SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings in Banja Luka and Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) using the macroseismic model

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessment of seismic vulnerability in urban areas is a challenging task that requires a meticulous and systematic approach. Sarajevo and Banja Luka, together with Tuzla, are the most urbanized and densely populated cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo and Banja Luka experienced devastating earthquakes in 1962 and 1969, respectively. This is why it is of the utmost importance to conduct seismic vulnerability evaluation of the existing building stock in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Until today no systematic database regarding structures and their typology has been compiled for the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in connection with their vulnerability to seismic actions. The choice of an appropriate vulnerability method plays a key role in the process of assessment of seismic risk and highly depends on the available information, characteristics of the buildings, organization of data collection and decision-makers. Among various methods, it was decided to use the macroseismic method derived from the EMS-98 scale for the vulnerability assessment of the existing buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The database was obtained from the “typology of residential buildings in the BiH” project, a comprehensive survey of 13,044 existing residential buildings in BIH, which was conducted for energy performance assessment of the national building stock. For the purpose of this research, the database was reduced to a sample of 2933 buildings, as it included a selection of only unreinforced and confined masonry buildings built from 1918 to 2014 and located in Sarajevo and Banja Luka. The aim of this paper is to provide an overture in assessing the seismic risk in Sarajevo and Banja Luka by applying the method based on the vulnerability index. The vulnerability index is calculated by the macroseismic method which is in the function of the type of building, regional vulnerability factor and behavior modifier factors. The application of this method confirms the notable seismic risk in the cities of Sarajevo and Banja Luka due to the high vulnerability of the buildings. It may be argued that the behavior modifiers which had the largest impact on the change of the vulnerability class were the number of floors and type of roof structure. This research intends to contribute to the prevention of an earthquake disaster, in the form of a theoretical forecast of the aftermath: structural damage and/or socio-economic losses that may occur after an earthquake.

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
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. TABULA project was harmonized with the directives 2002/91/EC and 2006/32/EC and co-financed by the European Commission’s IEE program.

  2. GIZ, abbrev. German Agency for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, germ.).

References

  • Abeki N, Mochizuki T, Enomoto T, Casaverde L (1989) Estimated seismic intensities in Mexico City in the September 19, 1985 earthquake by a questionnaire. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 2. Organizing Committee, Japan Association for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Tokyo, pp 133–138

  • Abrahamczyk L, Schwarz J, Langhammer T, Genes MC, Bikçe M, Kaçin S, Gülkan P (2013) Seismic risk assessment and mitigation in the Antakya–Maras region (SERAMAR): empirical studies on the basis of EMS-98. Earthq Spectra 29(3):683–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achard V, Goula X (1988) Contribution à un zonage sismotectonique de la France. Calculdes caractéristiques sismiques nècessaires à une évaluation probabiliste de l’aléa sismique, Rapport SASC/88-58, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Institut de protection et de sûretè nuclèaire

  • Ademović N (2011) Structural and seismic behavior of typical masonry buildings from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Master Thesis, Advanced Masters in Structural Analysis of Monuments and Historical Constructions, University of Minho, Portugal

  • Ademović N, Hrasnica M, Oliveira DV (2013) Pushover analysis and damage assessment of a typical masonry residential building in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Eng Struct 50(2013):13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.11.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ademović N, Oliveira DV, Lourenco PB (2019) Seismic evaluation and strengthening of an existing masonry building in Sarajevo, B&H. Buildings 9(30):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9020030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar-Meléndez A, Pujades LG, Barbat AH, Ordaz MG, de la Puente J, Lantada N, Héctor E, Rodríguez-Lozoya HE (2018) A probabilistic approach for seismic risk assessment based on vulnerability functions. Application to Barcelona. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0516-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnautović-Aksić D et al (eds) (2016) Typology of residential buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Faculty of Architecture, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, German Agency for International Cooperation

