Table 1
| Parameter | Coefficient k i | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | |
| 1. Total shear resistance of walls | 0 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.21 |
| 2. Plan regularity | 0 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| 3. Elevation regularity | 0 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| 4. Walls connection | 0 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.10 |
| 5. Walls type | 0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| 6. Floor | 0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| 7. Roof | 0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| 8. Soil conditions | 0 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.10 |
| 9. Pounding effect | 0 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| 10. Modifications | 0 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.07 |
| 11. Details | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.03 |
| 12. General maintenance conditions | 0 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.13 |
Source: data from Djaalali et al.
Table 2
Correlation coefficients between total VI and partial parameters (Ain Temouchent 1999, Boumerdes 2003).
| Earthquake element | Ain Temouchent (1999) | Boumerdes (2003) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Total shear resistance of walls | 0.64 | 0.66 |
| 2. Plan regularity | 0.17 | 0.21 |
| 3. Elevation regularity | 0.14 | 0.22 |
| 4. Walls connection | 0.42 | 0.51 |
| 5. Walls type | 0.15 | 0.23 |
| 6. Floor | 0.18 | 0.20 |
| 7. Roof | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| 8. Soil conditions | 0.37 | 0.49 |
| 9. Pounding effect | 0.15 | 0.27 |
| 10. Modifications | 0.12 | 0.18 |
| 11. Details | 0.08 | 0.10 |
| 12. General maintenance conditions | 0.46 | 0.53 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table 3
Classification of URM structures according to the VI.
| Class | P1 – Green | P2 – Orange | P3 – Red |
|---|---|---|---|
| VI | 0.0–0.20 | 0.20–0.60 | 0.60–1.00 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 1
Belouizdad with the seafront.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 2
Belouizdad street.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 3
URM constructions in the district of Belouizdad.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table 4
Number of buildings according to the number of floors.
| Level | Number of buildings |
|---|---|
| 1 | 150 |
| 2 | 220 |
| 3 | 156 |
| 4 | 53 |
| 5 | 23 |
| 6 | 30 |
| 7 | 11 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 4
Percentage of buildings according to the number of floors.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table 5
Buildings classification according to their construction period.
| Year | Number of buildings |
|---|---|
| 1830–1854 | 1 |
| 1854–1881 | 13 |
| 1881–1915 | 83 |
| 1915–1962 | 41 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 5
Percentage of buildings according to their period of construction.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 6
Distribution of buildings according to the parameter “modifications”.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 7
Vulnerability distribution of URM constructions in the district of Belouizdad.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 8
Distribution of the seismic vulnerability of buildings in the municipality.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 9
Buildings classification in Belouizdad district according to the vulnerability classes.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 10
Source: data from Djaalali et al.
Table 6
Limit states damage [43].
| Damage categories | MDR range |
|---|---|
| Negligible (non-structural) | 0.01–0.10 |
| Minor (light structural) | 0.10–0.20 |
| Moderate | |
| Severe | |
| Collapse | 0.20–0.50 |
| 0.50–0.85 | |
| 0.85–1.00 |
Source: data from Williams & Sexsmith.
Figure 11
Empirical fragility data (points) and corresponding log-normal fitted curves.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table 7
Log-normal parameters.
| MMI | μ ln D | σ ln D |
|---|---|---|
| VII | 2.444 | 1.886 |
| VIII | −1.537 | 1.335 |
| IX | −1.062 | 1.182 |
| X | −0.764 | 0.881 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 12
Fitted fragility curves for Algiers URM buildings derived from the log-normal model across the damage states.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table 8
Risk-UE Mean VI.
| Building typology | Mean VI |
|---|---|
| URM M1.2, Risk-UE | 0.74 |
| URM M 3.3, Risk-UE | 0.70 |
Source: data from Milutinovic & Trendafiloski.
Figure 13
Fragility curves comparison between Algerian URM and Risk-UE (M1.2 and M3.3).
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table 9
Percentage of the average deviation between Algerian URM and Risk-UE
| Damage level | % of average deviation | |
|---|---|---|
| Algerian URM/M3.3, Risk-UE | Algerian URM/M1.2, Risk-UE | |
| None | 17.12 | 17.12 |
| Light | 27.13 | 27.46 |
| Moderate | 29.00 | 29.30 |
| Severe | 16.15 | 16.17 |
| Collapse | 8.86 | 8.96 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 14
Seismic scenario for intensity VII.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 15
Seismic scenario for intensity VIII.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 16
Seismic scenario for intensity IX.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure 17
Seismic scenario for intensity X.
Source: Author’s contribution.
Figure A1
Tornado diagram of sensitivity of VI parameters (Boumerdes 2003).
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table A1
Comparison of damage state thresholds (in terms of MDR) across different frameworks.
| Damage state | Park & Ang (1985) | EMS-98/Risk-UE | FEMA/HAZUS (URM) | This study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negligible | MDR <0.10 | Negligible (0–0.1) | Slight (0–0.1) | 0.01–0.10 |
| Minor | 0.10–0.20 | Slight (0.1–0.2) | Slight–Moderate (0.1–0.25) | 0.10–0.20 |
| Moderate | 0.20–0.50 | Moderate (0.2–0.5) | Moderate (0.25–0.5) | 0.20–0.50 |
| Severe | 0.50–0.85 | Substantial–heavy (0.5–0.8) | Extensive (0.5–0.8) | 0.50–0.85 |
| Collapse | >0.85 | Collapse (>0.85) | Complete (>0.8–1.0) | 0.85–1.0 |
Source: Author’s contribution.
Table A2
Ranked contribution of vulnerability parameters to total VI based on correlation coefficients (Boumerdes 2003).
| Rank | Parameter | Correlation with total VI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Total shear resistance of walls | 0.66 |
| 2 | General maintenance conditions | 0.53 |
| 3 | Walls connection | 0.51 |
| 4 | Soil conditions | 0.49 |
| 5 | Pounding effect | 0.27 |
| 6 | Walls type | 0.23 |
| 7 | Elevation regularity | 0.22 |
| 8 | Plan regularity | 0.21 |
| 9 | Floor | 0.20 |
| 10 | Roof | 0.18 |
| 11 | Modifications | 0.18 |
| 12 | Details | 0.10 |
Source: Author’s contribution.