In 2012, the Emilia-Romagna region in Italy was affected by ground shaking as well as widespread ground failure (mostly liquefaction) caused by a sequence of earthquakes. The fragility of the residential building inventory is empirically assessed here based on information from 39,087 buildings in 64 municipalities surveyed in order to assess their post-disaster usability. Key (and common) challenge with this type of large post-disaster databases is how best to treat the notable missing data error and address the non-representative sample. Fragility curves for buildings based on their construction material or age are constructed for areas affected by ground shaking and for areas ones affected by ground failure. As expected, old masonry buildings are the most vulnerable and reinforced concrete buildings are seen to be the least vulnerable. Both peak ground acceleration and peak ground velocity have been used to express the intensity measure type. Although, the former was found to fit the data best, it poorly predicted the probability of exceedance of extreme damage to ground failure for building classes associated with small sample sizes (e.g. RC buildings), highlighting the limitations of using non-representative samples in fragility assessment for extreme cases. The fragility curves for masonry buildings compare well with their counterparts based on existing empirical studies

2012年，意大利的艾米利亚—罗马涅（Emilia-Romagna）地区受到了地面震动以及一系列地震造成的广泛地面破坏（主要是液化）的影响。这里根据来自64个受调查城市的39,087座建筑物的信息，以实证方式评估了住宅建筑物清单的脆弱性，以评估其灾后可用性。这种大型的灾后数据库面临的主要（也是常见）挑战是如何最好地处理显着的丢失数据错误并解决非代表性样本。针对受地面震动影响的区域和受地面破坏影响的区域，根据建筑材料或使用年限绘制建筑物的易碎性曲线。不出所料，旧砖石建筑是最脆弱的，而钢筋混凝土建筑被认为是最脆弱的。峰值地面加速度和峰值地面速度都已用于表示强度测量类型。尽管发现前者最适合数据，但是对于与小样本量相关的建筑类别（例如RC建筑物），它无法很好地预测超出地面破坏的极端破坏的可能性，突出了在脆弱性中使用非代表性样本的局限性评估极端情况。根据现有的经验研究，砌体建筑的易碎性曲线与同类建筑比较良好 RC建筑物），强调了在极端情况下在脆弱性评估中​​使用非代表性样本的局限性。根据现有的经验研究，砌体建筑的易碎性曲线与同类建筑比较良好 RC建筑物），强调了在极端情况下在脆弱性评估中​​使用非代表性样本的局限性。根据现有的经验研究，砌体建筑的易碎性曲线与同类建筑比较良好