnerability assessments based
on DPM.
4. Inability to capture dynamic interactions: DPMs cannot accurately capture the dynamic
interactions that occur between building elements, nonlinear behavior, and secondary effects like
shaking or soil-structure interactions. Instead, they primarily focus on the static response of the
structure to seismic loads. This constraint can result in either underestimating or overestimating the
actual magnitude of harm.
This section concluded by analyzing the theoretical foundations, methodological approaches,
and practical applications of DPMs. It also aimed to clarify the advantages, disadvantages, and
prospective contributions of DPMs in enhancing the seismic resilience of urban infrastructures and
communities. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the function of DPMs (Damage Probability
Matrices) in assessing seismic hazards is crucial for researchers, engineers, experts, and policymakers
who are engaged in earthquake risk management and urban planning. This understanding allows
for informed decision-making and the development of proactive methods to mitigate the impact of
earthquakes in buildings.

2.1.2. The Vulnerability Index Method (VIM)

The Vulnerability Index Method (VIM), often known as the Italian method, has been extensively
utilized. It assesses both the physical and non-physical elements of a building to determine its
vulnerability to earthquakes. This estimate is based on comprehensive surveys of observable
damages [76]. This method is indirect because it determines a vulnerability index and shows a
correlation between damage and seismic intensity through post-earthquake surveys and statistical
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

analyses that are only useful for comprehensive seismic assessments. In 2007, the National
Earthquake Defense Group (GNDT), an Italian organization, adopted a method for evaluating the
susceptibility of buildings to both pre-and post-earthquakes [77]. This approach employs simplified
mathematical techniques for subjectively assessing the condition of existing buildings. It has been
implemented in various cities and nations, such as China, Ecuador, Colombia, Spain, Italy, and
Croatia [78–80] and it also has been applied in many cities in Peru, including Lima, Chiclayo, Jaén,
La Libertad, Cajamarca, and Ayacucho, and is widely used as it qualitatively categorizes the
vulnerability of a building based on an index derived from its building and physical characteristics
[81].
Although the Italian vulnerability index method was considered valid, it can be considered
unreliable as it relies on the observation of parameters. The available data may have limitations or
inaccuracies due to the absence of comprehensive typologies and advanced parameters that could
offer a more analytical depiction of a building's vulnerability. However, the method remains suitable
for assessing the vulnerability of numerous buildings and infrastructure within an urban setting. The
method relies on field surveys to gather data and information concerning key parameters that
influence and govern building vulnerability namely: (1) foundation type, (2) material quality, and (3)
plan and elevation configuration. There are a total of eleven parameters that were identified and
computed as a vulnerability index for each building, wherein each parameter was categorized into
four classes denoting escalating vulnerability by quality conditions, namely 𝐾𝑖 or Cvi: A, B, C, and
D. Each parameter assessed a distinct factor that influenced the seismic performance of the building,
specifically identifying the most suitable vulnerability class that described it. Each parameter was
assigned a weight, Pi, ranging from 0.5 for the least significant parameters to 2.0 for the parameters
with the highest influence on the building's vulnerability.
The seismic vulnerability index, Iv*, obtained from Equation (1), ranged from 0 to 500. However,
it was subsequently normalized using a weighted sum to a range of 0 to 100 and was now represented
by the symbol IV. The vulnerability index of each building at a global level was assessed using the
following formula in Equation (1):

𝐼𝑉 ∗ = ∑8𝑖=1 𝐶𝑣𝑖 × 𝜌𝑖 (1)

Historical earthquake records are employed to fine-tune vulnerability functions, which define
the correlation between the vulnerability index (Iv*) and a universal damage factor (d) for buildings
of identical types under similar macroseismic intensity or peak ground acceleration (PGA). The
damage factor, ranging from 0 to 1, measured the ratio of repair expenses to replacement costs.
Damage was deemed negligible when peak ground acceleration (PGA) values fell below a specific
threshold. The damage factor then increased linearly until it reached a PGA that caused a collapse.
At this point, it was assigned a value of 1 as shown in Figure 2.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

Figure 2. Vulnerability index functions corresponding to the damage factor (d) and peak ground
acceleration (PGA) across various vulnerability indices [82].

Vulnerability index methodologies enabled the evaluation of vulnerability characteristics

unique to the analyzed building stock, instead of solely depending on typological classifications to
delineate risk [83]. It is worth noting that the method still relies on expert judgment in evaluating
structures. Uncertainty exists in the coefficients and weights used to calculate the seismic
vulnerability index, which is usually disregarded. To conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
building vulnerability on a wide scale, say at the national level, a significant number of buildings that
are representative of the nation's whole building stock must be assessed. These evaluations also need
to relate to census data. It would take an inordinate amount of time to calculate hazard indices for a
large section of the building stock, though, in nations where such data is not easily available.
Obtaining a large dataset of input data is essential when using a risk or loss assessment model at the
national level.
The Geographic information system (GIS) currently enables the analysis of extensive data to
determine the vulnerability of buildings by examining the statistics of individual parameters [84].
Georeferenced data was smoothly incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS),
enabling swift access to results and assessment techniques. Consequently, the Italian vulnerability
index method was utilized to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of historical masonry buildings in
the city center of the Croatian coastal region. The findings predominantly indicated moderate to
heightened levels of vulnerability. This stemmed from these buildings being constructed with
unsecured masonry lacking reinforcement. Additionally, they exhibited insufficient connections
between walls and ceilings, with inadequate horizontal and vertical alignment of walls, and poorly
integrated non-building components.
Moreover, variations in height and floor plan were considered. To enhance result analysis, all
collected data was integrated into a GIS platform using ArcGIS software. This integration involved
merging geo-referenced visual data with specific parameters from each approach, leading to the
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

creation of a hazard map. The seismic vulnerability index method employed in this research focused
on modeling eleven parameters derived from previously identified hazard classes (Low, Moderate,
and High). These eleven criteria for each parameter were instrumental in identifying the primary
building system and its significant earthquake-related deficiencies. Specifically, these parameters are
summarized and presented in Table 2 below:

Table 2. The parameter qualification values for reinforced concrete buildings.

