Uploaded on

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

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

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
33
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Quantitative seismic risk assessment, providing sound probabilistic estimates of potential earthquake impacts, is a key step of any meaningful and aware decision-making process.


  • Nine days later … causing additional damages, particularly to buildings already weakened by the 20th May shock
    This was the first time since 1570 that an earthquake of this magnitude had hit this region

    Large portion of the industrial building stock was made up of precast reinforced buildings, designed for wind actions or gravitational loads, due to enforcement of seismic provisions in the affected area only in 2009 (2003 for strategic buildings).
    The damage observed was certainly exacerbated by the soft alluvial subsoil in the area, which caused significant ground shaking amplification and, in some cases, soil liquefaction.

  • The fragility database and the detailed taxonomy implemented in the tool allowed to employ fragility functions specifically computed for Italian precast buildings (e.g. Bolognini et al., 2008) with different details in terms of joint, reinforcement, structural regularities, and cladding characteristics.

  • Bld.2 and Bld.6 are those for which the largest damage to building is observed
    The high vulnerability of Bld.2 is also the responsible for an expected loss to machineries&equipment of about 18% of the total value of equipment in the plant
    Conversely, relatively low levels of losses are expected for buildings 5, 9 and 10, as a consequence of the recent design of their structures and of good structural characteristics and maintenance
  • 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 it can be observed that FRAME@Risk provides, for the whole building portfolio, an average loss equal to the 25% of the total building value, with respect to an average adjusted loss of about the 20% (including debris removal for collapsed buildings).

    The only cases in which an opposite trend (underestimated expected losses) emerged, were Bld.10 and Bld.2. The former was a warehouse dedicated to the storage of raw materials, with very low exposed values and losses (see Fig.5), which behaved, during the earthquakes, worse than it was reasonable to expect from its structural typology and characteristics. The latter, was the building in which the largest part of the production took place and the one that experienced the complete collapse. In this case, a unique damage state occurred (the complete collapse) and (almost) the total exposed value was actually lost. In a probabilistic approach this could have been taken into account through the choice of fragility curves providing an almost null probability of exceeding damage conditions different from the collapse. Nevertheless, this “almost deterministic” choice is hardly feasible in a predictive assessment of the seismic risk.
  • Moreover, due to the availability of adjusted losses for building damage only, the comparison was not performed for damages to machineries, equipment and contents, which may represent a further development of this study.

    The assessment of expected losses due to the largest ground motion intensity felt at the site during the earthquake sequence was performed accounting for structural and non-structural damages, including those to machinery and equipment and stock contents.

    This could be related to several factors:(i) the probabilistic nature of the assessment, (ii) the conventional definition of damage states, (iii) the adoption of a specific fragility curve and damage-to-loss function. While the first two points of the previous list are intrinsic in the approach, the last one is strictly related to the uncertainty in assessing structural and non-structural characteristics.

  • This could be related to several factors:(i) the probabilistic nature of the assessment, (ii) the conventional definition of damage states, (iii) the adoption of a specific fragility curve and damage-to-loss function. While the first two points of the previous list are intrinsic in the approach, the last one is strictly related to the uncertainty in assessing structural and non-structural characteristics.

Transcript

  • 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