Data for: Sustainable planning of seismic emergency in historic centres through semeiotic tools: assessment of different methods through real case studies

Published: 20-09-2019| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/cfp65g3v3c.1
Contributors:
Gabriele Bernardini,
Enrico Quagliarini,
Michele Lucesoli

Description

The considered sample is composed by masonry buildings placed in a limited area affecting the historic centres of Accumoli, Amatrice, Arquata del Tronto, Capodacqua and Illica stricken by the Central Italy seismic sequence in 2016, with the epicentre in Accumoli (RI) (42.7,13.23), on 2016/08/24 03:36:32 (UTC+2), Mw=6.0 (Seismic database: http://cnt.rm.ingv.it/en/event/7073641 last access 2019/04/10). The selected buildings (mainly for their various damage levels and for the availability of data about vulnerability and about the geometrical measures of streets) are subdivided in structural units (defined as independent structural parts composing the building itself), which suffered from 1st to 5th damage grade according to EMS-98 scale (Grünthal, 1998). They were located in a restricted area with a limited range of macroseismic intensity values (from 8.8 to 9.3 registered by USGS’s Shake Maps available on: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/shakemap/ last access 2019/04/10) and so the moment magnitude, provided above, can be reasonably considered about the same on the overall territory (according to the aforementioned shake maps). For each building in the sample, DATA sheet shows geometrical measures and ratios, the buildings damage grades according to EMS-98 and results application of: civil protection method, Ferlito and Pizza’s 2011, both debris estimation criteria, k95 macroseismic damages-based and Observed macroseismic damages-based methods (EMS-98 damages by photos) and finally the real scenarios conditions (C stands for “clear” and B for “blocked”). In particular, 3 situations can emerge from comparisons between the predicted result from a method application and the corresponding real-world observation: 1. correspondence between predicted and real path condition; 2. overestimation, in case the considered method predicts a “blocked” path, but the real-world observation refers to “clear” path conditions. In this case, the method prediction produces a conservative result; 3. underestimation, in cases the considered method predicts a “clear” path, but the real-world observation refers to “blocked” path conditions. In this case, the method prediction produces an “unsafe” result. Each element ID is relates to a structural unit, according to the following criterion: the number identify the aggregate; the letter identifies the related structural unit; the capital letter stands for the urban centre of origin (IL for Illica (RI), AS for Amatrice (RI) south part, AN for Amatrice (RI) north part, CD for Capodacqua (AP), AC for Accumoli (RI), AT for Arquata del Tronto (AP)). COMPARISON sheet provides the percentage results of comparisons between each considered method and real-world scenario conditions are reported indicating the total percentage of cases of correspondence (C), Overestimation (O) and their sum (C+O) on the overall sample made by 50 structural units associated to their underlying urban streets.

Files