Seismic Vulnerability Prioritization in University Buildings Through Structural Visual Inspection in Framed Systems of up to Five Stories

Abstract

Evaluating seismic vulnerability in large building inventories remains a difficult problem to solve under real-world application conditions, especially when structural information is incomplete and resources for conducting detailed assessments are limited. In contexts such as Colombia, this situation hinders the prioritization of interventions, particularly in educational infrastructure exposed to significant seismic hazards, and specifically in framed buildings of up to five stories. While methods based on structural modeling allow for robust estimations of seismic performance, their large-scale application is not always viable—as evidenced by Porter, Kennedy, and Bachman (2007) and Calvi et al. (2006)—due to high data requirements and computational capacity. In contrast, structural visual inspection methods have become established as an operational alternative for preliminary assessments, as proposed by widely used methodologies such as FEMA (2015), the GNDT method by Benedetti and Petrini (1984), and European approaches like EMS-98 (Grünthal, 1998) and RISK-UE (Mouroux and Le Brun, 2006). However, their application can be affected by evaluator subjectivity and the absence of systematic prioritization criteria, limiting their consistency in decision-making processes. Based on these limitations, this study proposes to prioritize the assessment of seismic vulnerability in university buildings through structural visual inspection, focusing on framed systems of up to five stories. The proposal is structured through a Design Thinking approach, which allows for iterative advancement from the identification of relevant observable variables to the construction of criteria that support decision-making. In this sense, the analysis seeks to identify potentially vulnerable structural configurations based on visible characteristics, articulating direct observation with structural engineering principles, in line with approaches that integrate structural typologies and seismic behavior (Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi, 2006). Additionally, the organization of variables into structural categories is proposed to allow for comparison between buildings, facilitating the identification of critical conditions associated with higher vulnerability. This process considers aspects such as irregularities in plan and elevation, characteristics of the resistant system, and possible construction deficiencies. In this way, the goal is to establish relative levels of vulnerability that guide decision-making in contexts with multiple buildings. The contribution of this study lies in structuring a systematic approach for prioritizing buildings according to their seismic vulnerability based on visual inspection, reducing the inherent subjectivity of such assessments. Unlike traditional approaches, the proposal organizes observation criteria under an analytical framework that allows for more consistent decision-making in contexts with limited information. This approach establishes a replicable methodological basis for prioritizing interventions in educational infrastructure.