Seismic risk in the city of Al Hoceima (north of Morocco) using the vulnerability index method, applied in Risk-UE project

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2566-8Al Hoceima is one of the most seismic active regions in north of Morocco. It is demonstrated by the large seismic episodes reported in seismic catalogs and research studies. However, seismic risk is relatively high due to vulnerable buildings that are either old or don’t respect seismic standards. Our aim is to present a study about seismic risk and seismic scenarios for the city of Al Hoceima. The seismic vulnerability of the existing residential buildings was evaluated using the vulnerability index method (Risk-UE). It was chosen to be adapted and applied to the Moroccan constructions for its practicality and simple methodology. A visual inspection of 1102 buildings was carried out to assess the vulnerability factors. As for seismic hazard, it was evaluated in terms of macroseismic intensity for two scenarios (a deterministic and probabilistic scenario). The maps of seismic risk are represented by direct damage on buildings, damage to population and economic cost. According to the results, the main vulnerability index of the city is equal to 0.49 and the seismic risk is estimated as Slight (main damage grade equal to 0.9 for the deterministic scenario and 0.7 for the probabilistic scenario). However, Moderate to heavy damage is expected in areas located in the newer extensions, in both the east and west of the city. Important economic losses and damage to the population are expected in these areas as well. The maps elaborated can be a potential guide to the decision making in the field of seismic risk prevention and mitigation strategies in Al Hoceima.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

The use of Artificial Neural Networks to estimate seismic damage and derive vulnerability functions for traditional masonry

This paper discusses the adoption of Artificial Intelligence-based techniques to estimate seismic damage, not with the goal of replacing existing approaches, but as a mean to improve the precision of empirical methods. For such, damage data collected in the aftermath of the 1998 Azores earthquake (Portugal) is used to develop a comparative analysis between damage grades obtained resorting to a classic damage formulation and an innovative approach based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs). The analysis is carried out on the basis of a vulnerability index computed with a hybrid seismic vulnerability assessment methodology, which is subsequently used as input to both approaches. The results obtained are then compared with real post-earthquake damage observation and critically discussed taking into account the level of adjustment achieved by each approach. Finally, a computer routine that uses the ANN as an approximation function is developed and applied to derive a new vulnerability curve expression. In general terms, the ANN developed in this study allowed to obtain much better approximations than those achieved with the original vulnerability approach, which has revealed to be quite non-conservative. Similarly, the proposed vulnerability curve expression was found to provide a more accurate damage prediction than the traditional analytical expressions.SFRH/BPD/122598/2016info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The danger of mapping risk from multiple natural hazards

In recent decades, society has been greatly affected by natural disasters (e.g. floods, droughts, earthquakes), losses and effects caused by these disasters have been increasing. Conventionally, risk assessment focuses on individual hazards, but the importance of addressing multiple hazards is now recognised. Two approaches exist to assess risk from multiple-hazards; the risk index (addressing hazards, and the exposure and vulnerability of people or property at risk) and the mathematical statistics method (which integrates observations of past losses attributed to each hazard type). These approaches have not previously been compared. Our application of both to China clearly illustrates their inconsistency. For example, from 31 Chinese provinces assessed for multi-hazard risk, Gansu and Sichuan provinces are at low risk of life loss with the risk index approach, but high risk using the mathematical statistics approach. Similarly, Tibet is identified as being at almost the highest risk of economic loss using the risk index, but lowest risk under the mathematical statistics approach. Such inconsistency should be recognised if risk is to be managed effectively, whilst the practice of multi-hazard risk assessment needs to incorporate the relative advantages of both approaches