Qualifications
Weight
Number Parameter Ki
Wi
A B C
Parameter of the Type and Organization of the Resisting
1 0 1 2 4
System

2 Quality of the Resistance System 0 1 2 1

3 Conventional Resistance -1 0 1 1

4 Site and Ground Conditions 0 1 2 1

5 Diaphragms 0 1 2 1

6 Plan Configuration 0 1 2 1

7 Vertical Configuration 0 1 3 2

8 Connections between Elements 0 1 2 1

9 Structural Members with Low Ductility 0 1 2 1

10 Non-Structural Elements 0 1 2 1

11 State of Conservation 0 1 2 1

2.1.3. The RISK_UE and GNDT Method

Over the past few decades, Italy has devised a hazard index methodology through the National
Group of Defense from Earthquakes (GNDT). This method comprises two tiers: "GNDT Level I"
categorizes building types and establishes hazard classifications (A, B, C, and D), while "GNDT Level
II" draws from Benedetti's work alongside the GNDT's efforts [85,86] method. This methodology
required extensive collection of data and information to evaluate building damage. The field study
aimed to obtain a thorough understanding of the key factors influencing and regulating the
vulnerability of the building.
The RISK_UE project also referred to as the European Macroseismic project, received funding
from the European Commission. Its objective was to devise sophisticated techniques for evaluating
seismic risk scenarios in various European cities, including Barcelona, Bitola, Bucharest, Catania,
Nice, Sofia, and Thessaloniki. Among the vulnerability assessment methods developed and
successfully applied in all these cities, the vulnerability index method was chosen. As detailed in
Faccioli and GNDT [87,88], the "Catania Project" evaluated the risk associated with reinforced
concrete (RC) frames and masonry buildings through a modified vulnerability index method. Certain
adjustments were made to the original vulnerability index method as per the ATC-21 guidelines. The
vulnerability scores of buildings were determined using rapid screening techniques [89–92].
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

10

Like the primary method, the vulnerability result was computed by combining the weighted
values of eleven parameters or variables. Nonetheless, the values for the remaining variables or
parameters, obtained from historical or contemporary construction practices in the region, were
estimations rather than direct on-site assessments. Consequently, a minimum and maximum value
for Iv* was defined for each building. The vulnerability assessments for historical masonry buildings
were refined using data from earthquake-induced damage in Friuli (1976) and Abruzzo (1984). The
link between damage severity and maximum ground acceleration was established using the
correlation proposed by Guagenti and Petrini [93]. Table 3 presents a summary and tabulation of the
vulnerability assessment conducted using the vulnerability index, specifically through methods such
as RISK-UE, European Macroseismic, and GNDT methods, for several case studies.

Table 3. Case studies employing the Vulnerability Index method, utilizing both GNDT and RISK-UE
methodologies.

Refere
Case Study Type of Buildings Method Applied
nces
RISK-UE, and European
Spain-Valencia Masonry buildings [94]
Macroseismic
Portugal-Liera Masonry buildings GNDT II [95]
Mexico City Masonry buildings GNDT II, and RISK-UE [96]
Mexico-
Masonry buildings RISK-UE [97]
Tlajomulco
China (Weinan RISK-UE, and European
Masonry buildings [98]
and Zhaogia) Macroseismic
GNDT II, RISK-UE, and
Italy-Sant’Antimo Masonry buildings [99]
European Macroseismic
Reinforced concrete (RC) and RISK-UE, and European
Spain-Barcelona [100]
Masonry buildings Macroseismic
Morocco- Reinforced concrete (RC) RISK-UE, and European
[101]
AlHociema buildings Macroseismic
GNDT II, European [102–
Algeria-Annaba Masonry Buildings
Macroseismic, and RISK-UE 104]

The Vulnerability Index Method (VIM) has gained recognition in recent years for its ability to
provide a thorough and standardized framework for assessing the seismic susceptibility of buildings.
The assessment provided a thorough evaluation of a building's vulnerability to seismic hazards by
considering both building and non-building elements, as well as socio-economic aspects. The VIM
facilitated a proactive evaluation of seismic risk both pre- and post-earthquakes by integrating
building characteristics (such as building age, height, and construction quality) with site-specific
seismic hazard data. The VIM employed statistical analysis and data-driven modeling to develop
vulnerability indices that precisely depicted the probability and potential consequences of harm to
RC-framed buildings made of reinforced concrete in several earthquake scenarios.
The utilization of VIM facilitated the prompt evaluation and ranking of relief measures in the
aftermath of a seismic disaster. Through the comparison of the observed degree of damage with pre-
calibrated danger indices, individuals may promptly evaluate the magnitude of the damage, identify
buildings that are prone to damage, and allocate resources for emergency actions and reconstruction.
Furthermore, the VIM method facilitated the detection of areas with a high risk of damage and
allowed for the creation of specific retrofitting and mitigation plans to enhance the durability of urban
infrastructure.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

11

3. Quantitative or Analytical methods

Within the realm of assessing reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, the most prominent
quantitative or analytical methods discussed include Hybrid methods, Capacity spectrum methods
(CSM), and Fully displacement-based methods. Echevarría [105] stated that these methods offered
more intricate algorithms that had a clearer and more immediate physical significance. This
characteristic facilitated the performance of sensitivity analyses and streamlined the calibration of
numerous attributes of the entities involved in the analysis. This delineated four mitigation strategies
for addressing mathematical models utilizing analytical or quantitative methods: linear static
analysis, linear dynamic analysis, pushover, and non-linear dynamic analysis. Cardinal [78] explored
hybrid methodologies that integrated damage probability matrices and vulnerability functions
derived from post-earthquake damage statistics. These methodologies also incorporated numerical
algorithms based on mathematical models specific to the building typologies under investigation.
Hybrid models were especially important when there was adequate data on post-earthquake
damage of a specific intensity level for the analyzed geographical area. Mathematical simulations are
used to extrapolate results and fill in the gaps in the matrices and functions. Furthermore, it is crucial
to acknowledge that the data obtained after the earthquake are used to calibrate the mathematical
model for specific intensity levels. The Capacity spectrum methods involved determining seismic
performance points for each building type in a certain earthquake scenario. The performance point
was determined at the intersection of the building's capacity curves with the seismic action curves.
The Capacity spectrum served as the basis for several globally recognized methods in evaluating
seismic risks.

3.1. The Vulnerability Analytical or Quantitative/Fragility Curves and Damage Prediction Models (DPMs)
Derived by Analytical Methods
In the past, seismic vulnerability curves and damage probability matrices were often developed
based on observable damage data [106]. However, there are new proposals for the use of
computational studies as another possible approach to control the challenges of the above
approaches. Simulations were employed to create fragility curves [107] (also known as seismic
vulnerability curves) and damage probability matrices for various categories of reinforced concrete
(RC) frame buildings. This process was deemed crucial for forecasting damage probabilities that
could affect building performance, thereby informing rehabilitation and retrofitting strategies for
these buildings. Ground motion significantly influences the behavior of buildings. The likelihood of
building damage was assessed through non-linear dynamic analysis, utilizing multiple ground
motions to estimate building response and economic losses.

3.2. Applying the Nonlinear Analysis to Weight the Modeling Parameters

The weighting of parameters was established through non-linear time history analysis (NL-
THA) and non-linear static analysis (NL-SA) to derive intensity-duration attenuation (IDA) and
probability of occurrence attenuation (POA) curves. The significance of each parameter was
determined by quantifying building vulnerability, specifically by assessing the maximum upper
displacement. This methodology enabled the estimation of factors influencing the physical
vulnerability of buildings and their impact on response behavior during earthquakes [108]. In seismic
vulnerability research, the transition of maximum displacement from linear to non-linear states,
culminating in failure, served as an indicator of damage severity. The evolution of building behavior
across three hazard classes (low, moderate, and high) during this transition from the most critical
parameter state to the optimal state was elucidated, with emphasis on seismic loading. The process
of quantifying the seismic vulnerability index using NL-THA is detailed in Figure 3.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

12

Figure 3. A flowchart to estimate vulnerability index (SVI).

A similar method was employed to assess the seismic susceptibility of various reinforced
concrete (RC) frame configurations, encompassing bare frames, and infilled frames designed solely
for vertical load support [109,110]. The building models utilized in this investigation reflected typical
architectural designs and construction methodologies. The virtual representation of the buildings
adhered to design codes, relevant guidelines, and industry standards prevalent during construction.
Evaluating the seismic response of the designed prototype buildings involved non-linear dynamic
analyses such as IDA and POA, incorporating ground motions of diverse intensities, both artificial
and natural acceleration curves. The seismic susceptibility of these buildings was appraised using the
European Macroseismic Scale. Previous studies predominantly relied on incremental dynamic
analysis (IDA) to develop fragility curves for buildings [65].
Vona [111] employed two distinct analytical methods, namely nonlinear static analysis (NSA)
and nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA), to investigate the seismic response of moment-resisting
concrete frames (MRCF) using fragility curves. The study highlighted the NDA as the most
appropriate approach to consider. Anvarsamarin [112] evaluated the collapse performance of three
building models with different story heights (6, 12, and 18 stories) as reinforced concrete moment-
resisting frames (RC-MRF). By utilizing fragility curves and incorporating soil-building interaction
as a seismic uncertainty parameter, the estimation was formulated. Tajammolian [113] explored the
seismic performance of asymmetric steel buildings when isolated using a Triple Concave Friction
Pendulum (TCFP) as a seismic bearing element.
Fragility curves were developed following IDA analysis with input from 45 sets of synthetic
seismic data, and damage probabilities were calculated based on HAZUS-2003 damage states.
Nazari [114] investigated the seismic vulnerability of RC-shear wall buildings in Vancouver using
non-linear time history analysis (NLTHA) on 20 sets of synthetic earthquake data. The authors
subsequently generated fragility curves to assess the damage extent following ASCE41 guidelines
[115–117]. Dumova-Jovanoska [118] developed vulnerability curves and damage probability matrices
for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. The relationships between earthquake damage intensity were
established through analytical modeling of representative reinforced concrete (RC) buildings
followed by dynamic nonlinear analysis [119]. The evaluation of structural damage was conducted
utilizing the damage index and assigning discrete damage states to buildings. It was presumed that
the likelihood of damage occurrence adheres to a normal probability distribution.
A primary disadvantage of constructing analytical susceptibility curves is the substantial
computational and time expenses linked with this process. Therefore, creating such curves for diverse
regions or countries with distinct design features presents a formidable challenge. However, it is
noteworthy that analytical vulnerability curves are frequently utilized alongside empirical damage
probability matrices (DPMs) and vulnerability curves derived from observed damage data.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

13

3.3. General Evaluation of Quantitative or Analytical Methods

When evaluating quantitative or analytical methods for assessing the seismic susceptibility of
reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, several variables are essential to ensure their effectiveness
and reliability. The importance of accuracy and precision in anticipating susceptibility and
distinguishing between buildings with different levels of vulnerability cannot be overstated.
Validation using actual seismic data is crucial for verifying accuracy while showcasing the potential
to make accurate predictions in real-world scenarios is also significant. When doing sensitivity
analysis to analyze the influence of parameters and verify the accuracy of results, having sufficient
processing power is crucial, particularly for extensive evaluations or post-earthquake assessments
where prompt decision-making is vital.
The approaches can be easily applied to other building kinds, materials, and geographical
locations due to their versatility and malleability. By incorporating uncertainty analysis, it becomes
possible to measure the reliability and enhance the process of decision-making. To gain a thorough
comprehension of vulnerability, it is necessary to use various interdisciplinary approaches that merge
expertise from civil engineering, seismology, and seismic risk assessment. The outcomes should be
displayed in a comprehensible style, facilitating stakeholders in making well-informed decisions.
Furthermore, the model assumptions are resilient to guarantee the dependability of evaluations,
and the approaches should be consistently enhanced and upgraded to integrate advancements in
research and technology. Researchers and professionals can identify the positive aspects, limitations,
and areas that need improvement when assessing the susceptibility of reinforced concrete (RC)-
framed buildings to earthquakes, both pre- and post-seismic events. This procedure ultimately
improves the ability of these buildings to withstand seismic risks.

4. Experimental Methods
In this review article, the significance of the experimental method in technological domains is
noteworthy among the various discussed methods. These approaches often involve substantial costs
due to the infrastructure needed for testing. One method for assessing the vulnerability of existing
reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, as proposed by Ngenge [120] involved a series of
experiments conducted on two fully built reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings. The porticos
were constructed with four levels, adhering to the architectural principles, and building techniques
prevalent in European nations between the 1950s to 1970s. One of the porticos included a masonry
enclosure, whereas the other lacked one. The lateral stresses were applied using pseudo-dynamic
tests, with accelerations of 218, 288, and 373 cm/s2. The discovered findings facilitated the assessment
of the vulnerability of uncomplicated frames and can serve as a foundation for fine-tuning
mathematical models.
The ambient vibration method, suggested by Alhamad [121], is an alternative experimental
method. This method was cost-effective in comparison to alternative experimental methods and is
appropriate for areas with minimal seismic activity. This method utilizes the building reactions to
ambient vibrations caused by an external source, which are measured using instruments, to estimate
the behavior of similar buildings when exposed to seismic forces. A common criticism within
building engineering regarding the ambient vibration method is the notably low level of vibration
generated by the excitation source, which is not representative of the building response during
earthquakes. Table 4 outlines the advantages and disadvantages of empirical, analytical, and
experimental methodologies.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

14

Table 4. The advantages and disadvantages of empirical, analytical, and experimental methods.

Met
hod Advantages Disadvantages
s
Analyze the efficacy of retrofit measures and This can be particularly costly, time-
validate analytical models under controlled consuming, and resource-intensive when
conditions. applied to scaled or enormous structures.
Uncertainty or variability may result from
Ex Capture the intricate interplay among
the impact of variables such as the test
pe structural components, materials, and loading
configuration, boundary conditions, and
ri conditions to enhance comprehension and
material characteristics on experimental
m forecast seismic behavior.
outcomes.
en
Their capacity to faithfully replicate every
tal Conduct physical evaluations of complete
facet of authentic seismic incidents is
building structures or components, obtaining
restricted, particularly when confronted
precise measurements of their seismic response
with exceedingly high loading conditions
and susceptibility.
or infrequent earthquake scenarios.
Utilizing empirical evidence and practical Inaccuracy results from a heavy reliance
knowledge, they serve the purpose of on historical data and observations, which
validating theoretical frameworks and may not comprehensively account for all
E acquiring pragmatic understandings. determinants of seismic vulnerability.
m The extent to which empirical methods
pi can be applied may be constrained to
ric They are frequently easier to operate and regions or contexts where adequate data
al require less specialized apparatus or is accessible.
knowledge. Potentially fail to sufficiently consider
uncertainties or fluctuations in building
attributes and seismic incidents.
Offer a methodical and theoretically grounded Typically, substantial computational
strategy for modeling seismic susceptibility resources and proficiency in the fields of
and facilitate in-depth research and prediction structural engineering and numerical
of building performance. modeling are necessary.
Predictions may contain inaccuracies or
A
Particularized construction parameters, seismic uncertainties due to the
na
conditions, and building types can lead to oversimplification or idealization of real-
lyt
modifications and enhancements. world conditions induced by the
ica
assumptions made in analytical models.
l
Frequently, they offer valuable understanding Precisely quantifying non-linear or
regarding the fundamental mechanisms and dynamic phenomena can pose challenges,
principles that govern seismic response, particularly when dealing with
thereby aiding in the formulation of design exceptionally intricate or irregular
standards and retrofit mitigation approaches. structures.

5. Conclusion
Experimental, analytical, and pre-earthquake seismic vulnerability assessments for reinforced
concrete RC-framed buildings require a comprehensive methodology that incorporates the
following:
Empirical or qualitative methods utilize historical data and observational studies to provide
significant insights into the performance of buildings during previous seismic occurrences.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these methods is frequently constrained by the availability and
quality of data, as well as their inability to account for future uncertainty. Quantitative or analytical
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

15

methods offer a systematic framework for forecasting seismic susceptibility using mathematical
modeling and engineering principles. Although these methods provide flexibility and scalability,
they face hurdles in terms of complexity, ambiguity, and validation using real-world data. By
combining empirical or qualitative methods with analytical or quantitative methodologies, one can
maximize their advantages while minimizing their drawbacks. Empirical data can be used to provide
information and confirm the validity of analytical models, hence improving their correctness and
dependability. On the other hand, analytical methods can enhance empirical data by revealing the
fundamental systems that control earthquake reactions and vulnerability.
Collaboration among several fields, including civil engineering, seismology, geotechnical
engineering, and seismic risk assessment, is crucial for the development of improved approaches for
assessing seismic hazards. Researchers and practitioners can enhance the assessment of seismic
vulnerability in RC-framed structures by utilizing knowledge and resources from several disciplines.
Integrating experimental, empirical, and analytical methodologies, with the help of interdisciplinary
collaboration, is crucial for improving our understanding of seismic susceptibility and strengthening
the resilience of reinforced concrete (RC)-framed buildings to seismic hazards both pre-and post- and
post-earthquakes. Ongoing research, innovation, and exchange of knowledge are crucial for
improving and optimizing these methods, which will help create a safer and more resilient built
environment worldwide.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this
paper posted on Preprints.org, Figure S1: The procedure of seismic risks and seismic vulnerability index
assessment; Figure S2: Vulnerability index functions corresponding to the damage factor (d) and peak ground
acceleration (PGA) across various vulnerability indices; Figure S3: A flowchart to estimate vulnerability index
(SVI); Table S1: The damage model of a seismic vulnerability class, as defined within the framework; Table S2:
The parameter qualification values for reinforced concrete buildings; Table S3: Case studies employing the
Vulnerability Index method, utilizing both GNDT and RISK-UE methodologies; Table S4: The advantages and
disadvantages of empirical, analytical, and experimental methods.

Author Contributions: Investigation, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology,

Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Mabor Achol Samuel.; Project administration,
Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Ergang Xiong.; Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Mahmood
Haris.; Writing – review & editing, Lekeufack Beco Chenadaire.; Writing – review & editing, Yupeng Xie.;
Writing – review & editing Yufei Han. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Supplementary data for this review article can be found at (data provided as
Supplementary Materials).
Acknowledgment: This review research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References
1. Shabani, A.; Kioumarsi, M.; & Zucconi, M. State of the Art of Simplified Analytical Methods for Seismic
Vulnerability Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. j. Eng.Struct. 2021,
239,112280,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112280.
2. Kassem, M.; Mohamed Nazri, F.; Noroozinejad, Farsangi E. Development of Seismic Vulnerability Index
Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Nonlinear Parametric Analyses. J. Mex. 2019, 6,
199–211,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2019.01.006.
3. Smolka, A.; Allmann, A.; Hollnack, D. 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. The Principle of
Risk Partnership and the Role of Insurance in Risk Mitigation.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

