Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Vulnerability assessment and earthquake damage scenarios of the building

stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) using Italian and Greek methodologies
Mauro Dolce a , Andreas Kappos b, , Angelo Masi a , Gregory Penelis b , Marco Vona a
a Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Geology Applied to Engineering, University of Basilicata, Via dellAteneo Lucano, 85100 - Potenza, Italy
b Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

Received 8 November 2004; received in revised form 5 August 2005; accepted 8 August 2005
Available online 5 October 2005

Abstract

The prevailing Italian and Greek methodologies for seismic risk assessment are used herein to construct loss scenarios for the building stock
of a small city (Potenza, Southern Italy). The inventory of buildings of interest is obtained from a survey carried out after the 1990 earthquake that
struck Potenza and its hinterland, subsequently updated in 1999. About 12,000 buildings were surveyed in Potenza, using the Italian first level
survey form for damage and vulnerability evaluation. In the Italian methodology, a hybrid technique is set up to evaluate vulnerability, combining
an analysis of building typologies with expert judgement. The probabilistic distribution of damage is evaluated by assigning Damage Probability
Matrices (DPMs) from the literature. Besides the vulnerability classes A, B and C of the MSK-scale, the class D of the anti-seismic buildings
is considered and the relevant DPM is defined. Damage and economic loss scenarios relevant to dwelling buildings are constructed for three
reference earthquakes. Next, the hybrid methodology for seismic vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete (R/C) and masonry buildings
developed at the University of Thessaloniki (Greece) is applied to the same building stock. The methodology combines available statistical data of
damage collected after past earthquakes with a systematic nonlinear analysis of various model buildings, representative of several vulnerability
classes. Similarities, as well as discrepancies, between the two methods are discussed in the light of the obtained results, and possible sources for
the discrepancies are suggested.
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Vulnerability; Seismic risk; Assessment; Damage scenario; Nonlinear analysis; Buildings; Concrete; Masonry

1. Introduction provide a complete picture of what happens when such an

The last decade or so has witnessed a growing interest in
assessing the seismic vulnerability of European cities and the
associated risk; not surprisingly this interest was stronger in
Southern Europe where the largest part of the seismic activity
in this continent takes place. As a result, a fair number of
earthquake damage (loss) scenario studies appeared over this
period [4,5,10,14,15,19,25] wherein some of the most advanced
techniques have been applied to a number of European cities (or
parts thereof). Whereas risk analysis refers to all the possible
arriving earthquakes, estimating the probability of losses over
a specified period of time, scenario studies refer to a given
earthquake (maximum credible, standard design, frequent) and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 31 995 743; fax: +30 31 995 614.
E-mail addresses: dm142ing@smtp.unibas.it (M. Dolce),
ajkap@civil.auth.gr (A. Kappos).
earthquake occurs. Combined with GIS technology they are
also powerful tools to check and visualise the effects of any
risk mitigation strategy.
Earthquake damage scenarios can be referred to different
kinds of damage and losses. Consequently, preparing a
scenario requires contributions from a wide range of topics
and disciplines, spanning from Seismology and Geology to
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, from Urban Planning
and Transport Engineering to Social and Economical Sciences.
However, it often happens that each specialist interacts very
little (if at all) with the other specialists. Furthermore, each
country has its own specifics for the numerous aspects involved
by seismic problems, such as: characteristics of structures,
seismological features of the territories, socio-economical
conditions, etc. Even in Europe, where common cultural
roots and similar characteristics of structures could make the
exchanges easier and very fruitful, it is difficult to find a

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 

c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.08.009
358 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
common language among researchers from different countries,
to exchange data and, finally, to set up common approaches to
risk mitigation.
To this purpose, earthquake damage scenarios relevant to the
case study of Potenza, a small city in Southern Italy, have been
prepared using different methodologies that can be considered
as the prevailing ones utilised in Italy and in Greece. The main
objectives of this study, part of which was developed in the
framework of the EU-funded ENSeRVES Project [16], are:
to compare vulnerability and damage assessment procedures
for residential buildings in the two countries;
to identify similarities and differences in databases on
damage from past earthquakes;
to suggest possible improvements in vulnerability assess-
ment procedures for buildings through the integration of dif-
ferent approaches (statistical, mechanical, expert-heuristic,
etc.).
It is pointed out here that in the remaining of this paper
reference to the Italian and Greek methodologies for
vulnerability assessment, should by no means be construed
as implying that these are the only methods used in either
country; other methods have also been suggested and used,
particularly in Italy. Having said this, the methodology based
on damage probability matrices is by far the most commonly
used in scenario studies, both in Southern Europe and in most
of the remaining world, while the particular DPMs used herein
are certainly the ones predominantly used in either country.
Earthquake damage scenarios relevant only to building
damage and the associated economic losses are presented in this
paper. As is typical in the preparation of earthquake damage
scenarios [13], they are based on information regarding:
(i) the characteristics of ground shaking in the area under
consideration, i.e. the consideration of a maximum probable or
maximum credible earthquake based on the results of seismic
hazard studies; (ii) the description of the seismic vulnerability
of the buildings of interest, i.e. the probability of damage
to given building types for a given ground shaking; (iii)
the inventory of the buildings of interest, i.e. location and
characteristics of buildings.
2. Typological analysis of the building stock
The preparation of the earthquake damage scenarios is based
on a comprehensive inventory of buildings, obtained from a
survey carried out after the 1990 earthquake that struck Potenza
and its hinterland, whose local magnitude was Ml = 5.2 [3].
The maximum intensity felt in nearby villages was VII on
the MCS scale.1 Following the earthquake, a survey in 41
1 The MCS scale is a 12-point scale still in use in Italy, mainly by
seismologists. Set up by Mercalli, Cancani and Sieberg in 1912, it is rather
different from the MM and EMS scales. The following relationship can be
established among MCS and EMS (or MSK) values [27]:
IMCS = 1.17 IEMS 0.76
hence, for example VII on the EMS is equivalent to VIIVIII on the MCS.
villages was carried out by local engineers and architects,
under the co-ordination of the Regione Basilicata, with the
co-operation of the Civil Protection Department and the
Italian National Group for the Protection against Earthquakes
(GNDT). 21 villages, where intensity was estimated between
VI and VII (MCS) in the post-event macroseismic survey, were
fully surveyed. The surveyors used the first level GNDT90
inspection form,2 for damage and vulnerability evaluation.
About 50,000 buildings were surveyed, 12,000 of which were in
Potenza. In addition to damage data, geometrical and qualitative
characteristics were collected, such as height, configuration
in plan and elevation, age, type of vertical and horizontal
structures, type of foundation and of roof, retrofitting (if any),
state of preservation, etc. [14].
In 1999 that inventory was updated with data relevant to
R/C buildings built after 1990. The update was carried out
by the DiSGG of the University of Basilicata, on the basis
of the technical documentation provided by the Municipality
of Potenza. In this case too, the data were collected using
the first level GNDT90 inspection form. About 300 buildings
were surveyed, with about 1500,000 m3 total volume. The
smallest R/C structures, mainly situated in rural zones, were
not considered.
More details on the characteristics of the building stock
obtained from the two surveys can be found in Dolce et al. [14,
17], where the database obtained merging the two surveys has
been examined to obtain a complete description of the Potenza
building stock.
The property status, as well the use, of buildings is mostly
private (about 95%), only a small percentage of buildings being
public property. Surprisingly high percentage (about 50%) of
buildings used for production activities, as classified in the 1990
survey, was noted [14]. What really happens, in many cases,
is that they are very small structures separated from the main
building and used as agricultural warehouses or garages.
In this paper, only the largest (private and public) buildings
are considered, leaving out the smallest rural masonry
structures, thus resulting in an inventory of about 9000
buildings.
The composition of the building stock is very different,
depending on whether the number or the volume of the
buildings is considered. In terms of number of buildings, the
sample is mostly made of masonry (62%) rather than R/C
structures (36%). On the contrary, in terms of volume there is a
strong prevalence of R/C (66%) over masonry structures (33%).
It has to be noted that a very limited number of steel and mixed
(masonry and R/C) buildings is present in the building stock
of Potenza. With regard to the structural type, most masonry
buildings have vertical load bearing elements made up of not
hewn (rubble stone) masonry, called sacco, whereas most
R/C buildings are frame structures.
2 The first level GNDT90 inspection form is a vulnerability and damage
survey tool widely used in Italy. The form contains data on building
identification, dimensions, age, conditions, vertical and horizontal structural
type and roof type, damage to structural and non-structural elements.
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371 359

