See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259891914

Comparison of damage assessment methodologies for different natural

hazards

Conference Paper · September 2010

CITATIONS READS

12 6,517

7 authors, including:

Tiziana Rossetto Andreas Kappos

University of London Khalifa University
213 PUBLICATIONS   4,600 CITATIONS    249 PUBLICATIONS   6,450 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Leonidas Alexandros Kouris Maurizio Indirli

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki ENEA
42 PUBLICATIONS   808 CITATIONS    142 PUBLICATIONS   1,285 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANDROID View project

Metakaolin in Concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maurizio Indirli on 27 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Comparison of damage assessment methodologies for different natural
hazards
T. Rossetto
Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, University College London, U.K.
A.J. Kappos & L.A. Kouris
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
M. Indirli
ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Italy
R.P. Borg
Department of Building & Civil Engineering, University of Malta, Malta
T.O. Lloyd & V. Sword-Daniels
Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, University College London, U.K.
ABSTRACT: Following a natural disaster engineers undertake structural assessments for many different pur-
poses; for example for the assessment of structural safety, quantification of the severity of the event effects or
for insurance loss calculation. These purposes are common irrespective of the hazard that may have caused
the structural damage. This paper presents a critical review and comparison of existing methods for the post-
event damage assessment of structures under different natural hazards. It aims to discover whether it may be
possible in the future to develop a common assessment methodology that is hazard-independent, or if funda-
mental differences exist in the effects of the hazards that preclude a common approach. The natural hazards
investigated are earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions. The investigation is complicated by the fact
that these hazards have different levels of development in terms of structural assessment methods and univer-
sal acceptance of these methods.

1 INTRODUCTION and efficient procedure, and the need for detailed

Structural damage assessments are an integral and
essential part of the recovery process from a natural
disaster, and occur independently of the nature of
the hazard causing the disaster. Immediately after
the event engineers must assess all buildings within
the affected area to assess damage, safety, and us-
ability, to identify buildings requiring emergency
strengthening (e.g. to avoid collapse during after-
shocks or further volcanic ash fall), to provide reli-
able data to the authorities, and to plan further relief
and rehabilitation measures. A systematic collection
of damage data reduces the time required to com-
plete the work, ensures that no valuable information
is lost, and leads to a realistic assessment of building
capacity. This first stage of structural assessment is
often carried out through rapid screening. In the next
phase, structures deemed unsafe are assessed in
more detail to determine the extent of required repair
or need for demolition.
In addition to their use for recovery, structural
damage assessments often provide data for future re-
search studies on the revision of existing urban plans
by mapping the spatial distribution of earthquake ef-
fects, the re-evaluation of existing codes and prac-
tices, and the development of vulnerability models
for pre-earthquake assessments. The methodology to
be adopted for the structural assessment must there-
fore strike a balance between the need for a rapid
data collection for future studies.
This paper looks at published guidance and past
studies on structural assessment methods post-
disaster for earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic erup-
tions. This review is followed by a discussion that
looks to identify whether a standard damage assess-
ment methodology may be developed in the future
that is hazard type independent.
2 EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Several methods for post-earthquake inspection
and rapid assessment of buildings have been devel-
oped in a number of countries. Among these, proce-
dures used in Japan (JBDPA’90-91), USA (ATC
20, ATC20-2), New Zealand (NZNSEE ’98), the
Balkans (UNDP/UNIDO, Greece) and Italy (Pro-
tezione Civile 2010a,b,c, MEDEA, 2005,
GNDT_INGV, 2010a,b) deserve particular attention
(Kappos 2003).
2.1 Japanese method (JBDPA’90-91)
2.1.1 Overview of the method
Emergency inspectors check the following: (i)
outline (description) of the building, (ii) maximum
settlement and maximum inclination of the building,
(iii) damage to structural members, and (iv) risk of
overturning or falling objects. There is a standard
form for data collection and each item inspected is
ranked (according to damage degree) as “A” (low),
“B” (moderate) or “C” (high).

