1 / 13

Quantitative risk evaluation and mapping Task F

Task F focuses on evaluating seismic risk in pilot regions through five key actions. The formation of a dedicated working group aims to assess seismic threats, including damage ranking for buildings and schools, significant risk evaluation, and the comparison of measures across various areas. Deliverables include guidelines for seismic risk evaluation, damage assessment reports, and comprehensive impact measures considering physical, economic, and social aspects. The Icelandic pilot study in Hveragerði represents a critical case in understanding urban seismic vulnerabilities.

deanna
Télécharger la présentation

Quantitative risk evaluation and mapping Task F

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quantitative risk evaluation and mappingTask F Ragnar Sigbjörnsson

  2. Contents • Description of Task F • Deliverables • The working group • Definition of risk measures • The Pilot Study Areas • The Icelandic Study Case • The Disruption Index

  3. DESCRIPTION OF TASK F Tast F consists of five Actions: • F1– Creation of a Working Group dedicated to the evaluation of the seismic risk (EERC) • F2 – Evaluation of significance of risk for the pilot region (LNEC) • F3– Damage ranking seismic risk inside regions (buildings – Census 2011 – and schools - Portugal) (LNEC) • F4 –Comparison of risk measures among different study areas (EERC) • F5 – Definition of more comprehensive measures of impact (physical, economic and social) and definition of risk criteria (IST)

  4. DESCRIPTION OF TASK F The main outcome of Task F are the following three deliverables: • F1.1 – Definition of general guidelines for evaluation of the seismic risk (EERC); • F2.1 – Report on Damage assessment in each of the test areas 1, 2, 3, 4 (INGV, IST, LNEC, CSIC and EERC); • F5.1 – Report on more comprehensive measures of impact (physical, economic and social) and definition of risk criteria in each of the test areas 1, 2, 3, 4 (INGV, IST, LNEC, CSIC and EERC).

  5. WORKING GROUP: WG 12 Ragnar Sigbjörnsson, Maria Luisa Sousa, Alexandra Carvalho, Francisco Mota de Sa, Monica AmaralFerreira, Carlos Sousa Oliveira, Sonia Raposo, FabrizioMeroni, GaetanoZonno, SalvatoreD’Amico, RajeshRupakhety, Solveig Thorvaldsdottir, Francesca Bianco

  6. WORKING GROUP: WG 12 EERC (Iceland) • Ragnar Sigbjörnsson • Rajesh Rupakhety • SólveigThorvaldsdottir IST (Portugal) • Carlos Sousa Oliveira • Monica Amaral Ferreira • Francisco Mota de Sá INGV (Italy) • Gaetano Zonno • FabrizioMeroni • Salvatore D’Amico • Francesca Bianco NLEC (Portugal) • Alexandra Carvalho • Maria Luisa Sousa • Sonia Raposo

  7. Definition of different measures of risk Basic formulation The expected loss, E(L), in a given time interval can be expressed as follows within the framework of continuous stochastic variables: Here, L is the loss, H represents the probabilistic hazard described by the probability density function, fH(h), h being the state variable.

  8. The lumping procedure If the expected losses are analyzed in terms of equivalent lost building area, then the expected loss value conditioned by a seismic hazard level, E(L|h) is obtained by the following expression: where, is the number of buildings in the study region; is the average floor area of the buildings belonging to a typological class with vulnerability v, in the study region; is the damage factor and is the damage probability matrix considered as the percentages of buildings, belonging to the typological class with vulnerability v, which are in a damage state d, after being subject to a seismic action with severity h; is the probability of the buildings belonging to a typological class with vulnerability V = v, and it is assumed

  9. The Pilot Study Areas • Italy (Mt. Etna Case) • Portugal (Lisbon and Algarve) • Spain • Iceland (The Town of Hveragerdi)

  10. The Icelandic Pilot Study - The Disruption Index

  11. HVERAGERÐI The Icelandic Pilot Study Area

  12. PUBLICATIONS • Ferreira, M.A. (2012). Riscosísmicoemsistemasurbanos. Ph.D Thesis. Instituto Superior Técnico, UniversidadeTécnica de Lisboa. 295 pp (in portuguese). • Ferreira, M.A.; Mota de Sá, F.; Oliveira, C.S. (2013). Disruption Index, DI: an approach for assessing seismic risk in urban systems. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, (submitted for publication) • Mota de Sá, F.; Oliveira, C.S.; Ferreira, M.A. (2013). QuakeIST: Instructions for running the software, IST, Lisboa. 73pp • Oliveira, C.S.; Ferreira, M.A. and Mota de Sá, F. (2012). The concept of a disruption index: application to the overall impact of the July 9, 1998 Faial earth-quake (Azores islands). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 10(1): 7-25. • Sousa, M. L.; Ferreira, M. A.; Mota de Sá, F.; Oliveira, C. S.; Raposo, S.; Sigbjörnsson, R.; Rupakhety, R.; Zonno, G.; Meroni, F.; Bianco, F.; D’Amico, S. (2012). Quantitative seismic risk evaluation and mapping: cases of schools and residential facilities in Lisbon and Algarve. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon

  13. Thank You

More Related