International Journal of Architectural Heritage

Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

ISSN: 1558-3058 (Print) 1558-3066 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of the Urban

Building Environment in Nablus, Palestine

Antonella Di Meo, Barbara Borzi, Marta Faravelli, Marco Pagano, Paola

Ceresa, Ricardo Monteiro & Jalal Al-Dabbeek

To cite this article: Antonella Di Meo, Barbara Borzi, Marta Faravelli, Marco Pagano, Paola
Ceresa, Ricardo Monteiro & Jalal Al-Dabbeek (2018): Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of the
Urban Building Environment in Nablus, Palestine, International Journal of Architectural Heritage,
DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2018.1503364

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1503364

Published online: 27 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 22

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2018.1503364

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of the Urban Building Environment in Nablus,

Palestine
Antonella Di Meoa, Barbara Borzia, Marta Faravellia, Marco Paganoa, Paola Ceresab, Ricardo Monteiro c
,
and Jalal Al-Dabbeekd
a
Risk Scenarios, European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EUCENTRE), Pavia, Italy; bSeismic Hazard and Risk
Analysis, Risk Engineering and Design (RED), Pavia, Italy; cUniversity School for Advanced Studies IUSS Pavia, Pavia, Italy; dBuilding
Engineering Department, Urban Planning and Disaster Risk Reduction Center (UPDRRC) An Najah National University (ANNU), Nablus,
Palestine

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article describes a specifically developed framework to produce a seismic physical vulner- Received 4 October 2017
ability model of residential buildings in Nablus (Palestine) within the European project Accepted 13 April 2018
SASPARM2.0. Based on the structural taxonomy of the territory, two different forms were defined KEYWORDS
to collect geometrical and structural data of buildings by different stakeholders (citizens and Data collection; fragility
practitioners). This data was then employed to produce fragility curves using the mechanics-based curves; seismic risk;
procedure SP-BELA. To estimate seismic risk, the developed fragility model was combined with a structural vulnerability;
hazard curve for the corresponding location. The described procedure is implemented in a WebGIS platform
WebGIS platform that allows to georeference and assess the surveyed buildings and define
retrofitting strategies. Finally, the article carries out a comparison between the fragility curves
of buildings in Nablus and the ones calculated for similar building typologies within a UNDP
Jordan project aiming at the integrated risk assessment in Wadi Musa and surroundings.

1. Introduction urban environments has also been proposed by

Duzgun et al. (2011), performing the vulnerability
Seismic vulnerability of urban environments has
assessment at a neighborhood scale. This method inte-
increased over the years as a result of the urban increas-
grates socio-economic, structural, coastal, ground con-
ing complexity. There have been several attempts for
ditions, fragilities, as well as accessibility to critical
the development of seismic vulnerability and risk eva-
services. Dolce et al. (2012) proposed a methodological
luation methods for urban areas that take into account
framework for “ordering”, through progressive levels of
various aspects of vulnerability, such as physical, social,
analyses, different evaluation models related to urban
and economic. For instance, Cardona (2001) developed
seismic vulnerability with respect to the possible final
a conceptual framework and a model for seismic risk
objectives of seismic scenarios, emergency, or urban
analysis of urban centres from a holistic perspective,
planning, as well as seismic mitigation strategies and
accounting for physical vulnerability, exposure, and
loss estimates; this methodology has been developed
socio-economic features of the different units of the
within the URBISIT project, funded by the Italian
city and their degree of resilience. Building upon
Civil Protection Department. To facilitate data collec-
Cardona’s model, a different methodology was devel-
tion and seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings
oped by Carreño (2006) and Carreño et al. (2007a,
in dense urban areas, Elsabbagh et al. (2013) developed
2007b) for the evaluation of seismic risk of urban
a Geographic Information System (GIS) based assess-
environments by means of indices, with direct applica-
ment desktop and mobile toolset (named Urban RAT)
tions to the cities of Bogota (Colombia) and Barcelona
allowing for intense data collection and revolutionizing
(Spain). The latter has also been chosen as case-study
the traditional sidewalk survey approach to collecting
by Barbat et al. (2010) for the application of the most
building data. With these tools, more than 14,000
relevant seismic vulnerability and risk assessment
buildings have been assessed in eight major downtown
methodologies for urban areas. In 2011, an integrated
neighbourhoods of the Ottawa city, Ontario, Canada.
earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for

CONTACT Antonella Di Meo antonella.dimeo@eucentre.it Via Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uarc.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 A. D. MEO ET AL.
For what concerns historical urban centres in parti-
cular, Maio et al. (2016) proved the reliability of the
seismic vulnerability index methodology based on the
Italian “Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti”
II level approach (GNDT 1993; GNDT-SSN 1994),
considering as case-of-study the old city centre of
Faro, Portugal. The GNDT approach (1993) is based
on post-seismic damage observation and survey data
covering a vast number of elements and focuses on the
most important aspects and features that define build-
ing damage. As part of the national project “URBISIS:
Assessing Vulnerability and Managing Earthquake Risk
at Urban Scale”, a complete identification and inspec-
tion survey of the old masonry buildings inserted in the
Riberinha area of Faro was performed. The data gath-
ered from the inspections of 345 buildings (spread over
80.000 m2) was processed and then crosschecked with
the corresponding case files founded at the local
Department of Urban Regeneration, allowing a better
knowledge of the existing structural typologies and its
evolution throughout the years. A further application to
assess the seismic vulnerability of old city centers has
been presented by Athmani, Ferreira, and Vicente
(2017), considering the old masonry building stock in
Annaba city, Algeria, as case-study. The applied meth-
odology is, once again, based on the Italian GNDT II
level approach (GNDT 1993; GNDT-SSN, Gruppo
Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti 1994), but then
adapted for the Algerian masonry buildings redefining
the criteria behind some of the most important para-
meters and introducing new parameters to account for
typically overlooked building features. A further recent
contribution for assessing the vulnerability of urban
areas to different seismic scenarios has also been pre-
sented by Mesgara and Parham Jalilvandb (2017) with a
direct application to buildings of Iranian cities, leading
to the estimation of structural damage and loss of life.
The research work presented in this article is related
to a specifically developed framework to release a seis-
mic physical vulnerability model of urban building
environments in Palestine. Palestine is a territory with
seismicity due to the geodynamic process that acts
along a left-lateral fault between the Arabia and the
Sinai Tectonic plates (Al-Dabbeek and El-Kelani
2008). The fault is known as Dead Sea Transform
(DST) and is shown in Figure 1, which denotes how
the DST generally causes earthquakes of magnitude up
to 6.5. Many of these earthquakes were catastrophic,
causing the destruction of cities and the death of thou-
sands of people, both due to the hazard of the area and
to the vulnerability of the buildings present on the
territory. To date, limited attention has been paid to
the design of buildings that were often constructed with
poor materials and without respecting any seismic
design criteria, such as regularity and uniformity in
both plan and elevation. This construction practice
led to a vulnerable building environment that, com-
bined with the local hazard and exposure, contributes
significantly to a high level of seismic risk in the
territory.
2. The SASPARM 2.0 project
The increasing seismic risk awareness observed in
Palestine underlined the importance to adopt the first
Seismic Building Code, i.e., the “Jordanian Code for
Earthquake-Resistant Buildings” (JNBC 2005), intro-
duced in Palestine with the (SASPARM (Support
Action for Strengthening Palestinian-administrated
Areas capabilities for seismic Risk Mitigation) FP7 pro-
ject, (2012). concluded in 2014, which aimed to disse-
minate the concept of seismic risk in Palestine.
Afterward, the assessment of the seismic vulnerability
of the existing buildings was considered necessary and
was the main objective of the SASPARM 2.0 project,
funded by the European Civil Protection and
Humanitarian Aid Operations Unit (DG-ECHO) in
2014 and lasted two years (from 2015 to 2016).
Nablus was the selected case-study for the implementa-
tion and calibration of the activities of both projects.
2.1. Seismic assessment methodology
The starting point of the adopted methodology to
assess the seismic vulnerability was the classification
of buildings, i.e., the definition of a taxonomy for the
urban area of Nablus. In particular, three main struc-
tural types were identified, namely masonry buildings,
reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings, and RC shear
wall buildings. Based on this taxonomy, two survey
forms were defined to collect the geometrical and struc-
tural data of the buildings, which was needed to assess
their seismic vulnerability. The two forms differ only in
terms of level of detail as they are addressed to citizens
and practitioners, identified as main users of the project
outcomes. Once geometrical and structural data were
collected, the vulnerability of the buildings was char-
acterized through fragility curves, calculated through
the mechanics-based method SP-BELA (Simplified
Pushover-Based Earthquake Loss Assessment) (Borzi,
Crowley, and Pinho 2008a; Borzi, Pinho, and Crowley
2008b). SP-BELA was developed to assess the vulner-
ability of Italian buildings (Borzi et al. 2011, 2013) but
herein the methodology was modified in order to
represent the as-built in Nablus. Specifically, the fragi-
lity curves are calculated for five damage levels (D)