2.1.2 Evaluation of ‘risk level’

In the Japanese method there is a classification of
three levels of risk: The “DANGER” level includes
buildings with ≥2 “C”-items, or ≥3 “B”-items result-
ing in settlement, leaning, or member damage. The
“CAUTION” level contains buildings with ≥2 “B”-
items (resulting in settlement, leaning, or member
damage), and the “SAFETY” level includes all other
buildings.
There is also an identical classification (Danger,
Caution and Safety) for the risk of falling or over-
turning objects (i.e. “DANGER” level: building with
≥2 “C”-items, or ≥3 “B”-items, and so on).

2.1.3 Emergency treatment

Entrance to buildings is restricted according to the
level of risk. The entrance to buildings ranked
DANGER (damage, inclination etc.) is prohibited.
The entrance to buildings ranked DANGER - falling
objects is prohibited, if objects are placed around the
entrance. The entrance to buildings ranked CAU-
TION (re. damage, inclination etc.) is allowed ‘with
care’. The entrance to buildings ranked SAFETY
(re. damage, inclination etc.) is unrestricted. Emer-
gency repairs shall be carried out according to the Figure 1. ATC-20 flowchart for normal building safety evalua-
pertinent “Guidelines for Restoration Techniques”. tion and posting.
Entrance conditions can be changed following an
emergency repair or restoration. The classification based on the settlement (s) de-
tects small (s < 0.2m), moderate (0.2 < s <1.0m) and
2.1.4 Damage Classification and Design of Inter- severe (s > 1.0m) damage. The classification accord-
ventions ing to the inclination angle (θ) is ‘small’ (θ < 0.01
There is an independent guideline, referring to a rad), ‘moderate’ (0.01 < θ < 0.03), ‘severe’ (0.03 < θ
procedure applied a few days after the earthquake < 0.06), or ‘overturned’ (θ > 0.06 rad). The classifi-
when inspectors check the maximum settlement of cation based on the degree of damage to structural
the building, the maximum tilt of the building and members (global damage ratio D) divides buildings
the degree of damage to structural members. There with slight (D < 5), small (5 < D < 10), moderate (10
is a standard form for data collection. The investiga- < D <50), or severe (D > 50) damage or collapse (D5
tion may be confined to the most damaged story but = 50). The global damage ratio is defined as the sum
objects tending to fall must be checked. of the structural member damage ratios i.e. D = Σ Di
, where i=1 to 5, refers to the degree of damage. In
Table 1. Criteria for assigning degree of damage (DD). this equation D1=10n1/N ≤5, D2=26n1/N ≤13, …,
DD Damage state of structural member D5=1000n5/7N ≤50 ; ni is equal to the number of
visible but narrow cracks on surface of concrete
columns (or total length of walls) with degree of
I
(crack width w<0.2mm)
damage I (as determined from Table 1), and N is the
total number of columns (or total length of walls).
visible cracks on surface of concrete (0.2mm
II This check may be confined to the most damaged
<w<1.0mm)
storey. The final classification may be based on the
local spalling of cover concrete, major cracks
III most critical result between settlement, leaning, and
(1mm<w<2mm)
damage of members.
full spalling and crushing of concrete, exposed rein- The design of interventions (demolition, repair or
IV
forcing bars strengthening) depends on the seismic intensity and
V
buckling of bars, crushing of concrete core, visible the damage state.
vertical deformation of column/wall
2.2 U.S. method (ATC 20, ATC20-2) 2.3 New Zealand method (NZNSEE ’98)
This method is generally similar to the ATC-20, the
2.2.1 Overview of the method forms being practically the same. The model for
In ATC-20 there are three different procedures (Fig. Building Safety Evaluation Response Plan is in-
1): the rapid evaluation, the detailed evaluation and cluded in the Guidelines. Key roles are foreseen for
the engineering evaluation. Rapid Evaluation lasts a Building Evaluation Manager (BEM), Building
10-20min per building and is the 1st level of evalua- Evaluation Officers, an Administration Officer
tion focused on quickly identifying apparently safe (AO), and three Inspectors (2 ‘technical’ + 1 ‘with
and obviously unsafe buildings. The Detailed communication skills’).
Evaluation has a duration of 1 to 4 hours per struc-
ture, is the 2nd level of evaluation and requires thor-
2.4 Methods used in the Balkans (UNIDO, Greece)
ough visual examination of both building (interior