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

  • ATC-14 (Applied Technology Council) (1987) Evaluation of the seismic resistance of existing buildings. ATC, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Athmani AE, Gouasmia A, Ferreira TM, Vicente R, Khemis A (2015) Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry buildings located in Annaba city (Algeria) using non ad-hoc data survey. Bull Earthq Eng 13(8):2283–2307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9717-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti D, Benzoni G, Parisi MA (1988) Seismic vulnerability and risk evaluation for old urban nuclei. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 16(2):183–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardini A, Lagomarsino S, Mannella A, Martinelli A, Milano L, Parodi S (2010) Forecasting seismic damage scenarios of residential buildings from rough inventories: a case study in the Abruzzo Region (Italy). Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliab 224:279–296. https://doi.org/10.1243/1748006XJRR305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevington J, Eguchi R, Huyck C, Crowley H, Dell’Acqua F, Iannelli G, Jordan C, Morley J, Wieland M, Parolai S, Pittore M, Porter K, Saito K, Sarabandi P, Wright A, Wyss M (2012) Exposure data development for the global earthquake model: inventory data capture tools. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference of earthquake engineering, Lisboa, Portugal

  • Bolt BA (1999) Earthquakes, 4th edn. W.H. Freeman & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore M (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and ensuing review of MSK-76 scale. In: Proceedings of 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, September 1982, pp 65–84

  • Brzev S, Scawthorn C, Charleson AW, Allen L, Greene M, Jaiswal K, Silva V (2013) Exposure modelling, GEM building taxonomy V2.0. Global earthquake model GEM, GEM technical report 2013-02 V1.0.0

  • Bulajić BÐ, Manić MI, Lađinović Ð (2013) Effects of shallow and deep geology on seismic hazard estimates: a case study of pseudo-acceleration response spectra for the northwestern Balkans. Nat Hazards 69(1):573–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0726-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Statistics (2013) National population and housing census 2013 (national report). Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Velez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol 43:75–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H, Pinho R, Bommer JJ (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2:173–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ayala D, Meslem A (2012) Guide for selection of existing analytical fragility curves and compilation of the database. GEM technical report 2012, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy

  • D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Vamvatsikos D, Porter K, Rossetto T (2015) Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment: Low/mid-rise, GEM vulnerability and loss modelling. Global Earthquake Model (GEM) Foundation, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • EN 1998–1:2004 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: general rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA 2006 (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2006) HAZUS-MH MR2 technical manual, Washington, USA

  • Feriche M, Vidal F, Jimenez C, Navarro M (2008) A straightforward method applicable to Earthquake Damage Scenarios and Early Loss Assessment in urban areas of Southern Spain. In: 31st general assembly of the European Seismological Commission ESC, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece

  • Ferreira TM, Vicente R, Varum H (2014) Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry facade walls: development, application and validation of a new scoring method. Struct Eng Mech 50(4):541–561. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2014.50.4.541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galizia F, Fiorenza A (2016) Refractive index model to determine the vulnerability curves for different building typologies. Int J Earthq Impact Eng 1(1/2):174–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geotectonic Division of Dinarides in BIH. https://www.dinarskogorje.com/planine.html

  • Giovinazzi S (2005) The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering of the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina at Braunschweig and Faculty of Engineering Department of Civil Engineering of University of the Florence

  • Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2003) Seismic risk analysis: a method for the vulnerability assessment of built-up areas. In: Balkema AA (eds) Euro safety and reliability conference ESREL, vol 18. Maastricht, pp 671–679

  • Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S (2004) A macroseismic method for the vulnerability assessment of buildings. In: 13th world conference on earthquake engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1–6, 2004 paper no. 896, pp 1–16

  • Grünthal G (1998) European macroseismic scale 1998. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15:1–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéguen P, Michel C, Le Corre L (2007) A simplified approach for vulnerability assessment in moderate-to-low seismic hazard regions: application to Grenoble (France). Bull Earthq Eng 5(3):467–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadzima-Nyarko M, Pavić G, Lešić M (2016) Seismic vulnerability of old confined masonry buildings in Osijek, Croatia. Earthq Struct 11(4):629–648. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.4.000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannou I, Douglas J, Rossetto T (2015) Assessing the impact of ground-motion variability and uncertainty on empirical fragility curves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.10.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IWU, I.W. TABULA (2017). http://episcope.eu/iee-project/tabula/

  • Jaiswal K, Aspinall W, Perkins D, Wald D, Porter KA (2012) Use of expert judgment elicitation to estimate seismic vulnerability of selected building types. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