Figure 1. Seismicity map of the Dead Sea Transform region (1000–2007 A.D.) with the DESERT deep sounding line (Al-Dabbeek and
El-Kelani 2008).
according to EMS98 (European Macroseismic Scale
1998) scale (Grünthal 1998) and then associated to
each building in relation to the structural typology
and the number of stories. The seismic demand to
which each building is subjected is defined by the
hazard curve of the corresponding location. For the
specific case study of Nablus, the hazard curve was
obtained from the “West Bank and Gaza Strip:
Seismic Hazard Map Distribution” (USAID MERC
Project Team M18–057 2007). With both hazard and
fragility curves, defined in terms of the same intensity
measure, the unconditional probabilities (risk) of
exceeding a given damage state were also calculated
for three time windows (1, 10, and 50 years).
The described procedure was implemented in a web-
based application with GIS functionalities (WebGIS),
developed at the Eucentre Foundation (European
Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake
Engineering) who coordinated the (SPASPARM 2.0
project (2014). The WebGIS is a simple and intuitive
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 3
platform developed for users with different back-
grounds, such as citizens, students, practitioners, gov-
ernmental or non-governmental institutions. The
platform is organized in tabs which allow the user to
examine the survey form, the hazard curve, the set of
fragility curves, and the damage level probability of
occurrence for each selected building, as previously
described. Furthermore, the WebGIS suggests possible
retrofitting measures to reduce the building seismic
vulnerability and risk, in terms of damage level prob-
abilities of exceedance, as will be described in the fol-
lowing sections.
2.2. Webgis platform
The developed Web-Based Platform (WBP) for seismic
risk mitigation was the main deliverable of SASPARM
2.0 project (2014). It allows the user to load and man-
age data collected during in-situ surveys of the residen-
tial buildings, which are all georeferenced and available
4 A. D. MEO ET AL.
Figure 2. Tab Map – Opening screenshot of the developed WebGIS platform.
in the tab “Map”, as shown in Figure 2. The structural
data was collected by both citizens and practitioners
who filled in two different forms, designed according to
the urban building environment of Nablus (Grigoratos
et al. 2017). In Figure 2, featuring a screenshot of
WebGIS Map, the citizen forms are marked in green
while the practitioner ones are in blue. The completion
of the forms can be carried out either directly on the
WebGIS, using the tabs Building form-Practitioners and
Building form-Citizens, or through two smartphone
Apps that were specifically developed for Android
operating system (version 4.0 or higher).
When selecting a building from the tab Map, it is
possible to assess the unconditional probability of
exceeding a given damage level within a predefined
time window, using the tab Risk, from the combina-
tion between hazard and fragility. The information
regarding these two components is available in the
tabs Hazard and Fragility of the WebGIS, respec-
tively. While hazard depends on the site, the fragility
is related to the geometrical and structural character-
istics of buildings, which were collected through the
above-mentioned forms. The fragility curves were
calculated by using the mechanics-based method
SP-BELA (Borzi, Crowley, and Pinho 2008a; Borzi,
Pinho, and Crowley 2008b) for five damage levels
according to EMS98 Scale (Grünthal 1998), namely:
slight damage (D1), moderate damage (D2), extensive
damage (D3), complete damage (D4), and collapse
(D5). Figure 3 and the following sections describe
in detail the overall procedure for assessing the seis-
mic vulnerability of residential buildings in the urban
area of Nablus and the uploading of research outputs
into the WebGIS platform.
3. Building taxonomy in Nablus
The vast majority of the Palestinian buildings, and in
specific in the municipality of Nablus, can be grouped
in three main structural types:
● mixed masonry-concrete wall buildings;
● RC frame buildings; and
● RC shear wall buildings.
Mixed masonry-concrete wall buildings, hereafter
called “Masonry buildings” for brevity, were very com-
mon in Nablus up to the 1970s, featuring typically a
maximum of four stories and one or two bays in both
directions. To some extent, these buildings can be con-
sidered as a hybrid structural typology since the concrete
part is expected to play a structural role. Regarding the
construction method, masonry walls can have three or
two layers. In the case of masonry walls with three layers,
the concrete is sandwiched between two surface layers of
masonry stones thus resulting in a wall thickness of
around 400–500 mm. Instead, when the concrete is
cast behind the masonry stones, the wall has masonry
stones on one-side and concrete surface on the other.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 5

Figure 3. Scheme of the procedure for assessing the probabilities of exceedance of the predefined damage states of the residential
buildings in Nablus.

Figure 4. Typical masonry buildings in the urban area of Nablus: (left) mixed masonry-concrete wall building, built after 1940, and
(right) heritage building, built before 1940.

Recently, another construction method is becoming
popular: concrete hollow blocks used in lieu of frame-
work so as to provide permanent support for masonry
walls. This method generates a wall with concrete blocks
on one side and masonry stones on the other side with
filling concrete in between. This type of walls can have a
thickness up to 350 mm.
All the above-mentioned masonry walls use blocks
with approximately 250 mm height, 300–600 mm width,
and 150–200 mm thickness. These stones are generally
placed row-by-row with a thin layer (around 10–20 mm)
of 16–24 MPa compressive strength unreinforced con-
crete, which is typically the case for buildings built before
1970. It is common to find masonry walls supporting
concrete slabs which can be made of either a two-way
solid slab with typical thickness around 200–250 mm or a
composite steel-concrete construction with steel joists as
supporting beams for the solid slabs. The wall-slab con-
nections were in general poor and this was taken into
account when calculating the fragility functions for this
building typology, considering in-plan failure mechanism
of the walls. Specifically, coefficients were derived using
observed damage data of past earthquake events in Italy,
given the lack of specific data for Palestine. Further details
are provided in Section 6.2. While the first type of slab is
used for spans up to 4–5 m, the second type is able to
cover spans up to 5–7 m in both directions. The weight of
the slab and the superimposed dead load is about
6 A. D. MEO ET AL.
5–10 kN/m2. Figure 4 illustrates some examples of typical
masonry buildings in Nablus. As one can see from
Figure 4 right, there are heritage buildings within the
mixed masonry-concrete wall typologies. They are usually
buildings built before 1940, according to the classification
given by the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (the
competent Palestinian organism).
For what concerns RC frame buildings, they are
currently the most common building typology in
Nablus. They can go up to 15 floors or more and
have generally two or three bays in both directions.
Typically, inter-story height ranges from 3.0–3.5 m
and the width of the bays ranges from 4–6 m in both
directions. The partitions are usually made up of hol-
low concrete blocks with 100 mm thickness. On the
other hand, the outer infill walls can be made of three
layers (i.e., hollow concrete blocks of 100 mm thick-
ness, unreinforced concrete layer of about 130 mm
thickness, and stone layer of about 70 mm thickness)
or only one layer, 150–200 mm thick, composed by
hollow concrete blocks. In the case of outer infill walls
with three layers, the weight ranges between 6 and
7 kN/m2 whereas for the outer infill walls with one
layer, the weight ranges between 2.0 and 2.5 kN/m2. It
is quite common for RC buildings not to exhibit clad-
ding, partially or totally, at one or more floors, which
increases their proneness to soft story collapse mechan-
isms and, consequently, their seismic vulnerability.
Concerning the slabs, they can be either one-way or
two-way ribbed slabs by proper arrangement of hollow
concrete blocks. For one-way slabs, the weight ranges
between 4 and 7 kN/m2 while for two-way slabs, the
weight can be between 5 and 8 kN/m2. The ordinary
concrete cylindrical compressive strength (fcd) is
between 24 and 32 MPa whilst the reinforcing steel
can have a yielding strength (fyd) of 420 MPa.
Generally, in this building system the minimum steel
reinforcement is around 1% for columns and 0.35% for
slabs, respectively.
In addition to the RC frame structural system, RC
shear wall buildings are becoming more and more
Figure 5. Examples of RC buildings in Nablus: (left) frame building and (right) shear wall building.
common in Nablus. Usually such buildings are charac-
terized by a number of stories ranging from 5–20 and
3–5 bays in each direction. The walls are generally
250–300 mm thick and provide both lateral and vertical
support. If present, inner RC columns can contribute to
carry the gravity loads only. Figure 5 shows examples of
typical RC frame and wall buildings in Nablus.
As a preliminary evaluation of the seismic vulner-
ability of the Palestinian typical in-built, Table 1 reports
the classification of the different building typologies
identified in Nablus, according to the vulnerability
classes of EMS98 (Grünthal 1998). The vulnerability
level of Palestinian existing buildings may, however,
be significantly worse than the ones presented in
Table 1. As reported in the work by Al-Dabbeek and
El-Kelani (2008), the lack of a national seismic design
and construction code, and/or the absence of ad-hoc
authorities for controlling the application and enforce-
ment regulations, originates frequent shortcomings in
the design and construction (e.g., short columns, soft
stories, low quality of materials) of the buildings.
Furthermore, practitioners, engineers, and decision
makers still have little knowledge of seismic risk related
to concepts and practice. In this sense, both SASPARM
(2012) and (SASPARM 2.0, 2014) have addressed these
deficiencies. In particular, SASPARM (2012) promoted
the introduction of the first Seismic Building Code
(JNBC 2005) in Palestine whereas (SASPARM 2.0,
2014) disseminated an increasing awareness on the
concept of seismic vulnerability among citizens, practi-
tioners, governmental and non-governmental stake-
holders, and decision makers.
4. Data collection
In order to assess the vulnerability of the residential
buildings in Nablus, geometrical and structural data
was collected to be able to produce fragility curves.
Two forms were used for data collection: one for citi-
zens and the other (more detailed) for practitioners.
The two survey forms were drafted on the basis of the

building environment of Nablus described in Section 3
and taking as a reference the survey forms (i.e., AeDES)
used by the Italian Civil Protection during inspection of
buildings after a seismic event. The forms are organized
in different sections which start with the information
about the compiler (i.e., name, surname, level of educa-
tion, etc.) and the location of the building (i.e., munici-
pality, street name, etc.). In order to georeference each
surveyed building, its geographical coordinates in
WGS84 (World Geodetic System 1984) System are
required. Afterward, the building position has to be
specified, as this will provide useful information on its
expected seismic response. Specifically, the building
position can be isolated, inner, end, or corner.
Calculating the fragility curves with a mechanics
based procedure (SP-BELA; Borzi, Crowley, and 385
Pinho 2008a; Borzi, Pinho, and Crowley 2008b) involved
first the modeling of the building. For this reason, the
height of the building was estimated by asking the num-
ber of stories of the structure in the forms of both
citizens and practitioners. Furthermore, in the practi-
tioners’ form, information on the average floor height
and the average floor area is required. Since the SP-
BELA method (see Section 5.1) takes into account the
possible seismic design criteria adopted in the design of
each building, the forms also required the year of con-
struction and year of eventual structural upgrade. Then,
to identify the structural typology of the building, it was
necessary to identify the vertical structure as in masonry
or reinforced concrete. Other materials were not consid-
ered, as they are not representative of Palestinian build-
ings. For RC buildings, the forms asked to specify the
Figure 6. Home Page of the SASPARM2.0 Apps for: (left) citizens and (right) practitioners.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 7
eventual lack of infill walls at one or more floors, which
can cause soft-story collapse mechanisms in case of
significant ground shaking. Practitioners are also asked
to indicate the possible presence of shear walls. Finally,
only the practitioners entered data about horizontal
structural elements, regularity in plan and elevation,
and geomorphology, as they had access to the technical
plans and drawings of buildings. Both citizen and practi-
tioner forms end with two sections that allow to attach
pictures of the surveyed building or to write additional
information.
The completion of the forms can be made either
directly on the WebGIS platform, using the dedicated
tabs (Building form – Practitioners or Building form –
Citizens), or through two Apps developed for Android
smartphones and tablets, which can be obtained from
the tab Downloads of the WebGIS platform. Both Apps
reproduce exactly the forms for practitioners and citi-
zens implemented in the WebGIS platform and are
briefly illustrated in Figure 6. After a quick and simple
data entry, available even without Internet connection,
the Apps upload the data to the WebGIS platform. The
entire framework and procedure to fill in the forms
through either the WebGIS platform or the Apps is
thoroughly described in the works by Di Meo et al.
(2017a, 2017b).
The SASPARM 2.0 2014) initiative underlined the
importance of acting toward the reduction of the phy-
sical seismic vulnerability of buildings, using a database
with the in-situ collected geometric and structural char-
acteristics of often rather irregular buildings. This
approach can be followed not only in Palestine but
8 A. D. MEO ET AL.

Table 2. Distribution relationships and values assumed for masonry buildings prototype.
Element Probabilistic Distribution Value* Standard deviation
Geometry
Walls resistant area - seismic action direction Normal distribution 10% ± 5%
Walls resistant area – orthogonal direction of seismic action Normal distribution 10% ± 5%
Walls length resistant as a % of external walls length Normal distribution 66% ± 10%
Inter-story height Normal distribution 3.4 m ± 1.1 m
Loads
Structural weight Normal distribution 4 kN/m2 ± 2 kN/m2
Non-structural weight Normal distribution 3.5 kN/m2 ± 1 kN/m2
Live weight Constant value 3 kN/m2 -
Water tanks weight Random selection (0.5÷1) × (number of stories) -
Mechanical characteristics and deformation capacity
Shear stress Uniform distribution From 40–100 kN/m2 -
Inter-story drift - Light damage limit state Normal distribution 0.13% 0.046%
Inter-story drift - significant damage limit state Normal distribution 0.34% 0.102%
Inter-story drift - collapse Normal distribution 0.72% 0.252%
*In case of normal or log-normal distribution, the value corresponds to the mean.

also in other European or Mediterranean countries that
lack detailed Census data. To this end, Grigoratos et al.
(2017) proposed an updated form, which can be used
also in cities with different building construction tech-
nologies (e.g., steel, timber, etc.).
5. Assessment of the structural vulnerability in
Nablus
5.1. SP-BELA methodology
Simplified Pushover-Based Earthquake Loss Assessment
(SP-BELA) is an analytical method that allows to estimate
the vulnerability of masonry buildings (Borzi, Crowley,
and Pinho 2008a), RC frame buildings (Borzi, Pinho, and
Crowley 2008b), and precast buildings (Bolognini, Borzi,
and Pinho 2008) by determining fragility curves.
Although the method was initially developed to assess
the vulnerability of Italian buildings, it can be used also
for different building environments given that it allows to
easily modify the input parameters, such as geometry,
loads, or material properties.
Specifically, fragility curves are obtained by compar-
ing the displacement capacity of buildings that are repre-
sentative of certain building classes with the
displacement demand for the considered damage levels.
Originally, SP-BELA features three limit states: light
damage (LS1), significant damage (LS2), and collapse
(LS3). Considering that the EMS98 scale (Grünthal
1998) involves five damage levels, i.e., slight damage
(D1), moderate damage (D2), extensive damage (D3),
complete damage (D4), and collapse (D5), the procedure
includes an additional step that enables to adjust the
fragility curves calculated for the previous three limit
states, which have the advantage to be numerically iden-
tified, into five fragility curves. The relationship between
damage levels and limit states has been defined on the
basis of observed damage data in recent Italian
earthquakes from Friuli (1976) to Emilia (2002)
(Faravelli et al. 2017). Observed damage data are not
available for Palestine hence the results obtained for
Italy were used.
To obtain representative fragility curves, the first
step is to define a building prototype that best
represents the structural type of the selected building
class. Afterward, SP-BELA generates a sample of
buildings using the probabilistic Monte Carlo
method. The generation of the sample of buildings
is achieved by varying key structural parameters,
such as the geometry of the buildings, the applied
loads, the material characteristics, or the deformation
capacity, according to pre-fitted statistical distribu-
tions, such as normal distribution, log-normal dis-
tribution, uniform distribution, random selection
between a set of values, and constant value. In the
following sections and in Tables 2 and 3, it is
detailed how structural parameters change according
to pre-established statistical distributions, when deal-
ing with the definition of fragility curves for the
considered structural typologies.
Once the representative sample of a given type of
structure is defined, SP-BELA simulates the seismic
design of each building to reduce the number of
random variables that describe the sample. Indeed,
structural characteristics, such as dimension and
reinforcement of structural elements, are not random
variables but are rather designed according to the
standards used at the time of construction.
After the design step, a nonlinear static analysis is
carried out for each building to obtain its pushover
curve. During the pushover analysis, the forces
increase until the structure reaches the collapse
limit condition. In SP-BELA the pushover curve is
idealized through a bilinear curve that leads to an
elastic-perfectly-plastic behavior for each type of
building, except for RC buildings with infill walls
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 9

Table 3. Distribution relationships and values assumed for RC frame buildings prototype.
Element Probabilistic Distribution Value* Standard deviation
Geometry
Length of spans Uniform distribution 4–6 m -
Inter-story height Uniform distribution 3–3.5 m -
Loads
Structural weight Normal distribution 6 kN/m2 ± 2 kN/m2
Non-structural weight Normal distribution 3.5 kN/m2 0.5 kN/m2
Live weight Constant value 3 kN/m2 -
Infill walls Random selection 2.5÷7 kN/m2 -
Water tanks weight Random selection (0.5÷1) × (number of stories) -
Mechanical characteristics and deformation capacity
Concrete
fcd Normal distribution 28 MPa ± 4 MPa
εu Uniform distribution From 0.3% to 0.8% -
Steel
fyd Constant value 420 MPa -
εu Uniform distribution From 1% to 3% -
*In case of normal or log-normal distribution, the value corresponds to the mean.

that provide a contribution to the base shear resis-
tance (Borzi, Crowley, and Pinho 2008c). However,
this structural typology was disregarded for Palestine
as a result of the non-reliable connection between
infills and frames, denoted by the observation of the
construction practice.
As a consequence of the elastic-perfectly-plastic
behavior, the pushover curve is defined by the collapse
multiplier (a coefficient that multiplied by the seismic
weight yields the base shear resistance) and the displa-
cement capacities only. Figure 7 shows an example of
the pushover curve for a building with elastic-perfectly-
plastic behavior, on which the original three limit states
of the SP-BELA method are identified. Light damage
limit state corresponds to the end of elastic behavior
whilst severe damage numerically corresponds to the
achievement of 60% of the displacement capacity cor-
responding to life safety conditions, which correspond
to the collapse limit state.
Figure 7. Pushover curve for elastic-perfectly-plastic structural
behavior of the original SP-BELA method.
From the pushover curve, it is then possible to
define the properties of an equivalent single degree
of freedom (SDOF) system which matches the origi-
nal multi degree of freedom (MDOF) system in terms
of equivalent vibration period, displacement, and
energy dissipation capacity. The latter is taken into
account by means of an equivalent damping factor
that can be defined as a function of ductility. The
performance point of the SDOF system is determined
by comparing the capacity curve with the spectral
displacement demand. Specifically, a displacement
spectral shape is anchored to each value of peak
ground acceleration (PGA) for which the point of
the fragility curve is calculated. Finally, by comparing
the displacement demand with the displacement
capacity, it is possible to define the fraction of build-
ings within the sample that reach the considered
limit conditions. By increasing the intensity level, it
is then possible to obtain the different points of the
fragility curve for each limit state, through a lognor-
mal cumulative distribution.
For the irregular residential buildings in Nablus, the
fragility curves obtained with the SP-BELA method were
modified to account for the behavior that cannot be cap-
tured by static analyses (non-regularity in plan and in
elevation, torsional effects, etc.). Further details explaining
this correction procedure are provided in Section 6.2. The
level of irregularity was detected and characterised through
the collection forms (Grigoratos et al. 2016).
A set of five fragility curves, corresponding to the
damage levels D1–D5, was therefore obtained for each
building class, defined in terms of structural typology and
number of stories. The following sections describe the
assumptions made for the calculation of the fragility
curves of each structural typology and present the set of
fragility curves that is included in the WebGIS platform
(tab Fragility) per each georeferenced building (tab Map).
10 A. D. MEO ET AL.

5.2. Fragility curves for masonry buildings function of the damage level: for the damage levels
D3 and D4, which correspond to the limit states LS2
Fragility curves are calculated for masonry buildings
and LS3, the assumed values are equal to 2.8 and 2.3.
with 1–4 stories. In this structural typology, earth-
The curves for the other damage levels are derived
quakes of a certain intensity can activate two failure
from the latter, as explained in Section 5.1.
mechanisms: (i) in-plane collapse mechanisms and (ii)
Finally, Table 2 shows the quantities (mean and stan-
out-of-plane collapse mechanisms. In the presence of
dard deviation) assumed for geometry, loads, and
ground shaking, a building develops a global collapse
mechanical characteristics and deformation capacity for
mechanism only if “in-plane collapse mechanisms” are
generating a sample of one thousand buildings with
activated before the “out-of-plane collapse mechan-
Monte Carlo method. Further details regarding the defi-
isms”. The causes of “out-of-plane collapse mechan-
nition of the mean and standard deviation values can be
isms” are mostly related to the lack of edge beams
found in the deliverable D.F.1 (2016) of the SASPARM2.0
and ties or the presence of shortcomings in design
project, which can be freely downloaded from the project
and/or construction phase. As this kind of information
website (www.sasparm2.com). The “Walls length resis-
was not available for masonry buildings in Nablus, the
tant as a % of external walls length” is the percentage of
structural vulnerability of this typology was assessed
the length of the wall resisting to the seismic action.
considering the “in-plane collapse mechanisms” only.
Furthermore, an estimate of the masonry’s stiffness was
Such an approach is clearly simplified and future stu-
not considered since the limits of the strains resulting
dies should explicitly address this important source of
from experimental tests have been taken into account.
building vulnerability collecting more specific data and
Also, the masonry’s compressive strength was not taken
using appropriate procedures based, for instance, on
into account because only the shear failure of the wall has
limit analysis or other-well established approaches
been considered. The interstory drift is an input para-
(Abo-El-Ezz et al. 2017; Ferreira, Costa, and Costa
meter of the analysis and it is related to the modeling
2015; Sorrentino et al. 2017).
strategy adopted for masonry buildings, which foresaw
In line with this hypothesis, SP-BELA generates
the use of an equivalent SDOF system to describe the
fragility curves that are valid for good quality
capacity curve of the buildings.
masonry only however, given that the Palestinian
As an example, the set of fragility curves computed
building stock is mostly composed by poor quality
for a 3-story masonry building is presented in Figure 8.
masonry buildings, the vulnerability assessment of
the Palestinian residential masonry buildings
required a hybrid procedure. In particular, the 5.3. Fragility curves for RC frame buildings
defined procedure combined the good quality
Fragility curves were calculated for RC frame buildings
masonry fragility curves produced with SP-BELA
with 1–10 stories. The upper bound of 10 stories was
with the results of the observed damage collected
defined considering that after around 30 m (ca. 10
after the earthquakes occurred in Italy between 1976
stories), the structural vulnerability is no longer a func-
(Friuli) and 2012 (Emilia). Comparing the damage
tion of the number of floors. Following the SP-BELA
scenarios calculated with SP-BELA method versus
procedure, a building prototype that best represents RC
the observed damage data, correction factors were
buildings in Nablus was defined. The building proto-
calibrated to convert the good quality masonry fragi-
type was assumed to have five spans in one direction
lity curves into the low quality ones. This process was
(x-x) and two spans in the other (y-y). Table 3 sum-
carried out assuming that the higher vulnerability of
marizes the assumptions made regarding geometry,
the latter affects the mean value of the distribution
loads, and material properties, to generate a sample of
but does not change the uncertainty in terms of
one thousand buildings with the Monte Carlo method.
behavior of the building class. Accordingly, coeffi-
Considering that the Seismic Building Code (JNBC
cients that relate the mean of fragility curves for
2005) was introduced in Palestine only after the
high vulnerability buildings with the mean of fragility
SASPARM FP7-Project (2012), each building of the
curves for low vulnerability buildings have been cal-
sample has been designed taking into account the ver-
culated while the coefficients of variation have not
tical loads only. This leads to buildings characterized by
been modified. The correction factors were calibrated
frames that are oriented in one direction only. In the
using the coefficients from the best fit (minimum
orthogonal direction, however, the frame effect is guar-
square root of differences) that relates simulated
anteed by the floor slabs’ contribution only.
damage scenario and observed damage from past
Furthermore, it is assumed that the frames are not
events in Italy. These correction factors vary as a
well connected to the infill walls hence cladding is

Figure 8. Tab Fragility - Fragility curves for 3-story masonry buildings.
assumed not to be effective in terms of lateral forces but
only as weight. The distribution of infill walls is con-
sidered regular both in plan and elevation. The poten-
tial brittle response of the structural elements is not
directly accounted for in the modeling approach
(Kagermanov and Ceresa 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c).
Another consequence of the pre-code standard design
is the behavior of buildings under seismic loads. In
particular, it is assumed that each building of the sam-
ple will collapse only according to a weak-story
mechanism when subjected to horizontal forces. To
evaluate the generation of plastic hinges due to hori-
zontal forces, the SP-BELA procedure follows the
research outcomes of the work by Priestley and Calvi
(1991). For each frame column, SP-BELA calculates the
maximum value of shear that the column can with-
stand, as the smallest value between:
● the shear capacity of the column; and
● the shear corresponding to the flexural capacity of
the column.
Figure 9. Tab Fragility - Fragility curves for 7-story RC frame buildings.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 11
For the shear capacity, stirrups with diameter of 8 mm
and spacing of 30 cm were assumed in each column
whereas the ratio for longitudinal reinforcement (ρ) has
been adopted as 1%, as used in the common practice
before the introduction of Seismic Building Code (JNBC
2005). As an example, Figure 9 presents the set of fragility
curves calculated for the regular 7-story reinforced con-
crete frame buildings, as shown in the WebGIS platform.
Although SP-BELA allows to choose the mechanical
behavior of buildings, it is currently not able to con-
sider the effects due to torsional behavior and eventual
local collapse mechanisms of irregular buildings. This
limitation was addressed by applying correction/cali-
bration coefficients to SP-BELA results, using a set of
irregular RC prototype buildings, non-seismically
designed and representative of the common construc-
tion practice in Nablus, that were pre-identified based
on field observation data. Such prototype buildings
were analyzed through nonlinear time history analyses,
even if the torsional and shear responses of the struc-
tural elements were not directly modeled (Kagermanov
12 A. D. MEO ET AL.
and Ceresa 2017a, 2017b, 2017c) with a suitable set of
ground motion records that were selected using a
recent state-of-the-art hazard model, specific for the
Middle East region. For each irregular building, a cor-
responding regular one, which SP-BELA is considered
capable to assess, was defined. Despite the particular
irregularity of each prototype, both the regular and
irregular versions have the same mean values of the
distributions that define the geometric configurations
and material properties of the building population. The
calibration coefficients were then defined by comparing
the response, in terms of base shear-top displacement
curves, of both regular and irregular versions consider-
ing the ratio between one curve and the other for the
specific SP-BELA damage states. Once computed, such
coefficients were used to modify the spectral demand,
which SP-BELA compares with the displacement capa-
city at each damage state, to define whether a specific
damage state is exceeded or not. This approach was
developed to convert the response of a regular building
to the response of an irregular one in a simplified
manner, suitable for large-scale seismic assessment stu-
dies based on random simulations. The spectral
demand correction coefficients were then applied to
the fragility functions of a percentage of the building
stock in Nablus, identified as irregular from the field
data collection forms. More details on the adopted
procedure can be found in the study by Grigoratos
et al. (2016).
5.4. Fragility curves for RC shear wall buildings
Unlike masonry and RC frame buildings, representing the
RC shear wall building typology using a standard layout,
as required by mechanics-based procedures such as SP-
BELA, is not simple, particularly for cases like Nablus,
where little information at portfolio level is available. In
Figure 10. Tab Fragility - Fragility curves for 10-story RC shear wall buildings.
order to overcome the lack of a representative prototype
building, the structural vulnerability of RC shear wall
buildings has been evaluated starting from the fragility
curves of RC frame buildings with the same number of
stories, applying a correction factor to their mean values.
In particular, the assumption herein considered was that
the presence of shear walls reduces the average value of
the corresponding RC frame buildings’ fragility curves
while the coefficient of variation does not change
(Deliverable D.F.1 2016). The correction factor used to
estimate the fragility curves for RC shear wall buildings
from RC frame ones has been based on the vulnerability
study presented in HAZUS (FEMA 1999), which pro-
poses fragility curves for different structural types.
Specifically, from the ratio between the average values of
fragility curves for shear wall buildings and those of RC
frame buildings with masonry infills, a correction factor
of 1.3 has been derived. Figure 10 illustrates the set of
fragility curves calculated for 10-story RC shear wall
buildings, obtained as described above.
5.5. Comparison of fragility curves from other
approaches
It is relatively common in risk assessment studies to
adopt fragility curves available from neighbor countries
or previous studies on similar building typologies. In this
sense, this section points out two main aspects: firstly,
the importance of knowing and understanding the
methodology adopted for the derivation of the fragility
curves; and then, the high value of in-situ collected data
for the development of a physical fragility model more
suitable for the case-of-study under evaluation.
The fragility curves developed ad-hoc to assess the
structural vulnerability of buildings in Nablus are thus
compared with two other sets of fragility curves for similar
building typologies defined with alternative approaches.