Considering the distribution of buildings according to their

height, more than 65% of the masonry buildings have less than
three stories (typical in Southern Italy, as well as in Greece).
On the contrary, R/C buildings are almost uniformly distributed
between one and nine stories, with just a peak for the three-
storey category, which accounts for about 30% of the entire R/C
group.
As regards the distribution of buildings according to the
period of construction, old masonry buildings (pre-60s70s)
prevail over new ones, while post-war R/C buildings account
for almost 100% of the R/C population. It has to be noted that,
because after the 1980 Irpinia Earthquake the area of Potenza
was classified as a seismic zone, all buildings designed after
1980 should be earthquake resistant. Furthermore, after the
1980 earthquake many buildings (mostly masonry ones) have Fig. 1. Distribution of ERD levels in terms of number of buildings.
been retrofitted.
Some remarks can be made by considering masonry and
R/C structures separately, and by categorising them according
to the period of construction, the retrofit (if any), and the
position of buildings in urban or rural zone. Masonry buildings
are mainly present in rural zones (about 75% of the total of
masonry buildings), whereas R/C buildings are more numerous
in urban zones, with a significant presence also in the historical
centre. This distribution of building types in the territory of
Potenza is mainly due to political decisions on the town-
planning development, taken after the Second World War. In
urban zones, new buildings, often public housing, were always
constructed in R/C. Moreover, between 1945 and 1970, many
old masonry buildings in the historical centre were demolished
and replaced by new R/C buildings. On the contrary, in rural
Fig. 2. Distribution of ERD levels in terms of volume of buildings.
zones, masonry was widely used until the 80s.
Finally, a relatively low percentage of earthquake-resistant
data, thus preventing the use of a direct typological technique
(retrofitted and/or post-1980) buildings are present in the
for vulnerability evaluation. For this reason, the vulnerability
Potenza stock. In terms of number of buildings, seismic
evaluation is made by using the Damage Probability Matrices
resistant buildings are only 35% of the total (27% for masonry,
(DPMs) set up by Braga, Dolce and Liberatore after the
54% for R/C). In terms of volume of buildings, seismic resistant
1980 Southern Italy earthquake [7,8]. Besides the vulnerability
buildings are 44% of the total. However, it should be noted
classes A, B and C of the MSK-scale, class D of the
that the actual situation is somewhat better, because the data
EMS98 scale, pertinent to earthquake-resistant buildings, has
regarding the retrofit interventions go back to 1990, whereas
been considered and the relevant DPM has been defined.
in the 90s other buildings, mostly masonry structures, were
Descriptions of vulnerability classes A, B, C and D are provided
retrofitted.
The distribution of the earthquake resistant design (ERD) in [6,17,18]. The general idea is that class A corresponds to the
levels in the building stock is shown in Figs. 1 and 2 (in terms highest vulnerability (e.g. rubble stone or adobe buildings), and
of number and volume of buildings, respectively). D to low vulnerability (e.g. R/C frame or wall systems, with
moderate level of seismic design); EMS also includes classes
3. Earthquake damage scenarios based on the Italian E and F, corresponding to modern R/C or steel earthquake
methodology resistant structures.
Based on an accurate typological analysis of the building
The Italian methodology [16] consists of four main steps: (i) stock, each building is assigned to one of the four considered
analysis of building typology, (ii) recognition of vulnerability vulnerability classes, taking into account the vertical and
classes, (iii) selection of reference earthquakes, (iv) preparation horizontal structural types, the eventual retrofitting, and the
of earthquake damage scenarios. period of construction (before or after the introduction of
The characteristics of the entire building stock have been seismic design in the area).
analysed in previous works by Dolce et al. [14,15,17], where With regard to the selection of reference earthquakes, three
the high number of different building types was highlighted. deterministic events have been considered, having intensity
The analyses showed poor correlation between structural types IMSK equal to VI, VII and VIII. They correspond to events
and damage, mainly because of the low reliability of damage expected in Potenza having return period ranging from 50 yr
360 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
Fig. 3. Distribution of classes of vulnerability of building stock.
(probable event) to over 475 yr (strong event), as given in
the New seismic hazard maps of the Italian territory [1].
Finally, the preparation of earthquake damage scenarios
relevant to the three reference intensities is made, both in terms
of damage and of economic losses. The influence of site effects,
discussed in detail elsewhere by Dolce et al. [15,17], is not
considered herein.
3.1. Seismic vulnerability assessment and damage scenarios
The definition of vulnerability classes has been related to
the Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs) set up after the
1980 Southern Italy earthquake [7,8]. However, the significant
evolution of the building stock in the last 20 years, mainly
due to the post-1980 seismic classification, had to be taken
into account. For this reason, a further class with lower
vulnerability (class D), relevant to earthquake-resistant or
retrofitted buildings, was derived from the above-mentioned
DPMs accounting for the EMS98 specifications. More details
of this procedure are reported by Dolce et al. [17].
After setting up the DPMs, the next step has been the
assignment of a building type to each building in the stock
under consideration. By combining the vertical and horizontal
structural types, each building was classified into one of the
four vulnerability classes (A to D). When a variation of the
structural characteristics along the height was observed, the
most vulnerable vertical and/or horizontal types have been
considered. With regard to age and the eventual retrofitting,
both seismic-resistant (after 1980) and retrofitted buildings
(both R/C and masonry buildings) were assigned to the
lower class of vulnerability. Class C has been assigned to
R/C buildings designed and constructed before 1980. These
assumptions can underestimate, in some cases, the actual
vulnerability of retrofitted masonry buildings (assigned to class
D), particularly when they had high vulnerability (A) before
the retrofitting. Moreover, as regards pre-1980 R/C buildings
(assigned to class C), recent studies by Masi [28] show that
their vulnerability class could be in the range between B and D,
depending on some global or local characteristics (e.g. infilled
or not infilled frames, presence of a soft story, deformed or
smooth reinforcement bars). Further work to better evaluate the
actual vulnerability of these buildings is needed and is currently
in progress.
The statistical distributions of the vulnerability classes of all
buildings are shown in Fig. 3. The building stock exhibits a low
overall vulnerability, as classes C and D account for about 69%
in terms of number of buildings and about 87% in terms of
volume.
Comparisons between the damage distributions caused by
the three selected earthquake intensities are shown in Figs. 4
and 5 (in terms of number of buildings and volume of
buildings, respectively). Damage level is defined according to
the specifications of the EMS98 scale, wherein five levels of
damage, beyond the null (zero) damage, are assumed (Table 1).
Fig. 4 shows that, for the seismic event with 50 yr return
period (IMSK = VI) a few buildings, about 11%, have damage
level greater than 1. For the seismic event with IMSK = VII
the number of partially or totally collapsed buildings (L d 4)
is 1.9%, while it increases up to 12.4%, when considering
IMSK = VIII.
By considering the damage distribution in terms of building
volume (Fig. 5), further reductions in the percentages relevant
to the higher damage levels can be observed. This is a
consequence of the prevalence of R/C buildings (assigned
to class C or D) when considering the distribution in terms
of volume: R/C buildings have average volume larger than
masonry buildings (3650 m3 as opposed to 670 m3 ).
To provide a global evaluation of the damage due to a given
the mean damage index DImed [17] is evaluated as
intensity,

DImed = i (L d,i fi )/n, where L d,i is a generic damage level
(L d,i = 15) and fi is the relevant frequency. The summation
is carried out for n = 5, i.e. zero damage level is not included.
DImed varies between 0 and 1, where DImed = 0 means total
absence of damage and DImed = 1 means total destruction. The
values of DImed , for the three considered seismic intensities, are
reported in Table 2.
3.2. Economic loss scenarios
In Masi et al. [29] a methodology for the evaluation of eco-
nomic losses due to damage in the building stock is presented.
This methodology is firstly based on an estimation of the re-
pair cost conditional upon the suffered damage level and the
building type [11]. The estimation of the repair cost was carried
out using the data collected with the GNDT-SSN usability sur-
vey form after the Umbria-Marche 1997 and the Pollino 1998
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371 361

Fig. 4. Damage distribution relevant to the reference earthquakes (in terms of number of buildings).

Fig. 5. Damage distribution relevant to the reference earthquakes (in terms of volume of buildings).

Table 1
Definition of damage levels

Damage level L d Definition Notes

0 No damage
1 Slight damage No SD, slight N-SD
2 Moderate damage Slight SD, moderate N-SD
3 Substantial to heavy damage Moderate SD, heavy N-SD
4 Very heavy damage Heavy SD, very heavy N-SD
5 Destruction Very heavy SD
SD = Structural Damage; N-SD = Non-Structural Damage.

earthquakes, thus obtaining a database with more than 50,000 Table 2

buildings. Based on the information drawn from this form, typi- Values of the mean damage index relevant to the reference earthquakes
cal repair interventions were selected, their extent and cost were IMSK = VI VII VIII
computed, and the global repair costs were evaluated. DImed (number of buildings) 0.10 0.18 0.35
In Di Pasquale and Goretti [12] curves of repair costs as a DImed (volume) 0.07 0.14 0.29
function of damage level and building vulnerability class are
proposed; an economic damage index Cr,r (relative repair cost)
was evaluated, equal to the ratio of cost of repair to cost of is dependent only on damage level, whereas the dependency
replacement of the building. These curves indicate that Cr,r on the building vulnerability class, i.e. on the type of the
362 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371

Table 3
Statistical values of the relative repair cost relevant to the damage levels

Ld 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.005 0.035 0.145 0.305 0.800 0.950
0.035 0.043 0.056 0.111 0.113 0.060
q 0.015 0.604 5.587 4.942 9.224 11.585
r 3.046 16.662 32.946 11.262 2.306 0.610

Fig. 8. Values of the total relative repair costs of the entire building stock
(T Cr,r ) relevant to the reference earthquakes.

the probabilities provided in Fig. 7, the total probability for

each considered value of repair cost Cr,r > 0, given a seismic
intensity I , can be obtained as follows:
Prob[Cr,r | I ]
5  D
= Prob L d [Cr,r | L d ] ProbV [L d | V, I ] (1)
Fig. 6. Standard beta density function PDF of the relative repair cost. L d =1 V =A

where the five L d values larger than 0 (15) and the four
vulnerability classes V (A, B, C, D) have been considered.
The probability associated with Cr,r = 0, can be computed as
follows:
Prob[Cr,r = 0 | I ] = ProbV [L d = 0 | V, I ]
5  D
+ ProbL d [Cr,r | L d ] ProbV [L d | V, I ]. (2)
L d =1 V =A

