Evaluation of Different Rapid Assessment Approaches for Seismic Risk Evaluation of Masonry Structures
Downloads
Masonry structures hold notable historical and cultural significance but exhibit inadequate seismic performance due to low-strength materials and structural limitations. This paper aims to investigate and prioritize the seismic risk of masonry buildings to support preservation strategies, enhance urban resilience, and contribute to sustainability. To achieve this, different rapid assessment methods were comparatively applied, providing a practical alternative to detailed seismic analysis, which was impractical for large building stocks. This study focused on the masonry structures of Osijek, a city characterized by moderate seismic hazard, where these buildings are vital to the cultural heritage, tourism, and identity of the local community. Risk prioritization was conducted for 105 masonry buildings using data collected through systematic field observations and measurements. Findings indicate that while rapid assessment methods provide valuable insights for identifying vulnerable structures, their sensitivity and applicability vary according to building characteristics and the available data. The comparative analysis emphasizes that some methods are more effective at detecting structural deficiencies, whereas others are more suitable for large-scale screening when resources are limited. The novelty of this study lies in identifying the efficiency and limitations of different rapid assessment approaches, thereby advancing knowledge in seismic risk prioritization and providing guidance for heritage protection and disaster risk reduction.
Downloads
[1] Kijko, A., & Sellevoll, M. A. (1990). Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters for incomplete and uncertain data files. Natural Hazards, 3(1), 1-13. doi:10.1007/bf00144970.
[2] Hanindya, K. A., Makrup, L., Widodo, & Paulus, R. (2023). Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis to Determine Liquefaction Potential Due to Earthquake. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 9(5), 1203–1216. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-05-012.
[3] Altiok, T. Y. (2025). Structural performance analysis of a retrofitted school building collapsed in Kahramanmaras earthquakes and evaluation of applied retrofitting methods. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-32. doi:10.1007/s10518-025-02239-1.
[4] Ristic, J., Guri, Z., & Ristic, D. (2024). Optionally Reinforced Columns Under Simulated Seismic and Time Varying Axial Loads: Advanced HYLSER-2 Testing. Civil Engineering Journal, 10(10), 3253–3268. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2024-010-10-09.
[5] Kadiri, A. U., & Kijko, A. (2021). Seismicity and seismic hazard assessment in West Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 183, 104305. doi:10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2021.104305.
[6] Xekalakis, G., Pitilakis, D., Zuccaro, G., & Christou, P. (2023). Parametric Analysis of Horizontal Static and Dynamic Behavior in Different Types of Masonry Structures. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 9(10), 2578–2591. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-10-015.
[7] Şahin, C. D., Arsan, Z. D., Tunçoku, S. S., Broström, T., & Akkurt, G. G. (2015). A transdisciplinary approach on the energy efficient retrofitting of a historic building in the Aegean Region of Turkey. Energy and Buildings, 96, 128-139. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.018.
[8] Lourenço, P. B. (2014). Masonry Structures, Overview. Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering, 1–9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_111-1.
[9] Dipasquale, L., Rovero, L., & Fratini, F. (2020). Ancient stone masonry constructions. Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials, 403–435, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, United Kingdom. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102704-2.00015-9.
[10] Almssad, A., Almusaed, A., & Homod, R. Z. (2022). Masonry in the Context of Sustainable Buildings: A Review of the Brick Role in Architecture. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(22), 14734. doi:10.3390/su142214734.
[11] Achs, G., & Adam, C. (2012). Rapid seismic evaluation of historic brick-masonry buildings in Vienna (Austria) based on visual screening. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 10(6), 1833–1856. doi:10.1007/s10518-012-9376-5.
[12] Albayrak, U., Canbaz, M., & Albayrak, G. (2015). A Rapid Seismic Risk Assessment Method for Existing Building Stock in Urban Areas. Procedia Engineering, 118, 1242–1249. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.476.
[13] Poonam, P., Kumar, A., & Kumar, R. (2024). Pre-Earthquake Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) & Earthquake Safety Assessment of RCC and Masonry buildings located in Chandigarh Area (India). doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3969703/v1.
[14] Aldemir, A., Guvenir, E., & Sahmaran, M. (2020). Rapid screening method for the determination of regional risk distribution of masonry structures. Structural Safety, 85, 101959. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2020.101959.
[15] Arkan, E., Işık, E., Harirchian, E., Topçubaşı, M., & Avcil, F. (2023). Architectural Characteristics and Determination Seismic Risk Priorities of Traditional Masonry Structures: A Case Study for Bitlis (Eastern Türkiye). Buildings, 13(4). doi:10.3390/buildings13041042.