and exterior) and site. These two methods result in
the rating of buildings as safe, potentially dangerous, 2.4.1 Overview of the method
and unsafe. The Engineering Evaluation (1-7 days) This method focuses on emergency inspection, but
is carried out by a consultant hired by the owner uses a rather detailed form (which is meant to be
(and/or the insurance company). partly filled before the earthquake). Clear instruc-
tions (to be provided during intensive short semi-
2.2.2 Evaluation of risk level nars) must be given to inspectors, for them to suc-
The Rapid Evaluation method is performed by as- cessfully apply the method.
sessing 6 screening criteria: The classification of buildings by posting (tag-
i. building (partially) collapsed; moved off foun- ging) is performed with three colours, mainly based
dation. on the integrity of the structural system:
ii. building or storey significantly leaning. A green tag is associated with buildings that show
iii. obvious severe damage to primary members; no indication of reduction in their structural capacity
severe racking of walls, or similar signs of dis- (against vertical and lateral loads).
tress. A yellow tag is assigned to buildings that have a
iv. parapet, chimney, etc. falling hazard present. moderately reduced lateral load capacity, but show
v. ground failure (large movement, or fissures, no reduction vertical load capacity.
etc.). Finally, buildings are posted with red tags when
vi. other hazards (toxic spill, broken glass, fallen both vertical and lateral load capacity are seriously
power). reduced.
For item (iv) and possibly (vi) ‘AREA UNSAFE’
(rather than ‘UNSAFE’) is recommended. If the Table 2. Damage and usability classification according to
situation is doubtful, inspectors are suggested to post UNIDO/UNDP.
‘LIMITED ENTRY’ and request a Detailed Evalua- tag usability damage state damage description
tion. Inspectors are generally prompted to look for colour classification
readily observable, gross kinds of structural distress Green usable 1=no damage negligible structural
and hazardous geotechnical conditions. 2=slight damage and light non-
The Detailed Evaluation method is primarily used structural damage; hair-
to determine the safety of buildings posted “Limited line cracks in structural
Entry” during Rapid Evaluation, and is intended to members.
provide reasonable assurance that a building, albeit Yellow temporarily 3=moderate small to large cracks in
damaged, is safe enough for use. It is also used for unusable 4=significant R/C members; spalling
essential facilities, when they have been damaged of cover concrete; de-
during the earthquake. The procedure includes six tachment and partial
steps, the first being the survey of the building from collapse of partition
the outside. Next, the site is examined for geotechni- walls ….
cal hazards and then the structural system is exam- Red unusable 5=severe large number of
ined internally. In the fourth step the assessment fo- 6=partial or crushed structural
cuses on non-structural hazards and on other hazards total collapse members and connec-
(spills, leaks etc.). In the last step the inspector com- tions; buckling of rein-
pletes a checklist and assigns the building to a dam- forcement; dislocations
age category. Specific instructions are given to iden- of members and the
tify damage in each building type. building etc.
2.4.2 Evaluation of risk level and emergency treat-
ment
The evaluation of risk, the emergency treatment and
the damage state are classified according to the tag
of the building, as summarised in Table 2. The dam-
age inspection form adopted by UNIDO/ UNDP
(1985) is detailed and comprehensive, but since it is
rather demanding and difficult to use in an emer-
gency situation, simplified versions of this form
have been used in Greece and other Balkan countries
over the last two decades. It is worth noting that in
these countries two levels of inspection and assess-
ment have been used in recent years, the second one
being more detailed than the first, but focussing only
on buildings with significant damage.
2.5 Italian methods (methods by Protezione Civile,
MEDEA and GNDT)
In Italy the evaluation of earthquake damage in
ordinary buildings is carried out by public officers
with a specific investigation form (Protezione Civile
2010a). The evaluation is carried out using a matrix
which assigns a level of risk (from high risk to low
risk) according to damage observed in structural
