Article

On the Use of Web Mapping Platforms to Support the Seismic

Vulnerability Assessment of Old Urban Areas
Cosimo Columbro 1, Rafael Ramírez Eudave 2, Tiago Miguel Ferreira 3, Paulo B. Lourenço 2
and Giovanni Fabbrocino 1,4,*

1 Structural and Geotechnical Dynamics Lab “StreGa”, Department of Biosciences and Territory,
University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy; [email protected]
2 Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering (ISISE), Civil Engineering Department,

School of Engineering, Azurém Campus, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal;

[email protected] (R.R.E.); [email protected] (P.B.L.)
3 Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England,

Bristol BS16 1QY, UK; [email protected]

4 Construction Technologies Institute L’Aquila Branch, National Research Council (ITC-CNR),

67100 L’Aquila, Italy

* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: European countries are affected by various levels of seismic hazard, including many areas
with medium to high seismicity. Heavy damage over large areas has been observed in past earth-
quakes in these countries, particularly in masonry buildings located in historical centers, confirming
the need for enhancing the current knowledge on the seismic vulnerability of these constructions,
so more informed technical and political decisions towards the mitigation of the risk can be taken.
Citation: Columbro, C.; However, the characterization of building stocks for engineering purposes is still an open issue due
Ramírez Eudave, R.; Ferreira, T.M.; to the enormous amount of resources that such a project would require. Nevertheless, the availabil-
Lourenço, P.B.; Fabbrocino, G. ity of virtual images and maps represents an outstanding opportunity for having remote ap-
On the Use of Web Mapping
proaches to urban environments. The role of on-site inspections can be complemented or even sub-
Platforms to Support the Seismic
stituted by means of these remote approaches, provided it is complemented with suitable ap-
Vulnerability Assessment
proaches. The use of these resources is not new, but the critical assessment of their capabilities and
of Old Urban Areas.
limitations deserves a critical discussion. The present paper aims at assessing the opportunities of-
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061424
fered by web-based mapping platforms in the context of seismic vulnerability assessment of ma-
sonry buildings in old urban areas. After evaluating the advantages and shortcomings of some of
Academic Editors: Cettina
the most popular web-based mapping services, an explanatory application to a set of 39 buildings
Santagati, Ilaria Trizio and
located in the historic center of the city of Leiria (Portugal) is presented and critically discussed,
Belen Riveiro
contrasting the results obtained by using on-site and remote inspections. Two different seismic vul-
Received: 2 January 2022 nerability assessment approaches are applied and analyzed herein, confirming that web-based
Accepted: 7 March 2022 mapping platforms can represent an efficient and cost-effective complement to traditional field sur-
Published: 15 March 2022 veys when the large-scale seismic vulnerability of old urban areas is of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional Keywords: seismic vulnerability assessment; urban-scale survey; web mapping platforms;
claims in published maps and institu- historic centers; masonry structures
tional affiliations.

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li-
The development of methodologies for the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
historic centers received increasing interest in the last decades due to the intensity and the
This article is an open access article
extension of the damage on constructions characterized by their architectural and histor-
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
ical value [1,2]. Several studies have been conducted for assessing the seismic vulnerabil-
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- ity of building stocks on a regional and urban level using specially developed algorithms
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). [3]. Any large-scale seismic vulnerability assessment procedure is often related to surveys

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061424 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 2 of 25

aimed at collecting the main structural, geometric, and material characteristics of the
buildings. Due to the considerable number of buildings usually involved, this task often
involves time-consuming and costly field survey operations. In the specific case of the
historical centers, image processing and remote sensing techniques are expected to offer
attractive options for knowing and characterizing built heritage [4]. However, these tech-
niques cannot yet replace field surveys mainly because it is still necessary to balance the
amount of data to collect with the computational effort related to the analysis. Web-based
technologies and approaches, used as a complement to traditional field survey activities
[5], can play a role in this regard [6–9]. Then, it is convenient to explore the limitations and
opportunities of performing remote inspections for seismic vulnerability and condition
assessment purposes. This study primarily must observe the type of information offered
to the user, its suitability in the context of vulnerability-assessment approaches, and the
reliability of using these approaches in contrast to traditional field surveys. In the view of
the exposed, the main objective of this work is to discuss the adequacy of the use of open-
access web mapping solutions as complementary information sources to support the seis-
mic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings in old urban areas. To accomplish this
objective, some of the most popular web-based mapping platforms were reviewed to
identify their potentialities and shortcomings. Then, an explanatory application was con-
ducted in a way that the selected platforms were used for feeding a seismic vulnerability
analysis of the Historic City Center of Leiria (Portugal) and for forecasting damage scenarios
based on simplified performance assessment methodologies associated with both global—
Building Approach, BA, and local collapse mechanism—Façade Approach, FA. A compara-
tive analysis of the results based on virtual surveys of remote sensing and those coming from
technical information coming from traditional field surveys were finally discussed.
The paper is divided into five sections. Section 2 deals with the opportunities and
limitations related to the use of commonly available web-mapping platforms. Section 3
recalls the fundamentals of the selected approaches to the quantitative analysis of the seis-
mic vulnerability (BA and FA) based on those data effectively surveyable by remote ob-
servation of the buildings. Section 4 briefly illustrates the features of the selected area for
the benchmark study in the center of the City of Leiria, Portugal. Section 5 reports the
assessments and the results including the comparative analysis of the BA and FA method
performance against the reference analysis conducted after a more traditional field sur-
vey. The last section draws some conclusions and final remarks.

2. Building Survey & Web-Based Mapping Platforms

Nowadays, technology is an integral part of our daily life. Electronic devices
equipped with an internet connection, such as smartphones or tablets, allow quick access
to any kind of information from everywhere. These constantly evolving technologies are
radically changing our lives, opening new possibilities, and creating unprecedented re-
search opportunities. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the usefulness of web-
based platforms as a complementary resource for the seismic vulnerability assessment of
old urban areas, moving away from the traditional on-site data survey approaches and
depicting a novel working methodology.

2.1. State-of-Art: Relevant Experiences

Previous experiences on the use of remote observations for performing vulnerability
assessments permit recognizing opportunities and limitations of this approach. Some val-
uable efforts have been addressed to minimize the gap between inspection and assess-
ment, facilitating a more straightforward process in which inspection is directly feeding
specific databases. The use of web-based front ends for displaying inspection sheets facil-
itates real-time data acquisition and management. This procedure can be performed with
the support of databases with browser-based interphases in substitution of traditional pa-
per-based data collecting—for example, the implementation of the Rapid Visual Screening
for reinforced-concrete constructions [10]. The implementation of this method with the
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 3 of 25

support of remote inspections was explored for the city of George Town (Malaysia), find-
ing an encouraging potential on this workflow [11].
The use of mobile devices also represents a promising opportunity for optimizing
field surveys. For example, the android-based RViSITS (Rapid Visual Survey by Institut
Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember) app [12] is aimed at optimizing data gathering for as-
sessing the vulnerability of high-rise buildings (8–15 floors). This app permits a direct ap-
plication of the Rapid Visual Screening method for estimating the seismic vulnerability of
large sets of constructions based on correlations between the predicted seismic perfor-
mance of specific typologies and materials [10]. A similar conceptual approach is given
for assessing post-earthquake damages in masonry constructions [13], given the conven-
ience of centralizing the field data gathered from several experts and professionals imme-
diately after the seismic event.
The ML-EHSAPP (Machine Learning-based Earthquake Hazard Safety Assessment
of buildings via smartphone App) is an example of development for final users in which
a simple and friendly data acquisition app may give an easily understandable outcome
for contextualizing the seismic vulnerability of constructions [14]. The information gath-
ered by the app facilitates some additional processes, such as training artificial neural net-
works (ANN) for refining the methods and approaches on determinate environments. The
representation of more complex effects and time-dependent events is able to be made by
means of logic trees, such as the LOG-IDEAH (LOGic trees for Identification of Damage
due to Earthquakes for Architectural Heritage) assessment tool [15].
The use of remote observations is, therefore, a feasible strategy for performing sim-
plified approaches based on visual surveys, provided the level of detail and accuracy of
the observations may comply with the parameters of the vulnerability approaches. An
objective comparison among the most common remote observation tools and their suita-
bility in the context of straightforward methods is needed to propose complete workflows
of inspections and assessments.

2.2. Key Structural Data for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment

The definition of a survey approach to the building stock of interest is the key phase
of any structural performance assessment. A set of relevant parameters must be defined,
and then the inspection procedure should be designed to accomplish the task. Commonly,
the first step of seismic vulnerability analysis is the planimetric identification of the build-
ings, an operation that can be supported using cadastral maps.
The primary data to be acquired, usually on-site, is related to the type, geometry, and
state of conservation of the building. Specifically, the following information should be
carefully gathered: the quality of the connections between adjacent façades and between
orthogonal walls, the staggered floors between adjacent buildings or within the same
building, the alignment of the façades, the type of masonry, and the interaction between
walls and the horizontal structures (i.e., floors and roof).
Different national authorities have designed and adopted many survey forms aimed
at collecting data associated with vulnerability features and damage of the building. Be-
fore and after the earthquake, their use is twofold for prevention and damage recognition
purposes. A particular effort in this direction has been made in Italy due to the number
and impact of earthquakes on historical areas in the last four decades [16]. It is worth
noting that the scientific effort led to the definition of a clear and definite legal operational
context for the technical operators and professionals involved in the post-earthquake
damage reports. Herein some words are devoted to introducing some of the most relevant
Italian survey forms. The FAST form (the acronym from the Italian “Fabbricati per l’Agi-
bilità Sintetica post-Terremoto”–Buildings for synthetic post-earthquake usability) was
designed following the 2016 earthquake in Central Italy [17]. As the acronym recalls, the
form aims to speed up the survey operations due to the extension of the impacted area
and the need to repeat the assessments depending on the long-lasting seismic sequence.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 4 of 25

Therefore, it guides the operator in quickly identifying hazardous conditions of the build-
ing and the situations requiring temporary housing solutions to the occupants. The out-
come of this survey is reported on a form aimed to distinguish accessible buildings from
those that cannot be used.
The AeDES (the acronym from the Italian “Agibilità e Danno nell’Emergenza Sis-
mica”—Usability and damage in the seismic emergency) is the first-level form for ordi-
nary buildings in a post-seismic emergency scenario date back to the Umbria and Marche
earthquake in 1997. It is the official reference tool for the expeditious survey of damage,
the definition of emergency measures, and the evaluation of the post-seismic viability of
ordinary buildings [18]. Besides the damage survey, these data are also useful for an initial
evaluation of the repair and/or improvement costs.
A contribution to the definition of a set of relevant parameters for masonry buildings
is offered by the “PALAZZI” (the Italian word for ‘historical buildings’) form, which deals
with the assessment of the features and seismic damage of those architectural assets
whose structural behavior is similar to ordinary buildings [19]. It is divided into two sec-
tions; the first is made of 13 fields and is aimed at locating the object of the survey and the
context in which it is allocated. The second one contains 19 fields and is specifically ori-
ented to the typological and damage survey of the different components of the construc-
tion, and to the identification of the collapse mechanisms. It is worth mentioning herein
also the level I “CARTIS” form has as its purpose the detection of building type structures,
which appear to be made up of homogeneity of the building fabric, given by the age of
first construction and/or structural construction technologies [20]. Its main objective con-
sists of creating a national-wide repository of relevant structural data representatives of
building stock capable of feeding large-scale analyses and supporting evolving tools use-
ful to deepen seismic vulnerability-related knowledge and extendable to other natural
hazards, such as volcanic activity eruptions and hydrogeological events.
The detailed review and analysis of the above-reported vulnerability and damage
survey forms led to the identification of 18 parameters common to all the forms, confirm-
ing their relevance in the estimation of the structural and seismic performances of the
buildings. The selected parameters are reported in Table 1; it is easy to recognize that they
are aimed at defining both global and local features of the building structure. For this
reason, the capability of the web-mapping platforms in providing the knowledge demand
in the context of seismic vulnerability assessments was tested against this specific set of
structural parameters.

Table 1. Survey form: List of the most common parameters in the analyzed forms.
Id Parameters
1 Position in the urban context
2 Total number of floors, including underground floors
3 Average floor height and average floor area
4 Masonry characteristics
5 Presence of tie rods or perimeter concrete belts
6 Connection between orthogonal walls
7 Average wall thickness and distance between walls
8 Floors characteristics
9 Mixed structures in reinforced concrete, presence of additions with different construction techniques
10 Mortar type
11 Presence of porch/arcade
12 Presence of specific elements of vulnerability, including non-structural elements
13 Roof type
14 Wall Façade openings
15 Regularity in plan and height
16 Structural interventions in time
17 Status of conservation
18 Foundations
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 5 of 25

2.3. Web-Based Mapping Platforms vs. Key Structural Data

The detailed characterization of the buildings is a fundamental and decisive step in
any seismic vulnerability assessment work, in the sense that a poor characterization of the
buildings will negatively affect the accuracy of the vulnerability results. An analysis
aimed at investigating whether it is possible to complement, if not completely replace,
traditional on-side survey works by using open-access web-based mapping platforms is
provided in the following, departing from the parameters identified as mentioned before.
The first step towards this objective consists of the selection of suitable web tools,
among those that offer detailed road-level imagery. This first criterion led to discarding
some less popular web-mapping platforms, such as “HERE WeGo” [21], a mapping and
geographic data processing service by the German company here. Conversely, some less
popular platforms emerged due to this criterium, namely a few crowdsourcing-based
platforms whose principle seems to be promising within the scope of the present investi-
gation. After a detailed analysis of all the web mapping platforms available online, five
platforms appeared as main possibilities: Google Maps [22] & Google Earth [23] (by
Google), Bing Maps [24] (Microsoft), Mapillary [25] (Mapillary AB), OpenStreetCam–cur-
rently KartaView [26] (KartaView), and Yandex.Maps [27] (Yandex). The most relevant
strengths and shortcomings of each of these platforms, given the scope and objectives of
this research, are summarized in Table 2. The five web-based mapping platforms included
in Table 2 were tested for acquiring data from a real building located in the city of Lisbon
(Portugal). The objective was to investigate if the imagery and the tools offered by each
one of these services were suitable to provide a detailed and accurate description of the
buildings of interest so that they can be used to get the set of information required to
evaluate the key structural parameters summarized in Table 1.

Table 2. Summary of strengths and shortcomings identified on each web-mapping tool.

Tool Strengths Shortcomings

High-quality photo
Capillary Street view coverage
Availability of images bound to access of Google
Google Maps 3D model of the entire world
acquisition media
Tool for measuring height, width, and
building area
Availability of images bound to access of Microsoft
Alternative view of the territory: Bird’s Eye acquisition media
Bing Maps
3D model of several cities in the world Street-side coverage is reduced
Lower photo resolution than competitors
Mapillary Crowdsourcing model
Shared upload
Small photo database
Photos and sequences can be taken any-
OpenStreetCam Image display is not 360°
where and by anyone
Continuous updating
Reduced coverage of western Europe (most of
Street view function is particularly ad-
Yandex Maps the data refer to Russia and eastern European
vanced and higher than competitors
countries)

The benchmark building is located in the parish of Estrela, just in the heart of Lisbon, at
Arriaga street. This building is of relevant cultural value since it was part of the Headquarters
of the British embassy until 1940 and the residence of the ambassador until 2003. It is a Pom-
baline style building that was built after the devastating 1755 Lisbon earthquake.
From the well-reasoned application of the four out of the five pre-selected plat-
forms—Yandex Maps was disregarded due to its poor coverage in Western European
countries, including Portugal—it was possible to observe that the Google platform offers
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 6 of 25

the most suitable tool for the purpose of obtaining data that can be subsequently used to
support vulnerability assessments.
As can be seen in Table 3, the use of Google Maps permitted the evaluation of 12 (out
of the 18) parameters. Mapillary was found to be the second most suitable tool, with 11
parameters fully evaluated. Finally, Open Street Cam and Bing Maps allowed evaluating
10 and 6 parameters, respectively.
A comparison between the images obtained from the different tools to identify the
location of the building and its conservation status (Parameter 17, in Table 3) is given in
Figures 1 and 2.

Table 3. Comparison of the web-mapping platforms considering the parameters that can be con-
sulted on each platform.

Parameter Google Bing Maps Open-Street Cam Mapillary

1 Position in the urban context ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
2 Total number of floors ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3 Average floor height and average floor area ✓ × × ×
4 Masonry characteristics × × × ×
5 Presence of tie rods or perimeter concrete belts ✓ × ✓ ✓
6 Connection between orthogonal walls ✓ × ✓ ✓
7 Average wall thickness and distance between walls × × × ×
8 Floors characteristics × × × ×
9 Mixed structures in reinforced concrete ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
10 Mortar type × × × ×
11 Presence of porch/arcade ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
12 Presence of specific elements of vulnerability ✓ × ✓ ✓
13 Roof type × × × ×
14 Wall Façade openings ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
15 Regularity in plan and height ✓ ✓ × ✓
16 Structural interventions in time ✓ × ✓ ✓
17 Status of conservation ✓ × ✓ ✓
18 Foundations × × × ×
Total of non-evaluable parameters 6 12 8 7
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 7 of 25

Figure 1. Comparison of the satellite images for evaluating plan regularity by using different web
platforms: (a) Google Maps, (b) Bing Maps, (c) Mapillary, (d) OpenStreetCam.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 8 of 25

Figure 2. Evaluation of the façade images for assessing the conservation state by using different web
platforms: (a) Google Maps, (b) Bing Maps, (c) OpenStreetCam, and (d) Mapillary.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 9 of 25

3. Quantitative Seismic Vulnerability Analysis and Assessment

Two different approaches are herein proposed for assessing the seismic vulnerability
of masonry constructions from the data obtained by web-based platforms. The first ap-
proach considers the assessment of the seismic vulnerability of constructions by charac-
terizing a series of general parameters of the constructions. This approach is expected to
be performed having information about the internal organization and configuration of the
construction. On the other hand, a simplified approach is used.
The above second strategy is aimed at the seismic vulnerability characterization of
the building by exclusively using parameters related to the Façade. This strategy is meant
to specifically assess the potential out-of-plane mechanism of the façade walls. It is help-
ful, however, when access to the building is limited.

3.1. Building Approach

The seismic vulnerability of the old city center of Leiria was evaluated by using the
Vulnerability Index Method [28], later adapted and enriched by other authors such as Fer-
reira [29]. Originally developed in Italy and applied widely over the last 25 years, it was
adapted to the Portuguese masonry-built environment by Vicente [29] and Ferreira [30].
This method, herein called “Building Approach,” is a hybrid vulnerability assess-
ment technique through which it is possible to evaluate in a simplified way the seismic
performance of masonry buildings, frequently found in historical cities, allowing to esti-
mate losses and post-seismic scenarios.
This approach is based on post-seismic damage observations and surveys covering
numerous events; this data has been used for guessing which characteristics of the build-
ings determined their structural behavior during a seismic event.
The method has been tested in many Portuguese historic city centers, such as Coim-
bra [31], Seixal [29], [32], and Horta [30]. In order to evaluate the seismic performance of
a building, the approach is based on the definition of 14 parameters that influence the
structural response towards seismic activity.
These parameters are related to four classes of increasing vulnerability: A, B, C, and
D. A weight pi is assigned to each parameter, ranging from 0.50 for the less important
parameters (in terms of structural vulnerability) up to 2.5 for the most important. A total
vulnerability index Iv∗ is calculated as the weighted sum of the 14 parameters (Table 4)
multiplied by their specific weight assigned as a meaning of importance in the definition
of the seismic response of the single building (Equation (1)).
14

Iv∗ = � Cvi × pi (1)

i=1

The total vulnerability index initially obtained can have a range between 0 and 650,
later normalized to an Iv index between 0 and 100. It is worth pointing out that the method
herein used is based on a calibration to the Portuguese built environment based on a wide
set of collected damage data obtained in the sequence of the magnitude VII earthquake
that struck the Azores archipelago on 9 July 1998 [30]. The calibration of the method leads
to the definition of updated weights given to each parameter compared to the values ini-
tially proposed by Vicente [28].
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 10 of 25

Table 4. Parameters, groups, and relative weights considered for the Building Approach, BA.

Parameters Class (𝐂𝐂𝐯𝐯𝐯𝐯 ) Weight Relative Weight

A B C D 𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐢
Group 1. Structural building system 50/100
P1. Type of resisting system 0 5 20 50 2.50 16.67
P2. Quality of the resisting system 0 5 20 50 2.50 16.67
P3. Conventional strength 0 5 20 50 1.00 6.67
P4. Maximum distance between walls 0 5 20 50 0.50 3.33
P5. Number of floors 0 5 20 50 0.50 3.33
P6. Location and soil conditions 0 5 20 50 0.50 3.33
Group 2. Irregularities and interaction 20/100
P7. Aggregate position and interaction 0 5 20 50 1.50 10.0
P8. Plan configuration 0 5 20 50 0.50 0.33
P9. Height regularity 0 5 20 50 0.50 0.33
P10. Wall Façade openings and alignment 0 5 20 50 0.50 0.33
Group 3. Floor slabs and roofs 18/100
P11. Horizontal diaphragms 0 5 20 50 0.75 4.91
P12. Roofing system 0 5 20 50 2.00 13.09
Group 4. Conservation and other elements 12/100
P13. Fragilities and conservation status 0 5 20 50 1.00 6.86
P14. Non-structural elements 0 5 20 50 0.75 5.14

3.2. Façade Approach

The façade walls, especially of historic buildings, present many structural fragilities,
such as the presence of flexible floors and inadequate connections between orthogonal
walls and horizontal diaphragms. These parameters affect the out-of-plane response of
the façades when subjected to horizontal loads. This response is not always related to the
global building behavior, as it consists of a local failure mechanism, and thus independent
evaluation of the façade walls’ vulnerability is necessary.
Observations of post-earthquake damages verify that the overturning of the façade
walls is one of the most concerning damage patterns, not only because it is commonly
observed but also because of the consequences that may result from its occurrence.
The first adaptation of the original formulation of the vulnerability index was pro-
posed by Ferreira et al. [33] based on a vast set of post-seismic damage survey data and
on the identification of construction aspects that most influence the damage on masonry
building façades. Later, another calibration of the method was proposed by Ferreira et al.
[34]. In this new calibration, three new parameters were proposed and analyzed and fi-
nally added to the 10 originally included in the vulnerability index.
In total, after Ferreira’s calibration, there are 13 parameters that are classified into
four main groups to emphasize their relative importance. Such as for the building ap-
proach, these parameters are related to four classes, Cvi of increasing vulnerability: A, B,
C, and D. For each class, a numerical value is assigned and, for each parameter, a
weighting factor, pi, reflects its relative importance.
Thus, the vulnerability index Iv∗ of the façade approach is calculated as the weighted sum
of those 13 parameters (Equation (2)) and is usually normalized to values between 0 to 100 for
ease of use. The corresponding weight of each group of parameters is presented in Table 5.
13

Iv∗ = � Cvi × pi (2)

i=1
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 11 of 25

Table 5. Parameters functional to the Façade Approach, FA.

Parameters Class, 𝐂𝐂𝐯𝐯𝐯𝐯 Weight Relative Weight

A B C D pi
Group 1. Façade geometry, openings, and interaction 16.7/100
P1. Geometry of Façade 0 5 20 50 0.50
P2. Maximum slenderness 0 5 20 50 0.50
P3. Area of openings 0 5 20 50 0.50
P4. Misalignment of openings 0 5 20 50 0.50
P5. Interaction between continuous Façades 0 5 20 50 0.25
Group 2. Masonry materials and conservation 31.5/100
P6. Quality of materials 0 5 20 50 2.00
P7. State of conservation 0 5 20 50 2.00
P8. Replacement of original flooring system 0 5 20 50 0.25
Group 3. Connection efficiency to other structural elements 33.3/100
P9. Connection to orthogonal walls 0 5 20 50 2.00
P10. Connection to horizontal diaphragms 0 5 20 50 0.50
P11. Impulsive nature of the roofing system 0 5 20 50 2.00
Group 4. Conservation status and other elements 18.5/100
P12. Elements connected to the Façade 0 5 20 50 0.50
P13. Improving elements 0 5 20 50 −2.00

4. The Historic City Centre of Leiria

Both approaches were applied in a set of constructions of the historic city of Leiria,
Portugal, located halfway between Coimbra and Lisbon. Considering that Portugal’s
mainland is a slow seismic deforming region, significant seismic events are characterized
by long return periods, and they are generated by the interaction of the boundary between
the African and Eurasian plates. The seismic records of the last 20 years show more than
100 earthquakes with intensities equal to or larger than III in the EMS-98 macroseismic
intensity scale [35].
According to maximum intensity maps (MIM) available for Portugal mainland, in-
tensity VII or VIII can be identified as representative of the seismicity of the Teves [35].
The most destructive seismic event in the history of Portugal was the 1755 Lisbon earth-
quake (8.5 ± 0.3 Mw) [36], which caused great damage in the Algarve and Lisbon regions
and was followed by a great tsunami.
The urban configuration developed in relation to the castle and the two landmarks
of the main square and the cathedral. The layout of the historic city center is defined by
the fundamental axis of Rua Direita, today also known as Rua Barão Viamonte, and 18
related streets branching perpendicularly (Figure 3). A limited region (13,000 m2) of the
city was analyzed, corresponding to Zone 1 of the historical center. It is worth emphasiz-
ing that this exercise is inspired by the division of the historic center into three zones car-
ried out by [37]. Each zone has its own typological slope.
The slope of Zone 1 is completely flat, whereas Zone 2 is inclined from north to south
with a minimum slope of 3% and maximum slope of 23%, and an average of 14%. For
Zone 3, two portions are separated by the main street, the southern part is flat, and the
northern part has a minimum slope of 14% and a maximum slope of 35% with an average
of 23% [37]. Only Zone 1 has been analyzed in this work. In Zone 1 there are 39 masonry
buildings. For distinction and organization purposes, all buildings were labeled resorting
to a unique code (Figure 4).
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 12 of 25

Figure 3. Satellite view of the City of Leiria (top); view of the Historic Centre, including the area of
study (bottom). Google Maps and GeoPortal.

Figure 4. Region of study (Zone 1), emphasizing masonry-based constructions and the key assigned
during the data acquisition campaigns.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 13 of 25

5. Assessments and Results

This experience compares the assessment performed by means of web-based images
and an in-situ experience, in which a control assessment was completely performed from
scratch. The similitudes and divergences are helpful for contextualizing the opportunities
and limitations of the web-based images approach. The on-site assessment and its results,
from this point on denominated as “reference”, will facilitate the identification of the de-
viation sources when performing the web-based assessment.