16

4. Laghi, V.; Palermo, M.; Trombetti, T. Seismic-Proof Buildings in Developing Countries. J. Front. Built
Environ. 2017, 3-49, https://doi. org/ 10.3389/fbuil.2017.00049.
5. Cao, XY.; Shen D.; Feng, DC. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Frame Buildings Through Externally Attached
Sub-Structures: State of the Art Review and Future Perspectives. J.Build. Eng. 2022, 57,104904,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104904.
6. Tareen, H. The 2008 Sichuan Earthquake and Its Impacts on Economy. J. Europ. Scie. 2023, 19, 49.
https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2023.v19n13p49.
7. Li, Sq.; Yu, Tl.; Chen, Y. Comparative Analysis of the Empirical Seismic Vulnerability of Typical Structures
in Multiple Intensity Zones. J. Arch. Civil Eng. LXV. 2019,168-183, https://doi.org/10.2478/ace-2019-0042.
8. Miyamoto, HK.; Gilani, AS.; Wada, A. Reconnaissance Report of the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, Damage
Survey of Buildings and Retrofit Options.
9. Shieh, S.; Deng, G. An emerging Civil Society: The impact of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake on Grass-Roots
Associations in China. J. China.Journ. 2010,65,https://doi.org/10.1086/tcj.65.25790563.
10. Robert, A.; Zhu, J.; Vergne, J. Crustal Structures in the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake from Seismologic and
Gravimetric Data. J.Tectonophys. 2010,491(1-4), 205-210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2009.11.010.
11. Otani, Y.; Ando.; Atobe, K. Comparison of Two Large Earthquakes: The 2008 Sichuan Earthquake and the
2011 East Japan Earthquake. J. Keio. Med. 2012, 61,35–39, https://doi.org/10.2302/kjm.61.35.
12. Burchfiel, BC.; Royden, LH.; van der Hilst, RD. A Geological and Geophysical Context for the Wenchuan
Earthquake of 12 May 2008, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China. J.GSA.Today. 2008, 18, 7,
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSATG18A.1.
13. Cui, P.; Chen, XQ.; Zhu, YY. The Wenchuan Earthquake (May 12, 2008), Sichuan Province, China, and
Resulting Geohazards. J. Nat. Hazar. 2011, 56,19–36, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9392-1.
14. Koshimura, S.; Hayashi, S.; Gokon, H. The Impact of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake-Tsunami Disaster and
Implications to the Reconstruction.J. Soi. Founda. 2014, 54, 560–572,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.06.002.
15. Goto, K.; Ishizawa, T.; Ebina, Y. Ten Years After the 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake and Tsunami: Geological
and Environmental Effects and Implications for Disaster Policy Changes. J.Earth.Scie.Revi. 2021,
212,103417,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103417.
16. Ozawa, S.; Nishimura, T.; Munekane, H. Preceding, Coseismic, and Postseismic Slips of the 2011 Tohoku
Earthquake, Japan. J. Geophys. Res.Solid. Earth. 2012, 117, B07404, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009120.
17. Sugawara, D.; Imamura, F.; Goto, K. The 2011 Tohoku-oki Earthquake Tsunami: Similarities and
Differences to the 869 Jogan Tsunami on the Sendai Plain. J. Pure. Appl. Geophys. 2013, 170,831–843,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-012-0460-1.
18. Mori, N.; Takahashi, T.; Hamaura, SE. Nationwide Post-Event Survey and Analysis of the 2011 Tohoku
Earthquake Tsunami. J.Costa. Eng.Journ. 2012, 54, 1250001-27, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0578563412500015.
19. Mori, N.; Takahashi, T.; Yasuda, T. Survey of 2011 Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami Inundation and Run-Up.
J.Geophys Resea.Letters. 2011, 38, L00G14, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049210.
20. Ozmen, HB.; Inel, M.; Cayci, BT. Engineering Implications of the RC Building Damages After 2011 Van
Earthquakes. J. Earthq.Struct.2013, 5,3, 297-319, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2013.5.3.297.
21. Yazgan, Ufuk. October 23rd, 2011 Van Earthquake: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report: Structural and
Geotechnical Aspects of the Damage. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE).
22. Zaré, M.; Nazmaza, B. Van, Turkey Earthquake of 23 October 2011, Mw 7.2; An Overview on Disaster
Management.
23. Elliott, JR.; Copley, AC.; Holley, R. The 2011 Mw 7.1 Van (Eastern Turkey) Earthquake. J. Geophys Res. Solid
Earth. 2013, 118,1619–1637, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50117.
24. Çelebi, E.; Aktas, M.; Çaǧlar, N. October 23, 2011, Turkey/Van-Ercis Earthquake: Structural Damages in the
Residential Buildings. J.Nat. Hazards. 2013, 65,2287–2310, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0478-9.
25. Sharma, ML.; Sinvhal, A.; Singh, Y. Damage Survey Report for Sikkim Earthquake of 18 September 2011.
J.Seismo. Resea.Letters. 2013, 84,1, 49–56,https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120013.
26. Kaushik, HB.; Dasgupta, K.; Sahoo, DR. Performance of Structures During the Sikkim Earthquake of 14
February 2006. J.Curr Sci. 2006, 91,4-25,https://doi.org/10.AUGUST 2006.
27. Ravi Kumar, M.; Hazarika, P.; Srihari Prasad, G. Tectonic Implications of the September 2011 Sikkim
Earthquake, and its Aftershocks. J.Curr.Sci. 2012, 102,788-792, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24084466.
28. Martha, TR.; Babu Govindharaj, K.; Vinod Kumar, K. Damage, and Geological Assessment of the 18
September 2011 Mw 6.9 Earthquake in Sikkim, India Using Very High-Resolution Satellite Data. J.Geoscie.
Fronti. 2015, 6,793-805,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2013.12.011.
29. Tiwari, RK.; Paudyal, H. Gorkha Earthquake (MW7.8) and Aftershock Sequence: A Fractal Approach.
J.Earthq.Scie. 2022, 35,193-204,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqs.2022.06.001.
30. Thapa, DR.; Tao, X.; Fan, F. Aftershock Analysis of the 2015 Gorkha-Dolakha (Central Nepal) Earthquake
Doublet. J. Heliyon. 2018, 4, e00678, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00678.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