elements, non-structural elements and foundations
and to the danger posed by neighbouring structures.
The outcome is expressed on a scale from A to F,
where: A means “fit for use”, B “fit for use with
prompt interventions”, C “partially fit for use”, D
“not fit for use, necessity of a deeper analysis”, E
“not fit for use” and F “not fit for use, due to risk
from neighbouring structures”. An alternative me-
thod for damage evaluation is presented by the ME-
DEA method (MEDEA 2005; Borg et al. 2010a;
Kouris et al. 2010), which can be used for ordinary
reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Other
commonly used important tools are the forms to
evaluate the seismic structural vulnerability of rein-
forced concrete and masonry buildings proposed by
the Gruppo Nazionale Difesa Terremoti (GNDT),
(GNDT-INGV 2010a and 2010b).
Cultural heritage buildings (Linee Guida 2006)
can be studied by decomposing the entire structure
into architectural portions (named “macro-
elements”) characterized by an autonomous struc-
tural behaviour with respect to the construction as a
whole. In fact, in historic complexes, effective con-
nections between vertical walls and floors are often
scarce or absent, driving to specific mechanisms (lo-
cal damage and/or partial collapse) caused by loss of
equilibrium of masonry portions under out-of-plane
actions. The earthquake damage and structural vul-
nerability of churches is checked by filling a specific
survey form (Protezione Civile 2010b), in which lo-
cal failure/collapse mechanisms are identified. A
similar approach is used for monumental buildings
(“palazzi”, see Protezione Civile 2010c).
3 TSUNAMI DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
In the case of tsunami, very few guidance docu-
ments have been developed for use in post-event
damage assessments. The Intergovernmental Ocea-
nographic Commission, IOC (of UNESCO, 1998)
has published a post tsunami field guide developed
from existing earthquake and tsunami field guides
and more recent tsunami surveys (Farreras, 2000).
While concentrating on collecting scientific data
such as tidal levels, run-up elevations and bathymet-
ric data, it indicates that structural damage should be
collected where possible, noting the possible cause
of the damage and distinguishing tsunami damage
from earthquake damage in a near source event. The
guidance for building damage assessment is brief
and recommends rough (non-specialized) classifica-
tion of damage, estimating the nature and category
of the damage and its apparent cause.
Table 3. Tsunami damage scale descriptions for masonry
structures typical of Sri Lanka proposed by EEFIT (2006).
Damage
Damage description for structure
State
None No visible structural damage to the structure ob-
(DM0) served
Damage limited to chipping of plaster on walls, mi-
Light nor cracking visible. Damage to windows, doors.
(DM1) Damage is minor and repairable. Immediate occu-
pancy
Out-of-plane failure or collapse of parts of or whole
sections of masonry wall panels without compro-
mising structural integrity. Masonry wall can be re-
paired or rebuilt to restore integrity. Most parts of
the structure intact with some parts suffering heavy
Moderate damage. Scouring at corners of the structures leav-
(DM2) ing foundations partly exposed but repairable by
backfilling. Cracks caused by undermined founda-
tions are clearly visible on walls but not critical.
Unsuitable for immediate occupancy but suitable af-
ter repair
Out-of-plane failure or collapse of masonry wall
panels beyond repair, structural integrity compro-
mised. Most parts of the structure suffered collapse.
Heavy Excessive foundation settlement and tilting beyond
(DM3) repair. Collapse of wall sections due to scouring and
damage non-repairable. Structure requires demoli-
tion since unsuitable for occupancy
Complete structural damage or collapse, founda-
Collapse tions and floor slabs visible and exposed, collapse
of large sections of foundations and structures due
(DM4)
to heavy scouring
Several approaches exist for identifying tsunami
intensity (e.g. Ambraseys 1962 and Papadopoulos
and Imamura 2001). However, these methods do not
provide techniques for identifying structural dam-
age. Most of the literature presenting rapid field in-
vestigations largely bases their damage assessments
on earthquake assessment methodologies directly.
Rigorous, multi-stage building assessments using
