A Similarity Model for Earthquake Scenarios Comparison

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

SCUOLA DI INGEGNERIA CIVILE, AMBIENTALE E TERRITORIALE

CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR RISK MITIGATION

A Similarity Model for Earthquake

Scenarios Comparison Support for Emergency Preparedness

BY

AbdelAziz Mehaseb Abdelaziz Elsayed

Elganzory

Mohamed ElHusseiny AbdelHameed

767453 762900

19-Sep-12

Supervisors

Pierluigi PLEBANI

Dipartimento di Elettronica ed Informazione

Scira MENONI Dipartimento Di Architettura E

Pianificazione

Mari Pia BONI Dipartimento Di Ingegneria

Strutturale

2

2

Table of Contents

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Equations ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

3. Objective ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Earthquake Emergency Preparedness ........................................................................................................................... 9

4.1. Earthquakes Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

4.2. Earthquakes Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 11

4.3. Organizational Challenges ........................................................................................................................................... 12

4.4. Emergency Planning Process ..................................................................................................................................... 13

4.5. Organizational Resilience ........................................................................................................................................... 14

5. Solution Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

5.1. Developing Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2. Complete Event Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................... 17

5.2.1. Seismic Input ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

5.2.2. Vulnerability Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 19

5.2.3. Estimation of Buildings Damage ......................................................................................................................... 23

5.3. Emergency Reponses .................................................................................................................................................... 24

5.3.1. Organization and Responsibilities ...................................................................................................................... 24

5.3.2. First Responses ........................................................................................................................................................... 26

5.3.2.1. Damage Assessment Process ........................................................................................................................... 26

6. The Similarity Model Design .......................................................................................................................................... 29

7. Model Application for Salò ............................................................................................................................................... 34

7.1. Strategic Buildings .......................................................................................................................................................... 34

7.2. City Sections ...................................................................................................................................................................... 35

7.3. Complete Event Scenarios ........................................................................................................................................... 36

7.3.1. Scenario 1 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39

7.3.2. Scenario 2 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 46

7.3.3. Scenario 3 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53

7.3.4. Scenario 4 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 57

7.3.5. Scenario 5 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64

7.3.6. Scenario 6 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 68

7.3.7. Scenario 7 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 74

3

3

7.3.8. Scenario 8 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 81

7.3.9. Comparing the Damage Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 88

7.4. Application of the Model .............................................................................................................................................. 91

8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................ 95

9. References .............................................................................................................................................................................. 96

10. Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................ 98

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................................. 98

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................................................... 100

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................................................ 101

Appendix D ........................................................................................................................................................................... 102

Appendix E ............................................................................................................................................................................ 110

Appendix F ............................................................................................................................................................................ 111

Appendix G ........................................................................................................................................................................... 113

4

List of Figures 4

List of Figures Figure 1 The Harbor of the town Namie next to the Fukushima Power plant ................................................. 10

Figure 2 Evolution of Emergency Response Processes with Time [8] ............................................................... 11

Figure 3 Process of Building Complete Event Scenario ..................................................................................... 17

Figure 4 Example of attenuation law: acceleration Vs distance ....................................................................... 18

Figure 5 Damage Assessment by Fragility Curves [24] ...................................................................................... 23

Figure 6 Cracks Types for Masonry Buildings .................................................................................................... 27

Figure 7 Cracks on Building External Walls ........................................................................................................ 27

Figure 8 Strategic Buildings in Salo .................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 9 Definition of Census Sections in Salò................................................................................................... 35

Figure 10 Epicenters Locations for the Different Seismic Scenarios ................................................................. 37

Figure 11 Map for Buildings Vulnerability Values ............................................................................................. 38

Figure 12 Acceleration vs. distance for the First Scenario ................................................................................ 40

Figure 13 Pga (m/s2) map of First scenario........................................................................................................ 40

Figure 14 Sections Average Damage Map for Scenario 1.................................................................................. 41

Figure 15 Roads Damage Map for First Scenario .............................................................................................. 42

Figure 16 Map for Response Intervention Priority for Scenario 1 .................................................................... 44

Figure 17 Acceleration vs. distance for the Second Scenario ............................................................................ 46

Figure 18 Pga (m/s2) map of Second Scenario .................................................................................................. 47


Figure 20 Roads Damage Map for Scenario no.2 .............................................................................................. 49

Figure 21 Map for Response Intervention Priority for Scenario 2 .................................................................... 51

Figure 22 Acceleration vs. distance for the Third Scenario ............................................................................... 53

Figure 23 Pga (m/s2) map of Third scenario ...................................................................................................... 54



Figure 26 Acceleration vs. distance for the Forth Scenario ............................................................................... 57

Figure 27 Pga (m/s2) map of forth scenario ...................................................................................................... 58



Figure 30 Map for Response Intervention Priority for Scenario no.4 ............................................................... 62

Figure 31 Acceleration vs. distance for the Fifth Scenario ................................................................................ 64

Figure 32 Pga (m/s2) map of Scenario no.5 ....................................................................................................... 65



Figure 35 Pga (m/s2) map for Scenario no.6 ...................................................................................................... 68




Figure 39 Pga (m/s2) map for Scenario no.7 ..................................................................................................... 74

Figure 40 Buildings Vulnerability Values for Scenario no.7 ............................................................................... 75




Figure 44 Pga (m/s2) map for Scenario no.8 ...................................................................................................... 81

5

List of Tables 5

Figure 45 Buildings Vulnerability Values Map for Scenario no.8 ...................................................................... 82




Figure 49 Comparison chart for 6 Scenarios based on average section damage.............................................. 88

Figure 50 Damage Comparison Chart for 3 Scenarios ....................................................................................... 89

Figure 51 Comparison of the Sections Damage when changing Vulnerability ................................................. 90

Figure 52 Data Input for the new Scenario ....................................................................................................... 91

Figure 53 Earthquake Inputs for the New Scenario .......................................................................................... 92

Figure 54 Data Recorded for the Scenario no.1 ................................................................................................ 93

Figure 55 Model Outputs: Number of Homeless people .................................................................................. 94

List of Tables Table 1 Masonry Buildings: Final Score for Vulnerability Index ........................................................................ 22

Table 2 RC Buildings: Final Score for Vulnerability Index .................................................................................. 22

Table 3 Seismic Input for Shaking Scenario ....................................................................................................... 36

Table 4 Damage for Strategic Facilities in the 8 Scenarios ................................................................................ 90

List of Equations

Equation 1 Sabetta-Pugliese Attenuation Law[16] 18

Equation 2 Damage Function of Building Vulnerability Index 20

Equation 3 Estimation of Collapse Value for Seismic Variable 23

Equation 4 Estimation of Damage Values 23

Equation 5 Similarity Function for the Same Geographic Division 30

Equation 6 Similarity Function for Different Geographic Division 30

Equation 7 Similarity Function for Modified Geographic Division 31

Equation 8 Estimation of Similarity Criteria Value 32

6

Abstract 6

1. Abstract

Although the different circumstances of the disasters caused by earthquakes, it can be seen there

are many similarities between those disasters not only in the causes but also in the consequences.

These similarities should be considered during the preparedness for future emergencies to face the

disaster related uncertainties. This requires better understanding of the disaster and continuous

learning from experience in order to achieve a well-prepared and resilient organization.

The goal of this work is to design a model that compares an occurring scenario with different

recorded earthquake scenarios and then retrieves the most similar scenario. This requires either to

develop many seismic scenarios and their corresponding damages, or to use recorded data from

previous earthquake crises. The model helps the decision makers, during emergencies, to choose

the among a predefined response actions to face the occurring earthquake event.

The work was done based on a real case study for the City of Salò, Italy, by using recorded seismic

data for major earthquakes hit the city and then by defining different earthquake scenarios and

estimation of the damages for each one of them. By comparing the estimated data for the different

scenarios, it was possible to define the similarity function based on the key similar parameters

between them. Then by building the model defining all the previously obtained data in the

knowledge base for each scenario. Finally, by using the similarity function it was possible to

retrieve the most similar scenario to any new occurring one.

7

Introduction 7

2. Introduction

Earthquakes disasters cause thousands of deaths and tremendous damage to properties around the

world; they displace tens of thousands of people from their homes and destroy their livelihoods.

Many of the deaths and property losses could be prevented if emergency response plans were

prepared and better information were available and properly managed by organizations involved in

disaster response.

To develop effective response strategies, we should draw an accurate estimate of the future events,

including the capacity to reorganize existing resources, skills, and knowledge to meet unexpected

demands. Boin and Lagadec [1] developed the point that “preparedness is more than simply

planning: it is also about anticipation and developing strategies to ensure organizational resilience

in the event of a crisis presenting itself”.

The subject of emergency management requires particular attention of decision makers and

stakeholders involved in the emergency management to be confident about the technological tools

used to prepare the plan, and to make decisions during the emergency phases. A set of modeling,

simulation, and visualization tools, can be used effectively to improve the emergency response.

Another important set of the modeling developments allow us to model all major aspects of the

disaster event, its impact on population, and the response by the involved agencies. In current

sociopolitical environment, modeling and simulation is being frequently suggested as the key

ingredient for emergency response preparedness.

Using this kind of models, which allows to record data from previous experiences to be used in

preparedness for the future emergencies allows the decision makers in the preparedness phase to

develop their own contingency plan to face a possible earthquake crisis. More important is

highlighting the weaknesses in the system those require special attention to avoid organizational

failure during an emergency.

8

Objective 8

3. Objective

The goal of our work is to design a model that improves the preparedness of organizations deal

with earthquake emergencies, and supports the definition of effective response actions. The model

allows recording data collected from different earthquake events or built seismic scenarios. Then, it

can be used to compare these scenarios with an occurring one, to find the most similar scenario

among the recorded ones. Finally, it retrieves data from the most similar scenario to be used in the

decision making process.

This model provides decision makers in the emergency control room with an image for the

expected consequences of a ground shake just few minutes after it happens. Based on the recorded

data in the knowledge base for other seismic events, decision makers can compare and retrieve the

expected damage similar to the occurring event. This damage will be used to identify the needs in

terms of damage assessment, search and rescue, and sheltering.

This work creates the potential for innovative approaches to collective learning and self-

organization that helps to achieve the following goals:

a. Better organizational preparedness by defining different potential threats, and the

corresponding responses for each threat.

b. Reducing the time needed for crisis management teams to develop appropriate response to

the crisis.

c. Increasing organizational learning by designing a model that uses the recorded information

from previous earthquake disasters to be used for emergency responses in similar disaster

that may happen in the future.

d. Increasing organizational resilience by highlighting points of weaknesses in the

organization that need special attention during the preparedness, this allows for speed

recovery after the crisis.

9

Earthquake Emergency Preparedness 9

4. Earthquake Emergency Preparedness

Perry and Lindell (2003) defined the emergency preparedness: “it refers to the readiness of a

political jurisdiction to react constructively to threats from the environment in a way that

minimizes the negative consequences of impact for the health and safety of individuals and the

integrity and functioning of physical structures and systems.” [2]

4.1. Earthquakes Impacts

“Earthquakes are natural hazards that represent extreme and unavoidable geophysical events

which are difficult to predict and over which the society has little or no control” [3]. Earthquakes

may also trigger other destructive events like landslides, tsunamis, avalanches, or fires, which we

can call as enchained events. A severe earthquake disaster results in large number of deaths,

injuries, and displaced people. Haiti 2010 earthquake resulted in 300,000 of deaths and displaced

over 1.3 million persons [4]. In Tohoku earthquake and Tsunami 2011, the loss estimates

indicated 22,626 persons killed or missing, 107,000 buildings collapsed, and another 111,000

partially collapsed [5]

In addition, earthquakes can lead to huge economical losses as a result of damage to the

infrastructures, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities. For example, the earthquake of

L’Aquila had an overall economic damage about 16 billion Euros [6]. Haiti 2010 earthquake

caused losses of US$7.9 billion, equivalent to 120% of the annual gross domestic product of the

country [4]. A catastrophic earthquake could affect government functions due to the collapse of

governmental facilities and loss of personnel. In Tohoku earthquake, the tsunami killed

community leaders in many communities. In addition, it destroyed governmental buildings,

emergency centers, designated emergency shelters, hospitals, and other emergency facilities and

resources [5].

10


Figure 1 The Harbor of the town Namie next to the Fukushima Power plant

before and after the Tsunami

Earthquakes may cause damages to industrial and chemical buildings or nuclear plants, which

may result in:

1. Dispersion and transport of harmful substances through air ,water and soil which is

dangerous for humans and the environment;

2. Fires and explosions.

3. Contamination of water and soil due to the release of the harmful chemical substances.

In the Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, more deaths were caused by fire than by the

earthquake itself [7].

11

4.2. Earthquakes Challenges

Immediately after the main shake, the emergency response activities

manage the ongoing situation

is presented. Due to the damage

buried under the debris. In the first 24 hours, the main objective is to search

the debris to save as many lives as possible. Search and rescue activities

themselves who start searching for their relatives and friends.

main shock, very little information

and special needs of the people

Figure 2 Evolution of Emergency Response Processes with Time [

While continuing the search and rescue activities

people who lost their homes.

homeless people and the available places for sheltering and their quality

include tents and materials to build o

protection from the climate, ensuring privacy and dignity, providing personal safety and security.

The emergency response agencies may be confronted by several challenges during this phase.

The possibility of electrical power to be cut, interruption of telecommunications, the destruction

Earthquake Emergency Preparedness

Challenges

after the main shake, the emergency response activities take place in order to

manage the ongoing situation. In Fig.2 [8], the time evolution of the emergency response actions

Due to the damage of a large number of buildings, large number

In the first 24 hours, the main objective is to search

the debris to save as many lives as possible. Search and rescue activities

themselves who start searching for their relatives and friends. During the first hours after the

information is available about the locations of the most damaged areas

special needs of the people.

Evolution of Emergency Response Processes with Time [8]

e search and rescue activities, it is needed to provide suitable shelters for the

people who lost their homes. This requires having sufficient information

homeless people and the available places for sheltering and their quality.

include tents and materials to build or repair homes. The key considerations are



ty of electrical power to be cut, interruption of telecommunications, the destruction


take place in order to

, the time evolution of the emergency response actions

a large number of buildings, large number of people may be

In the first 24 hours, the main objective is to search for the people under

the debris to save as many lives as possible. Search and rescue activities start by the people

During the first hours after the

about the locations of the most damaged areas

suitable shelters for the

sufficient information about the number of

. Rapid shelter solutions

r repair homes. The key considerations are providing



ty of electrical power to be cut, interruption of telecommunications, the destruction

12


of roads and railways hinders the emergency response activities. During this time, most of the

affected population needs social assistance in terms of psychology, medicine, sociology, nursing,

and public health. A rapid damage assessment should take place, in order to define the degree of

damage to the residential buildings, infrastructures, historical buildings, and strategic facilities.

By the end of the first week after the main shock, the temporary shelters can be ready for hosting

the homeless people. An important subject is to preserve the safety and security in the entire city

after the disaster. The spread of looting activities is an expected behavior due to the shortage of

food or medical supplies. The objective of the security activities is to maintain the safety on the

streets, control the traffic, and transfer the evacuated people. By this time, the priority should be

given to the temporary facilities for education, health, water supply, electricity,

telecommunications, opening up of roads, public buildings, office buildings, market places etc.

4.3. Organizational Challenges

During the crisis, the organization faces the lack of clear and exact information about the

ongoing situation necessary to make adequate decisions. Comfort L. states, “Information

constitutes the energy that drives a complex system in its process of both internal adoption

among its constituent parts and external exchange with the broader environment” [9]. It is clear

that in a dynamic situation, it is always difficult to manage the amount of information required to

make decisions necessary for effective response from the different parts of the response

organizations. This requires continually developing their own systems to manage the available

information that facilitates information analysis and processing to take the right decisions under

external pressures.

For some organizations, as for example, the public utilities, fire and police departments,

hospitals, railroad and airlines, and parts of the chemical industry, responses to accidents are a

normal part of their everyday activities. During the time of the crises, all or some of these

organizations, come to work together to face the same problem and to achieve the same

organizational goals. Due to the special nature of these organizations of being a temporary

organization, they are confronted with the problem of lack of coordination. Building

coordination between different organizations each of them has its own interests and goals, is

difficult particularly when available resources are low.

13


The organization may face the lack of available resources (personnel, equipments, knowledge

…etc) to operate, due to direct damage to facilities, resources, and infrastructures in the shake. In

such situations, some innovative decisions are necessary in order to balance between the

community needs and the available resources. Interruption of local phone lines, and loss of

communications with external authorities; add complexities to the response activities and

obstructs the relief efforts.

As a conclusion, to limit the organizational challenges during disasters, we can introduce some

models that build relationships and coordination between different organizations during normal

times. Such models should continually enhance the organizational learning from previous

disasters by sharing and recording experiences faced in crisis times.

4.4. Emergency Planning Process

“Establishing and maintaining emergency preparedness is a process in the sense that it comes in

being as a result of the activity of drawing up and revising an emergency plan, rather than being

an entity described by that plan” [10]. The plan could be considered as a system that uses the

inputs, which are the available resources, to produce outputs, which are the emergency services.

The effective plan should ensure an efficient performance of the organizational processes during

the crises.

“The approach of emergency planning for environmental hazards is driven by two objectives:

hazard assessment and risk reduction” [2]. During the emergency planning, it is recommended to

analyze the past events and the challenges created by major emergencies. Also, to expect the

possible future events and their impacts on the humans and properties. This assists the

organization to create the required list of resources and the procedures to mobilize these

resources in relatively short period to help in emergency responses. In addition, it is

recommended to have coordination during the preplanning process between the different

organizational departments involved in the emergency management processes. This allows to

work together with different areas of interest to achieve the common organizational goals.

14


Perry and Lindell suggested the following 10 characteristics that pre-crisis planning process

should involve [2]:

1. Be based on accurate knowledge of threats and likely human responses.

2. Encourage appropriate action by crisis managers.

3. Encourage flexibility in responses.

4. Prompt inter organizational coordination.

5. Integrate plans for each hazard into a multi hazard approach.

6. Involve the training of relevant personnel.

7. Provide for testing through drills and exercises.

8. Be adaptable as part of an ongoing process adjustments to new circumstances.

9. Be a strong advocate in the face of inevitable resistance to resource commitments for low

probability events.

10. Recognize the difference between crisis planning and crisis management.

4.5. Organizational Resilience

Organizational performance is changing over time, and some changes may occur in the case of

disastrous events like a major earthquake. In this case, the organization may fail; this requires

some resources to be used in order to restore the system’s performance to its normal levels.

Those organizations, which can use their own resources in order to return to their normal level of

performance, are in a much stronger position to deal with the dynamic nature of the disaster.

“Such organizations are capable of converting available generalized resources, such as wealth,

knowledge and technical skill, into appropriately tailored solutions if, as, and when required” [9].

In terms of organizational preparedness for emergencies, “we have three main sets of

organizations: the least prepared, the mid-range prepared, and the highly prepared organizations”

[11]. The least prepared organizations have poor coordination among the employees and the tasks

required from everyone are not clear. They do not consider threats and have poor or no

contingency plans. The moderately prepared organizations, give some consideration to crisis and

the need for plans, although this cannot be seen in the organizational processes. For the highly

prepared organizations, they give high priority to threats and the need for contingency plans. The

organizational processes support the concept of learning from the crisis. In this type, the pre-

crisis planning is clear at all the organizational levels.

15


Organizations should facilitate resilience through the following:

i. To build systems for detecting weak and non-conventional parts.

ii. To be able to process relevant information to and from central authorities.

iii. To have the capacity for readiness and mobilization of emergency response units.

iv. To be capable of relating technical matters to strategic issues in order to handle new

types of crises.

Seismic resilience can be achieved by enhancing the ability of the organization to perform during

and after an earthquake. Also, through emergency strategies that effectively cope with and

contain losses and recovery strategies that enable communities to return to levels of pre-disaster

functioning as rapidly as possible. This can be done by developing methodologies those help to

define the points of weaknesses where the system may fail or severely affected during an

earthquake crisis. These methodologies should help in the decision making process during the

crisis in order to return to the normal performance levels in very short time.

16

Solution Methodology 16

5. Solution Methodology

We saw the need for integration of multiple component models required for complete modelling of

a single emergency incident and the capability of modelling other emergency incidents. Building

these kinds of models starts from defining a complete damage scenario for a given seismic input

then we start defining the corresponding responses for that scenario. In order to define the

similarity function, it is necessary to build many complete scenarios. In the following steps, we are

going to present the methodology used in order to design such models in case of earthquake

disaster planning and management.

5.1. Developi Scenarios

It is clear that we cannot produce a single plan that covers all the possible challenges arise from

crisis. This led to the need of modeling the different elements of the crisis and its possible

consequences in order to define the proper actions for the different emergencies.

Porter M. Defined the scenarios as “an internally consistent view of what the future might turn

out to be- not a forecast, but one possible future outcome” [12]. Ringland defined the scenarios

planning as “that part of strategic planning which relates to tools and technologies for managing

the uncertainties of the future” [13]. “Scenarios are an approach to manage the inherited

uncertainties of decisions based on assumptions, rather than on facts, by examining several

alternatives of how the future might unfold and compare the potential consequences of different

future contexts” [14]. In crisis management, scenarios are required in order to define the possible

threats; assess infrastructures vulnerabilities and interdependencies, plan for emergencies, and

decision-making process.

Scenarios start from defining a driving force that hits the system and then to define all the chain

of failures and losses in the system. This process helps to define the expected external threats for

a certain community and the points of weaknesses from which the system may fail. This permits

to use the largest number of data of any quality that are available. Scenarios offer the opportunity

of effectively improving emergency response through finding solutions that can be developed at

the planning stage. They enable to examine the ability and efficiency of organizational strategies

to reduce risks from the external environment.

17

5.2. Complete Event Scenarios

Building a complete event scenario means to give an image about the possible future given an

initial stage, which means to give a path in

complete scenario is the shaking scenario

The distribution of the considered parameters starting from the

surrounding areas is done by the application of suitable

Figure

The choice of the referring events to be used as input for the creation of shaking scenarios is

made after analyzing carefully historical and recent seismicity of the study area

an earthquake shake with its corresponding magnitude and epicenter

presence of any amplification

consider those amplifications.

buildings and infrastructures inside the area under study. The

shaking scenario on the vulnerable buildings,

under study.

Scenarios


initial stage, which means to give a path in the decision tree. The simplest method

is the shaking scenario as shown in Fig.3.

The distribution of the considered parameters starting from the epicenter

by the application of suitable attenuation models.

Figure 3 Process of Building Complete Event Scenario


made after analyzing carefully historical and recent seismicity of the study area

quake shake with its corresponding magnitude and epicenter, we should consider also

and geophysical factors. If they exist, we shall modify the shake to

consider those amplifications. Then it is necessary to assess the phy

buildings and infrastructures inside the area under study. The result of

on the vulnerable buildings, will be the complete damage scenario for the area

SHAKING SCENARIO

LOCAL EFFECTS

DETAILED SHAKING SCENARIO

PHYSICALVULNERABILITY

DAMAGE SCENARIO



The simplest method to build a

of the chosen event to

models.


made after analyzing carefully historical and recent seismicity of the study area. After we choose

e should consider also the

we shall modify the shake to

Then it is necessary to assess the physical vulnerability for

of applying the detailed

will be the complete damage scenario for the area

18


5.2.1. Seismic Input

The definition of the seismic input is done by defining the earthquake characteristics which are

represented by the magnitudes and the epicenter then by using the attenuation laws to describe

the variation of the seismic parameters (ground acceleration, intensity, …etc) depending on the

distance from the epicenter.

There are a great number of attenuation laws based on different parameters and hypothesis and

we used the Sabetta-Pugliese law [16] that was often used in Italy. This model allows to obtain

the values of many parameters to the site directly (acceleration peak, velocity peak,

displacement peak, Arias Intensity, spectral ordinates etc.).

The chart shown in Fig.4 is a plot of the ground acceleration (a/g) versus the distance of the

epicenter for different earthquake magnitudes.

Figure 4 Example of attenuation law: acceleration Vs distance

depending on magnitude (Sabetta-Pugliese law)[16]

From Fig.4 shown below, it is clear that the highest value of peak ground acceleration is at the

epicenter location and then it will be decreased going far from epicenter according to this

equation: �� = � + � + � ��(�� + ℎ�)�/� + �� + �� ± � Equation 1 Sabetta-Pugliese Attenuation Law[16]

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Distance [km]

a/g

5 6 7

19


Where

Y is the quantity to be estimated.

M is the magnitude.

R is the distance (km) from the epicentre.

S1 and S2 are two parameters that relate to the site from a geological point of view (they can be

taken equal zero)

While a, b, c, h, e1, e2, σ (standard deviation), are the parameters that vary depending on the

parameter that will be determined. In our case, we see to obtain Y is the peak ground

acceleration, so we are using the values (a= -1.845, b=0.363, c= -1, e1=0.195, e2=0, h=5, σ =

0.190).

We should consider also the presence of amplification and instability factors like landslides,

rock falls, and liquefactions. These may modify of the shake scenario due to geologic and

geomorphologic effects. Also, it is necessary to define all the hazardous industrial facilities that

may cause induced effects like fires, explosions

5.2.2. Vulnerability Assessment

The vulnerability assessment is usually made in “peace time”; it must not be confused with the

evaluation of the usability assessment post-event. There are many definitions of vulnerability,

depending on the “object” considered and on the point of view assumed in the assessment. It is

possible, for instance, in general to define:

Vulnerability: As the degree to which the humans and environmental systems are likely to

experience damage due to a stress. Specifically, for an earthquake, the concept of vulnerability

defines the propensity to damage that is caused by an earthquake.

There are different ways to define the vulnerability but we are going to consider only the

physical vulnerability.

Physical vulnerability: As the name itself suggests, refers to the fragility to disruption in

physical terms.

20


There are lots of methodologies to assess vulnerability [19] but we are going to focus only on

the vulnerability index method to assess the physical vulnerability assessment of buildings. The

reason is that the data about the vulnerability used in this work have been calculated using this

method in a previous study [25].

The results of a vulnerability assessment are data, which are useful for:

• Risk analysis for wide areas

• Risk analysis for single object/structure

• Ranking to define priorities for subsequent analysis/intervention for contingency

management plans

5.2.2.1. Vulnerability Index Method

This method is articulated in two steps, each step produces a result; in the first one, a

vulnerability index V is determined, in the second one, a correlation among earthquake

violence and damages, depending on V, is defined.

The evaluation of vulnerability index is done by using vulnerability forms for buildings

(GNDT, early 90’s).There are two levels of forms (applicable to a single building):

• Level 1: collecting data about location, geometry and typology of the building

• Level 2: collecting the data directly useful to evaluate the vulnerability index

All quantities used in this approach are expressed in numerical terms as mentioned below.

Moreover, by imposing that the principal knowledge for implementing this procedure was

based on statistical elaborations of the data, on seismic response calculation and on subjective

expert judgment.

Determination of a relationship between a measure of the structure quality (q), a measure of the

earthquake violence (s) and the damage caused by the earthquake (d)

� = �(�, �)

Equation 2 Damage Function of Building Vulnerability Index

Where:

� q : Is a function of Vulnerability index V

� S:Related to maximum ground acceleration y

� d : The damage index related to the repair cost

21


First level form (8 sections) as shown in Appendix A

• Form data (province, municipality, form number, team number, date)

• Building location (urban plan data, address, aggregate)

• Geometry (areas, highs: understory, max and min)

• Use (type of use, property, users, …)

• Age of the structure – interventions

• Inside finish state/plants

• Structural typology (vertical, horizontal, stairs, roof)

• Damage level and extension (to be compiled only in case of survey made after an

earthquake)

In the second level forms for masonry buildings; eleven parameters has to be evaluated and the

final value of vulnerability index will be computed as a function of all these parameters. Shown

in Appendix B

Finally, we can obtain the final value for the vulnerability index as a function of all proceeding

steps. For each parameter a score (depend on the class) and a weight are assigned as shown in

the following Table 2

� The product of the score and weight of a parameter carries out the partial index related to that

parameter

� The building vulnerability index (V) is obtained by the sum of the 11 partial indexes

� = � �� ∗ !��

�"�

� V is a number in the range 0.0-382.5 (best � worst situation)

� V is usually normalized in a relative and conventional scale 0 – 100

22


Parameter Class

Weight A B C D

1 Organization of

resisting system 0 5 20 45 1

2 Quality of Resisting

System 0 5 25 45 0.25

3 Conventional

strength 0 5 25 45 1.5

4 Building Position

&foundation 0 5 25 45 0.75

5 Floors 0 5 15 45 Var.

6 Plan shape 0 5 25 45 0.5

7 Elevation shape 0 5 25 45 Var.

8 Max. dist. walls 0 5 25 45 0.25

9 Roof 0 15 25 45 Var.

10 Non structural

element 0 0 25 45 0.25

11 Present state 0 5 25 45 1

Table 1 Masonry Buildings: Final Score for Vulnerability Index

For the second level forms for R.C. buildings in Appendix C, we have 11 parameters (+1). At

the end, we are supposed to compute the final value of vulnerability index as a function of the

all parameters mentioned before. As shown in Table 3

Parameter Class scores

A B C

1 Type and organization of the

resistant system 0 12 25

2 Quality of the resistant system 0 3 6

3 Conventional strength 3 0 3

4 Building location and

foundations 0 3 6

5 Floor systems 0 3 6

6 Plan shape 0 3 6

7 Elevation shape 0 6 18

8

Connections and critical

elements (connections (beam

column), walls dimensions,

squat elements dimensions,

precast elements joints)

0 3 6

9 Low ductility elements 0 3 6

10 Non Structural Elements 0 3 6

11 Present State 0 6 12

Table 2 RC Buildings: Final Score for Vulnerability Index

23


“With respect to physical vulnerability of lifelines, they are highly intra- and inter-dependent

systems: conducts and lines can be damaged by collapsing houses or bridges or by landslides

and riverbanks, the movement of which can be triggered by earthquake”[20]. In our work, we

considered only the case of damage to rods due to collapse of buildings or due to landslides and

rock falls.

5.2.3. Estimation of Buildings Damage

To obtain the buildings damage, we need to use the fragility curves [24] that relate the damage

(d) to acceleration (y)

Figure 5 Damage Assessment by Fragility Curves [24]

#� = $��(%&'() #) = [$) + +),-]%�

Equation 3 Estimation of Collapse Value for Seismic Variable

Where

αi = 0.08 βi = 0.01304 αc = 1.53710 βc = 0.00097

γ = 1.80870

u = V.I. + 25

�(#, /) 0 0 ��2 # ≤ #�# − #�#) − #� ��2 #� ≤ # ≤ #)1 ��2 #) ≤ # 6 Equation 4 Estimation of Damage Values

24


We need to distinguish the parts of damage due to:

1- Events having accelerations <collapse acceleration yc

2- Events having accelerations >collapse acceleration yc

This data is important because it is related to the effect of the risk to the people. After using the

fragility curves, it will be possible to estimate the expected damage to buildings due to a given

seismic input and the building exposure. Then it will be possible to take countermeasures to

reduce the effect of this risk on people and properties.

It is also worth noting that, from the response point of view, we found it is easier to define the

buildings damage in terms of overall section damage. Therefore, we defined the average damage

value for buildings inside each section.

5.3. Emergency Reponses

After developing the different damage scenarios and estimating the expected physical damages

for each scenario, our next step is to define the emergency response plans for those different

scenarios. For each response plan, we shall define:

i. Different stakeholders acting in the emergency response process.

ii. Responsibilities for each emergency response participant.

iii. Actions to be taken by each stakeholder.

iv. Resources used by each partner in the emergency response.

It is necessary also to define for each contingency plan, the contact details for each person of

those involved in the response phase to facilitate reaching them. The accessibility to the critical

facilities and the emergency control room location should be considered as well.