5.1. Building Approach

Some challenges were found while assigning vulnerability classes for the parameters
contained in the Vulnerability Index Method. As shown in Figure 5, some parameters
were not evaluable for some buildings. This situation was often caused because of a lack
of street images. Furthermore, parameter P11 (horizontal diaphragms) is unable to be as-
sessed only from exterior images.

100%
90%
Vulnerability class distribution

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Parameters
Not Evaluable D C B A

Figure 5. Vulnerability class distribution for each parameter throughout the total of samples.

A feasible way for dealing with this uncertainty, inherent to the proposed data-ac-
quisition strategy, is to take an average grade from the effectively assessed buildings for
being later used on those that were not completely assessed. For all those parameters that
were not evaluated, two approaches were used: assigning two default extreme vulnera-
bility classes, class A and class D, leading respectively to a less and more conservative
scenario. Consequently, two values of the vulnerability index were obtained for each
building: Iv+ corresponding to vulnerability class D; and Iv− corresponding to vulnerabil-
ity class A. The vulnerability assessment was applied to 39 buildings. As regards the lower
limit of the seismic vulnerability index, Iv− , the average value is 39.15 with a standard de-
viation of 7.43; approximately 33% of the assessed buildings have a vulnerability index
value greater than 40 and about 21% greater than 45. No buildings present a vulnerability
index lower than 20. The minimum and maximum values obtained are respectively 25.50
and 60.33. Considering the higher limit of the seismic vulnerability index, Iv+ , the average
value is 44.15 with a standard deviation of 7.43; approximately 67% of the assessed build-
ings present a vulnerability index value greater than 40 and about 33% greater than 45.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 14 of 25

No buildings were found to have a vulnerability index lower than 20, and the minimum
and maximum values are respectively 30.50 and 65.33
In order to verify that the data followed a normal distribution, the Shapiro–Wilk test
was performed on both groups of Vulnerability Index, Iv+ and Iv− . The hypothesis of nor-
mality was satisfied, with a value of p-value equal to 0.06 for both cases and therefore
higher than α = 0.5, assigned level of significance. The graphical representation of the fre-
quency distribution of the reference vulnerability index Iv,ref (corresponding to the vulner-
ability classes that were assessed on-site) and the comparison with higher and lower val-
ues computed, Iv+ and Iv− , are presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Vulnerability index obtained from Iv,ref, Iv+ , and Iv− , showing the normality of distribution.

It is worth noticing that the extreme assessments (i.e., Iv+ , and Iv− ) are more concen-
trated than the Iv,ref values. The average reference value Iv is equal to 42.88, and therefore,
it fits well in the calculated range of 39.15–44.15. The standard deviation value obtained
herein is quite different from the reference one, 7.43 and 12.74, respectively.
Figure 7 illustrates the divergences found among the parameters that were effectively
assessed by means of web-based images when compared to the on-site survey. It shows
the proportion of web-based assessments that were conservative, non-conservative, and
equal to the assessments performed in-situ. In most cases, the vulnerability classes as-
signed during the web-based survey correspond to those considered in the reference sur-
vey. Attention must be paid to the selection of the vulnerability class for Parameter 6 since
this parameter is associated with the soil classification according to relevant National and
International seismic design codes. Geological and geotechnical data can be retrieved by
documents and data distributed by public administration but can also be estimated by
means of the analysis of the topographical slope of the soil surface [38]. This methodology
is certainly useful and validated at a large scale, but it can present some limitations in
urbanized areas, where a more careful analysis of the built and natural environment must
be carried out. In the case of the investigated area, it is worth noting that the area is char-
acterized by a flat soil surface pointing out an alluvial subsoil generated by the floods of
the nearby Lis river. Based on this, a “loose soil without impulse and without rock foun-
dation”, Type D according to Eurocode 8 classification [39], was considered, differentiat-
ing on this point the work from a preceding one that referred to the same area [37].
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 15 of 25

100%
Web-based vulnerability class assessments

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
Parameters
Conservative Not Conservative Equal Classes

Figure 7. Comparison between the reference vulnerability index and the classes assigned using re-
mote surveying.

The graph given in Figure 8 shows, for each building, the relationships between the
reference and herein obtained vulnerability indexes.

100
90
80
Vulnerability Index, Iv

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
LR-Z1-B001
LR-Z1-B002
LR-Z1-B003
LR-Z1-B004
LR-Z1-B005
LR-Z1-B006
LR-Z1-B007
LR-Z1-B008
LR-Z1-B009
LR-Z1-B010
LR-Z1-B011
LR-Z1-B012
LR-Z1-B013
LR-Z1-B014
LR-Z1-B015
LR-Z1-B016
LR-Z1-B017
LR-Z1-B018
LR-Z1-B019
LR-Z1-B020
LR-Z1-B021
LR-Z1-B022
LR-Z1-B023
LR-Z1-B024
LR-Z1-B025
LR-Z1-B026
LR-Z1-B027
LR-Z1-B028
LR-Z1-B029
LR-Z1-B030
LR-Z1-B031
LR-Z1-B032
LR-Z1-B033
LR-Z1-B034
LR-Z1-B035
LR-Z1-B036
LR-Z1-B037
LR-Z1-B039
LR-Z1-B040

Building ID
Iv- Iv,reference Iv+

Figure 8. Comparison between the reference vulnerability index and the computed ranges by using
remote surveying; the Building ID refers to the keys in Figure 4.

Around 64% of the buildings resulted in a range of vulnerability index values that
is higher or coincident with the reference value. The graph given in Figure 9 presents the
percentages of the cases in which the reference vulnerability index falls within the com-
puted range (more and less conservative scenario, Iv+ , and Iv− ) and in which the same
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 16 of 25

range of values is more or less conservative than the reference value. The GIS application
software adopted in this study was ESRI ArcMap 10.8.1 [40].

Figure 9. Comparison between the indexes calculated in this work and the field-campaign reference
values.