  • Jaiswal K, Wald D, Perkins D, Aspinall W, Kiremidjian A (2014) Estimating structural collapse fragility of generic building typologies using expert judgment. Saf Reliab Risk Life Cycle Perform Struct Infrastruct. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16387-130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal K, Wald D, Porter K (2010) A global building inventory for earthquake loss estimation and risk management. Earthq Spectra 26(3):731–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006) HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon O-S, Elnashai A (2006) The effect of material and ground motion uncertainty on the seismic vulnerability curves of RC structure. Eng Struct 28(2):289–303

    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9212-4

    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 

  • Lee VW, Manić MI, Bulajić BÐ, Herak D, Herak M, Trifunac MD (2015) Microzonation of Banja Luka for performance-based earthquake-resistant design. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 78:71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manić MI, Bulajić BÐ, Trifunac MD (2015) A note on peak accelerations computed from sliding of objects during the 1969 Banja Luka earthquakes in former Yugoslavia. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 77:164–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansour AK, Romdhane BN, Boukadi N (2013) An inventory of buildings in the city of Tunis and an assessment of their vulnerability. Bull Earthq Eng 11:1563–1583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9450-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maqsood T, Edwards M, Ioannou I, Kosmidis I, Rossetto T, Corby N (2016) Seismic vulnerability functions for Australian buildings by using GEM empirical vulnerability assessment guidelines. Nat Hazards 80:1625–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2042-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Cuevas S, Gaspar-Escribano JM (2016) Reassessment of intensity estimates from vulnerability and damage distributions: the 2011 Lorca earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 14:2679–2703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9913-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClusky S, McClusky S, Balassanian S, Barka A, Demir C, Ergintav S, Georgiev I, Gurkan O, Hamburger M, Hurst K, Kahle H, Kastens K, Kekelidze G, King R, Kotzev V, Lenk O, Mahmoud S, Mishin A, Nadariya M, Ouzounis A, Paradissis D, Peter Y, Prilepin M, Reilinger R, Sanli I, Seeger H, Tealeb A, Toksöz MN, Veis G (2000) Global positioning system constraints on plate kinematics and dynamics in the eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus. J Geophys Res 105:5695–5719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele G (2001) The Adriatic lithosphere is a promontory of the African Plate; evidence of a continuous mantle lid in the Ionian Sea from efficient Sn propagation. Geophys Res Lett 28:431–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milutinovic ZV, Trendafiloski GS (2003) RISK-UE, an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. Report to WP4: vulnerability of current buildings

  • Motamed H, Calderon A, Silva V, Costa C (2019) Development of a probabilistic earthquake loss model for Iran. Bull Earthq Eng 17(4):1795–1823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouroux P, Bertrand E, Bour M, Le Brun B, Depinois S, Masure P (2004) The European RISK-UE project: an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, Canada

  • NERA (2011) State of the knowledge of building inventory data in Europe. Report D7.2. EUCENTRE

  • Nocquet JM (2001) Intraplate deformations in Western Europe deducted from an analysis of the International Terrestrian Reference Frame 1997 (ITRF 1997) velocity field. J Geophys Res 106(6):11239–11257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada S, Takai N (2000) Classification of structural types and damage patterns of buildings for earthquake field investigation. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, paper no. 705, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand

  • Oldow JS, Ferranti L, Lewis DS, Campbell JK, D’Argenio B, Catalano R, Pappone G, Carmignani L, Conti P, Aiken CLV (2002) Active fragmentation of Adria, the north African promontory, central Mediterranean orogen. Geology 30(9):779–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira CS, Mendes Victor LA (1984) Prediction of seismic impact in a metropolitan area based on hazard analysis and microzonation: methodology for the town of Lisbon. In: 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, El Cerrito, California, vol 7, pp 639–646

  • Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, Simionato M, Vigano D (2014) OpenQuake-engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett 85(3):692–702. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papeš J (1988) Tektonska građa teritorije SR BiH. The report, Geoinstitut Ilidža, Sarajevo

  • Porter KA, Farokhnia K, Cho IH, Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D, Jaiswal K, Wald D, D’ Ayala D, Meslem A, So E, Kiremidjian AS, Noh H-Y (2012) Global vulnerability estimation methods for the global earthquake model. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering

  • Pittore M, Haas M, Megalooikonomou KG (2018) Risk-oriented, bottom-up modeling of building portfolios with faceted taxonomies. Front Built Environ 4

