Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic risk analysis of urban non-engineered buildings: application to an informal settlement in Mérida, Venezuela

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seismic risk scenarios are obtained for an informal settlement in Mérida (Venezuela), which is representative of an important number of urban areas in earthquake-prone regions of the developing world. The vulnerability indices of the buildings range between 0.64 and 0.80 on a scale of 0 to 1. In an intensity IX earthquake scenario, more than 32% of the buildings would suffer damage of grade 4 (extensive) or greater. A structural analysis of the buildings in the study area shows that they are unsafe for gravity loads, and that the seismic demands exceed the strength of the constructions. Simple and comparatively inexpensive measures can improve the seismic performance of these buildings; the vulnerability can be reduced by about 51%. In an intensity IX earthquake scenario, the expected economic loss before retrofitting the buildings is US$5.36 million, with 275 fatalities; once retrofit has been carried out, the resulting figures are US$0.39 million and 10 fatalities. Retrofit would cost US$1.04 million, whereas reconstruction would cost US$19 million.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A, B, C:

Levels of contribution to vulnerability of each of the parameters in the IVIM methodology

B1, B2, B3-b, B3-c:

Prototype buildings representing the vast majority of constructions in “La Milagrosa”

C :

Number of collapsed floors for a given input intensity (for estimating the number of casualties in Eq. 5)

d :

Damage grade (Eq. 3)

F i :

Lateral force demand on the i-th floor

I :

Input intensity ranging from I (1) to XII (12)

I V :

Vulnerability index in the IVIM methodology (Eq. 1)

k :

Damage grade ranging from 0 (no damage) to 5 (destruction)

K i :

Scoring coefficient of the i-th parameter in the IVIM methodology

K iC :

Highest possible scoring coefficient of the i-th parameter in the IVIM methodology

K s :

Number of casualties for a given input intensity (Eq.  5 )

M1, M2, M3, M4, M5:

Parameters representing the number of fatalities in an earthquake scenario (Eq. 5)

R :

Response reduction factor in the code-type seismic analysis

T :

Fundamental period of a building

VI :

NVIM vulnerability index (ranging from 0 to 1)

W i :

Weighting factor of the i-th parameter in the IVIM methodology, weight of the i-th floor

μ d :

Mean damage grade (Eq. 4)

References

  • ACI Committee 318 (2002) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-02) and commentary. American Concrete Institute, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeletti P, Bellina A, Guagenti E, Moretti A, Petrini V (1988) Comparison between vulnerability assessment and damage index, some results. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo- Kyoto, Japan

  • ATC-13 (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC-40 (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Technical report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California

  • Angeletti P, Bellina A, Guagenti E, Moretti A, Petrini V (1988) Comparison between vulnerability assessment and damage index, some results. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo- Kyoto, Japan

  • Barbat AH, Yépez F, Canas JA (1996) Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthq Spectra 12(3):371–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbat AH, Mena U, Yépez F (1998) Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico en zonas urbanas. Revista internacional de métodos numéricos para cálculo y diseño en ingeniería 14(2):247–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbat AH, Lagomarsino S, Pujades LG. (2006a) Vulnerability assessment of dwelling buildings. In: Sousa C, Roca A, Goula X (eds) Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Dordrecht

  • Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2006b) Performance of buildings under earthquake in Barcelona, Spain. Compu-Aided Civil Infrastrut Eng 21:573–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbat AH, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Moreno R (2008) Seismic damage evaluation in urban areas using the capacity spectrum method: application to Barcelona. Soil Dynamics Earthq Eng 28(10–11):851–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbat AH, Carreño ML, Pujades LG, Lantada N, Cardona OD, Marulanda MC (2009) Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review with application to a pilot area. Struct Infrastrut Eng 6(1):17–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolívar (Coordinator) T (1994) Densificación y vivienda en los barrios Caraqueños. Contribución a la determinación de problemas y soluciones, Consejo Nacional de la Vivienda (CONAVI). Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano, Caracas

    Google Scholar 

  • Carreño ML, Cardona OD, Barbat AH (2007) Urban seismic risk evaluation: a holistic approach. Nat Hazards 40:137–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castillo A (2006) Seismic risk scenarios for buildings in Mérida, Venezuela. Detailed vulnerability assessment for non-engineered housing, Doctoral Dissertation, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona. Available online at: http://www.tdx.cat/TDX-0303106-104140 (last accessed November 2nd, 2010)

  • City Univ. of London (2005) Low-rise residential construction detailing to resist earthquakes, http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/earthquakes/Repairstrengthening/RSBrickMasonry.htm (last accessed November 2nd, 2010)

  • Coburn A, Spence R (1992) Earthquake protection. Wiley, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection, 2nd edn. Wiley, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dolce M, Kappos A, Masi A, Penelis G, Vona M (2006) Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies. Eng Struct 28:357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EERI/IAEE (2005) Encyclopedia of housing construction types in seismically prone areas of the world. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute—International Association of Earthquake Engineering. At website: http://www.world-housing.net/index.asp

