Next Article in Journal
Turbulent Flows and Pollution Dispersion around Tall Buildings Using Adaptive Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
Next Article in Special Issue
Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Existing RC School Buildings: The “P3” School Typology
Previous Article in Journal
Flammability Characteristics of Green Roofs
Article

Comparison of Different Intervention Options for Massive Seismic Upgrading of Essential Facilities

1
Italian National Research Council—IGAG, 00010 Montelibretti, Rome, Italy
2
School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, 85 100 Potenza, Italy
3
Department of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Lima 07001, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2020, 10(7), 125; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10070125
Received: 3 June 2020 / Revised: 6 July 2020 / Accepted: 7 July 2020 / Published: 9 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Non-linear Modelling and Analysis of Buildings)
The seismic retrofitting of essential facilities is a typical problem of public administrations. Due to the large amount of existing and/or historic buildings with a high seismic vulnerability and the limited economic resources, it is necessary to provide efficient solutions for the structural reinforcement of these structures on a national, regional, and urban level. This paper proposes an innovative and multidisciplinary framework to choose massive interventions on a large territorial scale according to the potential benefits of the intervention in terms of reduction in expected economic losses associated with retrofitting intervention and other important aspects usually neglected in intervention strategies. The proposed framework is based on Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) analysis. It is applied to a very complex urban area: the case study is the school buildings stock (4458 buildings) in the Lima Metropolitan area, Peru. The goal of the study is arisk analysis aimed at selecting the optimal retrofitting strategy in a huge urban area. The results of this work can be considered the base for decision-makers. They could use them as a decision support tool in the seismic risk mitigation on a large territorial scale. View Full-Text
Keywords: retrofitting interventions; risk analysis; school buildings; fragility curves; vulnerability functions; MCDM methods retrofitting interventions; risk analysis; school buildings; fragility curves; vulnerability functions; MCDM methods
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Anelli, A.; Vona, M.; Santa-Cruz Hidalgo, S. Comparison of Different Intervention Options for Massive Seismic Upgrading of Essential Facilities. Buildings 2020, 10, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10070125

AMA Style

Anelli A, Vona M, Santa-Cruz Hidalgo S. Comparison of Different Intervention Options for Massive Seismic Upgrading of Essential Facilities. Buildings. 2020; 10(7):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10070125

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anelli, Angelo, Marco Vona, and Sandra Santa-Cruz Hidalgo. 2020. "Comparison of Different Intervention Options for Massive Seismic Upgrading of Essential Facilities" Buildings 10, no. 7: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10070125

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop