Seismic vulnerability assessment of school buildings in Tehran city based on AHP and GIS

Abstract

Abstract. The objective of the study was to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of school buildings in Tehran city based on analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and geographical information systems (GIS). Therefore, to this end, the peak ground acceleration, slope and soil liquefaction layers were used for preparation geotechnical map. Also, the construction materials of structures, year of construction, their quality and seismic resonance coefficient layers were defined as major affecting factors in structural vulnerability of schools. Then, the AHP method was applied to assess the priority rank and weight of criteria (layers) and alternatives (classes) of each criterion through pair wise comparison in all levels. Finally, geotechnical and structural spatial layers were overlaid to prepare the seismic vulnerability map of school buildings in Tehran city. The results indicated that only in 72 schools (about 3%) out of 2125 schools in the study area, the destruction rate is very high and therefore their reconstruction should be considered.

A GIS‐based multi‐criteria seismic vulnerability assessment using the integration of granular computing rule extraction and artificial neural networks

“…The city of Tehran is a large and rapidly growing metropolitan area with a population of more than 12 million (Panahi et al, ). Its area is approximately 615 km 2.…”

“…In particular, prediction of earthquakes in space, time and intensity, if possible at all, may reduce human losses, although it will not prevent destruction and damage. For this reason, much effort has been dedicated to mapping the expected damage of possible earthquakes (Panahi, Rezaie, & Meshkani, ). Output of these methods is used to create or modify building codes.…”

Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Seismic Vulnerability of School Units in Vaslui City, Romania

“…The factors were weighed via AHP, a MCDM method developed by Saaty in the 1980s [30]- [34], that has been increasingly used in seismic vulnerability related analyses [23], [35]- [40]. This hierarchical method compares the elements on the same level in pairs, the results being expressed by a number from 1 to 9 according to a predefined scale of absolute numbers and their reciprocals ( Table 2).…”

“…Seismic vulnerability assessments of schools or loss studies tend to focus on the physical component, taking into account the damage that may occur or that has already occurred at the level of structural and/or non-structural elements [4], [5], [9], [12], [21], [23]. This tendency may be linked to OECD's concern that the collapse of school buildings from around the world is caused by human induced failures, like avoidable construction and design errors, improper use of technology and lack of regulations enforcement [24], [25].…”

“…Some of the previous studies use methodologies adapted to fit the evaluation of seismic vulnerability of school buildings made out of a specific construction material [6], [10], [11], while others assess prototypes of school [5], [13], [14], [18]. For many of the mentioned papers, the key element is represented by fragility curves [6], [12], [15], [18] and the number of multicriteria-based approaches to the matter is rather low [23].…”