[16] Khemis, A., Athmani, A., & Ademović, N. (2024). Rapid Application of the RISK-UE LM2 Method for the Seismic Vulnerability Analysis of the Algerian Masonry Buildings. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 18(5), 788–808. doi:10.1080/15583058.2023.2195379.
[17] Ademović, N., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., & Zagora, N. (2020). Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings in Banja Luka and Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) using the macro-seismic model. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(8), 3897–3933. doi:10.1007/s10518-020-00846-8.
[18] Bektaş, N., & Kegyes-Brassai, O. (2023). Development in Fuzzy Logic-Based Rapid Visual Screening Method for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings. Geosciences (Switzerland), 13(1), 6. doi:10.3390/geosciences13010006.
[19] Kalman Šipoš, T., & Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2017). Rapid seismic risk assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24, 348–360. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.025.
[20] Pavić, G., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., & Bulajić, B. (2020). A contribution to a UHS-based seismic risk assessment in Croatia—a case study for the City of Osijek. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(5), 1–24. doi:10.3390/su12051796.
[21] Pavić, G., Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Bulajić, B., & Jurković, Ž. (2020). Development of seismic vulnerability and exposure models-A case study of Croatia. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(3), 973. doi:10.3390/su12030973.
[22] Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Pavić, G., Bulajić, B., & Kukaras, D. (2020). Characteristics of buildings and seismic vulnerability assessment for the specific area of the city of Osijek. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 789(1), 12023. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/789/1/012023.
[23] Pavić, G., Bulajić, B., & Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2019). The vulnerability of buildings from the Osijek database. Frontiers in Built Environment, 5. doi:10.3389/fbuil.2019.00066.
[24] Lagomarsino, S., & Giovinazzi, S. (2006). Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 4(4), 415–443. doi:10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z.
[25] Grünthal, G., & Lorenzo Martín, F. (2009). European Macroseismic Scale 1998, European Macroseismic Scale 1998: EMS-98. GFZ German Research Center for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany. (In Guarani).
[26] Ereš, A., Radić, J., Lozančić, S., & Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2025). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings in an Urban Area: A Case Study of Selected City Blocks in Osijek. 33rd International Conference on Organization and Technology of Maintenance (OTO 2024). OTO 2024. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 1242. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80597-4_32.
[27] Hadzima-Nyarko, M., Pavić, G., & Lešić, M. (2016). Seismic vulnerability of old confined masonry buildings in Osijek, Croatia. Earthquake and Structures, 11(4), 629–648. doi:10.12989/eas.2016.11.4.629.
[28] Radić, J., Ereš, A., & Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2024). Assessment of seismic vulnerability of buildings in a selected urban area using the load capacity spectrum method. Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of the Croatian Society of Mechanics, Zagreb, Croatia. (In Croatian).
[29] Radić, J., Ereš, A., Vidaković, D., & Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2024). Assessment of building vulnerability through rapid visual screening method: case study of selected street blocks in Osijek. Proceedings of the 7th International scientific conference” Conference on mechanical engineering technologies and applications, 14-16 November, 2024, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[30] Alam, N., Alam, M. S., & Tesfamariam, S. (2012). Buildings’ seismic vulnerability assessment methods: A comparative study. Natural Hazards, 62(2), 405–424. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-0082-4.
[31] Bhalkikar, A., & Pradeep Kumar, R. (2021). A comparative study of different rapid visual survey methods used for seismic assessment of existing buildings. Structures, 29, 1847–1860. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.026.
[32] Chieffo, N., Clementi, F., Formisano, A., & Lenci, S. (2019). Comparative fragility methods for seismic assessment of masonry buildings located in Muccia (Italy). Journal of Building Engineering, 25, 100813. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100813.
[33] Chieffo, N., & Formisano, A. (2019). Comparative Seismic Assessment Methods for Masonry Building Aggregates: A Case Study. Frontiers in Built Environment, 5. doi:10.3389/fbuil.2019.00123.
[34] Ceroni, F., Caterino, N., & Vuoto, A. (2020). Simplified seismic vulnerability assessment methods: A comparative analysis with reference to regional school building stock in Italy. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(19), 1–37. doi:10.3390/app10196771.
[35] Ferretti, F., Mazzotti, C., & Savoia, M. (2024). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Masonry and RC Building Stocks: A Simplified Methodology. Buildings, 14(9), 2890. doi:10.3390/buildings14092890.
[36] Nanda, R. P., & Majhi, D. R. (2013). Review on Rapid Seismic Vulnerability Assessment for Bulk of Buildings. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series A, 94(3), 187–197. doi:10.1007/s40030-013-0048-5.
[37] Markušić, S. (2008). Seismicity of Croatia. Earthquake Monitoring and Seismic Hazard Mitigation in Balkan Countries, 81–98. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6815-7_5.