  • Preciado A, Ramirez-Gaytan A, Salido-Ruiz RA, Caro- Becerra JL, Lujan-Godinez R (2015) Earthquake risk assessment methods of unreinforced masonry structures: Hazard and vulnerability. Earthq Struct 9(4):719–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prelogović E, Cvijanović D, Al**ović B, Kranjec V, Skoko D, Blašković I, Zagorac Ž (1982) Seismotectonic activity along the coastal area of Yugoslavia. Geološki vjesnik 35:195–207

    Google Scholar 

  • PTP2 (1948) Provisional technical regulations (PTP) for loading of structures, part 2, no. 11730, 12 July 1948—PTP2. Official Gazette of FNRY No. 61/48 of June 17, 1948

  • PTP-GuSP64 (1964) Provisional technical regulations for construction in seismic regions. Official Gazette of SFRY No. 39/64 of September 19, 1964

  • Reinecker J, Heidbach O, Mueller B (eds) (2003) The 2003 release of the World Stress Map. www.world-stress-map.org. NATO DPPI program

  • Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant DN (2013) Existing empirical fragility and vulnerability relationships: compendium and guide for selection. GEM Foundation, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D, Maqsood T (2014) Guidelines for empirical vulnerability assessment. GEM technical report 2014-08 V1.0.0, 140, GEM Foundation, Pavia, Italy. https://doi.org/10.13117/gem.vulnmod. TR2014.11

  • Salazar LGF, Ferreira TM (2020) Seismic vulnerability assessment of historic constructions in the downtown of Mexico City. Sustainability 12(3):1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salic RB, Milutinovic ZV, Garevski MA (2012) Results achieved and improvements needed in the field of seismic hazard assessment of Republic of Macedonia. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, paper number 5157, 24-28.09.2012, Lisbon, Portugal

  • Spence RJS, Coburn AW, Pomonis A (1992) Correlation of ground motion with building damage: The definition of a new damage-based seismic intensity scale, Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World Conference, Rotterdam, pp 551–556

  • Stojanković MB (1999) Seizmička mikrorejonizacija gradskog područja Banja Luke. Međunarodni simpozijum povodom 30 godina zeljotresa u Banjoj Luci (26-17 oktobar 1999). The University of Banja Luka, pp 66–77

  • Trukulja D (1999) Seizmogenetska obilježja oblasti zahvaćene zemljotresima u Banjoj Luci. 196. Međunarodni simpozijum povodom 30 godina zeljotresa u Banjoj Luci 1969. Univerzitet u Banja Luci, pp 28–41

  • Tsereteli N, Arabidze V, Varazanashvili O, Gugeshashvili T, Mukhadze T, Gventcadze A (2014) Vulnerability analysis and gis based seismic risk assessment Georgia case. In: Teodoresco H-N, Kirschenbaum A, Cojocaru S, Bruderlein C (eds) Improving disaster resilience and mitigation—IT means and tools NATO science for peace and security series C: environmental security. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9136-6_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tyagunov S, Stempniewski L,Grünthal G, Wahlström R, Zschau J (2004) Vulnerability and risk assessment for earthquake-prone cities. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (13 WCEE), Vancouver, Canada, 1–6 August 2004, pp 1–6

  • Tzitzikas Y (2009) Faceted taxonomy-based sources. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente R, Parodi S, Lagomarsino S, Varum H, Silva JARM (2011) Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1067–1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9233-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagora N, Burazor M, Salihovic E (2017) Assessment of the energy savings potential in the residential building stock in Bosnia and Herzegovina. South East European Journal of Architecture and Design

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale. Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH for giving their approval to use the data obtained through the project „Typology of residential buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Sarajevo, Patriotske lige 30, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Naida Ademović

  2. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, J. J. Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 3, Osijek, Croatia

    Marijana Hadzima-Nyarko

  3. Faculty of Architecture, University of Sarajevo, Patriotske lige 30, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Nermina Zagora

Authors
  1. Naida Ademović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marijana Hadzima-Nyarko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nermina Zagora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naida Ademović.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ademović, N., Hadzima-Nyarko, M. & Zagora, N. Seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings in Banja Luka and Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina) using the macroseismic model. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 3897–3933 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00846-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00846-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation