Seismic risk assessments and GIS technology: applications to infrastructures in the Friuli–Venezia Giulia region (NE Italy)

Codermatz, Raffaella; Nicolich, R.; Slejko, D.

doi:10.1002/eqe.294

Cited by 29 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of such systems employ recordings from strong motion networks to characterize seismic events and estimate the damage by use of known inventory of elements exposed to hazard and associated vulnerability relationships. With respect to transportation networks, there have been some attempts to apply seismic risk assessment to motorway systems such as the one in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region of NE Italy [Codermatz et al, 2003].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple method for real-time seismic damage assessment of bridges

Anastasopoulos

Agalianos

et al. 2015

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple method for real-time seismic damage assessment of bridges

Anastasopoulos

Agalianos

et al. 2015

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A similar approach was delineated by Yang et al (1989) and applied to residential buildings of the Friuli Region (Northeastern Italy) using empirical vulnerability estimates derived by the damage observation after the 1976 M 6.1 Friuli earthquake. The approach was successively extended to infrastructures (Codermatz et al, 2003) using the HAZUS methodology (FEMA, 1999). In the present work, the theoretical backgrounds of the direct and probabilistic approaches to the computation of losses are recalled, further developed and explained, and the results of their application are described and commented with regard to the whole country.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Developments in Seismic Risk Assessment in Italy

Pasquale¹,

Orsini²,

Romeo

2005

Bull Earthquake Eng

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper illustrates some improvements in the seismic risk assessments in Italy and describes the differences deriving from the use of different approaches to calculate the losses and the influence exerted by different hazard results. The first method of risk evaluation, here termed as 'direct', evaluates the losses by using only the mean values of the main variables involved (rate of events and frequency of the damage levels), thus providing an approximation of the expected losses. The second method, named 'probabilistic', takes into account the uncertainties related to the number of events (hazard) and the damage levels (vulnerability), thus determine the probability associated to each level of loss. Both methods express the risk as the economic losses to dwellings within a reference period of time. Two alternative hazard results are also used to show the influence on the calculated risk: the first one considering the seismicity uniformly distributed within seismic source zones; the second one clustering the strong seismicity in geographically narrowed source zones and scattering the low seismicity over large source zones.The results obtained show that the losses estimated by the 'direct' method are, at national level, a little bit lower than those obtained with the probabilistic method (about 6%). The differences are more pronounced at local level (regional or sub-regional), generally within ±20% with larger values in the zones of lower risk. Nevertheless, also the two hazard results show more pronounced differences at local rather than at national scale. The risk estimates in the high seismicity areas are greater if using the seismic hazard results based on the clustered seismicity, but the reverse is true, in the low seismicity areas, if using the hazard results based on the uniformly distributed seismicity.As a concluding remark, the direct method for calculating losses and the implementation of any seismic hazard result, may be acceptable for a general picture of the risk; whereas, when a detailed description of the territorial distribution of risk is needed, the probabilistic method for computing losses and a well-focused seismic hazard method should be used, as they are more pertinent to describe and highlight local differences.Abbreviations: GdL96 -hazard and risk results from the 'Working Group, 1996'; SCS -hazard and risk results from the 'Spatially Clustered Seismicity' model; SSN -seismic and risk results from the 'National Seismic Survey'.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, for the Italian territory no data with I EMS ≥ VIII are available joint with ground motion time series. Concerning the macroseismic intensity scale, in some studies (e.g., Codermatz et al 2003) it is concluded that a substantial equality exists between Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg scale (MCS; Sieberg 1930) and the European definition of macroseismic intensities (MSK-76, EMS-92 and EMS-98). The MCS scale is used mainly to estimate intensities for historical earthquakes.…”

Section: Housner Intensity Versus Ems-98 Intensitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Building damage scenarios based on exploitation of Housner intensity derived from finite faults ground motion simulations

Chiauzzi

Masi

Mucciarelli

et al. 2011

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper earthquake damage scenarios for residential buildings (about 4200 units) in Potenza (Southern Italy) have been estimated adopting a novel probabilistic approach that involves complex source models, site effects, building vulnerability assessment and damage estimation through Damage Probability Matrices. Several causative faults of single seismic events, with magnitude up to 7, are known to be close to the town. A seismic hazard approach based on finite faults ground motion simulation techniques has been used to identify the sources producing the maximum expected ground motion at Potenza and to generate a set of ground motion time histories to be adopted for building damage scenarios. Additionally, site effects, evaluated in a previouswork through amplification factors of Housner intensity, have been combined with the bedrock values provided by hazard assessment. Furthermore, a new relationship between Housner and EMS-98 macroseismic intensity has been developed. This relationship has been used to convert the probability mass functions of Housner intensity obtained from synthetic seismograms amplified by the site effects coefficients into probability mass function of EMS-98 intensity. Finally, the Damage Probability Matrices have been applied to estimate the damage levels of the residential buildings located in the urban area of Potenza. The proposed methodology returns the full probabilistic distribution of expected damage, thus avoiding average damage index or uncertainties expressed in term of dispersion indexes

show abstract

Seismic risk assessments and GIS technology: applications to infrastructures in the Friuli–Venezia Giulia region (NE Italy)

Cited by 29 publications

References 10 publications

Simple method for real-time seismic damage assessment of bridges

Simple method for real-time seismic damage assessment of bridges

New Developments in Seismic Risk Assessment in Italy

Building damage scenarios based on exploitation of Housner intensity derived from finite faults ground motion simulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About