17

31. Malla, S.; Karanjit, S.; Dangol, P. Seismic Performance of High-Rise Condominium Building During the
2015 Gorkha Earthquake Sequence. J.Build. 2019, 9,2, 36, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9020036.
32. Adhikari, LB.; Gautam, UP.; Koirala, BP. The Aftershock Sequence of the 2015 April 25 Gorkha-Nepal
Earthquake. J.Geophys. Journ. Interna. 2015, 203,2119–2124, https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv412.
33. Bhattarai, M.; Adhikari, LB.; Gautam, UP. Overview of the Large 25 April 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake
from Accelerometric Perspectives. J.Seismo. Resea. Letters. 2015, 86 6,1540–
1548,https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150140.
34. Badal, P.; Motra, G. Post-2015 Earthquake Vulnerability of Typical RC Buildings in Kathmandu Valley.
J.Struct. 2023, 57, 105111,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.105111.
35. Dengler, LA.; Dewey, JW. An Intensity Survey of Households Affected by the Northridge, California,
Earthquake of 17 January 1994. J.Seismo. Socie. Ameri. 1998, 88 2,441–
462,https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0880020441.
36. Wald, DJ.; Heaton, TH.; Hudnut, KW. The Slip History of the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake was
Determined from Strong-Motion, Teleseismic, GPS, and Leveling Data. J.Seismo. Socie. Ameri.86 (1B) 1996,
S49–S70,https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA08601B0S49.
37. Stewart, JP.; Bray, JD.; Seed, RB. Preliminary Report on the Principal Geotechnical Aspects of the January
17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake. 1994.
38. Yeats, RS.; Huftile, GJ. The Oak Ridge Fault System and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. J.Nat. 1995,
373,418–420, https://doi.org/10.1038/373418a0.
39. Krishnan, S.; Ji, C.; Komatitsch, D. Case Studies of Damage to Tall Steel Moment-Frame Buildings in
Southern California During Large San Andreas Earthquakes. J.Seismo. Socie. Ameri. 2006, 96, 4A,1523–1537,
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050145.
40. Miller, DK. Lessons Learned from the Northridge Earthquake. J.Eng. Struct. 1998, 20,4–6,249-
260,https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00031-X.
41. Miller, DK. Lessons Learned from the Northridge Earthquake. J. Le. Soudage. Dans. Le. Monde. 1994, 19, 9,
845, https://doi.org/10.1097/00003072-199409000-00055.
42. Anon. Lessons Learned from the Northridge Earthquake. Modern Steel Construction; 1994,34.
43. Ohmachi, T. Lessons Learned from the 1994 Northridge, California Earthquake. J.Doboku. Gakkai.
Ronbunshu. 1994, 492/W-23,1-12, https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.1994.492-1.
44. Mahin, SA. Lessons from Damage to Steel Buildings During the Northridge Earthquake. J.Eng. Struct. 1998,
20, 4–6, 261-270,https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00032-1.
45. Daniell, J.; Vervaeck, A. Damaging Earthquakes Database 2011-The Year in Review, www.earthquake-
report.com.
46. Li, SQ.; Liu, HB. Vulnerability Prediction Model of Typical Structures Considering Empirical Seismic
Damage Observation Data. J.Earthq. Eng. 2022, 20, 5161–5203, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10518-022-01395-y.
47. Li, SQ.; Chen, YS.; Liu, HB. Empirical Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Model of Typical Urban Buildings.
J.Bull.Earthq. Eng. 2023, 21,2217–2257, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01585-8.
48. Li, SQ.; Chen, YS. Analysis of the Probability Matrix Model for the Seismic Damage Vulnerability of
Empirical Structures. J.Nat. Haz. 2020, 104,705–730, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04187-2.
49. Silva, V.; Crowley, H.; Varum, H. Evaluation of Analytical Methodologies Used to Derive Vulnerability
Functions. J.Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2014, 43,2, 181-204,https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2337
50. Michel, C.; Guéguen, P.; Lestuzzi, P. Comparison between Seismic Vulnerability Models and Experimental
Dynamic Properties of Existing Buildings in France. J.Bull.Earthq. Eng. 2010, 8,1295–1307,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9185-7.
51. M, Riuscetti.; R, Carniel.; C, Cecotti. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry Buildings in a Region
of Moderate Seismicity. J.Anna. Geophys. 2021, 40,5,1405-1413,https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3877.
52. Karic, A.; Atalić, J.; Kolbitsch, A. Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Brick Masonry Buildings in Vienna.
J.Bull.Earthq. Eng.2022, 20,4117–4145, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01367-2.
53. Neves, F.; Costa, A.; Vicente, R. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Characterization of the Buildings
on Faial Island, Azores. J.Bull.Earthq. Eng. 2012, 10, 27–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9276-0.
54. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, W. Seismic Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment at the Urban Scale Using Support
Vector Machine and Geoscience Technology: A Case Study of the Lixia District in Jinan City, China.
J.Geoma.Nat. Haza. Ris. 2023, 14,1,2173663, https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2023.2173663.
55. Bozorgnia, Y.; Campbell, KW. From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, Chapter
5: Engineering Characterization of Ground Motion. CRC Press LLC. J.Earthq. Eng. 2004, 1,976,
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203486245.
56. Rosti, A.; Del Gaudio, C.; Di Ludovico, M. Empirical Vulnerability Curves for Italian Residential Buildings.
J.Bollettino. Di. Geofisica. Teorica ed. Applicata. 2020, 613,357–374, https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0311.
57. Masi, A.; Vona, M. Vulnerability Assessment of Gravity-Load Designed RC Buildings: Evaluation of
Seismic Capacity through Non-Linear Dynamic Analyses. J.Eng. Struct. 2012, 45, 257-
269,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.043.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

18

58. Bird, JF.; Bommer, JJ. Evaluating Earthquake Losses Due to Ground Failure and Identifying Their Relative
Contribution. J.Eng. Geol. 2004, 75,2,147-179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.05.006.
59. Shabani, A.; Kioumarsi, M, Zucconi, M. State of the Art of Simplified Analytical Methods for Seismic
Vulnerability Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings. J.Eng.Struct. 2021,
239,112280,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112280.
60. Kassem, M.; Mohamed Nazri, F.; Farsangi, EN. Development of a Uniform Seismic Vulnerability Index
Framework for Reinforced Concrete Building Typology. J.Build.Eng. 2022,
47,103838,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103838
61. Khan Mohammadi, M.; Eshraghi, M.; Ghafarian Mashhadinezhad, M. Post-Earthquake Seismic
Assessment of Residential Buildings following Sarpol-E Zahab (Iran) Earthquake (Mw7.3) – Part 2: Seismic
Vulnerability Curves Using Quantitative Damage Index. J.Soil.Dyn.Earthq.Eng. 2023,
173,108120,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108120.
62. Elyamani, A.; Roca, P. A Review of The Study of Historical Structures Using Integrated Investigation
Activities for Seismic Safety Assessment. Part II: Model Updating and Seismic Analysis. J.Scie. Cult. 2018,
4,1,29-51, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1048243.
63. Bernardini, C.; Maio, R.; Boschi, S. The Seismic Performance-Based Assessment of a Masonry Building
Enclosed in Aggregate in Faro (Portugal) Using a New Target Structural Unit Approach. J.Eng Struct. 2019,
191,386-400,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.04.040.
64. Maio, R.; Santos, C.; Ferreira, T M. Investigation Techniques for the Seismic Response Assessment of
Buildings Located in Historical Centers. J.Interna. Journ. Architec. Herit. 2018, 12,7-8, 1245-
1258,https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1503363.
65. Kassem, M.; Mohamed Nazri, F.; Noroozinejad Farsangi, E. The Seismic Vulnerability Assessment
Methodologies: A State-of-the-Art Review. J.Ain. Shams. Eng. Journ. 2020, 11,4,849–
864,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.04.001.
66. Calvi G, M.; Pinho, R.; Magenes, G. Development of Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies Over
the Past 30 Years. J.ISET.Earthq. Techno. 2006, 43,3,75-104, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ENG.ISET.0001.1.
67. Biglari, M.; Formisano, A.; Hashemi, BH. Empirical Fragility Curves of Engineered Steel and RC Residential
Buildings after Mw 7.3 2017 Sarpol-E-Dahab Earthquake. J.Bull.Earthq. Eng. 2021, 19,2671–2689,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01090-4.
68. Rosti, A.; Del Gaudio, C.; Di Ludovico, M. Empirical Vulnerability Curves for Italian Residential Buildings.
J.Bollettino. di Geofisica. Teorica ed. Applicata. 2020, 61,3, 357-374, https://doi.org/10.4430/bgta0311.
69. Qu, Z.; Dutu, A.; Zhong, J. Seismic Damage to Masonry-Infilled Timber Houses in the 2013 M7.0 Lushan,
China, Earthquake. J.Earthq. Spectra. 2015, 31,3, https://doi.org/10.1193/012914EQS023T.
70. Sun, B.; Spencer, BF.; Yan, P. Analysis of the Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings in the Lushan Ms7.0
Earthquake in the Sichuan Province of China. J. Earthq.Eng. 2022, 26,2,764-
792,https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2019.1692742.
71. Miano, A.; Jalayer, F.; Forte, G. Empirical Fragility Assessment Using Conditional GMPE-Based Ground
Shaking Fields: Application to Damage Data for 2016 Amatrice Earthquake. J.Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020,
18,6629–6659, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00945-6.
72. Whitman, R V.; Reed, JW.; Hong, S-T. Earthquake Damage Probability Matrices. Proceedings of the Fifth
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy.
73. Braga, F.; Dolce, M.; Liberatore, D. Southern Italy November 23, 1980 Earthquake: A Statistical Study on
Damaged Buildings and an Ensuing Review of the MSK-76 Scale: In Proceedings of the 7th European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. J.Earthq.Eng. 1982, 7,431-450, https://hdl.handle.net/11573/459303.
74. Giovinazzi, S.; Lagomarsino, S. A Macroseismic Method for the Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings
13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
75. Grünthal, G. European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique
et de Séismologie. 1998, 15.
76. Maio, R.; Estêvão, JMC.; Ferreira, TM. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Traditional Seismic Retrofitting Strategies
Integrated in the Renovation of Stone Masonry Buildings.
J.Eng.Struct.2020,206,1,110050,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct2019.110050.
77. Moradi, SM.; Nekoei-Moghadam, M.; Abbasnejad, A. Risk Analysis and Safety Assessment of Hospitals
against Disasters: A Systematic Review. J. Educa. Health. Promot. 2021, 10,412,
https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp-1670-20.
78. Cardinali, V.; Tanganelli, M.; Bento, R. A Hybrid Approach for the Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of the
Modern Residential Masonry Buildings. J.Internat. Journ. Disas. Risk. Reduct. 2022,
79,103193,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103193.
79. Leggieri, V.; Mastrodonato, G.; Uva, G. GIS Multisource Data for the Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of
Buildings at the Urban Scale. J. Build. 2022, 12,5,523,https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050523.
80. Nikolić Ž, Runjić L, Ostojić Škomrlj N. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historical Masonry Buildings
in Croatian Coastal Area,j.Appl. Scie. 11(13) (2021)5997,https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135997.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

19

81. Ferreira, TM.; Rodrigues, H.; Vicente, R. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Buildings in Urban Centers. J. Sustain. 2020, 12,5,1996,https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051996.
82. Guagenti, E.; Petrini, V. “The Case of Old Buildings: Towards a Damage-Intensity Relationship”,
Proceedings of the Fourth Italian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Milan, Italy, 1989,145-
153.
83. Garavaglia, E.; Angjeliu, G.; Cardani, G. Simplified Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of Historic Residential
Buildings with Fragility Curves. J.Procedia. Struct.Integ.2023, 44, 155-
162,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.021.
84. Zanazzi, E.; Coïsson, E.; Ferretti, D. GIS Analysis of the Seismic Damage on Historical Masonry Spires.
J.Intertnat. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Scie. 2019, XLII-2/W11,1173-1179,
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-Archives-XLII-2-W11-1173-2019.
85. Benedetti, D.; Benzoni, G.; Parisi, MA. Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Evaluation for Old Urban Nuclei.
J.Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 1988, 16,2,183-201,https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290160203.
86. GNDT (1993). “Rischio Sismico Di Edifici Pubblici, Parte I: Aspetti Metodologici”, Proceedings of CNR-
Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma, Italy.
87. Faccioli, E.; Pessina, V.; Calvi, GM. A Study on Damage Scenarios for Residential Buildings in Catania City.
J. Seismo. 1999, 3,327–343, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009856129016.
88. Faccioli, E.; Pessina, V. The Catania Project–Earthquake Damage Scenarios for a High-Risk Area in the
Mediterranean. CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti,1999.
89. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. Disaster Prevention and
Management. J.Interna. Journ. 2003, 12,4, FEMA P-154, https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm.2003.07312dab.014.
90. FEMA P-154. Third Edition, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Handbook Applied Technological Council (ATC).
91. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation. Disaster
Prevention and Management. J. An Interna. Journ. 2003, 12,4, FEMA P-
154,https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm.2003.07312dab.015.
92. FEMA P-155. FEMA-155: Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting
Documentation. Federal Emergency Management Agency,2015.
93. Guagenti, E.; Petrini, V. “The Case of Old Buildings: Towards a Damage-Intensity Relationship”,
Proceedings of the Fourth Italian National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Milan, Italy, 1989,145-
153.
94. Basset-Salom, L.; Guardiola-Víllora, A. Seismic Vulnerability and Expected Damage in “Ground Zero
Area” in El Cabanyal (Valencia). J.Internat. Journ.Architect. Herita. 2021, 15,11,1623-1640,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1710783.
95. Blyth, A.; Di Napoli, B.; Parisse, F. Assessment, and Mitigation of Seismic Risk at the Urban Scale: An
Application to the Historic City Center of Leiria, Portugal. J.Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18,2607–2634,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00795-2.
96. Salazar, LGF.; Ferreira, TM. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historic Constructions in the Downtown
of Mexico City. J.Sustaina. 2020, 123,1276,https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031276.
97. Preciado A, Ramirez-Gaytan A, Santos JC. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment and Reduction at a Territorial
Scale on Masonry and Adobe Housing by Rapid Vulnerability Indicators: The Case of Tlajomulco, Mexico.
J.Internat. Journ. Disas. Risk. Reduct. 2020, 44,101425,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101425.
98. Liu Y, So E, Li Z. Scenario-Based Seismic Vulnerability, and Hazard Analyses to Help Direct Disaster Risk
Reduction in Rural Weinan, China,j.Internat. Journ. Disas. Risk.
Reduct.48(2020)101577,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101577
99. Chieffo N, Formisano A, Miguel Ferreira T. Damage Scenario-Based Approach and Retrofitting Strategies
for Seismic Risk Mitigation: An Application to the Historical Centre of Sant’Antimo (Italy). J.Europ. Journ.
of Environ. Civil Eng. 2021, 25,11,1929-1948,https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1596164
100. Lantada, N.; Pujades, LG.; Barbat, AH. Earthquake Risk Scenarios in Urban Areas: A Review with
Applications to the Ciutat Vella District in Barcelona, Spain. J.Internat.Journ.Architect. Herita. 2018, 12,7-8,
1112-1130, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1503367.
101. Cherif S, Eddine.; Chourak, M.; Abed, M. Seismic risk in the City of Al Hoceima (North of Morocco) Using
the Vulnerability Index Method, Applied in the Risk-UE Project. J.Natur. Hazar. 2017, 85,329–347,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-25668.
102. Athmani, A.; Ferreira, TM.; Vicente, R. Seismic Risk Assessment of the Historical Urban Areas of Annaba
City, Algeria. J.Internat. Journ.Architect. Herita. 2018, 12,1,47-
62,https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1370508.
103. Khemis, A.; Athmani, A.; Ademović, N. Rapid Application of the RISK-UE LM2 Method for the Seismic
Vulnerability Analysis of the Algerian Masonry Buildings. J.Internat. Journ.Architect. Herita.
2023,https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2023.2195379.
Preprints.org (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 16 September 2024 doi:10.20944/preprints202409.1201.v1

20

104. Athmani, AE.; Gouasmia, A.; Ferreira, TM. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historical Masonry
Buildings Located in Annaba City (Algeria) Using Non-Ad-Hoc Data Survey. J.Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015,
13,2283–2307,https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9717-7.
105. Echevarría, J. J.; Monroy, M. A. AplicaciÓN Del MÉTodo De ÍNdice De Vulnerabilidad (Benedetti &
Petrini) Para EvaluaciÓN De Edificaciones De MamposterÍA No Reforzada En El Barrio Surinama.
106. Naeim, F. Earthquake Engineering—From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering.
J.Earthq. Spectra. 2005, 21,2,609-611, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1896960.
107. Garavaglia, E.; Angjeliu, G.; Cardani, G. Simplified Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of Historic Residential
Buildings with Fragility Curves. J.Procedia. Structur. Integr. 2023, 44,155-
162,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.021.
108. Ferreira, TM.; Rodrigues, H.; Vicente, R. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Buildings in Urban Centers. J.Sustaina. 2020, 12,5,1996,https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051996.
109. Zhang, Q.; Bai, L.; Liang, X. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Steel Tube Confined High-Strength
Concrete Shear Walls. J. Vibroeng. 2016, 18,4,2263–2277, http://dx.doi.org/10.21595/jve.2016.16657.
110. Bai, L.; Zhang, C.; Xiong, E. Investigations on the Shear Mechanism of Steel-Tube-Reinforced Concrete
Shear Walls with a Low Shear-Span Ratio. J. KSCE Journ. Civil Eng. 2019, 23,7,2983-2996,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1170-3.
111. Vona, M. Fragility Curves of Existing RC Buildings Based on Specific Structural Performance Levels.
J.Open. Journ. Civil Eng. 2014, 4,2 ,120-134, https://doi.org/ 10.4236/ojce.2014.42011.
112. Anvarsamarin, A.; Rofooei, FR.; Nekooei, M. Soil-Structure Interaction Effect on Fragility Curve of 3D
Models of Concrete Moment-Resisting Buildings. J.Shock. Vibrat.2018,13,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7270137.
113. Tajammolian, H.; Khoshnoudian, F.; Rezaei Rad, A. Seismic Fragility Assessment of Asymmetric Structures
Supported on TCFP Bearings Subjected to Near-field Earthquakes. J.Struct. 2018, 13, 66-
78,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.11.004.
114. Nazari, YR.; Saatcioglu, M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Concrete Shear Wall Buildings Through
Fragility Analysis. J.Build. Eng. 2017, 12,202-209,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.06.006.
115. Pekelnicky, R.; Poland, C. ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings.
SEAOC 2012 Convention Proceedings.
116. Pekelnicky, R. SEAOC 2012 Convention Proceedings ASCE 41-13: Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Proceedings of the SEAOC.
117. Farghaly, AA. Evaluation of Seismic Retrofitting Techniques Used in Old Reinforced Concrete Buildings.
J.IOSR.Eng. 2014, 4,6,01-07, https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-046401422.
118. Gondaliya, KM.; Amin, J.; bhaiya, V. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Indian Code Compliant RC
Frame Buildings. J.Vibrant. Eng. Techno. 2023, 11, 207–231, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-022-00573-1.
119. Güven, İT. Seismic Vulnerability Indices for Ground in Derince-Kocaeli (NW Turkey). J.Environ. Earth. Sci.
2022, 81, 167, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10288-x.
120. Ngenge, J. P. L.; Wafi, A. M. Assessment of Plastic Hinge in RC Structures with and without Shear Walls
Applying Pushover Analysis. J. Intern. Advan.Eng. Scie.Applicat.2020, 1,1,1-
18,https://doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v1i1.27.
121. Alhamad, O.; Eid, W. RC Problems and Solutions: A Literature Review. J. Construct. Mater. 2020, 2,1-1,
https://doi.org/10.36756/JCM.v2.1.1.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those
of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s)
disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or
products referred to in the content.