Seismic vulnerability assessment at urban scale for two typical Swiss cities using Risk-UE methodology

P. Lestuzzi (), S. Podestà, C. Luchini, A. Garofano, D. Kazantzidou-Firtinidou, C. Bozzano, P. Bischof, A. Haffter and J.-D. Rouiller
Additional contact information
P. Lestuzzi: EPFL-ENAC-IIC-IMAC
S. Podestà: University of Genoa
C. Luchini: University of Genoa
A. Garofano: EPFL-ENAC-IIC-IMAC
D. Kazantzidou-Firtinidou: CREALP
C. Bozzano: CREALP
P. Bischof: EPFL-ENAC-IIC-IMAC
A. Haffter: EPFL-ENAC-IIC-IMAC
J.-D. Rouiller: CREALP

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 2016, vol. 84, issue 1, No 15, 249-269

Abstract: Abstract This paper contains a seismic assessment at urban scale of the cities of Sion and Martigny in Switzerland. These two cities have been identified for the present research based on their importance regarding size and the characteristics of the building stock for which information was available. Moreover, microzonation investigations are available for both cities. This results in a more accurate characterization of local expected ground shaking, which is expressed through specific response spectra. Sion and Martigny represent, respectively, the capital and second largest city of the canton of Valais. This region is characterized by the highest seismicity within Switzerland. The paper focuses on the assessment using Risk-UE methodology, namely the empirical method LM1 and the mechanical method LM2. The obtained results are compared in order to assess the related accuracy. Firstly, buildings of the two cities were surveyed in order to collect main structural characteristics in a database. Building stock is typical of that region and can be found similar to many other medium-sized Swiss cities. Around half of the buildings are unreinforced masonry buildings, while several others are reinforced concrete buildings with shear walls. Results show the most vulnerable part of the cities regarding earthquake. There are significant differences in global results between LM1 and LM2 methods. The mechanical LM2 method is more pessimistic since it predicts damage grades of about one degree higher than LM1 method. However, the main drawback of the empirical LM1 method is that an a priori determination of an adequate value of the macroseismic intensity is required. Nevertheless, LM2 method may lead to a global overestimation of damage prediction.

Keywords: Risk-UE method; Seismic vulnerability assessment; Existing structures; Damage grade; Urban seismic risk; Microzonation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-016-2420-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:84:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-016-2420-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11069

DOI: 10.1007/s11069-016-2420-z

Access Statistics for this article

Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards is currently edited by Thomas Glade, Tad S. Murty and Vladimír Schenk

More articles in Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards from Springer, International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().