Fig. 7. Cumulative density function CDF of the relative repair cost.
structural system, can be neglected. As Cr,r is a random variable
whose values are bounded between 0 and 1, the curves of the
relative repair cost against the damage level (referred to the
mean damage of the vertical structures) can be described by
a standard beta distribution. The mean values and standard
deviations of the distributions [21] are reported in Table 3,
together with the relevant values of the parameters q and r (of
the beta-distribution) obtained in closed form in [29].
Figs. 6 and 7 show, respectively, the standard beta
probability density function (PDF) and the cumulative density
function (CDF) of the relative repair cost, relevant to the
damage levels L d = 15. It has to be noted that each value of
Cr,r can result from more values of the damage level L d (see for
example the vertical continuous line in Fig. 7 for Cr,r = 0.1).
On the other hand, the DPMs give the probability to observe
the different damage levels L d for each vulnerability class V ,
given a seismic intensity I . Connecting these probabilities to
Eqs. (1) and (2) take into account that Cr,r is not dependent
on the vulnerability class of the building.
If an inventory of buildings is available, the total repair cost
T Cr,r caused by a given seismic event, as a fraction of the
total cost of replacement of the entire building stock, can be
computed.
This procedure has been applied to the building stock of
Potenza, thus obtaining the T Cr,r values reported in Fig. 8,
where T Cr,r is computed considering the distribution of the
vulnerability classes both in terms of building number (black
bars) and of building area (grey bars). It is worth noting that,
in this case, reference to the area of buildings instead of their
volume has been made, as the costs (replacement, repair) are
typically provided in terms of unit area.
When the computations are based on the number of
buildings, the total value of the relative repair cost T Cr,r ranges
from 2.7% (IMSK = VI) to 18.1% (IMSK = VIII) of the
replacement cost of the entire building stock. On the other hand,
more correct values of T Cr,r can be computed considering the
building area, equal to 1.8%, 4.9% and 14.3%, for IMSK =
VI, VII and VIII, respectively. Due to the characteristics of
the Potenza building stock, where a high percentage of small
masonry buildings is present, T Cr,r values are overestimated
when computed according to the number of buildings.
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
If the values of the total repair costs T Cr in Me (million
of euro) are considered, assuming an average replacement cost
equal to e700/m2 (approx. $840/m2) and a total area of the
Potenza building stock equal to about 4500,000 m2 , they are
found to be rather low, thus confirming the low vulnerability of
the Potenza building stock. Considering the building area, the
maximum computed value of T Cr is 458 Me (approx. 550 M$)
equal to 0.035% of the Italian Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Computing the GDP only for Potenza (which has about 70,000
inhabitants), T Cr is equal to 35% of the local GDP, i.e. about
two times the annual total budget of Potenza municipality.
4. Earthquake damage scenarios based on the Greek
methodology
4.1. Overview of the methodology
The Greek version of the hybrid approach to seismic
vulnerability has been developed by Kappos et al. [24,26]
in recognition of the fact that reliable statistical data for
seismic damage are quite limited and typically correspond
to a very small number of intensities. Within a number of
risk studies, a recent one being the Volos project [25], it was
realised that damage data collected from Greek earthquakes
(Kalamata 1986, Pirgos 1993, Patras 1993, Aegion 1995),
although valuable, are generally not in a form such that
economic damage statistics can be assessed for a representative
set of buildings. What usually happens is that the collected
data concerns only buildings that have been inspected for
a second time (i.e. after the initial post-earthquake rapid
screening) and/or wherein some post-earthquake intervention
(repair, strengthening, etc.) has taken place, while the extent
of the geographical area (number of municipalities), hence
the total building stock to which the data refers, is often
unclear. Moreover, even the good quality data for Thessaloniki
correspond to a single intensity (MSK) estimated at about 7
(estimates for the considered area varied from 6.5 to 7.0).
It was then clear that either data from abroad should be
imported, or the available data should be augmented using
either expert judgement (see ATC 1985 [2]) or an analytical
(mechanical) approach. The Greek hybrid methodology
was based on a combination of the empirical/statistical and the
analytical/mechanical approach.
The basics of the mechanical approach to vulnerability
assessment and the procedure to apply it for deriving
damage probability matrices is described in [23,25]. In these
publications the emphasis is on methodological aspects (such
as the crucial model correlating structural to economic damage
index), while application of the method to deriving damage
and loss scenarios is of essentially pilot character. Moreover,
the analytical component of the method includes inelastic
time-history analysis of the response to a number of input
motions, and is also restricted to R/C buildings. An expanded
version of the method for application in an actual regional loss
assessment study (Volos project) was recently presented by
Kappos et al. [25]. DPMs for masonry buildings (brick or stone
masonry) were recently derived by Penelis et al. [30] using a
363
purely empirical approach and statistical data from three Greek
earthquakes, and some first comparisons with Italian DPMs
were made.
4.1.1. Method based on time-history analysis
The basic steps in the hybrid methodology for deriving
damage probability matrices (DPMs) based on statistical
data and inelastic time-history analysis of appropriate models
[22,26] are the following:
Construct the columns (corresponding to specific earthquake
intensities) of each DPM for which statistical data from
past earthquakes are available, using the standard empirical
procedure. The direct use of data in terms of repair to
replacement cost ratios is recommended (for loss assessment),
while quantitative descriptions of the physical damage states,
with subsequent correlation with cost, is also an option. Both
procedures inherently involve large scatter, as also discussed in
the following.
Construct the remaining parts of the DPM on the basis of the
results of inelastic time-history analysis of models simulating
as closely as practicable the behaviour of each building class,
and subjected to input motions that have been derived for
the site under consideration, also taking local soil conditions
into account. As dynamic analysis typically provides structural
response quantities (such as ductility factors, displacements
etc.) appropriate models for correlating structural parameters
to direct loss (expressed in terms of cost of repair) are required
at the post-processing stage. Such models were proposed by
Kappos et al. [26] for correlating the economic damage index
for R/C members to the ductility demand in each critical region,
and the economic damage index for masonry infill panels to the
interstorey drift.
If intensities higher than 10 have to be considered, expert
judgement should be used to construct the corresponding
columns of the DPM, as empirical data are extremely scarce,
while analytical data tend to be unreliable. It is noted that these
intensities are typically of little practical use in developing loss
scenarios; they are actually ignored in the Italian DPMs [17].
The selection of input motions for carrying out the time-
history analysis has to be done in a meaningful way, consistent
with the overall approach used. If the DPMs are to be
developed in terms of intensity (traditional approach), the
input motions used for each set of analyses have to correspond
to a particular intensity. Clearly the options are numerous and,
in practical terms, the choice largely depends on the scope of
the project. Whenever the problem is tackled in the framework
of microzonation and/or scenario studies, typically a scenario
earthquake input motion at bedrock is first estimated and then
it is filtered through the various soil layers in each zone of the
area studied, to arrive at surface motions that can be used for
the time-history analysis. In practice the analyst (dealing with
the vulnerability analysis) usually has at his/her disposal a set of
motions corresponding to one or two scenarios. To avoid the use
of complicated and cumbersome procedures, one then has to
make recourse to the convenient, albeit simplistic, PGA scaling
of the surface motions, which inevitably leads to the empirical
364 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
Fig. 9. Pushover curves for one-, two- and three-storey masonry buildings.
PGAintensity correlations, which are associated with a large
scatter.
Clearly, the alternative (modern) approach of developing
DPMs (and/or fragility curves) in terms of spectral quantities
can lead to a more convenient selection of the input motions;
however, the problem then arises that for the hybrid method
to be used, empirical data in terms of spectral quantities are
necessary (first step of the method), which are hardly available
to date, hence recourse to empirical correlations between
intensity and spectral quantities (or PGA) becomes mandatory
again.
4.1.2. Method based on pushover analysis
The main advantage of this procedure compared to time-
history analysis is that there is no need to select an appropriate
number and type of input motions, and no need to consider
hysteretic models for the members; most other issues and
problems are similar in both static and dynamic inelastic
analysis. On the other hand, the definition of earthquake
input in pushover analysis is clearly a problem to which a
number of different solutions have been suggested. Pushover
analysis is seen by the authors mainly as a viable procedure
to tackle the assessment of structures for which time-history
analysis is cumbersome, if at all feasible, such as masonry
buildings in general, and R/C buildings for which a spatial
(3D) model is necessary for their assessment. It is noted,
though, that application of pushover analysis to irregular and/or
higher-mode-sensitive structures is still the subject of ongoing
research.
The cornerstone of this assessment procedure is the
construction of a representative pushover curve for each of the
building classes considered. If a refined scheme, such as that
in HAZUS [20] is envisaged, a substantial number of curves
are required, and feasible but realistic inelastic models are
clearly preferred. The Greek group has investigated a number
of alternative models for elastic as well as inelastic masonry
buildings subjected to horizontal loading and compared results
with available experimental evidence [23]. It appears that a
model based on equivalent frame discretization and the familiar
concept of idealized plastic hinges in the critical regions of piers
and spandrels is the appropriate choice whenever the expected
type of failure and/or damage is of the in-plane type.
For the purposes of vulnerability assessment a total
of 36 typical masonry building configurations have been
modelled [31], with the following main parameters:
Number of storeys (one to three)
Materials (low/high quality, shear strength 100 and 200 kPa,
respectively)
Dimension of piers (large/small, depending on openings
size)
Dimension of spandrels (large/small)
The pushover curves (normalised base shear vs. top storey
drift) for single-storey, two-storey, and three-storey buildings,
are shown in Fig. 9, in their bilinearized form (which is useful
when seismic demand is calculated from response spectra).
As expected, normalised yield strength V /W (where V is the
base shear and W the weight of the structure) increases as
the number of storeys decreases, but the corresponding yield
displacement decreases. It is interesting to note that the capacity
curves suggested in HAZUS for typical URM buildings (a
single-storey and a three-storey one), are elastoplastic with
maximum strengths V /W of 0.20 and 0.17, respectively,
which are not very different (about 30%) from those
in Fig. 10, but corresponding ultimate displacements of
1.8% and 0.6%, which are significantly larger than those
predicted by Penelis et al., and also in tests of large-scale URM
specimens [9]. On the other hand, one should take into account
that HAZUS adopts very large ultimate displacements with
a view to defining damage states corresponding to partial
collapse, not simply exceedance of the deformation capacity of
a few members.
For the development of fragility curves using the pushover
analysis based procedure, the seismic demand (to be compared
with the capacity of the structure) has to be expressed in terms
of an inelastic response spectrum (or a corresponding elastic
one for equivalent damping >5%). The degree of damage in
masonry buildings is then defined by comparing these demands
with the capacity curve for each building type and applying the
criteria shown in Table 4, wherein the damage index varies from
0% to 100% and in this study is taken equal to the loss index,
i.e. (repair cost)/(replacement cost). Note that damage states are
defined in terms of top storey drift (top displacement divided by
total height), which is compared with appropriate fractions of
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371 365

Fig. 10. Damage scenarios for Potenza, using the Italian and Greek methodologies (in terms of number of buildings).

the drift at yield ( y ) and at failure (u ), rather than with fixed the information on the (generic) structure is available in terms
values of interstorey drift (as done in most previous studies). of a global pushover curve, rather than as a series of storey shear
This is much better suited to the procedure used herein, since vs. storey drift curves; obviously, depending on the building
366 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
Table 4
Definition of damage states in masonry buildings
Damage state Range of damage index Definition
0 0 No damage
1 >05 Slight damage
2 >520 Moderate damage
3 >2050 Substantial to heavy damage
4 >5095 Very heavy damage
5 >95100 Destruction
height and failure mechanism, y and u values vary for each
building type (see Fig. 9).
4.2. Application of the methodology to the Potenza building
stock
4.2.1. Assumptions and input data
The starting point of the study was the database of 9281
buildings (private and public buildings in Potenza) described
in Section 2. The approach adopted by the Italian group was
to assign each building, according to the combination of its
horizontal and vertical system, to one of the vulnerability
classes (A to D), for which empirical DPMs were already
available for Italy [7,8] or were derived specifically for this
study (for class D), by interpreting in a quantitative way
the qualitative (linguistic) description given in the EMS
table [18].
The Potenza inventory was processed by the Greek group
with a view to setting up classes for which Greek DPMs and
fragility curves were already available. It is emphasised that
it was not within the scope of this exercise to develop new
DPMs for the Italian buildings using the hybrid methodology
described in Section 4.1.
The building stock in Potenza consists of the following
categories, using the construction material of the main
structural system as the criterion:
R/C: 72.8% of volume (36.3% of number of buildings)
URM: 26.5% of volume (62.1% of number of buildings)
Other (steel): 0.6% of volume (1.3% of number of buildings)
As pointed out earlier, it is important to distinguish between
the description of the stock in terms of built volume, in which
case R/C construction clearly dominates, or in terms of number
of buildings, in which case masonry buildings are by far the
most numerous. In either case, though, it is clear that URM
construction is an important component of the existing stock.
It is noted that, as a rule, this is not the case in Greek
cities (as opposed to villages), where post-war structures are
predominantly built in R/C and (at least in terms of volume)
clearly dominate the entire stock (see the Volos case in [25]).
As a result of this situation, differentiation in the vulnerability
of different R/C building types has long been a major concern
in Greece. On the other hand, work on the vulnerability of
masonry buildings has been considerably less so far, and
has focussed more on the assessment of specific important
and/or monumental structures, rather than on ordinary masonry
buildings. Recent work by the Greek group on such buildings
Top storey drift
< 0.7y
0.7 y < < 0.7 y + 5(0.9u 0.7 y )/100
0.7 y + (5(0.9u 0.7 y ))/100 < < 0.7 y + (20(0.9u 0.7 y ))/100
0.7 y + (20(0.9u 0.7 y ))/100 < < 0.7 y + (50(0.9u 0.7 y ))/100
0.7 y + (50(0.9u 0.7 y ))/100 < < 0.7 y + (100(0.9u 0.7 y ))/100
> u
was summarized in the previous section of this paper and is
presented in more detail elsewhere [30,31].
Based on the foregoing considerations, R/C buildings in
Potenza were classified into one of the categories shown in
Table 5. The information from the database with respect to R/C
structural systems was either R/C walls or R/C frames.
As in the city studied the former class was deemed generally
closer to a dual system than to a pure wall system, it was
classified as RC1 (dual system, i.e. combination of frames and
R/C walls), rather than RC3 (wall system). R/C frames were
assigned to the RC2 class (infilled frames, i.e. R/C frames with
masonry walls used as cladding and/or partitions). Depending
on whether the building was pre-1980 or post-1980, it was sub-
classified as I or E, respectively (Inferior or Enhanced seismic
design); the implicit assumption is that post-1980 buildings
in Italy have similar performance to post-1985 buildings in
Greece (1985 is the year of the first major revision of the
Greek seismic code). Finally, according to its height, each
R/C building was classified as L (one to three storeys), M
(four to seven storeys), or H (eight or more storeys). It is
seen from Table 5 that, in terms of volume, the most common
R/C building types in Potenza are RC2I-M and RC2I-H
(medium-rise and high-rise frame systems, with inferior
seismic design).
For masonry buildings, the recently derived DPMs [30,31]
based on a combination of statistical damage data from
the Thessaloniki 1978 and Aegion 1995 earthquakes, and
nonlinear analyses of typical building configurations (as
described in Section 4.1 of this paper) were used. Two classes
are distinguished with regard to type of masonry, i.e. stone
masonry SM (in Greece this typically corresponds to pre-1940
construction) and brick masonry BM (post-war construction,
typically with R/C floors). Within each class, three different
DPMs are set up, based on the height range: L (one or two
storeys), M (three or four storeys), and H (five or more storeys).
Note that the height classification is different from that used
in R/C construction, and that the two DPMs for class H
are tentative ones (mainly based on ATC-13 data), since tall
masonry buildings are extremely rare in Greece and data on
their seismic damage is not available. In the absence of more
detailed information, masonry buildings reported in the Potenza
database as good quality masonry and/or with R/C floors
were assigned to the Greek BM class, and all others to the SM
class. From the aforementioned categories (rows) of Table 5 it
is seen that low-rise masonry buildings are substantially more
than medium and high-rise ones, in terms of number (2:1) but
not in terms of volume (about 0.3:1).
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371 367

Table 5
Classification of Potenza buildings by AUTh group

Type Description Volume (m3 ) % of total Number % of total

RC1I-L dual, poor design, low 264,757 1.8% 425 4.6%
RC1E-L dual, good design, low 87,741 0.6% 124 1.3%
RC1I-M dual, poor design, medium 257,507 1.7% 74 0.8%
RC1E-M dual, good design, medium 55,188 0.4% 16 0.2%
RC1I-H dual, poor design, tall 201,493 1.4% 7 0.1%
RC1E-H dual, good design, tall 61,754 0.4% 3 0.0%
RC2I-L frame, poor design, low 860,236 5.8% 606 6.5%
RC2E-L frame, good design, low 779,710 5.2% 728 7.8%
RC2I-M frame, poor design, medium 4,137,942 27.8% 827 8.9%
RC2E-M frame, good design, medium 1,489,547 10.0% 319 3.4%
RC2I-H frame, poor design, tall 2,027,789 13.6% 188 2.0%
RC2E-H frame, good design, tall 608,519 4.1% 65 0.7%
SM-L stone masonry, low 429,818 2.9% 1263 13.6%
SM-M stone masonry, medium 883,719 5.9% 912 9.8%
SM-H stone masonry, high 982,396 6.6% 267 2.9%
BM-L brick masonry, low 662,169 4.5% 2591 27.9%
BM-M brick masonry, medium 611,158 4.1% 689 7.4%
BM-H brick masonry, high 370,400 2.5% 51 0.6%
Steel steel structures of any type 66,281 0.4% 106 1.1%
Other other types of buildings 32,127 0.2% 20 0.3%

Total 14,870,251 100% 9281 100%

Table 6
Definition of damage states in each method

Damage state Definition Structural and non-structural damage Assumption A Assumption B

DIa range to be considered DIa range to be considered
0 No damage 0 0
1 Slight damage No SD slight N-SD >010 >01
2 Moderate damage Slight SD moderate N-SD 1030 130
3 Substantial to heavy damage Moderate SD heavy N-SD 3060 3060
4 Very heavy damage Heavy SD very heavy N-SD 60100 60100
5 Destruction Very heavy SD 100 100
a DI: Damage Index; SD = Structural Damage; N-SD = Non-Structural Damage.

Having selected DPMs for each category, a further issue was
to establish an appropriate correspondence between the damage
state definition used in each methodology. In the Italian [14]
and EMS [18] classification, a total of six damage states
(levels), 05, as shown in the first column of Table 6 were used
(defined as shown in the second and third columns). The Greek
DPMs for R/C structures were originally developed following
the ATC damage classification scheme, having seven damage
states. The correspondence between the lowest (0) and the three
highest (35) damage states is relatively straightforward, but
levels 1 and 2 are a bit ambiguous, as ATC defines a slight
damage state with damage index (DI) between 0% and 1% (of
replacement cost), and light damage state, with DI between
1% and 10%; moderate damage corresponds to DI between
10% and 30%. To see the sensitivity of results to the different
definitions, two alternative assumptions were made, as shown
in Table 6; it is noted that such assumptions are critical for
loss scenarios, since levels 02 are very commonly predicted
in risk studies. The Greek DPMs for masonry buildings were
developed for six damage states (as shown in Table 4), hence
correspondence with the Italian and EMS classification was
straightforward.
In the scenario development, both (structural) damage
assessment and loss assessment were carried out, in line with
the assessments made by the Italian group.
4.2.2. Key results
Shown in Fig. 10 are three damage scenarios for the entire
building stock, corresponding to three different intensities con-
sidered (VI, VII, VIII); it is recalled that the scenario for
I = VI corresponds to the reference earthquake with return
period of 50 yr, while the reference earthquake with return pe-
riod of 475 yr corresponds to an intensity somewhat lower than
VIII [14], but for clarity of comparisons, two different scenarios
for uniform I = VII and VIII are considered. A similar damage
scenario in terms of building volume is shown in Fig. 11.
A number of similarities, but also some notable differences
are seen in the scenarios of Figs. 10 and 11. It is easily noted
that there is significant difference between the graphs produced
based on the number of buildings (Fig. 10) and the ones based
on the volume (Fig. 11) which can be mainly attributed to the
fact that masonry buildings which are a large percentage of the
total building stock in number, are significantly less in volume.
Considering the graphs of Fig. 10 (number of buildings) it is
368 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371

Fig. 11. Damage scenarios for Potenza, using the Italian and Greek methodologies (in terms of building volume).

easily noted that the Greek method results in a scenario which buildings are in damage states (0) and (1) using the Greek
involves less damage than the one derived using the Italian approach, while this percentage is reduced to only 70% using
method. For example in the case of I = VII, 85% of the the Italian approach resulting in higher number of buildings
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371 369

Fig. 12. Comparison of relative repair cost values of the entire building stock
(T Cr,r ) relevant to the reference earthquakes based on building area.

suffering higher degrees of damage in the latter case. Similar

trends are identified for I = VIII.
Fig. 12 compares the estimated damage, calculated using the
Italian and Greek approach, for the three intensity scenarios
in terms of relative repair cost of the entire building stock
(%), using the buildings area. Monetary values in the Greek
Fig. 13. Comparison of vulnerability curves: Class A of the Italian
methodology have also been calculated assuming that the methodology with low quality (stone masonry) medium height URM buildings.
average cost of replacement for Greek practice would be
e600/m2 ($720/m2), as opposed to the e700/m2 used in
the Italian approach. Consistently with the damage scenarios
summarised in Figs. 10 and 11, the Italian procedure predicts
higher cost of repair of damaged buildings for intensity VIII,
but for intensity VII it gives slightly lower predictions than the
Greek methodology.

5. Comparison among Italian and Greek results

The fact that the Italian approach produces more destruc-

tive scenarios means that the Italian DPMs, for a given inten-
sity and for a specific building type, predict higher vulnerabil-
ity than the Greek ones, which suggests that either Italian con-
struction practices (for the considered building stock) are infe-
rior to Greek ones, or that the intensities attributed to specific
events from which the DPMs have been derived are defined in
an inconsistent way in the two studies, or both. The latter has
been demonstrated in other studies [30] for URM buildings, in
which the Thessaloniki and Aegion events were suggested to
have lower intensities than the ones initially attributed to them.
Of course, several other parameters interfere, such as
differences in the correspondence of building types, in the
interpretation of damage levels, in local construction practices
(and their effect on the quality of a particular building type),
and (at least for cases other than I = VII) to the fact that Fig. 14. Comparison of vulnerability curves: Class B of the Italian
methodology with good quality (brick masonry) medium height URM
Greek DPMs for I > VII are based on theoretical analysis (see buildings.
Section 4.1) rather than on statistical data.
In Figs. 13 and 14 the vulnerability curves of Italian (and for the same type of building the Italian methodology considers
EMS) Class A and B are plotted against the vulnerability higher damage than the Greek one for a given intensity.
curves derived within the Greek methodology for low quality 6. Summary and conclusions
and good quality medium-rise URM buildings, respectively.
Based on these (and similar) comparisons, the reasons for the The work presented herein is a first attempt for a systematic
aforementioned observation become clear, since it is shown that comparison of the methodologies used for vulnerability
370 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
assessment and earthquake damage scenario development in
the two European countries that have the highest seismic risk
(Italy and Greece). Comparisons are focussed on a particular
case study (so that more practical conclusions can be drawn)
but more general issues like the composition of the building
stock, the (structural) typology of buildings and schemes
for its classification, and the relative merits of alternative
methods for deriving Damage Probability Matrices (DPMs) and
vulnerability curves, are also tackled.
The availability of a large amount of data regarding
the building stock has given us the possibility to develop
earthquake damage scenarios for the city of Potenza, using
methodologies typically used in Italy and in Greece. The
inventory of the building stock has been obtained from a survey
carried out after the 1990 Potenza earthquake and in 1999
this inventory was updated to include the reinforced concrete
buildings built after 1990.
In the Italian methodology, a hybrid technique has been
used to evaluate the absolute vulnerability of the buildings of
interest, where typological analyses and expert judgement are
combined. After a unification of the large number of vertical
and horizontal structural types contained in the GNDT90
survey form, a limited number of different buildings types
has been obtained and each building has been assigned
to the relevant vulnerability class. Beyond the classes of
vulnerability A, B and C of the MSK-scale, class D of the
1998 European Macroseismic Scale, for the less vulnerable
buildings, has been considered. The DPMs found from the
damage data of the 1980 earthquake were used to define the
absolute vulnerability of the different vulnerability classes,
i.e. the probabilistic damage distributions for given earthquake
intensities. However, as the DPM of class D was not available,
it was extrapolated from the class C with a purposely set
up procedure with reference to the EMS98 scale. As regards
the selection of the reference earthquakes, three events have
been considered as representative of probable or strong events
expected in Potenza. Their intensities have been obtained by
recent seismic hazard studies of the Italian territory. Three
earthquake damage scenarios relevant to dwelling buildings
have been prepared both in terms of damage and of economic
losses, involving the selected reference earthquakes. They show
a generally low vulnerability and, consequently, a limited
number of damaged buildings for the lower intensity, and of
partially or totally collapsed buildings, for the higher intensity
earthquake.
In the Greek methodology, a hybrid technique was also used,
but in this case inelastic analysis of generic structures, deemed
to be representative of the corresponding building typology,
was used in lieu of expert judgement. The other (most crucial)
component of the hybrid approach, statistical data of earthquake
damage, is essentially the same as in the Italian method.
According to the Greek approach, statistical data (preferably,
albeit not necessarily, in terms of the loss index, i.e. repair
cost to replacement cost ratio) is directly used for constructing
the DPM columns for intensities for which data is considered
adequate, while the remaining parts of the DPM are constructed
using inelastic dynamic or static analysis of generic buildings
and appropriate models for correlating structural damage
indices (ductility factors, interstorey drifts) to loss. It is noted
that, in their form used in this study, the Greek DPMs were
not derived from corresponding fragility (vulnerability) curves
based on statistical distributions (like the beta distribution used
in the Italian DPMs or the lognormal distribution used in the
HAZUS fragility curves), hence uncertainty was not treated in a
consistent way, i.e. by differentiating between different sources
of uncertainty (as done e.g. in HAZUS). A new generation
of Greek DPMs is currently being finalised, wherein they are
derived by the corresponding lognormal fragility curves. On the
other hand, the Greek DPMs for R/C structures correspond to
significantly more typologies than currently used in Italy, and
this should be attributed both to the method adopted and to the
different composition of the building stock in the cities of the
two countries.
The comparative study of Potenza has shown similarities but
also differences between the predictions of the Italian and the
Greek DPMs. In this respect one should recall that statistical
data of earthquake damage is less rich in Greece, and this
should be one of the key reasons why the estimated losses in the
case study of Potenza are lower for high intensities, compared
to the predictions of the Italian methodology. Following the
1999 Athens earthquake in Greece, a significant amount
of damage data has been gathered and is currently being
incorporated in revised versions of the hybrid methodology,
to produce the aforementioned new generation of Greek
fragility curves and DPMs. Other possible factors to which the
discrepancies between the two methodologies can be attributed,
are different construction practices, different trends in assigning
intensities, uncertainty in correlating intensity with level of
seismic action used in the analyses, and differences in the
definition of the building types as well as of the damage
states.
Finally, the comparative study presented herein, despite its
relatively limited scope, clearly points to the importance of
a consistent definition of the damage state and the potential
advantages from expressing them in economic rather than
linguistic terms.
References
[1] Albarello D, Bosi V, Bramerini F, Lucantoni A, Naso G, Peruzza L et al.
New seismic hazard maps of the italian territory. Italian National Seismic
Service and Italian National Group for the Protection against Earthquakes.
web site http://www.dstn.it/ssn/PROG/2000/carte pericolosita; 1998.
[2] ATC. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California (ATC-13).
Redwood City (California): Appl. Technology Council; 1985.
[3] Azzara R, Basili A, Beranzoli L, Chiarabba C, Di Giovanbattista R,
Selvaggi G. The seismic sequence of Potenza (May 1990). Annali di
Geofisica (Rome) 1993;XXXVI(1).
[4] Barbat AH, Moya FY, Canas JA. Damage scenarios simulation for
seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthquake Spectra 1996;12(3):
37194.
[5] Bard PY et al. Seismic zonation methodology for the city of Nice-Progress
report. In: Proceedings 3rd intern. conf. on seismic zonation, vol. III,
p. 174984.
[6] Bernardini A. Qualitative and quantitative measures in seismic damage
assessment and forecasting of masonry buildings. In: Proc. of the
international workshop on measures of seismic damage to masonry
buildings; 1998.
 M. Dolce et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 357371
[7] Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D. Southern Italy November 23, 1980
Earthquake: A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing
review of the M.S.K.-76 scale. CNR-PFG n.503. Roma; 1982.
[8] Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D. A Statistical study on damaged
buildings and an ensuing review of the M.S.K.76 scale. In: 7th European
conference on earthquake engineering; 1985.
[9] Calvi GM, Kingsley GR, Magenes G. Testing of masonry structures for
seismic assessment. Earthquake Spectra 1996;12(1):14562.
[10] DAyala DF, Spence RJS, Oliveira CS, Silva P. Vulnerability of
buildings in historic town centres: A limit-state approach. In: 11th world
conference on earthquake engineering. Paper No. 864, Pergamon [CD
ROM Proceedings]; 1996.
[11] Di Pasquale G, Orsini G, Serra C. Assessment of the economic losses
from the GNDT-DPC-SSN safety evaluation forms. In: Proc. of the
international workshop on measures of seismic damage to masonry
buildings; 1998.
[12] Di Pasquale G, Goretti A. Economic and functional vulnerability of
residential buildings stricken by Italian recent seismic events. In: Proceed.
of the 10th Italian national conference on earthquake engineering; 2001
[in Italian] [CD ROM].
[13] Dolce M. Seismic vulnerability evaluation and damage scenarios. In: US
Italian workshop seismic evaluation and retrofit. New York City:
Columbia University; 1996.
[14] Dolce M, Marino M, Masi A, Vona M. Seismic vulnerability analysis and
damage scenarios of Potenza. In: International workshop on seismic risk
and earthquake damage scenarios of Potenza; 2000.
[15] Dolce M, Marino M, Masi A, Vona M. Evaluation of site effects for
seismic microzonation. In: International workshop on seismic risk and
earthquake damage scenarios of Potenza; 2000.
[16] Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M. EAEE-ESC Task Group 3 Seismic risk
and earthquake damage scenarios report of the activities. In: Proceed. of
12th ECEE; 2002 [CD ROM].
[17] Dolce M, Masi A, Marino M, Vona M. Earthquake damage scenarios
of Potenza town (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 2003;1(1):11540.
[18] ESC Working Group Macroseismic Scales. European Macroseismic Scale
1998. GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, 1998.
[19] Faccioli E, Pessina V, Calvi GM, Borzi B. A study on damage scenarios
for residential buildings in Catania city. Journal of Seismology 1999;3(3):
371
32743.
[20] FEMA-NIBS. Earthquake loss estimation methodology - HAZUS99
Technical Manual, vols. 13. Washington DC; 1999.
[21] Goretti A, Di Pasquale G. Perceptibility of seismic events at national
scale. In: Proceed. of the 10th Italian national conference on earthquake
engineering; 2001 [in Italian] [CD ROM].
[22] Kappos AJ. Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in
Southern Europe, Keynote lecture. In: Proceed. of the 10th Italian national
conference on earthquake engineering; 2001 [CD ROM].
[23] Kappos AJ, Penelis GrG, Drakopoulos C. Evaluation of simplified models
for the analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 2002;128(7):8907.
[24] Kappos A, Pitilakis K, Stylianidis K, Morfidis K, Asimakopoulos D. Cost-
benefit analysis for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Thessaloniki,
based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. In: Proceedings of
3rd intern. conf. on seismic zonation, vol. I. 1995. p. 40613.
[25] Kappos A, Pitilakis K, Morfidis K, Hatzinikolaou N. Vulnerability
and risk study of Volos (Greece) metropolitan area. In: 2th European
conference on earthquake engineering, CD Rom Proceedings, Paper 074;
2002.
[26] Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K. Development of seismic risk
scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Natural
Hazards 1998;17(2):17792.
[27] Margottini C, Molin D, Narcisi B, Serva L. Intensity vs. acceleration:
italian data. In: Proceedings of workshop on historical seismicity of
central-eastern mediterranean region; 1987.
[28] Masi A. Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed R/C
frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2003;1(3):37195.
[29] Masi A, Dolce M, Vona M. A procedure to estimate economic losses
due to damage at residential buildings. In: Proc. DiSGG, no. 5; 2002 [in
Italian].
[30] Penelis GrG, Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Lagomarsino S. Statistical
assessment of the vulnerability of unreinforced masonry buildings. In:
International conference earthquake loss estimation and risk reduction;
2002.
[31] Penelis GrG, Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC. Assessment of the seismic
vulnerability of unreinforced masonry buildings. In: STREMAH 2003,
8th international conference on structural studies, repairs and maintenance
of heritage architecture. WIT Press; 2003. p. 57584.