The first refers to fragility curves calculated in the frame-
work of the UNDP JORDAN project (2012) for buildings
in Wadi Musa, a town located in the Ma’an Governorate in
Southern Jordan, North East of Petra, where construction
practice can find similarities with Palestine to a significant
extent. The second corresponds to the curves adopted for
the structural typologies representative of the Palestinian
ones, selected from the HAZUS (FEMA 1999) set of fragi-
lity curves.
The fragility curves developed for Wadi Musa are
the only ones available in the technical literature for a
geographic area close to Nablus, with a similar socio-
political context. The comparison is carried out for
both masonry and RC frame buildings built in Wadi
Musa before 2000. In the Technical Report of the
UNDP JORDAN project (UNDP-Jordan Project Team
2013), these structures belong to the category “Low-
Code Pre 2000”, since designed according to a pre-code
seismic standard. Given that the seismic code has been
introduced in Nablus only very recently, the fragility
curves of RC frame buildings have been calculated with
SP-BELA assuming a soft story collapse mechanism. As
such, among the twenty building typologies identified
for the city of Wadi Musa, the ones of RC frame
buildings with soft story, calculated using the
SELENA analytical procedure (Molina, Lang, and
Lindholmb 2010), have been considered.
Figures 11 and 12 show the fragility curves for each
damage level for 2-story masonry buildings and 4-story
RC frame buildings, respectively, obtained from the
Figure 11. Comparison of fragility curves defined for 2-story masonry buildings by applying: SP-BELA (Nablus), SELENA (Wadi Musa),
and HAZUS methods for each considered damage level.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 13
three aforementioned sources (SASPARM 2.0, UNDP-
JORDAN, and HAZUS). Collapse was not considered
in order to be coherent with the damage levels consid-
ered in the procedures used by both UNDP-JORDAN,
project (2012), and HAZUS (FEMA 1999). From the
comparison, should one use the fragility curves speci-
fically developed for Nablus, a higher vulnerability level
would be assumed, with respect to using the ones
proposed by HAZUS (FEMA 1999) or the ones for
Wadi Musa (UNDP-Jordan Project Team 2013), in
Jordan, although the buildings in Wadi Musa are very
similar to the ones of Nablus in terms of construction
techniques and structural typology. However, it has to
be pointed out that the SP-BELA and SELENA meth-
ods, as well as their underlying assumptions to build
fragility curves, are rather different and thus produce
different results. One of the differences could come
from the hypothesis made for the slabs of the buildings
in Jordan, which have been considered as rigid dia-
phragms, resulting in the complete collaboration of
the structural elements in case of seismic action.
Moreover, the infill walls of the RC buildings of Wadi
Musa have been modeled using the four-node masonry
panel element originally developed by Crisafulli, Carr,
and Park (2000), which consists of two diagonal struts
working alternatively in compression only. These mod-
eling assumptions are indeed not applicable to non-
seismically designed buildings, which is the case of the
as-built in Nablus where both slabs and infill walls have
been considered as loads only. This has contributed to
14 A. D. MEO ET AL.
Figure 12. Comparison of fragility curves defined for 4-story RC frame buildings by applying: SP-BELA (Nablus), SELENA (Wadi Musa),
and HAZUS methods for each considered damage level.
increase the difference in the structural vulnerability
computed for similar building typologies in Nablus
and in Wadi Musa.
Considering a typical maximum collapse drift for
both well designed masonry and RC buildings,
Figure 13 shows some non-negligible differences in
the fragility curves derived for Wadi Musa (UNDP-
Jordan Project Team 2013) buildings with respect to
the ones calculated in SASPARM 2.0 (2014), and
HAZUS (FEMA 1999). As an example, for a drift
level of 1%, Figure 13 shows, for the Wadi Musa case-
of-study, probabilities of failure of around 4% and 8%
for 2-story masonry buildings and 4-story RC frame
buildings, respectively, assuming that the floor height
is 3 m.
Finally, the higher vulnerability of buildings in
Nablus compared to the fragility calculated in HAZUS
Figure 13. Probabilities of failure for a drift level of 1% for: (left) 2-story masonry buildings and (right) 4-story RC frame buildings.
(FEMA 1999) is mainly due to the use of lower con-
struction standards and to heavy loads, such as very
heavy floor slabs and cladding as well as water tanks
located on the roof.
6. Estimation and reduction of seismic risk
6.1. Probabilities of damage state exceedance
Using the fragility curves calculated previously,
together with the hazard curve for the site of interest,
it is possible to quantify the probability of exceeding a
damage level for a building subjected to an earthquake
of a certain intensity level. Figure 14 shows the hazard
curve for a soil type C that can be seen at the tab
Hazard of the WebGIS, after selecting a specific build-
ing at the tab Map. Given that the type of soil can be
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 15

Figure 14. Tab Hazard – Hazard curve for soil “C”.

specified only in the form filled in by practitioners, the believed that, usually, citizens do not know this kind of
hazard curve related to the forms compiled by citizens information for their buildings. The hazard curve was
is chosen, by default, as the one for soil type B, as it is defined according to hazard map reported in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Seismic hazard map for building codes in the Levant (SASPARM Project 2012).
16 A. D. MEO ET AL.
Figure 16. Tab Risk - Unconditional probabilities of exceeding the different damage levels for a selected 8-story RC frame building,
not regular both in plan and in elevation.
The unconditional probabilities of exceeding the
different damage states for three time windows (1, 10,
and 50 years) can be seen for an example building in
Figure 16, which illustrates the output of the tab Risk of
the WebGIS. As a consequence of the very recent
adoption of a Palestinian seismic code, most of the
buildings in Nablus are highly vulnerable thus, once
coupled with the hazard information, subjected to high
seismic risk.
6.2. Reduction of vulnerability
Since the hazard is an intrinsic property of the site, the
seismic risk level can be reduced only by acting on
exposure or structural vulnerability. Focusing on the
latter, in the case of new buildings the level of vulner-
ability can be reduced indirectly by constructing on a
low-hazard area or directly by using regulations that
provide ad-hoc seismic design criteria. For existing
buildings, on the contrary, the limitation of the damage
can be achieved through retrofit measures only. To this
aim, the tab Retrofit of the WebGIS suggests building-
specific retrofit strategies that could be applied to
reduce the physical vulnerability of the buildings
(FEMA 2006; Deliverable D.C.1. 2016). Such retrofit
measures are proposed and classified according to the
structural deficiencies detected from the forms.
Guidelines have then been developed (and are freely
downloadable from the project website) to assist engineers
and stakeholders in reducing the seismic vulnerability of
the buildings through the adoption of the retrofitting
actions, considering different alternatives and cost-benefit
analyses to establish priorities. Specifically, the identified
seismic deficiencies have been placed into categories,
namely global strength, global stiffness, configuration, sec-
tional detailing, diaphragms, and foundations. Based on the
types of deficiencies that can be found in a specific building,
the most appropriate retrofitting techniques are proposed
to the owner. These have also been defined according to
(four) main classes:
(1) add structural elements, usually to increase
strength or stiffness;
(2) enhance performance of structural existing ele-
ments, increasing strength or deformation
capacity;
(3) reduce demand for those buildings with rela-
tively weak lateral system and with disposable
space (the removal of one or more top floors
can provide acceptable performance in an eco-
nomical and practical manner); and
(4) remove selected components, enhancing defor-
mation capacity by uncoupling brittle elements
or by removing them completely.
Figure 17 shows some of the main deficiencies of
Palestinian buildings, i.e., (left) the absence of infill
walls at one or more stories, (center) cantilever struc-
tures (such as long and heavy balconies), and (right)
irregularity both in plan and in elevation.
The proposed retrofitting techniques represent the
current state-of-the-art. Implementing some of these
measures in the Palestinian region may be challenging
for local engineers, constructors, and workers.
Traditionally, the common practice involves mainly
RC and masonry elements, materials that are easy to
find and less expensive than FRP, structural steel, or
rubber (the latter adopted in isolation systems). Table 4
presents a summary on the qualitative evaluation of the
applicability of the proposed techniques.
7. Conclusions
This article presents a full framework specifically devel-
oped to build a physical vulnerability model from
scratch for the Palestinian residential urban stock.This
framework was prepared within the European
SASPARM 2.0 project (2014) which had, as main pro-
duct, the development of a WebGIS platform to inter-
face all the project outcomes and render them available
for targeted stakeholders. Apart from all the relevant
information regarding the building stock, the platform
features the estimation of the probability of exceeding a
given damage state for the residential buildings of the
urban area of Nablus—the selected case-study city.
Several training courses and workshops were organized
within the project activities and ad-hoc training
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 17

Figure 17. Typical structural deficiencies of Palestinian buildings: (left) soft-story, (center) cantilever structures, and (right) irregu-
larity both in plan and in elevation.

