Holistic Modelling of Loss and Recovery for the Resilience Assessment to Seismic Sequences

Earthquakes typically occur in time-space clusters. Classical probabilistic seismic risk analysis, only consider the prominent magnitude earthquakes within each cluster. This implicitly corresponds to neglect that, for exposed infrastructure, the clustering behavior of seismic events may, on one hand, cause damage accumulation and prolonged business interruption and, on the other hand, may delay or disrupt the repair and recovery processes. In the paper, a Markov-chain-based model, able to describe both loss and recovery during aftershock sequences is presented. It preserves most of the benefits of the classical approach and can be extended to enable modelling of peculiar resilience features such as delay in recovery initiation

NODE: a large‐scale seismic risk prioritization tool for Italy based on nominal structural performance

AbstractPrioritization of seismic risk mitigation at a large scale requires rough-input methodologies able to provide an expedited, yet conventional, assessment of the seismic risk corresponding to the portfolio of interest. In fact, an evaluation of seismic vulnerability at regional level by means of mechanics-based methods is generally only feasible for a fraction of the portfolio, selected according to prioritization criteria, due to the sheer volume of information and computational effort required. Therefore, conventional assessment of seismic risk via simple indices has been proposed in literature and in some guidelines, mainly based on the comparison of code requirements at the time of design and current seismic demand. These indices represent an attempt to define a relative seismic risk measure for a rapid ranking to identify the part of the portfolio that deserves further investigation. Although these risk metrics are based on strong assumptions, they have the advantage of only requiring easy-to-retrieve data, such as design year and location as the bare minimum, making them suitable for applications within the risk analysis industry. Moreover, they can take both hazard and vulnerability into account, albeit conventionally, and can be manipulated in order to account for exposure in terms of individual or societal risks. In the present study, the main assumptions, limitations, and possible evolutions of existing prioritization approaches to nominal risk are reviewed, with specific reference to the Italian case. Furthermore, this article presents the software NODE (available to interested readers), which enables the computation of location-specific code-based seismic performance demands, according to the Italian code and the evolution of seismic classification since 1909. Finally, this study intends to contribute to the ongoing debate on strategies for large-scale seismic assessment for building stock management purposes

Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms

The simple study discussed in this paper compared different procedures to obtain sets of spectral matching accelerograms for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures in terms of inelastic seismic response. Six classes of records were considered: original (unscaled) real records, real records moderately linearly scaled, real records significantly linearly scaled, real records adjusted by wavelets, and artificial accelerograms generated by two different procedures. The study is spectral shape-based; that is, all the considered sets of records, generated or selected, match individually (artificial and adjusted) or on average (real records) the same design spectrum for a case-study site in Italy. This is because spectral compatibility is the main criterion required for seismic input by international codes. Three kinds of single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, non-degrading and non-evolutionary, non-degrading and evolutionary, and both degrading and evolutionary, were used to evaluate the nonlinear response to the compared records. Demand spectra in term of peak and cyclic responses were derived for different strength reduction factors. Results of the analysis show that artificial or adjusted accelerograms may underestimate, in some cases, and at high nonlinearity levels, the displacement response, if compared to original real records, which are considered as a benchmark herein. However, this conclusion does not seem to be statistically significant. Conversely, if the cyclic response is considered, artificial record classes show a significant overestimation of the demand, which does not show up for wavelet-adjusted records. The two classes of linearly scaled records do not show systematic bias with respect to those unscaled for both types of response considered, which seems to confirm that amplitude scaling is a legitimate practice

Engineering seismic demand in the 2012 Emilia sequence: preliminary analysis and model compatibility assessment

<p>The Emilia 2012 sequence featured seven events of moment magnitude (M) &gt;5, five of which occurred between May 20 and May 29, 2012. These earthquakes were structurally damaging over a wide area. The damage included partial or total collapse of industrial precast reinforced-concrete structures, historical masonry, and mainly nonstructural damage to reinforced-concrete buildings; see Section 8 (Data and sharing resources) for damage report repository. These structural typologies are, in principle, sensitive to different ground-motion intensity measures. For example, loss of support requires significant displacement demand at relatively long periods, while infilling damage is due to the ground-motion amplitude at higher frequencies, and masonry structures are comparatively more sensitive to the cyclic content of ground shaking. Moreover, because events were concentrated in time and space, it can be argued that the cumulative effects of the sequence contributed to the damage. As the current seismic code [C.S.LL.PP. 2008] uses a seismic hazard map [Stucchi et al. 2011] to determine the seismic actions for structural design, when a strong earthquake occurs, probabilistic estimates are understandably questioned for their consistency with respect to the observed ground motion. While it is easy to show that in terms of frequency of exceedance of intensity measures, the hazard can hardly be validated via the records of a single earthquake [e.g., Iervolino 2012], on the other hand, it can certainly be verified whether the observations are compatible or atypical with respect to what is predicted by the tools used in best-practice hazard studies. These issues mostly motivated the preliminary analysis briefly presented in this report; i.e., to investigate the engineering seismic demand (peak and cyclic) and to compare this with the prediction models. Both elastic and inelastic demands were considered. Indeed, the inelastic demands are more important from the structural engineering point of view. […]</p

Rarity, proximity, and design actions: mapping strong earthquakes in Italy

At the state-of-the-art of structural codes, seismic design actions are based on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). In the performance-based earthquake engineering framework, the return period of exceedance of the reference ground motion is established based on the desired performance of the structure. It is easy to show and recognize that exceedance of elastic spectra, for the most common return periods considered for design, is very likely for some earthquakes if they occur close to the site of interest, and that this does not necessarily contradict the results of PSHA. Therefore, it might be relevant to gather insights about: (i) the probability that the site is in proximity of earthquakes of magnitude that can imply exceedance; (ii) the probability that earthquakes occurring close cause exceedance of design actions; (iii) the minimum magnitude of close-by events that are likely to cause exceedance of design actions, which are then referred to as the strong earthquakes; (iv) the accelerations that structures could be exposed to in the case of exceedance of design spectra. These results, which are produced for Italy in this study, may be considered by-products of PSHA, and are helpful in determining what to expect in terms of elastic actions for code-conforming structures in countries where probabilistic seismic hazard lies at the basis of structural design

Hazard-Consistent Intensity Measure Conversion of Fragility Curves

In seismic risk assessment of structures, fragility functions are the typical representation of seismic vulnerability, expressing the probability of exceedance of a given performance level as a function of a ground motion intensity measure (IM). Fragility curves, in general, are structure- and sitespecific, thus a comparison of fragility curves is not straightforward across multiple structures and/or sites. The study presented in this paper discusses possible strategies to convert a fragility curve from an original IM to a target IM for a given site. In particular, three conversion cases, under different assumptions on the explanatory power with respect to structural failure of the involved IMs, are considered: (i) a vector-valued IM consisting of two different IMs (to say, original and target), magnitude, and source-to-site distance, (ii) a vector-valued IM consisting of the original and target IMs, and (iii) the original IM only, supposed to be a sufficient onei.e., the structural response given IM statistically independent of the other ground motion characteristics. The original fragility functions are supposed to be obtained through the state-of-the-art methods, then the fragility functions in terms of the target IM are obtained via applications of the probability calculus rules, which ensure consistency with the seismic hazard at the site of interest. The considered cases are illustrated via an example referring to an Italian code-conforming RC building designed for a site in LAquila. As far as the case-study is concerned, all conversion cases show agreement, likely because of the hazard-consistent record selection and to the explanatory power of the original IM with respect to structural failure.The study presented in this article was developed within the activities of the ReLUISDPC 2014-2018 research program, funded by Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri – Dipartimento della Protezione Civil and the Horizon 2020 MSCA-RISE-2015 project No. 691213 entitled "Experimental Computational Hybrid Assessment of Natural Gas Pipelines Exposed to Seismic Risk (EXCHANGE-RISK)

Sequence-based hazard analysis for Italy considering a grid seismic source model

Earthquakes are usually clustered in both time and space and, within each cluster, the event of highest magnitude is conventionally identified as the mainshock, while the foreshocks and the aftershocks are the events that occur before and after it, respectively. Mainshocks are the earthquakes considered in the classical formulation of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), where the contribution of foreshocks and aftershocks is usually neglected. In fact, it has been shown that it is possible to rigorously, within the hypotheses of the model, account for the effect of mainshock-aftershocks sequences by means of the sequence-based PSHA (i.e., SPSHA). SPSHA extends the usability of the homogeneous Poisson process, adopted for mainshocks within PSHA, to also describe the occurrence of clusters maintaining the same input data of PSHA; i.e., the seismic rates derived by a declustered catalog. The aftershocks’ occurrences are accounted for by means of conditional non-homogeneous Poisson processes based on the modified Omori law. The seismic source model for Italy has been recently investigated, and the objective of the study herein presented is to include and evaluate the effect of aftershocks, by means of SPSHA, based on a new grid model. In the paper, the results of PSHA and SPSHA are compared, considering the spectral and return periods that are of typical interest for earthquake engineering. Finally, a comparison with the SPSHA map based on a well- established source model for Italy is also provided

Guidelines for deriving seismic fragility functions of elements at risk: Buildings, lifelines, transportation networks and critical facilities

The objective of SYNER-G in regards to the fragility functions is to propose the most appropriate functions for the construction typologies in Europe. To this end, fragility curves from literature were collected, reviewed and, where possible, validated against observed damage and harmonised. In some cases these functions were modified and adapted, and in other cases new curves were developed. The most appropriate fragility functions are proposed for buildings, lifelines, transportation infrastructures and critical facilities. A software tool was also developed for the storage, harmonisation and estimation of the uncertainty of fragility functions.JRC.G.5-European laboratory for structural assessmen

Exceedance of design actions in epicentral areas: insights from the ShakeMap envelopes for the 2016–2017 central Italy sequence

AbstractShakeMap is the tool to evaluate the ground motion effect of earthquakes in vast areas. It is useful to delimit the zones where the shaking is expected to have been most significant, for civil defense rapid response. From the earthquake engineering point of view, it can be used to infer the seismic actions on the built environment to calibrate vulnerability models or to define the reconstruction policies based on observed damage vs shaking. In the case of long-lasting seismic sequences, it can be useful to develop ShakeMap envelopes, that is, maps of the largest ground intensity among those from the ShakeMap of (selected) events of a seismic sequence, to delimit areas where the effects of the whole sequence have been of structural engineering relevance. This study introduces ShakeMap envelopes and discusses them for the central Italy 2016–2017 seismic sequence. The specific goals of the study are: (i) to compare the envelopes and the ShakeMap of the main events of the sequence to make the case for sequence-based maps; (ii) to quantify the exceedance of design seismic actions based on the envelopes; (iii) to make envelopes available for further studies and the reconstruction planning; (iv) to gather insights on the (repeated) exceedance of design seismic actions at some sites. Results, which include considerations of uncertainty in ShakeMap, show that the sequence caused exceedance of design hazard in thousands of square kilometers. The most relevant effects of the sequence are, as expected, due to the mainshock, yet seismic actions larger than those enforced by the code for structural design are found also around the epicenters of the smaller magnitude events. At some locations, the succession of ground-shaking that has excited structures, provides insights on structural damage accumulation that has likely taken place; something that is not accounted for explicitly in modern seismic design. The envelopes developed are available as supplemental material