forms such as those of ATC-20 have not been car-
ried out, or at least have not been published. Instead,
the damage scales in EMS-98 are the most com-
monly used (e.g. in Miura et al. 2006). A few studies
have attempted to modify earthquake damage as-
sessment methods and scales to take into account
damage relating to fast-flowing water, such as foun-
dation failure due to scour or floating debris impact
damage. A modified version of the EMS-98 damage
scales for use in tsunami damage assessment in
Thailand and Sri Lanka following the Indian Ocean
Tsunami was proposed by Rossetto et al. (2007) and
EEFIT (2006). In these studies damage attributed to
different building types was also adopted to assign
Intensity values to the surveyed locations, using a
modified version of the Tsunami Intensity scale of
Papadopoulos and Imamura (2001). An example of
the damage scale descriptions for masonry buildings
proposed by EEFIT (2006) is shown in Table 3.
Taking into account damage to different struc-
tural types allows the intensity values to be com-
pared in countries with different building stocks, to
obtain a comparative intensity for tsunami impact
assessment. The results of these surveys do not pro-
vide sufficient information however to improve
knowledge on the structural response of buildings
under tsunami loading and therefore are not useful
for the re-evaluation of codes of practice, assessment
of existing structures etc.
4 VOLCANIC DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
The assessment of volcanic risk, in particular in
densely populated regions, is certainly a huge topic
quite studied among the scientific community. In
addition to geology/vulcanology studies and the de-
velopment of mathematical models and simulation
codes, Geographic Information System (GIS) and
Remote Sensing (RS) are also widely used to com-
bine volcanic hazard maps with inventory databases
(asset maps) to determine hazard, vulnerability, ex-
posure and risk. An example is given by the EU
EXPLORIS project, devoted to the needs related to
volcanic risk assessment and mitigation (EXPLORIS
2006).
Despite a large international effort, few studies
can be found where structural damage assessments
are reported, and there is no official guidance as to
how to perform rapid damage assessments.
Spence et al. (1996), Blong (2003) and Spence et
al. (2005) have carried out damage assessments on
buildings, using a damage scale based on the MSK
earthquake intensity scale for buildings and by ap-
plying earthquake engineering principles and survey
techniques. Spence et al. (1996) developed a 6-point
damage scale for use in assessing the damage from
Mount Pinatubo, to summarise the damage and to
provide damage distribution data. Blong (2003) car-
ried out a damage assessment for Rabaul, Papua
New Guinea, and used the same damage scale to
quantify the impacts. The study noted that additional
volcanic hazards should be included in such assess-
ments, including: mudfills, lahars and the secondary
impact of corrosion. Spence et al. (2005) again used
the 6-point damage scale to classify the damage
from volcanic ashfall. The study generated vulner-
ability curves for European buildings based on em-
pirical and analytical data. The data was gathered
from the area around Vesuvius and from other areas
in Europe.
As for the case of tsunami damage assessment us-
ing EMS-98, these surveys provide little information
on the building characteristics, type, age and condi-
tion, and many surveys do not provide adequate de-
tail for the purpose of understanding building vul-
nerability to volcanic ashfall or indeed other
volcanic hazards.
The EU Network Project COST Action C26 “Ur-
ban Habitat Constructions Under Catastrophic
Events” (COST 2006) undertook an assessment of
buildings in Naples, in order to classify the building
typology and to predict the possible modes of failure
when impacted by volcanic hazards. The C26 pre-
liminary activity is reported in several publications
(Dobran, 2007, Florio et al. 2009, Mazzolani et al.
2009a and 2009b).
The complete results of the Vesuvius field inves-
tigation are reported in Borg et al. (2010b-c), Alterio
et al. (2010), Zuccaro et al. (2010), and Mazzolani et
al. (2010). The latter study involved two field sur-
veys undertaken during 2009 and 2010, to identify
structural typologies in the area around Vesuvius,
and record their characteristics. The surveys and
subsequent vulnerability analyses were carried out