Table 4. Evaluation of the applicability of the proposed retro- detailed technical information required to the compiler.
fitting techniques. The forms allow to collect geometrical and structural
Availability Low Demand Simplicity of data which is then used to determine the fragility
Retrofitting of the for Specific Structural
schemes Material Familiarity Training Analysis curves for each building, calculated with the
RC ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ mechanics-based method SP-BELA (Borzi, Crowley,
Steel ✓✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ and Pinho 2008a; Borzi, Pinho, and Crowley 2008b)
Masonry ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓
FRP ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ for five damage levels. Then, by combining the existing
Seismic Joint ✓✓✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓ hazard curve for the site with the fragility, it was pos-
Seismic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Isolation sible to estimate the unconditional probabilities of
Supplemental ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ exceedance of each of the damage states, for every
Damping

Table 1. Differentiation of buildings into vulnerability class (Grünthal 1998).

most likely vulnerability class; probable range; improbable range

Vulnerability Class
Type of Structure
A B C D E F

Unreinforced masonry with RC floors

RC frame without earthquake-

resistant design (ERD)

RC frame without ERD with soft

storeys

RC walls without ERD

material was produced to help unexperienced users,
such as citizens and students, becoming more familiar
with the key concepts of seismic vulnerability and risk
mitigation.
The framework started with the observation of the
residential buildings in the territory that led to the
development of two survey forms: one for citizens
and one for practitioners, differing on the level of
building, for three time windows (1, 10, and 50 years).
Finally, potential retrofitting measures were also pro-
posed to reduce the buildings’ structural vulnerability,
by addressing the deficiencies detected through the
corresponding forms.
The fragility curves computed for Nablus were then
compared with those derived for similar building typol-
ogies in Wadi Musa (UNDP-Jordan Project Team 2013)
18 A. D. MEO ET AL.
using the SELENA method (Molina, Lang, and
Lindholmb 2010) and in HAZUS (FEMA 1999). The
comparison shows very different fragility curves, even
if referring to very similar building typologies. The dif-
ference is mainly due to the rather different underlying
assumptions of the three methodologies used to produ-
cefragility curves. Furthermore, this difference also con-
tributes to underline the importance of in-situ data for
the development of more accurate seismic physical vul-
nerability models, when specific local case-studies are
being considered.
The WebGIS developed with the characterizations of
the vulnerability model is a simple and intuitive tool
where different users (students, citizens, practitioners,
and representatives of GO and NGO institutions) can
input and manage data on residential buildings.
Similarly, users can easily obtain information about the
associated probability of exceeding a given damage state.
The platform supports the dissemination of the concept
of seismic risk as well as encouraging private and public
sectors to invest in seismic risk mitigation in Palestine.
Given that the platform provides the tools to calculate
fragility curves from simple survey forms, it allows to
quickly gather a massive amount of data on building
stock fragility at no cost. This approach can be applied
and further extended in other regions. Such endeavour
would only require ad-hoc adjustments over the survey
forms, the hazard model, and the SP-BELA method to
represent better the new territory to be investigated.
Acknowledgments
We thank J. Dabbeek, I. Grigoratos and V. Cerchiello for
their invaluable work in the development of the different
tasks of SASPARM 2.0 Project.
Funding
This work was supported by the DG-ECHO (European Civil
Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations) ECHO/SUB/
2014/694399.
ORCID
Ricardo Monteiro http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2505-2996
References
Abo-El-Ezz, A., C. Houalard, M. J., Assi R. 2017.
Vulnerability assessment of seismic induced out-of-plane
failure of unreinforced masonry wall buildings. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 44 (12):1045–1055.
Al-Dabbeek, J., and R. El-Kelani. 2008. Rapid assessment of
seismic vulnerability in Palestinian refugee camps. Journal
of Applied Science 8 (8):1371–82. doi:10.3923/
jas.2008.1371.1382.
Athmani, A., T. M. Ferreira, and R. Vicente. 2017. Seismic
risk assessment of the historical urban areas of Annaba
city, Algeria. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage. doi:10.1080/15583058.2017.1370508.
Barbat, A. H., M. L. Carreño, L. G. Pujades, N. Lantada, D. O.
Cardona, and M. C. Marulanda. 2010. Seismic vulnerabil-
ity and risk evaluation methods for urban areas. A review
with application to a pilot area. Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management,
Life-Cycle Design and Performance 6 (1–2):17–38.
doi:10.1080/15732470802663763.
Bolognini, D., B. Borzi, and R. Pinho. 2008. Simplified push-
over-based vulnerability analysis of traditional Italian RC
precast structures. 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China.
Borzi, B., P. Ceresa, M. Faravelli, E. Fiorini, and M. Onida.
2011. Applicazione del metodo meccanico SP-BELA alla
definizione di rischio sismico e scenari di danno del
patrimonio edilizio italiano. In: Proceedings of XIV
Congresso Nazionale “L’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia”
ANIDIS 2011, Bari, Italia (paper N. 802). ISBN 978-88-
7522-040-2.
Borzi, B., P. Ceresa, M. Faravelli, E. Fiorini, and M. Onida.
2013. Seismic risk assessment of Italian school buildings.
Computational methods in earthquake engineering. In
Part of computational methods in applied science, eds. M.
Papadrakakis, M. Fragiadakis, and V. Plevris, Vol. 30. 317–
34. Dordrecht: Springer.
Borzi, B., H. Crowley, and R. Pinho. 2008a. Simplified push-
over-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) method
for masonry buildings. International Journal of
Architectural Heritage 2 (4):353–76. doi:10.1080/
15583050701828178.
Borzi, B., H. Crowley, and R. Pinho. 2008c. The influence of
infill panels on vulnerability curves for RC buildings. 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing,
China.
Borzi, B., R. Pinho, and H. Crowley. 2008b. Simplified push-
over-based vulnerability analysis for large scale assessment
of RC buildings. Engineering Structures 30 (3):804–20.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.021.
Cardona, O. D. 2001. Estimación holística del riesgo sísmico
utilizando sistemas dinámicos complejos. PhD Thesis (in
Spanish) [A Seismic Risk Holistic Estimation using
Complex Dynamic Systems], Universidade Politécnica de
Cataluña, Barcelona, Spain.
Carreño, M. L. 2006. Técnicas innovadoras para la evaluacio
´n del riesgo sísmico y su gestión en centros urbanos:
acciones ex ante. PhD Thesis (in Spanish). Universidade
Politécnica de Cataluña, Barcelona, Spain.
Carreño, M. L., O. D. Cardona, and A. H. Barbat. 2007a. Urban
seismic risk evaluation: A holistic approach. Natural Hazards
40:137–42. doi:10.1007/s11069-006-0008-8.
Carreño, M. L., O. D. Cardona, and A. H. Barbat. 2007b.
Disaster risk management performance index. Natural
Hazards 41:1–20. doi:10.1007/s11069-006-9008-y.
Crisafulli, F. J., A. J. Carr, and R. Park. 2000. Analytical
modelling of infilled frame structures—A general over-
view. Bulletin New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering 33 (1):30–47.