The next phase was the operational implementation of the methodology of the Vul-
nerability Index. Bernardini et al. [41] proposed an analytical expression that correlates
hazard with the mean damage grade (0 < µD < 5) of the damage distribution in terms of
the vulnerability value, as shown in Equations (3) and (4).
I + cV − d
µD = a + b tanh � � × f(V, I) (3)
Q
V
(I−7)
f(V, I) = �e2 , if I ≤ 7 (4)
1, if I > 7
where:
a, b, c, and d are constant values 2.5, 3.0, 6.25, and 12.7, respectively, as per Bernardini
et al. [41].
I = seismic hazard described in terms of macroseismic (MMI) intensity.
V = vulnerability index obtained from the normalized IV index (Equation (5)).
Q = ductility factor (1 ≤ Q ≤ 4). Following the calibration made by (Ferreira et al.,
2014), a value of Q = 2.0 was herein assumed.
f (V, I) = is a function depending on the vulnerability index and intensity.
The vulnerability index Iv can be related to the vulnerability index V through the
following equation:
V = 0.592 + 0.0057 × Iv (5)
Following the above-presented analytical formulation, it is possible to obtain damage
curves for a given IV that represent a certain damage grade µD expected to occur because
of a seismic event of a given macroseismic intensity. This damage grade represents a min-
imum value of 0 that represents no damage at all and a maximum value of 5, representing
the total collapse of the structure. Figure 10 presents the construction of the curves for the
mean Iv+ , Iv− and Iv,ref found throughout the sample. The reference vulnerability curve fits
within the range of the two curves calculated in the previous section.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 17 of 25

The mean damage grade µD corresponding to the mean of the I+ −

v , Iv values of each building (from
now named “central value”) was used in the following analysis. The mean damage grade µD was
computed for two classes of macroseismic intensity (VII, VIII), for each building, and both for the
central and the reference value of the vulnerability index. The comparison between the results ob-
tained in this work is given through the GIS map of Figure 11. The values of the mean damage grade
µD computed were grouped into six classes, corresponding to the damage levels (Figure 12).

−
Figure 10. Vulnerability curves for the mean I+
v = 44.15, Iv =39.15, and Iv,ref = 42.88. This curve exem-
plifies that the minimum and maximum values are reasonably close to reference values, supporting
the hypothesis of having an accurate approach.

Figure 11. Damage scenario for different macroseismic intensities IEMS-98, considering central values-
(a) and (c); and reference values (b) and (d) of the Vulnerability Index Iv.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 18 of 25

Figure 12. Mean damage grade distributions obtained from both approaches for IEMS-98 = VII (left)
and IEMS-98 = VIII (right).

5.2. Façade Approach

An alternative way to estimate the seismic performance of existing masonry build-
ings moves from the idea that intrinsic features of the structure often prevent the box be-
havior under lateral loads. As a consequence, local mechanisms [42] play a key role in the
definition of the vulnerability index. Performance estimation based on local mechanisms
is herein addressed as façade approach, FA. All the buildings were analyzed under this
specific assumption, and the corresponding Seismic Vulnerability Index, Iv, was com-
puted. The procedure is like that presented in Section 5.1 but moves from a set of specific
parameters identified in Table 5, as discussed in Section 3.1 (Figure 13). The challenges
observed in the implementation of the building approach were present when performing
this assessment, namely due to the lack of street images.
As in the building approach, a vulnerability class corresponding to the average value
obtained from the assessed classes was assigned to the parameters for each bit of infor-
mation that is missing. As regards parameters P8 and P10, since it is not possible to eval-
uate the vulnerability class with a web tool, two values of the vulnerability index were
obtained for each building: Iv+ , corresponding to vulnerability class D and Iv− , correspond-
ing to vulnerability class A. Sixty-five building façade walls were analyzed. The lower
limit of the seismic vulnerability index Iv− shows an average value equal to 42.34 with a
standard deviation of 5.71; approximately 59% of the assessed façade walls have a vulner-
ability index value greater than 40 and about 26% greater than 45. No façade walls present
a vulnerability index lower than 20. The calculated values are within the range 33.52–
61.48. The higher limit of the seismic vulnerability Iv+ presents an average value equal to
47.90 and a standard deviation of 5.71; about 95% of the assessed façade walls present a
vulnerability index value greater than 40 and about 64% greater than 45. No façade walls
have a vulnerability index lower than 20; the minimum and maximum values are respec-
tively 39.07 and 67.04.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 19 of 25

100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%
Influence (%)

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13
Parameters
Not Evaluable D C B A

Figure 13. Vulnerability class distribution for each parameter, considering the façade approach.

The Shapiro–Wilk test was performed on both groups of Vulnerability Index, Iv+ and
Iv− .The hypothesis of normality was not satisfied, with a value of p-value equal to 0.01 for
both cases and therefore lower than α = 0.5, assigned level of significance (Figure 14). The
graphical representation of the frequency distribution of the reference vulnerability index
Iv,ref, and the comparison with higher and lower values computed, Iv+ and Iv− , are pre-
sented in Figure 15. Once again, the results of this work are more concentrated than the
reference values.

Figure 14. Vulnerability index distributions obtained from Iv,ref and overall comparison. The hy-
pothesis of normality was not sustained in this approach.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 20 of 25

100%

90%

80%

70%
Influence (%)

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13
Parameters
Not Conservative Conservative Equal Classes

Figure 15. Comparison between the vulnerability classes assigned for each façade-related parameter.

The average reference value (42.42) is close to the lower bound of the calculated range
of 42.34–47.90. The standard deviation value obtained herein is quite different from the
reference one, 5.71 and 12.79, respectively. Figure 16 presents the ratio between the refer-
ence (in-situ survey) and the evaluation classes of the vulnerability parameters.
These results are coherent with the building approach. In fact, 6 of the 13 parameters
evaluated show a compatible vulnerability class. The vulnerability classes assigned in this
work are the same as those calculated in the reference work. The graph in Figure 16 pre-
sents the relationship between the computed and the reference values. It is important to
note that each building was assigned the maximum vulnerability index value computed
considering all the relative façades. Approximately 74% of the buildings show a vulnera-
bility index value higher or coincident with the reference value (Figure 17).

100
90
Vulnerability Index, Iv

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Building ID
Iv- Iv,reference Iv+
Figure 16. Comparison between the reference vulnerability index and the computed range.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 21 of 25

Figure 17. Comparison between the Vulnerability Indexes evaluated in this work and the reference
values for the façade approach.

The Vulnerability Index for the façade walls was calculated using Equations (3) and
(4), and adopting the following coefficients: a = 2.51, b = 2.5, c = 5.25, and d = 11.6; and a
ductility factor Q = 2.0, as recommended by Ferreira et al. [43]. The application of this
analytical formulation led to the following vulnerability curves: the upper and the lower
average value of the vulnerability index distribution are plotted side-by-side with the ref-
erence vulnerability curve.
The reference vulnerability curve fits within the two computed vulnerability curves,
such as for the building approach. The central value of the range of vulnerability index
was used in the following analysis and shown in Figure 18. The mean damage grade µD
was computed for two classes of macroseismic intensity (VII, VIII) and compared with the
reference value of vulnerability index distribution (Figures 19 and 20).

−
Figure 18. Vulnerability curves for the mean I+
v = 47.90, Iv =42.34, and Iv,ref = 42.42. Minimum and
maximum values are close to reference values, supporting the feasibility of the approach.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 22 of 25

Figure 19. Damage scenario for different macroseismic intensities IEMS-98, considering central values
(a,c) and reference values (b,d) of Vulnerability Index Iv, based on the façade approach.

Figure 20. Mean damage grade distributions obtained from both intensities: IEMS-98 = VII (left) and
VIII (right) for the façade approach.

6. Final Remarks
The present paper reported the main results of an investigation on the feasibility of
structural surveys for seismic vulnerability assessment of masonry buildings inside his-
torical centers based on web-mapping platforms. The latter is becoming more and more
sophisticated and widespread, thus offering opportunities to the technical community
and decision-makers to improve their knowledge and awareness about the current condi-
tions and the level of vulnerability of the building stocks under their administration.
The investigation reported herein started from selecting key structural data among
those selected by well-established traditional vulnerability and seismic damage survey
forms concerning buildings made of masonry.
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 23 of 25

The capabilities of available web-mapping platforms in supporting quantitative seis-

mic performance assessments were checked first against the number of surveyable data
and then the level of accuracy and reliability of the vulnerability estimations achieved by
using available methods of analysis.
A benchmark study conducted on a selected portion of the Historic City Centre of
Leiria, Portugal, was illustrated, and the results associated with data obtained from virtual
surveys were compared with those provided by traditional on-site survey actions.
The main outcomes of the assessment can be briefly summarized as follows:
a. The global and local nature of the structural parameter of interest represents the main
limitation to the completeness of the survey and the presence of undetectable param-
eters.
b. The availability of pictures of the buildings from different viewpoints, not necessarily
aerial, improves the capabilities of the platforms.
c. Among the assessed web-mapping platforms, those belonging to the family of
Google LLC exhibited superior performance, with or without additional information
related to the building.
d. The integration of data coming from the web-mapping platforms and the structural
knowledge associated with the technical literature and the reconnaissance reports
from past earthquakes leads to reasonable and usable results.
e. The uncertainties associated with the use of remote sensing platforms can be ac-
counted for by relaxing the requirement of classifying the buildings according to sin-
gle classes of vulnerability. Conversely, the generation of a lower and an upper class
represents an effective guide towards a rational distribution of the resources to be
allocated to manage structural risk in extended urban areas.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.M.F. and P.B.L.; methodology, T.M.F. and P.B.L.; formal
analysis, C.C.; data curation, T.M.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.C. and G.F.; writing—review
and editing, T.M.F., G.F. and R.R.E.; supervision, T.M.F., P.B.L. and G.F.; funding acquisition, P.B.L. and
G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
RVS Rapid Visual Screening
RViSITS Rapid Visual Survey by Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Machine Learning-based Earthquake Hazard Safety Assessment of buildings via
ML-EHSAPP
smartphone App
LOG-IDEAH LOGic trees for Identification of Damage due to Earthquakes for Architectural Heritage
Fabbricati per l’Agibilità Sintetica post-Terremoto–Buildings for synthetic post-earth-
FAST
quake usability
“Agibilità e Danno nell’Emergenza Sismica”-Usability and damage in the seismic
AeDES
emergency)
“CARatterizzazione TIpologico-Strutturale dei comparti urbani costituiti da edifici
CARTIS
ordinari”
MIM Maximum Intensity Maps
GIS Geographical Information System
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 24 of 25

References
1. Dolce, M.; Goretti, A. Building damage assessment after the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 2241–2264.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S10518-015-9723-4.
2. Dolce, M.; Speranza, E.; Giordano, F.; Borzi, B.; Bocchi, F.; Conte, C.; Di Meo, A.; Faravelli, M.; Pascale, V. Observed damage
database of past Italian earthquakes: The Da.D.O. WebGIS. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 2019, 60, 141–164.
3. Calvi, G.M.; Pinho, R.; Magenes, G.; Bommer, J.J.; Restrepo-Vélez, L.F.; Crowley, H. Development of seismic vulnerability as-
sessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 2006, 43, 75–104.
4. Marra, A.; Sabino, A.; Bartolomucci, C.; Trizio, I.; Mannella, A.; Fabbrocino, G. On a Rational and Interdisciplinary Framework
for the Safety and Conservation of Historical Centres in Abruzzo Region. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019, 15, 608–626.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1637478.
5. Marcari, G.; Fabbrocino, G. Seismic assessment of Oratino historical urban area. In Strategies for Reduction of the Seismic Risk;
Fabbrocino, G., Santucci, F., Eds.; Structural and Geotechnical Dynamic Laboratory: Ripalimosani, Italy, 2008.
6. Ricci, P.; Verderame, G.M.; Manfredi, G.; Pollino, M.; Borfecchia, F.; De Cecco, L.; Martini, S.; Pascale, C.; Ristoratore, E.; James,
V. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Using Field Survey and Remote Sensing Techniques BT. In Computational Science and Its
Applications—ICCSA 2011; Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2011; pp. 109–124.
7. Wieland, M.; Pittore, M.; Parolai, S.; Zschau, J.; Moldobekov, B.; Begaliev, U. Estimating building inventory for rapid seismic
vulnerability assessment: Towards an integrated approach based on multi-source imaging. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2012, 36, 70–
83. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOILDYN.2012.01.003.
8. Anniballe, R.; Chini, M.; Pierdicca, N.; Bignami, C.; Stramondo, S.; Noto, F.; Scalia, T.; Martinelli, A.; Mannella, A. Detecting
earthquake damage in urban area: Application to COSMO-SkyMed imagery of L’Aquila earthquake. SAR Image Anal. Model.
Tech. XV 2015, 9642, 96420C. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195723.
9. Marra, A.; Fabbrocino, G. Open-access web mapping as a virtual survey tool for cultural heritage: An application to the Arme-
nian religious architecture documented by Paolo Cuneo. Disegnarecon 2020, 13, 7.
https://doi.org/10.20365/disegnarecon.25.2020.7.
10. Shah, M.F.; Ahmed, A.; Kegyes, O.; Al-Ghamadi, A.; Ray, R. A Case Study Using Rapid Visual Screening Method to Determine
the Vulnerability of Buildings in two Districts of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on
New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia, Tacloban, Philippines, 7–9 November 2016.
11. Kassem, M.M.; Beddu, S.; Ooi, J.H.; Tan, C.G.; Mohamad El-Maissi, A.; Mohamed Nazri, F. Assessment of Seismic Building
Vulnerability Using Rapid Visual Screening Method through Web-Based Application for Malaysia. Buildings 2021, 11, 485.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100485.
12. Riyanto, W.; Irawan, D.; Joko Wahyu Adi, T.; Iranata, D.; Rizki Amalia, A. Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of High-Rise
Buildings in Surabaya using RViSITS Android Application. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 739, 012040.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/739/1/012040.
13. IŞIK, M.; IŞIK, E.; HARİCİHİAN, E. Application of IOS/Android Rapid Evaluation of Post-Earthquake Damages in Masonry
Buildings. Gazi J. Eng. Sci. 2021, 7, 36–50. https://doi.org/10.30855/gmbd.2021.01.05.
14. Harirchian, E.; Jadhav, K.; Kumari, V.; Lahmer, T. ML-EHSAPP: A prototype for machine learning-based earthquake hazard
safety assessment of structures by using a smartphone app. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1892829.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.1892829.
15. Novelli, V.I.; D’Ayala, D. LOG-IDEAH: LOGic trees for identification of damage due to earthquakes for architectural heritage.
Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9622-0.
16. Mannella, A.; Fabbrocino, G. Una lettura dell’evoluzione delle procedure di rilievo del danno e sull’agibilità degli edifici
ordinari nell’emergenza post-sisma. In Proceedings of the 39th GNTS Congress, Rome, Italy, 22–24 June 2021.
17. Angeli, P.; Clementi, C.; De Mutiis, D.; Cagnizi, M.; Baldin, R.; Ferro, E.; Fedeli, C.; Nazionale, D. Il Coordinamento
dall’emergenza al post sisma: l’esperienza dell’Associazione Ingegneri per la Prevenzione e le Emergenze [Coordination from
the emergency to post-earthquake : The experience of the Association Engineers for the Prevention and Emerge]. Progettazione
Sismica 2017, 8, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.7414/PS.8.2.109-124.
18. Department of Civil Protection (DPC). Manuale per la Compilazione della Scheda di Primo Livello di Rilevamento di Danno, Pronto
Intervento e Agibilità per Edifici Ordinari nell’Emergenza Post-Sismica (AeDES), 2nd ed.; Dolce, M., Papa, F., Pizza, A.G., Eds.;
Dipartimento della Protezione Civile: Rome, Italy, 2014.
19. Civerra, C.; Lemme, A.; Cifani, G. (Eds.) Strumenti per il Rilievo del Danno e della Vulnerabilità Sismica dei Beni Culturali; Tipografia
Lampo: Campobasso, Italy, 2007.
20. Zuccaro, G.; Dolce, M.; De Gregorio, D.; Speranza, E.; Moroni, C. La scheda CARTIS per la caratterizzazione tipologico-
strutturale dei comparti urbani costituiti da edifici ordinari. Valu-tazione dell’esposizione in analisi di rischio sismico. In Pro-
ceedings of the 35th GNTS Congress, Trieste, Italy, 17–19 November 2015.
21. HERE WeGo. Available online: https://wego.here.com/?x=ep&map=41.1337,16.85,10,normal (accessed on 28 November 2021).
22. Google Maps. Available online: https://www.google.it/maps (accessed on 28 November 2021).
23. Khan, A.; Chatterjee, S.; Filho, W.L.; Khatun, R.; Dinda, A.; Minhas, A. City-scale Modeling of Urban Heat Islands for Kolkata.
In Climate Change Management; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2020; pp. 89–133.
24. Microsoft Inc. Bing Maps. Available online www.bing,com (accessed on 28 November 2021).
Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 1424 25 of 25