as a collaboration between various universities and
institutes across Europe. The surveys were carried
out for different building types in the historic centre
of Torre del Greco, the residential area of Torre del
Greco, the Schools, and the Vesuvian Golden Mile
Villas.
The detailed surveys recorded information in-
cluding: regularity of building in plan and height,
the number and height of storeys, number and size
of openings, frescos, mouldings, number of statues
and pieces of original furniture. Data was also col-
lected on construction materials, construction meth-
ods, building age, existing strengthening or im-
provement, general state of repair, site morphology
and the existence of cornices, lintels, stringcourses,
tie-beams, connection of walls to roof and of floors
to walls (where seen).
 In addition, the failure mechanisms were classi-
fied using the MEDEA form (MEDEA 2005) and
vulnerability was assessed to the three hazards of:
earthquake, pyroclastic flow and ash fall.
The results showed the prevalence of buildings
designed to resist ordinary vertical loads, which
showed insufficient safety against the volcanic ac-
tions. The adopted survey approach should be opti-
mised for others to use successfully and unambigu-
ously, with the aim of increasing the quantity of
acceptable field-based surveys that can then be add-
ed to the collective database.
This will improve understanding of vulnerability
to volcanic hazards (see also Narasimhan et al.
2010).
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The reviewed literature on post-event structural
damage assessment methodologies for earthquakes,
tsunami and volcanic hazards demonstrates a clear
difference in the development of these procedures
for the different hazards.
Many procedures and guidelines have been pub-
lished in the case of earthquake damage assessment,
whilst little or no guidance exists for the other two
cases. Where this guidance exists it is based on
earthquake engineering principles and in very few
cases is modified to account for particular structural
vulnerabilities to the specific hazards.
It is thought that this is mainly due to the fact that
the engineers involved in the damage assessments
even for tsunami and volcanic hazards are from
earthquake engineering backgrounds and have
adopted these procedure in the absence of any alter-
native. The latter seems to stem from a general lack
of study of the impacts of these hazards from an en-
gineering perspective (e.g. see Rossetto et al. 2010).
The question of whether a standard structural
damage assessment method can be developed to as-
sess structural safety for all three natural hazards
remains unresolved from the analysis of the litera-
ture.
The fact that earthquake engineering methods
(with little modification) have been deemed ade-
quate for assessing impact intensity is encouraging.
However, further research is required that specifi-
cally compares damage mechanisms in different
hazard events in order to determine the suitability of
standard forms for rapid and detailed evaluation (as
in ATC-20).
Currently sufficiently detailed data from field
surveys is not available in the case of tsunami and
volcanic events. Hence, this will be a task for future
research.
6 REFERENCES
Alterio, L., Borg, R.P., Cacace, F., Coelho, C., De Gregorio,
D., Di Feo, P., Faggiano, B., Florio, G., Formisano, A.,
Indirli, M., Kouris, L., Mazzolani, F., Sword-Daniels, V.,
Zuccaro, G. 2010. The Vesuvius case study in the survey
activity for the seismic and volcanic vulnerability assess-
ment in the Vesuvian area: the Golden Mile Villas. Pro-
ceedings of COST Action C26 Final International Confer-
ence on Urban habitat construction under catastrophic
events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
Ambraseys N.N. 1962. Data for the investigation of the seismic
sea waves in the eastern Mediterranean. Bull. Seism. Soc. of
Am. 52, 895–913.
ATC-20 1989. Procedures for postearthquake safety evaluation
of buildings.
ATC20-1 1989. Field Manual: postearthquake safety evalua-
tion of buildings.
ATC-20-2 1995. Revised placards and forms.
ATC-20-3 1996. Case-studies of rapid evaluation.
Baxter.P.J., Boyle.R., Cole.P., Neri.A., Spence.R. & Zuc-
caro.G. 2005. The impacts of pyroclastic surges on build-
ings at the eruption of the Soufriere Hills Volcano, Mont-
serrat. Bulletin of Volcanology. 67, 292-313.
Blong, R. 2003. Building damage in Rabaul , Papua New
Guinea , 1994. Bulletin of Volcanology, 65, 43-54.
Borg, R.P., Indirli, M., Rossetto T., Kouris, L. 2010a. The
April 6th, 2009 L’Aquila earthquake: overview on the pro-
cedures for the seismic damage assessment of structures.
Proceedings of COST Action C26 Final International Con-
ference on Urban habitat construction under catastrophic
events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
COST 2006. COST, European COoperation in the field of Sci-
entific and Technical research, Transport and Urban Devel-
opment, COST Action C26: “Urban Habitat Constructions
Under Catastrophic Events”, 2006-2010.
Borg, R., Cacace, F., Coelho, C., Conti, G., De Gregorio, D.,
De Luca, G., De Lucia, T., Faggiano, B., Fiorentino, G.,
Florio, G., Formisano, A., Gerasimidis, S., Indirli, M.,
Mazzolani, F.M., Pennone, C., Terracciano, G., Zuccaro, G.
2010b. The Vesuvius case study in the survey activity for the
seismic and volcanic vulnerability assessment in the Vesu-
vian area: the historical centre and a residential area of Torre
del Greco. Proceedings of COST Action C26 Final Interna-
tional Conference on Urban habitat construction under
catastrophic events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
Borg, R., Cacace, F., Coelho, C., Conti, G., De Gregorio, D.,
De Luca, G., De Lucia, T., Faggiano, B., Fiorentino, G.,
Florio, G., Formisano, A., Gerasimidis, S., Indirli, M.,
Mazzolani, F.M., Pennone, C., Terracciano, G., Zuccaro,
G. 2010c. The Vesuvius case study in the survey activity
for the seismic and volcanic vulnerability assessment in the
Vesuvian area: the historical centre and a residential area of
Torre del Greco. Proceedings of COST Action C26 Final
International Conference on Urban habitat construction
under catastrophic events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
De Gregorio, D., Faggiano, B., Formisano, A., Mazzolani,
F.M. 2010d. Air fall deposits due to explosive eruptions:
action model and robustness assessment of the Vesuvian
roofs. Proceedings of COST Action C26 Final International
Conference on Urban habitat construction under catastro-
phic events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
Dobran F. 2007. Urban Habitat Constructions Around Vesu-
vius. Environmental Risk and Engineering Challenges. Proc.
of COST Action C26 Seminar on Urban Habitat Construc-
 tions Under Catastrophic Events, Prague, 30-31 March
2007.
EEFIT 2006. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004:
mission findings in Sri Lanka & Thailand. Pomonis A,
Rossetto T, Peiris N, Wilkinson SM, Del Re D, Koo R,
Gallocher S, Earthquake Engineering Field Investigation
Team (EEFIT) Report, UK. http://www.eefit.org.uk
EXPLORIS 2006. Explosive Eruption Risk and Decision Sup-
port for EU Populations Threatened by Volcanoes (EX-
PLORIS). EU Contract n° EVR1-CT-2002-40026, 2001-
2006.
Farreras SF. 2000. Post-Tsunami Field Survey Procedures: An
Outline. Natural Hazards 21, 207–214.
Florio, G., Landolfo, R., Formisano, A. and Mazzolani, F.M.
2009. “Vulnerability of a historical masonry building in the
Vesuvius area”, Proc. of PROHITECH 2009 International
Conference, Rome 21-24 June 2009.
GNDT-INGV 2010a. Scheda di II livello per la valutazione
della vulnerabilità in edifici in cemento armato (II Level
Form for the evaluation of vulnerability in r.c. buildings).
http://gndt.ingv.it/Strumenti/Schede/Schede_vulnerabilita/
scheda_secondo_livello_ca.pdf.
GNDT-INGV 2010b. Scheda di II livello per la valutazione
della vulnerabilità in edifici in muratura (II Level Form for
the evaluation of vulnerability in masonry buildings).
http://gndt.ingv.it/Strumenti/Schede/Schede_vulnerabilita/
scheda_secondo_livello_mur.pdf.
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (of UNESCO):
1998, Post-Tsunami Survey Field Guide (1st edn), Manuals
and Guides #37, Paris, France.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Assessment 1990.
Kappos, A.J. 2003, Methods for post – earthquake inspection
and rating of buildings: A world view, Marmara earthquake
rehabilitation programme ActionC3: Scheme for post –
earthquake inspection and rating of buildings (course
notes).
Kouris, L., Borg, R.P., Indirli M. 2010. The April 6th, 2009
L’Aquila earthquake: observations and remarks on seismic
damage mechanisms. Proceedings of COST Action C26 Fi-
nal International Conference on Urban habitat construc-
tion under catastrophic events, Naples, 16-18 September
2010.
Linee guida 2006. Linee Guida per la valutazione e riduzione
del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale con riferimento
alle norme tecniche per le costruzioni (Guidelines for eva-
luation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage).
Italian Minister for Cultural heritage, July 2006.
Mazzolani, F.M., Faggiano, B., Formisano, A. and De
Gregorio, D. 2009a. “Vulnerability evaluation of RC
structures in the Vesuvian area”, Proc. of PROHITECH
2009 International Conference, Rome 21-24 June 2009.
Mazzolani F.M., Indirli M., Zuccaro G., Faggiano B., Formis-
ano A. and De Gregorio D. 2009b. Catastrophic effects of a
Vesuvian eruption on the built environment. Proc. PRO-
TECT 2009, 2nd International Workshop on Performance,
Protection & Strengthening of Structures under Extreme
Loading, Shonan Village Center, Hayama, Japan, 19-21
August 2009.
Mazzolani, F.M., Faggiano, B., Formisano, A., De Gregorio,
D., Indirli, M., Zuccaro, G. 2010. Survey activity for the
volcanic vulnerability assessment in the Vesuvian area: the
‘quick’ methodology and the survey form. Proceedings of
COST Action C26 Final International Conference on Ur-
ban habitat construction under catastrophic events, Naples,
16-18 September 2010.
View publication stats
MEDEA, 2005. Manuale di Esercitazioni sul Danno Ed Agi-
bilità per edifici ordinari (User’s manual on damage and
safety for ordinary buildings). http://gndt.ingv.it/Att_scient/
Molise2002/ San_Giuliano/Strumenti%20di%20rilievo.pdf.
Miura, H., Wijeyewickrema, A. & Inoue, S. 2006. Evaluation
of tsunami damage in the eastern part of Sri Lanka due to
the 2004 Sumatra earthquake using remote sensing tech-
nique. Proc. 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engi-
neering, Paper No. 8, NCEE-856.
Narasimhan, H., Borg, R.P., Cacace, F., Di Gregorio, D., Fa-
ber, M., Faggiano, B., Formisano, A., Indirli, M., Maz-
zolani, F., Muzeau, J.P., Rossetto, T., Sword-Daniels, V.,
Talon, A., Zuccaro G. 2010. Guidelines for volcanic risk
assessment and suggestions for mitigation actions. Pro-
ceedings of COST Action C26 Final International Confer-
ence on Urban habitat construction under catastrophic
events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
Papadopoulos, G. A., and Imamura, F. 2001. A proposal for a
new tsunami intensity scale. ITS Proceedings, Session 5,
No.5-1. pp569-577.
Protezione Civile 2010a. AeDES, Scheda Agibilità e Danno
nell’Emergenza Sismica, First Level form for safety as-
sessment, damage investigation, prompt intervention for
ordinary buildings in the post-earthquake emergency.
http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/editor/schedadan
ni.pdf.
Protezione Civile 2010b. Scheda per il rilievo del danno ai
Beni Culturali: chiese (Form for the damage survey to cul-
tural heritage: churches), http://www.protezionecivile.it/
cms/attach/adc.pdf.
Protezione Civile 2010c. Scheda per il rilievo del danno ai
Beni Culturali: palazzi (Form for the damage survey to cul-
tural heritage: buildings), http://www.protezionecivile.it/
cms/attach/bdp.pdf.
Rossetto T, Peiris LMN, Pomonis A, Wilkinson SM, Del Re D,
Koo R, Gallocher S. 2007. The Indian Ocean tsunami of
December 26, 2004: observations in Sri Lanka and Thai-
land, Natural Hazards 42, 105-124.
Rossetto, T., Lloyd, T.O., Coelho, C., Carlier, J-P. And Allsop,
W., (2010). Tsunami impact evaluation for coastal areas.
Proceedings of COST Action C26 Final International Con-
ference on Urban habitat construction under catastrophic
events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.
Spence, R.J.S., Kelman, I., Baxter, P.J., Zuccaro, G., & Petraz-
zuoli, S. 2005. Residential building and occupant vulner-
ability to tephra fall. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Sciences, 5. 477-494.
Spence, R.J.S., Antonios, P., Baxter, P.J., Coburn, A.W.,
White, M., Dayrit, M., & Field Epidemiology Training
Team. 1996. Building Damage Caused by the Mount Pi-
natubo Eruption of June 15, 1991. Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology & University of Washington
Press.
United Nations 1985. Post earthquake damage evaluation and
strength assessment of buildings, UNIDO/UNDP-
PER/79/015, vol. 4.
Zuccaro, G., Cacace, F., Faggiano, B., Nigro, E, De Gregorio,
D. 2010. Volcanic actions and their consequences on struc-
tures. Proceedings of COST Action C26 Final International
Conference on Urban habitat construction under catastro-
phic events, Naples, 16-18 September 2010.