Deliverable D.C.1. 2016. Report on the identification of retro-
fit measures. SASPARM 2.0 Project. DG-ECHO 2014,
ECHO/SUB/2014/694399. www.sasparm2.com.
Deliverable D.F.1. 2016. Fragility curves for each structural
typology that sub-classifies the building stock. SASPARM
2.0 Project. DG-ECHO 2014, ECHO/SUB/2014/694399.
www.sasparm2.com.
Di Meo, A., B. Borzi, M. Faravelli, D. Polli, M. Pagano, and A.
Cantoni. 2017a. Vulnerability data collection and definition of
seismic risk for cities in Palestine. 6th Thematic Conference on
Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Rhodes Island, Greece.
Di Meo, A., M. Faravelli, D. Polli, M. Denari, A. Cantoni, and
B. Borzi. 2017b. Collecting and managing building data to
perform seismic risk assessment – Palestine case study. In
ICCSA 2017. LNCS, eds. O. Gervasi, et al., Vol. 10405,
527–42. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62395-
5_36.
Dolce, M., G. Di Pasquale, E. Speranza, and F. Fumagalli.
2012. A multipurpose method for seismic vulnerability
assessment of urban areas. Proceedings of the 15 WCEE,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Duzgun, H. S. B., M. S. Yucemen, H. S. Kalaycioglu, K. Celik,
S. Kemec, K. Ertugay, and A. Deniz. 2011. An integrated
earthquake vulnerability assessment framework for urban
areas. Natural Hazards 59:917. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-
9808-6.
Elsabbagh, A., M. C. Sawada, M. Saatcioglu, H. Aoude, K.
Ploeger, and M. Nastev. 2013. New tools for the seismic
vulnerability assessment of buildings in Ottawa, Ontario.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference - Canadian Society
for Civil Engineering 1:1772–81.
Faravelli, M., B. Borzi, A. Di Meo, and D. Polli. 2017.
A mechanic-based model for definition of seismic risk
and real time damage scenario of buildings 6th
International Conference on Computational Methods in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
Rhodes Island, Greece.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1999.
HAZUS99. Earthquake loss estimation methodology.
Technical manual. Washington D.C.
FEMA 547. 2006. Techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of
existing buildings. Washington D.C: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
FEMA HAZUS 99. Earthquake loss estimation methodology.
Technical manual. Washington D.C: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Ferreira, T. M., A. A. Costa, and A. Costa. 2015. Analysis of
the out-of-plane seismic behavior of unreinforced
masonry: A literature review. International Journal of
Architectural Heritage Conservation, Analysis, and
Restoration 9 (8):949–72.
UNDP-Jordan Project Team. 2013. Integrated Risk Assessment
for the Petra Development and Tourism Region. Final
Report. Part II: Technical report. UNDP JORDAN RFP/
2012/19.
GNDT. 1993. Rischio sismico di edifici pubblici - Parte I:
Aspetti metodologici. Bologna: Centro Servizi Quasco.
GNDT-SSN, Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti.
1994. Scheda di esposizione e vulnerabilità e di rilevamento
danni di primo e secondo livello (murata e cemento armato)
[Exposure Sheet and Vulnerability Assessment of Damage of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 19
the First and Second Level for Masonry and Reinforced
Concrete]. Rome: Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai
Terremoti.
Grigoratos, I., P. Ceresa, R. Monteiro, and B. Borzi. 2016.
Extending the applicability of simplified pushover-based
vulnerability assessment methods to irregular RC build-
ings. 1st International Conference on Natural Hazards and
Infrastructure, Chania, Greece.
Grigoratos, I., R. Monteiro, P. Ceresa, A. Di Meo, M. Faravelli,
and B. Borzi. 2017. Crowdsourcing exposure data for seis-
mic vulnerability assessment in Nablus, Palestine. Journal of
Earthquake Engineering (Under Review).
Grünthal, G. ed.. 1998. Cahiers du Centre Européen de
Géodynamique et de Séismologie: Volume 15 – European
Macroseismic Scale 1998. European Center for
Geodynamics and Seismology. Luxembourg.
Jordanian National Building Council (JNBC). 2005. Jordanian
code for earthquake-resistant buildings. 236 pp
Kagermanov, A., and P. Ceresa. 2016. Physically based cyclic
tensile model for RC membrane elements. Journal of
Structural Engineering (ASCE). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001590,04016118.
Kagermanov, A., and P. Ceresa. 2017a. RC fiber-based
beam-column element with flexure-shear-torsion inter-
action. High tech concrete: where technology and engi-
neering meet. Proceedings of the 2017 fib Symposium,
Maastricht, The Netherlands, June 12-14, 2017), Book
Chapter: 1006-1014, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59471-
2_117.
Kagermanov, A., and P. Ceresa. 2017b. Modelling flexure-
shear failures in masonry-infilled RC frames with inelastic
fiber-based frame elements. In Proceedings of COMPDYN
2017, eds.. M. Papadrakakis, and M. Fragiadakis.Greece:
Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research,
School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University
of Athens (NTUA).1: 5035–44. Available online at www.
eccomasproceedia.org
Kagermanov, A., and P. Ceresa. 2017c. Fiber-section model
with an exact shear strain profile for two-dimensional RC
frame structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE)
143 (10). doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001839.
Maio, R., T. M. Ferreira, R. Vicente, and J. Estêvão. 2016. Seismic
vulnerability assessment of historical urban centres: Case study
of the old city centre of Faro, Portugal. Journal of Risk Research
19 (5):551–80. doi:10.1080/13669877.2014.988285.
Mesgara, M. A. A., and P. Parham Jalilvandb. 2017. Vulnerability
analysis of the urban environments to different seismic scenar-
ios: Residential buildings and associated population distribu-
tion modelling through integrating dasymetric mapping
method and GIS. Procedia Engineering 198:454–66.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.100.
Molina, S., D. H. Lang, and C. D. Lindholmb. 2010. SELENA –
An open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment
using a logic tree computation procedure. Computers &
Geosciences 36 (3):257–69. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006.
National Imagery and mapping Agency (NIMA). 2000.
Department of Defense World Geodetic System 1984 –
Its definition and Relationships with Local Geodetic
Systems. Technical Report. 3RD Edition, TR8350.2”.
Priestley, M. J. N., and G. M. Calvi. 1991. Towards a capacity
design assessment procedure for reinforced concrete frames.
Earthquake Spectra 7 (3):413–37. SASPARMProject. Support
20 A. D. MEO ET AL.
Action for Strengthening Palestinian-administrated Areas cap-
abilities for Seismic Risk Mitigation, FP7-INCO, ID. 295122
www.sasparm.ps/en/
Sasparm Project, 2012” is: “SASPARM Project. 2012. Support
Action for Strengthening Palestinian-administrated Areas
capabilities for Seismic Risk Mitigation, FP7-INCO, ID.
295122; www.sasparm.ps/en/
SASPARM 2.0 Project. 2014 Support action for strengthening
Palestine’s capabilities for seismic Risk Mitigation. DG-
CHO 2014, ECHO/SUB/2014/694399. www.sasparm2.com.
Sorrentino, L., D. D’Ayala, G. De Felice, M. C. Grifith, S.
Lagomarsino, and G. Magenes. 2017. Review of out-of-
plane seismic assessment techniques applied to existing
masonry buildings. International Journal of Architectural
Heritage Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration. Methods
and Challenges on the Out-Of-Plane Assessment of Existing
Masonry Buildings 11 (1):2–21.
UNDP JORDAN RFP/2012/19 project. 2012 Building DDR
capacity in the petra development and tourism region,
Project n° 00080352.
USAID MERC Project Team (M18-057). 2007. Earthquake
hazard assessment and building code, final report. Earth
Sciences and Seismic Engineering Center at An Najah
National University. pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadj898.pdf.