25. Mapillary. Available online: https://www.mapillary.com/ (accessed on 28 November 2021).

26. KartaView. Available online: https://kartaview.org/landing (accessed on 28 November 2021).
27. Yandex Yandex.Maps. Available online: www.yandex.com (accessed on 28 November 2021).
28. Vicente, R. Estratégias e metodologias para intervenções de reabilitação urbana. In Avaliação da Vulnerabilidade e do Risco Sísmico
do Edificado da Baixa de Coimbra; Universidade de Aveiro: Aveiro, Portugal, 2008.
29. Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R.; Mendes da Silva, J.A.R.; Varum, H.; Costa, A. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical urban centres:
Case study of the old city centre in Seixal, Portugal. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 11, 1753–1773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9447-2.
30. Ferreira, T.M.; Maio, R.; Vicente, R. Seismic vulnerability assessment of the old city centre of Horta, Azores: Calibration and application
of a seismic vulnerability index method. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 15, 2879–2899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-0071-9.
31. Vicente, R.S.; Mendes da Silva, J.A.R.; Varum, H. Seismic vulnerability assessment of buildings in the old city centre of Coimbra.
In Proceedings of the International Conference 250th Anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–4 Novem-
bre 2005; pp. 1–4.
32. Maio, R.; Estêvão, J.M.C.; Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R. Casting a new light on the seismic risk assessment of stone masonry build-
ings located within historic centres. Structures 2020, 25, 578–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.03.008.
33. Ferreira, T.M.; Costa, A.A.; Vicente, R.; Varum, H. A simplified four-branch model for the analytical study of the out-of-plane
performance of regular stone URM walls. Eng. Struct. 2015, 83, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.048.
34. Ferreira, T.M.; Maio, R.; Costa, A.A.; Vicente, R. Seismic vulnerability assessment of stone masonry façade walls: Calibration using
fragility-based results and observed damage. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 103, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.09.006.
35. Teves-Costa, P.; Batlló, J.; Matias, L.; Catita, C.; Jiménez, M.J.; García-Fernández, M. Maximum intensity maps (MIM) for
Portugal mainland. J. Seismol. 2019, 23, 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-019-09814-5.
36. Fonseca, J.F.B.D. A Reassessment of the Magnitude of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2020, 110, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190198.
37. Anglade, E.; Giatreli, A.-M.; Blyth, A.; Di Napoli, B.; Parisse, F.; Namourah, Z.; Rodrigues, H.; Ferreira, T.M. Seismic damage
scenarios for the Historic City Center of Leiria, Portugal: Analysis of the impact of different seismic retrofitting strategies on
emergency planning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 44, 101432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101432.
38. Wald, D.J.; Allen, T.I. Topographic Slope as a Proxy for Seismic Site Conditions and Amplification. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2007,
97, 1379–1395. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060267.
39. Hong, J.Y.; Ahmad, S.W.; Adnan, A.; Muthusamy, K.; Ariffin, N.F.; Yahaya, F.M.; Syed Mohsin, S.M. Seismic performance and
cost analysis for reinforced concrete school building under different type of soil. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2020, 120, 102933.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2020.102933.
40. Esri Support ArcMap 10.8 (10.8.1). Available online: https://support.esri.com/en/Products/Desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcmap/10-
8-1 (accessed on 28 November 2021).
41. Bernardini, A.; Giovinazzi, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Parodi, S. The vulnerability assessment of current buildings by a macroseismic
approach derived from the EMS-98 scale. In Proceedings of the 3rd Congreso National de Ingeniería Sismíca, Girona, Spain, 8–
11 May 2007; pp. 1–15.
42. Lourenço, P.B.; Mendes, N.; Ramos, L.F.; Oliveira, D.V. Analysis of Masonry Structures Without Box Behavior. Int. J. Archit.
Herit. 2011, 5, 369–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2010.528824.
43. Athmani, A.E.; Gouasmia, A.; Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R.; Khemis, A. Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry
buildings located in Annaba city (Algeria) using non ad-hoc data survey. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 2283–2307.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9717-7.