[38] Danciu, L., Nandan, S., Reyes, C. G., Basili, R., Weatherill, G., Beauval, C., ... & Giardini, D. (2021). The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard Model-ESHM20: model overview. EFEHR Technical Report, 1, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. doi:10.12686/a15.
[39] Westaway, R. (1990). Present-day kinematics of the plate boundary zone between Africa and Europe, from the Azores to the Aegean. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 96(3–4), 393–406. doi:10.1016/0012-821X(90)90015-P.
[40] DeMets, C., Gordon, R. G., & Argus, D. F. (2010). Geologically current plate motions. Geophysical Journal International, 181(1), 1–80. doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04491.x.
[41] USGS. (2025). Lists, Maps, and Statistics, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, United States. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/lists-maps-and-statistics (accessed on September 2025).
[42] Batorek, S. J. (2021). The Earthquake in the Đakovo Region in 1964: The Damaging and Reconstruction of the Cathedral of St Peter in Đakovo. Casopis Za Suvremenu Povijest, 53(3), 1099–1113. doi:10.22586/csp.v53i3.18248.
[43] Tomaževič, M., & Lutman, M. (2007). Heritage masonry buildings in urban settlements and the requirements of Eurocodes: Experience of Slovenia. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 1(1), 108–130. doi:10.1080/15583050601126186.
[44] Narodne—Novine. (2005). Technical Regulation for Concrete Structures. Official Gazette No. 101/2005. Available online: https://narodne novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2005_08_101_1960.html (accessed on September 2025).
[45] Narodne—Novine. (2009). Technical Regulation for Concrete Structures. Official Gazette No. 139/2009. Available online: https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_11_139_3381.html (accessed on September 2025).
[46] Šipoš, T. K., & Hadzima-Nyarko, M. (2018). Seismic risk of Croatian cities based on building’s vulnerability. Tehnicki Vjesnik, 25(4), 1088–1094. doi:10.17559/TV-20170708190145.
[47] FEMA (2025). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, United States. Available online: https://www.fema.gov/ (accessed on September 2025).
[48] FEMA P-154. (2015). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, United States.
[49] Rainer, J. H., Allen, D. E., & Jablonski, A. M. (1993). Manual for screening of buildings for seismic investigation. Institute for Research in Construction National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada.
[50] Mishra, S. (2014). Integrated Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Seismic Hazard. Guide Book for Integrated Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Seismic Hazard. TARU Leading Edge Private Ltd., New Delhi, India.
[51] Purushothama, C., Mucedero, G., Perrone, D., & Monteiro, R. (2023). Evaluation of rapid visual screening assessment of existing buildings using nonlinear numerical analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 76, 107110. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107110.
[52] Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization. (2019). The Principles of Determining Risky Buildings. Turkey Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Ankara, Türkiye.
[53] Okada, T. (2021). Development and present status of seismic evaluation and seismic retrofit of existing reinforced concrete buildings in Japan. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, 97(7), 402–422. doi:10.2183/pjab.97.021.
[54] JBDPA. (2005). Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Guidelines for Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, and Technical Manual for Seismic Evaluation and Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA), Tokyo, Japan.
[55] Bektaş, N., & Kegyes-Brassai, O. (2022). Conventional RVS Methods for Seismic Risk Assessment for Estimating the Current Situation of Existing Buildings: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(5), 2583. doi:10.3390/su14052583.
[56] OASP. (2025). Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization, Athens, Greece. Available online: https://oasp.gr/en (accessed on September 2025). (In Greek).
[57] OASP. (2000). Provisions for Pre-Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of Public Buildings (Part A). Earthquake Planning and Protection Organization (OASP), Athens, Greek.
[58] New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. (2017). The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings: Technical Guidelines for Engineering Assessments—Initial Seismic Assessment—Part B. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand.
[59] NZSEE (2025). New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand. Available online: https://www.nzsee.org.nz/ (accessed on September 2025).
[60] New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. (2006). Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand.
[61] Kapetana, P., & Dritsos, S. (2007). Seismic assessment of buildings by rapid visual screening procedures. Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures, VI(I), 409–418. doi:10.2495/eres070391.
[62] Sinha, R., & Goyal, A. (2004). A national policy for seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings and procedure for rapid visual screening of buildings for potential seismic vulnerability. Report to Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, India.
[63] DGU. (2025). The State Geodetic Administration, Zagreb, Croatia. Available online: https://dgu.gov.hr/ (accessed on September 2025). (In Croatian).
- Authors retain all copyrights. It is noticeable that authors will not be forced to sign any copyright transfer agreements.
- This work (including HTML and PDF Files) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