  • ENV-1996 (1996) Design of masonry structures. European Committee for Standardization

  • FEMA/NIBS (2002) HAZUS technical manual -SR2. Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2004) A macroseismic method for the vulnerability of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver

  • Giovinazzi S (2005) The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis, PhD Dissertation, University of Florence. Italy. Electronic version online available at: http://bib1lp1.rz.tu-bs.de/docportal/content/below/index.xml

  • GNDT (2001) Scheda di Vulnerabilità Di 2° Livello (Calcestruzzo Armato) and Scheda di Vulnerabilità Di 2° Livello (Muratura), Downloaded at Gruppo Nazionale per la Difessa dai Terremoti: www.ingv.it/gndt/Strumenti/Schede/Schede_vulnerabilita/scheda_secondo_livello_mur.pdf

  • Grünthal G (1998) European Macro-seismic Scale 1998, Centre Européen de Géodynamique et Séismologie, Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie

  • IAEE (2001) Guidelines for earthquake resistant non-engineered construction. Int As Earthquake Eng

  • ISDR (International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction) (2001) Countering disasters; targeting vulnerability, information kit of the 2001 World Disaster Reduction Campaign, United Nations. At website: http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/camp2001.htm

  • Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantada N, Pujades LG, Barbat AH (2009) Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum based methods for urban seismic risk evaluation, a comparison. Nat Hazards 51:501–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantada N, Irizarry J, Barbat AH, Goula X, Roca A, Susagna T, Pujades LG (2010) Seismic hazard and risk scenarios for Barcelona, Spain, using the Risk-UE vulnerability index method. Bull Earthq Eng 8:201–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magenes G, Calvi GM (1997) In-plane seismic response of brick masonry walls. Earthq Eng Struct Dynamics 26(11):1091–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS (2003) Vulnerability of current buildings, Work-Package 4 of RISK_UE Project. European Commission, EVK4-CT-2000-00014

  • MINDUR and FUNVISIS (1998) Norma COVENIN 1756–98. Edificaciones Sismorresistentes. Dirección General Sectorial de Equipamiento del Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano, Fundación Venezolana de Investigaciones Sísmicas, Caracas

    Google Scholar 

  • Murty CVR, Brzev S, Faison H, Comartin CD, Irfanoglu A (2006) At risk: the seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infill walls. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute—International Association of Earthquake Engineering

  • Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2010) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismol 14(2):413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulay T, Priestley MNJ (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. John Wiley, NJ

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Towashiraporn P, Craig JI, Goodno BJ (2009) Seismic fragility analysis of low-rise unreinforced masonry structures. Eng Struct 31:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez O (1998) Seismological report on the M w = 6.8 strong shock of 9 July 1997 in Cariaco, Northeastern Venezuela. Bull Seismol Soci Am 31(3):874–879

    Google Scholar 

  • Pujades LG, Barbat AH, González-Drigo R, Ávila J, Lagomarsino S (2010) Seismic performance of a block of buildings representative of the typical construction in the example district in Barcelona (Spain). Bull Earthquake Eng doi:10.1007/s10518-010-9207-5 (in press, published online September 15, 2010)

  • Sidetur (2004) Losas de tabelones, Siderúrgica del Turbio S.A. http://www.sidetur.com.ve

  • Vacareanu R, Lungu D, Aldea A, Arion C (2004) Seismic scenarios handbook, RISK-UE LM1

  • Valluzzi MR, Binda L, Modena C (2005) Mechanical behavior of historic masonry structures strengthened by bed joints structural repointing. Construct Build Mater 19:63–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yépez F (1996) Methodology for risk and vulnerability assessment of structures applying simulation techniques (in Spanish), Doctoral Dissertation, Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona

Download references

Acknowledgments

The thorough revision of the paper of two anonymous referees is greatly appreciated. The thoughtful comments and suggestions of the reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. This work was supported by the Spanish Government under projects CGL-2005-04541-C03-03 and CGL2008-00869/BTE, which receive ERDF funding from the European Commission. A. Castillo received funding for the period of research spent in Barcelona from the Venezuelan National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICIT), under grant #199601500.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture, Building Technology Department, University of the Andes, Complejo La Hechicera, Edif. Arquitectura, Mérida, 5101, Venezuela

    A. Castillo

  2. Architecture Structures Department, Technical University of Catalonia, Avda. Diagonal 649, 08028, Barcelona, Spain

    F. López-Almansa

  3. Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, Technical University of Catalonia, C. Jordi Girona 1-3 (D2 Building), 08034, Barcelona, Spain

    L. G. Pujades

Authors
  1. A. Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. López-Almansa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. G. Pujades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. López-Almansa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Castillo, A., López-Almansa, F. & Pujades, L.G. Seismic risk analysis of urban non-engineered buildings: application to an informal settlement in Mérida, Venezuela. Nat Hazards 59, 891–916 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9805-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9805-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation