Abstract
Operational earthquake forecasting (OEF) relies on real-time monitoring of seismic activity in an area of interest to provide constant (e.g., daily) updates of the expected number of events exceeding a certain magnitude threshold in a given time window (e.g., 1 week). It has been demonstrated that the rates from OEF can be used to estimate expected values of the seismic losses in the same time interval OEF refers to. This is a procedure recently defined as operational earthquake loss forecasting (OELF), which may be the basis for rational short-term seismic risk assessment and management. In Italy, an experimental OELF system, named MANTIS-K, is currently under testing. It is based on weekly rates of earthquakes exceeding magnitude (M) 4, which are updated once a day or right after the occurrence in the country of an M 3.5+ earthquake. It also relies on large-scale structural vulnerability and exposure data, which serve to the system to provide continuously the weekly expected number of: (1) collapsed buildings, (2) displaced residents, and (3) casualties. While the probabilistic basis of MANTIS-K was described in previous work, in this study OELF is critically discussed with respect to three recent Italian seismic sequences. The aim is threefold: (1) illustrating all the features of the OELF system in place; (2) providing insights to evaluate whether if it would have been a useful additional tool for short-term management; (3) recognizing common features, if any, among the losses computed for different sequences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
However, in the loss assessment, contributions from sources with epicentral distance larger than 150 km are neglected.
Data from ISIDe, http://iside.rm.ingv.it/, last accessed 20/07/15. Because ISIDe does not provide measures in a unique magnitude scale for all the events, M without subscripts is used where necessary.
It is to note that, the epicentre location of the mainshock of the sequence is known only afterwards. Conversely, in using MANTIS-K during a seismic sequence, some hypotheses on the location of the geographic area to be monitored would be required.
Note that after a damaging earthquake, evacuation is likely to be expected, while at this stage the algorithm of MANTIS-K assumes stable exposure (and also vulnerability), despite the occurred earthquake.
The values of PGA are available on the Italian Accelerometric Archive—ITACA—http://itaca.mi.ingv.it/, last accessed 20/07/15. However, note that for the second event ITACA does not specifies whether the PGA was recorded in free field conditions. In fact, Dolce and Di Bucci (2015) report a maximum horizontal PGA value for the second event of 289 cm/s2.
See http://terremoti.ingv.it/it/ultimi-eventi/921-evento-sismico-tra-le-province-di-lucca-e-massa.html, last accessed 20/07/15.
See Dolce and Di Bucci (2015) for a discussion, related to exposure, which may help in understanding this result.
References
Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) Southern Italy November 23 1980 earthquake: a statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the M.S.K.-76 Scale. In: Proceedings of 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, ECEE, CNR-PFG n.503, Rome, Italy
Chioccarelli E, De Luca F, Iervolino I (2009) Preliminary study of L’Aquila earthquake ground motion records V5. 20. ReLUIS report. http://www.reluis.it/doc/pdf/Aquila/Peak_Parameters_L_Aquila_Mainshock_V5.2.pdf
Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Cent News 3:1–3
Dolce M, Di Bucci D (2015) Comparing recent Italian earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-015-9773-7
Gerstenberger M, Wiemer S, Jones LM, Reasenberg PA (2005) Real-time forecasts of tomorrow’s earthquakes in California. Nature 435:328–331
Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188
Iervolino I (2013) Probabilities and fallacies: why hazard maps cannot be validated by individual earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 29:1125–1136
Iervolino I, De Luca F, Chioccarelli E (2012) Engineering seismic demand in the 2012 Emilia sequence: preliminary analysis and model compatibility assessment. Ann Geophys Italy 55:639–645
Iervolino I, Chioccarelli E, Giorgio M, Marzocchi W, Lombardi AM, Zuccaro G, Cacace F (2014a) Operational earthquake loss forecasting in Italy: preliminary results. In: Proceedings of 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, 2ECEES, Istanbul, Turkey
Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Chioccarelli E (2014b) Closed-form aftershock reliability of damage-cumulating elastic-perfectly-plastic systems. Earthq Eng Struct D 43:613–625
Iervolino I, Chioccarelli E, Giorgio M, Marzocchi W, Zuccaro G, Dolce M, Manfredi G (2015a) Operational (short-term) earthquake loss forecasting in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2286–2298
Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Polidoro B (2015b) Reliability of structures to earthquake clusters. Bull Earthq Eng 13:983–1002
Jordan TH, Chen Y-T, Madariaga R, Main I, Marzocchi W, Papadopoulos G, Sobolev G, Yamaoka K, Zschau J (2011) Operational earthquake forecasting—state of the knowledge and guidelines for utilization. Ann Geophys Italy 54:319–391
Marzocchi W, Lombardi AM (2009) Real-time forecasting following damaging earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 36:L21302
Marzocchi W, Lombardi AM, Casarotti E (2014) The establishment of an operational earthquake forecasting system in Italy. Seismol Res Lett 85:961–969
Marzocchi W, Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Falcone G (2015) When is the probability of a large earthquake too small? Seismol Res Lett. doi:10.1785/0220150129
McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Publication, Oakland, California, Monograph MNO-10
Ogata Y (1988) Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. J Am Stat Assoc 83:9–27
Ogata Y (1998) Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Ann Inst Stat Math 50:379–402
Pasolini C, Albarello D, Gasperini P, D’Amico V, Lolli B (2008) The attenuation of seismic intensity in Italy, part II: modelling and validation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:692–708
Sieberg A (1931) Erdebeben. In: Gutenberg B (ed) Handbuch der Geophysik, vol 4, pp 552–554 (in German)
Whitman RV, Reed JW, Hong ST (1973) Earthquake damage probability matrices. In: Proceedings of 5th world conference on earthquake engineering, 5WCEE, Rome, Italy
Zuccaro G, Cacace F (2009) Revisione dell’inventario a scala nazionale delle classi tipologiche di vulnerabilità ed aggiornamento delle mappe nazionali di rischio sismico. In: Proceedings of XIII Convegno l’Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, ANIDIS, Bologna, Italy (in Italian)
Zuccaro G, Cacace F (2011) Seismic casualty evaluation: the Italian model, an application to the L’Aquila 2009 event. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modelling and mitigation. Springer, London
Zuccaro G, Cacace F, De Gregorio D (2012) Buildings inventory for seismic vulnerability assessment on the basis of census data at national and regional scale. In: Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, 15WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal
Acknowledgments
The study presented in this paper was developed in the framework of AMRA—Analisi e Monitoraggio dei Rischi Ambientali scarl (http://www.amracenter.com) for the strategies and tools for real-time earthquake risk reduction (REAKT; http://www.reaktproject.eu) funded by the European Commission via the Seventh Framework Program for Research, with Contract No. 282862. Professor Mauro Dolce and Dr. Warner Marzocchi are gratefully acknowledged for their comments, which improved quality and readability of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chioccarelli, E., Iervolino, I. Operational earthquake loss forecasting: a retrospective analysis of some recent Italian seismic sequences. Bull Earthquake Eng 14, 2607–2626 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9837-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9837-8