A Seismic Risk Model for Italy

  • Alessandro Rasulo
  • Maria Antonietta Fortuna
  • Barbara Borzi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9788)


All Italian territory, with the only exception of the island of Sardinia, is subject to seismic events, making this threat a major concern for decision makers in charge for the implementation of risk reduction policies. Seismic risk vary greatly across the country and within single administrative regions. Seismic risk maps at national scale are therefore a useful tool for representing the expected adverse outcomes due to the seismic events and for programming the appropriate mitigation measures. The production of those maps is a complex task that involves the combination of data coming from different field of expertise. The aim of the study is to show how the already available information can be combined together in a Geographical Information System (GIS) tool. The results provide a reliable representation of the seismic risk at national scale to be used when planning the mitigation measures to be undertaken in order to improve the level of preparedness in case of an earthquake.


Risk analysis Reliability engineering Earthquake engineering Socio-economic modeling Seismic hazard Seismic fragility functions 


  1. 1.
    Benedetti, D., Petrini, V.: On Seismic Vulnerability of Masonry Buildings: Proposal of an Evaluation Procedure. L’industria delle costruzioni, Milano (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borzi, B., Crowley, H., Pinho, R.: Simplified pushover-based earthquake loss assessment (SP-BELA) for masonry buildings. Int. J. Archit. Heritage 2(4), 353–376 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borzi, B., Pinho, R., Crowley, H.: Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng. Struct. 30(3), 804–820 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., Monti, G., Morelli, F., Nuti, C., Salvatore, W., Vanzi, I.: Post-seismic assessment of existing constructions: evaluation of the shakemaps for identifying exclusion zones in Emilia. Earthq. Struct. 8(1), 37–56 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., Monti, G., Morelli, F., Nuti, C., Salvatore, W., Vanzi, I.: Speedup of post earthquake community recovery: the case of precast industrial buildings after the Emilia 2012 earthquake. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 12(5), 2405–2418 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carbonara, S., Cerasa, D., Sclocco, T., Spacone, E.: A preliminary estimate of the rebuilding costs for the towns of the Abruzzo region affected by the April 2009 earthquake: an alternate approach to current legislative procedures. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9157, pp. 269–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CNR-GNDT: seismic risk for public buildings, part I, Methodological aspects, Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma (1994) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cornell, C.A., Krawinkler, H.: Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2). Berkeley (2000)
  9. 9.
    Decanini, L., De Sortis, A., Goretti, A., Langenbach, R., Mollaioli, F., Rasulo, A.: Performance of masonry buildings during the 2002 Molise, Italy, earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 20(S1), 191–220 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decree of Ministry of Infrastructure: Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, Roma (2008) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Di Pasquale, G., Goretti, A., Dolce, M., Martinelli, A.: Confronto fra differenti modelli di vulnerabilità degli edifici. X Congresso Nazionale “L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia”, Potenza-Matera (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dolce, M., Masi, A., Marino, M., Vona, M.: Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock of Potenza (Southern Italy) including site effects. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 1(1), 115–140 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dolce, M.: Mitigation of seismic risk in Italy following the 2002 S. Giuliano Earthq. Earthq. Tsunamis Geotech. Geol. Earthq. Eng. 11, 67–89 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dolce, M.: The Italian national seismic prevention program. In: Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Union: European building inventory framework; EUR-27603-EN, Joint Research Centre (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faccioli, E., Pessina, V. (eds): The Catania Project: Earthquake Damage Scenarios for High Risk Areas of the Mediterranean, p. 225. CNR—Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Rome (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faccioli, E., Pessina, V., Calvi, G.M., Borzi, B.: A study on damage scenarios for residential buildings in Catania city. J. Seismolog. 3(3), 327–343 (1999). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grande, E., Rasulo, A.: A simple approach for seismic retrofit of low-rise concentric X-braced steel frames. J. Constr. Steel Res. 107, 162–172 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grande, E., Rasulo, A.: Seismic assessment of concentric X-braced steel frames. Eng. Struct. 49, 983–995 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grande, E., Imbimbo, M., Rasulo, A.: Experimental response of RC beams strengthened in shear by FRP sheets. Open Civil Eng. J. 7, 127–135 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT): 15° Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni 2011 – Dati definitivi, Roma (2012) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liel, A.B., Ross, B., Corotis, R.B., Camata, G., Sutton, J., Holtzman, R., Spacone, E.: Perceptions of decision-making roles and priorities that affect rebuilding after disaster: the example of L’Aquila, Italy. Earthq. Spectra 29(3), 843–868 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meletti C., Montaldo V.: Stime di pericolosità sismica per diverse probabilità di superamento in 50 anni: valori di ag. Progetto DPC-INGV S1, Deliverable D2 (2007).
  24. 24.
    Michelini, A., Faenza, L., Lauciani, V., Malagnini, L.: ShakeMap implementation in Italy, Seismol. Res. Lett. 79(5), 688–697 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nuti, C., Rasulo, A., Vanzi, I.: Seismic safety evaluation of electric power supply at Urban level. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36(2), 245–263 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nuti, C., Rasulo, A., Vanzi, I.: Seismic safety of network structures and infrastructures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.: Maintenance Manag. Life-Cycle 6(1–2), 95–110 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rasulo, A., Goretti, A., Nuti, C.: Performance of lifelines during the 2002 Molise, Italy, earthquake. Earthq. Spectra 20(S1), 301–314 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rasulo, A., Testa, C., Borzi, B.: Seismic risk analysis at Urban scale in Italy. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9157, pp. 403–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR): Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 (GAR15). United Nations General Secretariat (2015)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vanzi, I., Marano, G.C., Monti, G., Nuti, C.: A synthetic formulation for the Italian seismic hazard and code implications for the seismic risk. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 77, 111–122 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wald, D.J., Allen, T.I.: Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97(5), 1379–1395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wald, D.J., Earle, P.S., Quitoriano, V.: Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site correction and amplification. EOS Trans. AGU 85(47), F1424 (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gallipoli, M.R., Mucciarelli, M.: Comparison of site classification from Vs30, Vs10, and HVSR in Italy. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99(1), 340–351 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wald, L.A., Mori, J.: Evaluation of methods for estimating linear site-response amplifications in the Los Angeles region. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, S32–S42 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Servizio Studi della Camera dei deputati: Documentazione per l’esame di progetti di legge. Disposizioni urgenti per il riordino della Protezione civile. D.L. 59/2012 - A.C. 5203-A. Dossier D12059C, Roma, 28 May 2012Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Friedman, D.G.: Natural hazard risk assessment for an insurance program. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. 9(30), 57–128 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kousky, C., Cooke, R.: Explaining the failure to insure catastrophic risks. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. – Iss. Pract. 37, 206–227 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gizzi, F.T., Potenza, M.R., Zotta, C.: The insurance market of natural hazards for residential properties in Italy. Open J. Earthq. Res. 5, 35–61 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    MathWorks, Inc. Matlab reference manual, version 6.5. MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Mass, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Istat. Indagine sulle abitazioni al 21 aprile 1931, Firenze (1936)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Istat. L’Italia in 150 anni. Sommario di statistiche storiche 1861–2010, Roma (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Rasulo
    • 1
  • Maria Antonietta Fortuna
    • 2
  • Barbara Borzi
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly
  2. 2.Graduate Student at University of Cassino and Southern LazioCasinoItaly
  3. 3.European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake EngineeringPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations