5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014 Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice 24-28 August 2014 in Davos, Switzerland

1. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial
Plants: A Case Study from the Emilia
2012 Earthquake Sequence
Marcello Forte, Davide Spanò, Fabio Petruzzelli,
AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Please add your
logo here

2. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
• Recent seismic events affecting industrialized countries (Japan, 2011; Emilia, 2012) readily showed the
importance of having an efficient, transparent and proactive management of the seismic risk.
• Traditional seismic risk assessment heavily rely on qualitative risk estimates, based on macroseismic
intensity and/or expert judgment. However, an essential step of an aware risk management and decision
making process is a sound quantitative risk assessment. This requires specific, rapid and user-
friendly tools, able to capture the peculiarities of the structure under investigation and the differences
between available models for modelling risk.
Motivation of the study
• Development of instruments for a rapid and user-
friendly probabilistic seismic risk assessment:
“FRAME@Risk” – Fragility-based rapid seismic Risk
Assessment Method” v.1.0 software
• Test the procedures on real cases

3. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
From a qualitative to a quantitative (probabilistic)
seismic risk assessment
Quantitative approaches to seismic risk encompass individual quantification of the three component of seismic risk:
Risk = H x V x E
Hazard
Vulnerability
Exposure
Under human control

4. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Seismic Risk Assessment
Exceedanceprobability
Intensity Measure (IM)
Hazard Curve
Seismologists
Hazard
Exceedanceprobability
Intensity Measure (IM)
Fragility Curves
Structural Engineering
Vulnerability
Expected Loss given a
damage state (“failure”)
Consequence function
(or damage-to-loss function)
stakeholders
Exposure
𝐸 𝐿 = 𝐸 𝐿|𝑓 ∙ 𝑃𝑓
Expected loss
𝐸 𝐿|𝑓
Seismic risk is defined as the the probability or likelihood of exceeding a pre-defined level of loss due to earthquakes to a
given element at risk, over a specified period of time.
Slight
Moderate
Collapse
Hazard
Curve
Fragility
Curve Pf = failure probability
(proportional to the
overlapping area)
Failure Probability
(probability of exceeding some damage state)

5. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
The FRAME@Risk software
the ensemble of FRAME@Risk
modules:
(i) allows performing a rapid,
user-friendly and worldwide
applicable evaluation of
structure-specific seismic
losses;
(ii) provides an inventory of
existing fragility functions
that can be managed and
expanded (to date, about
600 fragility functions);
(iii) allows the comparison and
homogenization of fragility
curves;
(iv) provides instruments for the
identification of the most
suitable fragility curves,
among those available, to
describe the seismic
performance of a structure.
The FRAME@Risk software tool
FRAME main module
Manager tool
MAIN FUNCTIONS:
• define a new fragility curve;
according to taxonomy;
• collapse and expand taxonomy;
• open/modify existing curves.
MAIN FUNCTIONS:
• compare fragility curves;
• convert IMs;
• manipulate limit states;
• compute statistics.
Comparison&conversion tool Loss module
MAIN FUNCTIONS:
• choose damage-to-loss
functions;
• compute losses due to PD
and BI.
Fragility filter tool
MAIN FUNCTION:
• filter fragilities according to
the selected taxonomy.
• Allows the input of the data
required for the assessment:
− site-specific hazard,
− fragility curves suitable for
the case under
consideration,
− damage-to-loss function)
• Provides the output:
− failure probabilities
− expected losses

6. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
The Emilia 2012 earthquake sequence
• M 5.9 earthquake on 20th May 2012 - 4:03 am UTC. Epicenter: close to Finale Emilia; depth: 6.3 Km.
• M 5.8 earthquake on 29th May - 9:00 am UTC. Epicenter: Medolla (18 km S-W far from the 1st event); depth: 10 Km.
The seismic sequence covered a large area extending in the E-W
direction for a length of nearly 40 km, between the localities of
Mirandola and Ferrara [INGV, 2012]
• The affected area is characterized by an high cultural and historical heritage and it is one of the most densely
industrialized Italian centers (the 2% of the Italian GDP is produced by activities in the stricken area)
• Consequences:
− 27 casualties
− about 400 injured and 15,000 homeless
− 13.2 billion Euros of property damage and BI (Italian
Department for Civil Protection);
− 1.3 billion Euros of Insured Losses
(10% of Total Losses; in L’Aquila 2009 about the 2%)
• Causes:
− enforcement of seismic provisions in the affected
area only in 2009 (2003 for strategic buildings).
− Soft alluvial subsoil in the area caused significant
ground shaking amplification and, in some cases,
soil liquefaction.

7. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
The Case Study Plant
Building characteristics
Building and content/equipment vulnerability
(from FRAME@Risk inventory)
Building exposed value
[% of the total plant value]
name material
design
year
fragility curve
vulnera-
bility
class
Building
Machineries
&Equipment
Stock
Bld.1-Offices Cast in pl. r.c. 1990 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-MR-NC Medium 7,58% 0,6% 0,00%
Bld.2-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type4//ND-IRR Fragile 12,6% 45,5% 2,9%
Bld.3-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Robust 5,3% 19,3% 1,2%
Bld.4-Production Precast r.c. 1990 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Medium 5,0% 17,9% 1,1%
Bld.5-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2011 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type4//D-REG Robust 12,7% 0,6% 8,7%
Bld.6-Production Precast r.c. 1977 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-IRR Fragile 15,1% 5,2% 7,2%
Bld.7-Production Precast r.c. 2002 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type1//D-IRR Fragile 9,7% 3,3% 3,5%
Bld.8-Warehouse Precast r.c. 1982 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 6,7% 0,3% 9,5%
Bld.9-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2003 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type3//D-REG Robust 15,3% 0,7% 42,1%
Bld.10-Warehs. Precast r.c. 1993 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type2//D-REG Robust 3,3% 0,7% 18,5%
Bld.11-Product. Cast in pl. r.c. 1966 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-LR-NC Medium 2,6% 5,7% 0,9%
Bld.12-Warehs. Precast r.c.
1972-
1981
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 4,2% 0,2% 4,5%
For each building, geometrical (e.g. number of floors, height, plan and
elevation dimensions) and mechanical (e.g. material, load resisting
system, detailing, irregularities, etc.) characteristics have been collected
during the field survey, together with a detailed description of the
observed damage • fragility functions specifically
computed for Italian precast
buildings with different details in
terms of joint, reinforcement,
structural regularities, and
cladding characteristics.
• The consequence function was
chosen on the basis of the
content vulnerability class
1
2
3
4 5
6
7 811
9
10 12
• Plant dedicated to the production of medical devices;
• Total property value = about 100 million Euros (buildings = 27 mln; machineries=47 mil; stock=28 mln);
• 12 buildings, built from 1966 to 2011;
• Maximum horizontal acceleration (PGA) registered at the site = 0.3 g [INGV, 2012]
• After the earthquakes the plant suffered about 5.5 million euros o PD and about 2 months of downtime
• AXA MATRIX knowledge forms for industrial buildings
• Design documents

8. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Results of the analysis (1/2)
Distribution of estimated losses inside the plant (normalized with respect to the total value of the component at risk)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Buildingloss/totalvalue[%]
Building
Machineries & Equipment
Stock
The large part of the stock is located in Bld.9 and Bld. 5, the good
structural characteristics of which limit the extent of the loss
Expected loss, given the occurrence the registered intensity measure (FRAME@Risk software)
Bld.2 and Bld.6 are those for which the
largest damage to building is observed

9. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Results of the analysis (2/2)
Comparison of estimated losses with the adjusted ones
• FRAME@Risk estimates versus adjusted losses (building component only).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Buildingloss/buildingvalue[%]
Expected Loss (FRAME@Risk estimate)
Adjusted Loss (after claim)
Although a comparison of the expected losses obtained through a probabilistic approach with the losses deriving from
a single real event is hardly feasible, as a general result the total loss associated to the buildings is:
Adjusted = 5.5 million Euros 20% of the total building value
Estimated (FRAME@Risk) = 6.5 million Euros 24% of the total building value
- good coherency between estimated and adjusted losses was obtained,
- Losses are overestimated when structures experienced minor to null damage (e.g., Bld. 9)
- Conversely, in case of collapse (e.g. Bld.10 and Bld.2)

10. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Conclusions
• A case study from the Emilia Earthquake 2012 has been presented, with the aim of comparing the direct loss
estimations performed throughout the FRAME@Risk software against the loss adjusted after the claim process
• The application of the FRAME@Risk software tool showed the capability of the software in guiding the association
of a specific fragility curve to a given structure, on the basis of the taxonomy collected on field, and in addressing
the major deficiencies among the buildings of the plant.
• In the case study, the most vulnerable buildings were also those most exposed, i.e. those where large part of the
production took place. This is believed to be a fundamental information useful to the stakeholder’s decision making,
allowing to relocate or undertake countermeasures to reduce the impacts of a potential earthquake event.
• Nevertheless, the success of this analysis is related to the knowledge level that is possible to achieve about the
structures under investigation and the availability of fragility curves suitable for describing the seismic behaviour
of structures.
• A quantitative (probabilistic) seismic risk assessment procedure is a key step of any rational risk management
process aimed at the implementation of efficient end effective risk reduction strategies

11. 5th
International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Thanks for your kind attention
Bolognini D., Borzi B., Pinho R. (2008). Simplified Pushover-based Vulnerability Analysis of Traditional Italian RC precast structures.
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008 Bejing, China.
Cornell C. A. and Krawinkler H. (2000). Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER News, April 3(2), Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, US.
Dowrick D.J. and Rhoades D.A. (1993). Damage costs for commercial and industrial property as a function of intensity in the 1987 Edgecumbe
earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22, 869-884.
Parisi F., De Luca F., Petruzzelli F., De Risi R., Chioccarelli E., Iervolino I. (2012), Field inspection after the May 20th and 29th 2012 Emilia-
Romagna earthquakes, available at http://www.reluis.it.
Petruzzelli F (2013) Scale-dependent procedures for seismic risk assessment and management of industrial building portfolios Ph.D. Thesis in
Seismic Risk, XXV cycle, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy
Petruzzelli, F. and Iervolino, I. (2014). FRAME v.1.0: a rapid fragility-based seismic risk assessment tool. Proceedings of the 2ECEES, Second
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 25-29, 2014, Istanbul, Turkey.
– main references –
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD
Loss Prevention Engineer
AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
fabio.petruzzelli@axa-matrixrc.com