5.3.1. Organization and Responsibilities

The facility that is designated for managing the disaster emergency is the Emergency Control

Room. It is where the Incident Management Team makes decisions to allocate and coordinate

resources, provides for incident communications coordination and directs the overall disaster

emergency response. This forms the “backbone” for community functioning; it enables

communities to respond, provides for the well-being of their residents, and initiates recovery

activities when earthquakes strike.

25


Civil Protection The civil protection is the overall responsible and main coordinator in the

emergency. They are the access point to external actors. Within, there is a group dedicated for

public relations, which handles all communication with the media as well as requests from the

population. When it comes to important decisions, the civil protection has the last word.

Fire Department The fire department is responsible for the Search and Rescue activity. Its

main function is to be a support unit to the operatives in the field. The fire department in the

emergency helps plan, arranges, and organizes operations to be carried out by the operatives.

Together with the utility companies, the fire department is the main actor in the damage

assessment.

Police: The police have the overall responsibility for the security and accessibility in the area.

The police assist the fire department to make them able to perform their main tasks. They also

assist the civil protection in planning evacuation routes and handling the crowds.

Army: The army provides work force and equipment. They are a support unit which is not

present in the control room but on standby to provide help if requested.

Volunteers A main function is to provide assistance in sheltering and basic supplies (like food

and water and information) to the population. The volunteers are the main actors in the structural

assessment.

Health Department The health department provides urgent medical aid in the field. They

establish medical field posts and field hospitals. They are overall responsible for the medical

support in the disaster area.

Utility Companies A representative of each utility company provides the necessary information

about their own system; they assist in damage reduction, support and reconstruction phases.

In Italy, the national civil protection is a complex organization, which is divided into several

scales; the national, the regional, and the local scale. The organization that is responsible for

controlling the emergency processes at the local scale is called Mixed Operative Centre (COM).

The COM is organized into many functions, each function is activated, or not, depending on the

characteristics of the specific event.

26


5.3.2. First Responses

The contingency plan should describe the different responses taken during the emergency phase

and the resources needed for each activity. In Fig.2 [8], the time evolution of the first emergency

responses was presented. In our work, we concentrated only of the buildings damage assessment

and this is what we are going to explain how to be done in general.

5.3.2.1. Damage Assessment Process

Immediately after a strong earthquake occurs, thousands of buildings may results damage,

while new shocks can still occur. There is a need to identify the safety of partially damaged

buildings in order to be used during the emergency.

The rapid assessment for safety and usability takes place usually within the 1 to 10 days.

Quickly screen the obviously safe and unsafe infrastructure (definition of red (unsafe), yellow

(restricted use) and green (safe) zones), level ascertain level of damage, detection of hazards,

assess appropriate level of safety and occupancy, security and shoring requirements by using

specific forms [28].

Examine visually the outside of the building (for obvious structural integrity failure like roof

collapse, moving of foundation or walls failing), any damaged part of them (when secure) and

the ground around the building, formal system, placards posted on infrastructure, note made

offsite needing further detailed inspections, unsafe areas cordoned off, central record

maintained. Such action has to be done by specialist like engineers, architects, building

inspectors, experienced building professionals or trained disaster workers on an average

inspection time of 10 to 30 minutes per building.

27

Moreover, a detailed assessment

as identified by rapid inspection or subsequent requests, dealing with critical or essential

facilities in order to identify the need for an engineering evaluation. Such action has to be done

by specialists like structural engineers, architects, building services, geotechnical and

hazardous material specialist on an average inspection time of 1 to 5 hours per building. Formal

Figure 6 Cracks Types for Masonry Buildings

Figure 7 Cracks on Building External Walls

detailed assessment takes place usually within the 2 to 20 days. Further inspection



ists like structural engineers, architects, building services, geotechnical and



e usually within the 2 to 20 days. Further inspection



ists like structural engineers, architects, building services, geotechnical and


28


system, evaluation of questionable infrastructures, more investigation into framing systems,

revised placards posted on buildings, unsafe areas cordoned off, central record updated.

The outputs of the rapid assessment process are the degree of the building usability for human

and it can be classified according to the following [28]:

i. Usable Building can be used without measures. Small damage, negligible risk for human

life

ii. Usable With Countermeasures Building is damaged, but can be used when short term

countermeasures are taken

iii. Partially Usable Only a part of the building can be safely used

iv. Temporarily Unusable Building to be re-inspected. Unusable until the new inspection.

v. Unusable Building cannot be used due to high structural, non structural or geotechnical

risk for human life. Not necessarily imminent risk of total collapse.

vi. Unusable For External Risk Building could be used, but it cannot due the high risk

caused by external factors (heavy damaged adjacent or facing buildings, possible rock

falls, etc.).

The following table shows some actions to be taken in order to ensure adequate response from

technicians involved in the usability assessment process before and after the earthquake.

Before Earthquake After Earthquake

Education of the engineers from the chamber

of civil Engineering and personnel from the

public works and settlements on damage

assessment produced by the department of

recovery – Damage Assessment Working

Group

• Estimation of Damage Assessment Field

teams

• Execution of the damage assessment on

the impact zone and generating of lists of

householders

• Objection of the house holders to the

results of the assessment within 15 Days

• Repetition of the damage Assessment by

another team for the final results

29

The Similarity Model Design 29

6. The Similarity Model Design

The similarities between different earthquake scenarios can be used in order to expect the

possible consequences of a certain ground shake. The similarity model can be used by the

decision makers, during the earthquake crisis, to estimate the expected consequences to happen

based on the stored information from previous disasters. The similarity model compares the

occurring event with the recorded data and retrieves the most similar event among the recorded

ones. The similarity function gives a rank for each stored scenario starts from the most similar

one to the least similar. Decision makers can use this model to draw action plans for different

emergency responses.

The process of designing the model will start from defining its components that composed of

main three parts: ‘the knowledge base, the similarity function, and the presentation part’. In order

to start the designing process of the model, there should be set of data that was recorded from

either previous disasters, or built earthquake scenarios during the preparedness. The first part

will contain the entire database recorded from the previous events or the designed seismic

scenarios. This part shall contain all the event inputs, damages to buildings, damages to the

infrastructures and losses of human lives.

For each scenario, it will be important also to define the data regarding the emergency response

process like the response intervention priority, tasks and responsibilities for each stakeholder,

and the resources used in order to carry out the emergency management processes. The structure

of these databases should be done in a way that facilitates the data analysis and storage

processes.

The second part will contain the similarity evaluation function that evaluates the similarities

between the recorded seismic scenarios and the occurring one. The function compares the

occurring scenario A with the stored set of scenarios Bi. The definition of similarity function

should consider the following four approaches:

i. When comparing between many scenarios for the same city that has the same city divisions

and the number of divisions are equal. The similarity function will compare each zone in

the new scenario with the corresponding in the stored scenarios and the final similarity

result will be the average value for all zones. In this case the similarity function will be

formulated as follows in Eqn.5:

30


��78(9, :) = �/�2�� ;<�=> − �=?'<@

Equation 5 Similarity Function for the Same Geographic Division

Where

A: The inputs for the new scenario

Bi: The recorded set of scenarios from scenario 1 to scenario i

j: Number of city zones from zone 1 to zone j

Y: The comparison criteria (peak ground acceleration or buildings damage)

For example by using the damage values for sections as a comparison criteria:

Zone New Scenario Recorded Scenario

1 0.337 0.331

2 0.346 0.331

3 0.567 0.530 ��78(9, :) = �/�(|(0.337 − 0.331)|, |(0.346 − 0.331)|, |(0.567 − 0.53)|)

ii. In case of comparing between many scenarios for different cities where the city division is

different, we can evaluate an average value of the comparison criteria for each scenario as a

whole, after that by comparing these average values we can estimate the similarities

between different scenarios. In this case the similarity function could be defined as follows:

��78(9, :) = H�/�. (�=>) − �/�. (�I?')H

Equation 6 Similarity Function for Different Geographic Division

Where




j: The number of city zones for the occurring scenario from zone 1 to zone j

k: The number of city zones for the recorded scenario from zone 1 to zone k

31




1 0.337 0.331

2 0.346 0.331

3 0.567

��78(9, :) = �/�(0.337,0.346,0.567) − �/�(0.331,0.331)

iii. Another situation when comparing different scenarios for the same city but the city

division has been changed. Adding some zones to the others or dividing one zone to many

other zones is a possibility over time especially considering the human activities and

change in population. The similarity function in this case should evaluate the average value

of the comparison criteria for the new zones and compares it with the corresponding value

for the old zone using the formula:

��78(9, :) = �/�2�� ;<�/�(�=>) − �/�(�=?')<@

Equation 7 Similarity Function for Modified Geographic Division

For example, if a certain zone is divided into three parts, we need to calculate the average

value of the comparison criteria for these three parts. Then we compare the average of the

three parts with the value of the initial single zone that was stored before. Then the

similarity function will compare each zone in the new scenario with the corresponding in

the stored scenarios and the final similarity result will be the average value for all zones.

Where



j: Number of city zones from zone 1 to zone j


The implementation of the similarity function should consider the reliability and confidence

level for the data used in comparison. This can be done by adding a factor called Reliability

Factor (R.F.) that represents the accuracy and reliability for each data input. For example, the

data received from first crisis responders from site has a degree of accuracy differs from the data

received some days after. In addition, the data prepared during peacetime has some level of

32


confidence different from data collected after the shake. This factor can have a value on a scale

from 0-1 from low reliability until fully reliable data.

Another factor should be considered that is the Zone Importance (I) that considers the existence

of a special strategic facility, infrastructure, or high population inside a specific zone. For

example, the existence of a hospital in a specific zone in a recorded scenario gives higher

importance than if the hospital does not exist for another zone. The value of this importance shall

be assigned based on the judgment of decision makers during the peacetime based on their own

evaluation.

The final value of the comparison criteria shall be calculated by: � = �) ∗ �J ∗ K

Equation 8 Estimation of Similarity Criteria Value

Where


Yc: The collected or calculated value for the comparison criteria



Yc RF I Y Yc RF I Y

1 0.337 1 1 0.337 0.331 0.95 1.4 0.440

2 0.346 0.8 1.2 0.332 0.331 1 1.2 0.397

3 0.567 0.6 1 0.340 0.53 1 1 0.530

��78(9, :) = �/�(|(0.337 − 0.440)|, |(0.332 − 0.397)|, |(0.340 − 0.530)|)

The output of the similarity function will be the ranking of the recorded scenarios starting by the

most similar one to the least similar. Then based on this ranking we can retrieve the

corresponding data for the most similar scenario regarding the seismic input, damages and

contingency plan. Output data can be presented in the form of maps showing the expected

damage to properties, or losses to human lives for similar scenarios.

The accuracy of the outputs is highly affected by the data structures in which the data stored

about the previous scenarios or the data entered for the new scenario. This is why it is necessary

before using the model to prepare a data structure that is easily to be accessed and used either

during preparedness or during emergency.

33


The chosen values for the reliability factor is dependent on the degree to which the decision

makers are confident about the collected data. The importance factor is highly dependent on the

judgment of the decision maker. Therefore, a tuning is required for the values to be sure about

the obtained results.

34

Model Application for Salò 34

7. Model Application for Salò

In this section, we are going to apply the proposed methodology for developing the similarity

model by using a real case study for the city of Salò. We will start from building many seismic

scenarios and then estimating the damage for each of them. The next step will be to define the

response activities for each scenario and the resources used for each of them. Finally, we design

the similarity model for our case study using the data collected in the previous steps.

7.1. Strategic Buildings

For every contingency plan, it is necessary to define the strategic facilities those may be needed

during emergencies and must be made as efficient as possible to allow for emergency operations,

like search and rescue activities, taking care of victims and evacuation. In the following map, we

show the location for the hospital, police stations, fire station, and different schools. As we can

notice, the major facilities are concentrated in the vulnerable historical city center.

Figure 8 Strategic Buildings in Salo

35


7.2. City Sections

For better and effective management of the emergency response, the city could be divided into

zones. These zones may be characterized by a unique property like in our case that is the

population. In the following Fig.10, we are showing the census sections for Salò municipality.

Those sections were done using the number of population in each part of the city.

Figure 9 Definition of Census Sections in Salò

36


7.3. Complete Event Scenarios

We built the scenarios based on three real seismic inputs that were used for scenarios 2, 3&4.for

scenario 1 we used the same epicenter for scenario 3 but modified the magnitude. For scenario 5,

we used the same epicenter for scenario 4 but modified the magnitude to 6.3. For scenario 6, we

used the epicenter of the 1826 earthquake assigning a magnitude of 5.5. For scenarios 7&8, we

used the same seismic input for scenario 6 but with modifying the buildings vulnerability by

decreasing by 30% and increasing by 30% respectively.

We have chosen eight cases for seismic input shown in the following table.

Scenario Magnitude X Y Date

1 4.6 1616945.315 5048374.887 1901

2 4.7 1615518.395 5049570.89 1901

3 5.5 1616945.315 5048374.887 1901

4 5.2 1618363.166 5060072.622 2004

5 6.3 1618363.166 5060072.622 2004

6 5.5 1618280.14 5050686.98 1826

7 5.5 1618280.14 5050686.98 1826

8 5.5 1618280.14 5050686.98 1826

Table 3 Seismic Input for Shaking Scenario

In Fig.10, the location of the different epicenters with respect to the city of Salò is shown. For

scenarios 4&5, the epicenter is a little far from the city center if compared to the other epicenters

for the other scenarios.

37


Figure 10 Epicenters Locations for the Different Seismic Scenarios

For each scenario, we used the attenuation laws [16] in order to obtain the spatial change of the

peak ground acceleration corresponds to each earthquake magnitude and epicenter. Then we

used the data for buildings vulnerability values introduced in a vulnerability assessment report

[25] and the presented in a buildings vulnerability map as shown in Fig.11.

38


Figure 11 Map for Buildings Vulnerability Values

Then by using the fragility curves, it was possible to define the buildings damage value for each

scenario. The buildings damage was then generalized to define the sections average damage

based on the average value of buildings damage inside each section. Based on the sections

damage, it was possible to estimate approximately the number of affected population for each

section and the damage for roads.

For the calculation of roads interruption, we considered the roads intersect with a collapsed

building (damage >80%) to be interrupted. For the roads crossing through the landslide and the

rock fall area, for the scenarios no. 6,7&8, the exact value for the landslide displacement was

accurately calculated. For the other scenarios we assumed that the landslide displacement will

cause interruption to roads passing through the landslide. For the methods of calculation of

landslide displacement due to earthquakes, refer to [18].

In order to estimate the death and injured on the section level; the correlations between the

number of buildings in the heavily damaged sections and casualties were used as a link for

building a suitable emergency preparedness plans. There are different approaches to estimate the

number of affected people by the earthquake disasters.

39


In our calculations for the estimation of number of victims and injured we followed the steps

introduced in reference [26] as follows:

• The number of victims as the 50% of the total present persons in collapsed buildings.

• The number injured people as the 30% of the persons present in the collapsed

buildings and a variable percent (0-50%) of the persons present in the buildings

subjected to damages >30%, calculated by the relationship:

nf = 0.5 (d – 0.3) x a

Where

nf : is the number of the injured people

d: is the damage value

a: the number of persons present in the buildings

The number of homeless people was determined based on the assumption that; if the damage

percentage is higher than 50%, the needs for sheltering can be computed from the relation:

No. of homeless= Total No. of Population- No. of Victims,

And if the percentage of damage is less than 50% there is no need for sheltering. For the

estimated number of victims, injured, and homeless people for all scenarios, refer to Appendix

D.

7.3.1. Scenario 1

7.3.1.1. Seismic Input

By using the attenuation law in Eqn.1 and the earthquake magnitude defined for the first

earthquake scenario, it is possible to define the distribution of the peak ground acceleration

over distance from the epicenter as shown in Fig.12.

40


Figure 12 Acceleration vs. distance for the First Scenario

Then we represented peak ground acceleration ranges in circles their center is the epicenter

and the radius is increasing by 0.5 Kilometer. Then by using GIS software, we have

represented the seismic input map as shown in Fig.13.

Figure 13 Pga (m/s2) map of First scenario

0.100

1.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a/g

Distance (KM)

41


7.3.1.2. Sections Damage

By using the procedure described before for estimation of sections damage, in Fig.14 showing

the average sections damage for Scenario 1. We notice that most of sections have moderate

damage percentage.

Figure 14 Sections Average Damage Map for Scenario 1

7.3.1.3. Roads Damage

In this scenario, the roads interruption happened due to the landslide and rock fall mainly as

the average damage for the buildings is less than 80%. Only some roads are interrupted in the

southern part of the city.

42


Figure 15 Roads Damage Map for First Scenario

7.3.1.4. Estimation of Victims and Injuries

Was done based on the method described before in section 7.3.

7.3.1.5. Damage Assessment

In the previous chapters, we defined before the general steps for carrying out the process of

usability assessment, but here we are going to present the process in details identifying the

resources used in each scenario.

As a result, majority of medium level of damage for buildings, the required resources for the

rapid damage assessment are not so much. However, for the detailed damage assessment, there

is a need for large number of teams with their necessary equipments as we can see in the

following two tables.

43


Responsibilities

Resources

Men Vehicle Computers Communication

Sce

na

rio

1

Ra

pid

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ma

yo

r • Send Inspection Requests to

COM.

• Request Resources from other

Municipalities.

- - - -

CO

M

Dir

ect

or • Activate the COM

• Monitor the ongoing activities

• Coordinate between different

COM sections

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief

• Make sure of the available

resources

• Assign tasks for the inspection

teams defining the working

zones using list of inspection

requests received.

• Coordinate with other

departments for required

support.

1 - 1 1 Cell Phone

1 Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s

• Preliminary assessment of

damage.

• Providing information for

definitive damage assessment

• Determination of the unsafe

buildings

4

teams

2

person

/team

2

vehicles 4

4 Cell Phone

4 Walki Talkie

Cameras

Usability Forms

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g • Ensure access and exit for all

emergency services.

• Check streets for dangers and

block the roads using map in

Fig.15

3 men 1 - 2

Megaphone

Log

isti

cs

• Process, organize, and deal with

data received from different

departments.

4 men - 4 4

cell phones

44


Figure 16 Map for Response Intervention Priority for Scenario 1

45


COM

Section Responsibilities

Resources

Men Vehicle Computer Communication

Sce

na

rio

1

De

tail

ed

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

CO

M D

ire

cto

r • Monitor the ongoing

activities


COM sections.

• Request sheltering plans for

homeless people.

• Decide Evacuation Plans.

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources

• Assign tasks for the

inspection teams defining the

working zones using the

priority map in Fig.16



support

• Check and approve the final

assessment report

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s • Determination of the most

damaged zones.

• Detailed assessment of

damage.


definitive damage

assessment

16

teams

2

persons

/team

8

vehicles 8

8 Cell Phone

8 Walki Talkie

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Secure, protect and preserve

the scene, and control traffic.

• Check street for dangers and

block the roads.

• Secure dangerous areas and

assist evacuation.

• Ensuring that the partly

damaged houses are vacant

6 men 3 - Megaphone3

Log

isti

cs

• Process, organize, and deal

with data received from

different departments.

8 men - 8 8 cell phones

46


7.3.2. Scenario 2


By using the earthquake magnitude for Scenario no.2 and the attenuation law presented in

Eqn.1 it was possible to produce the chart presented in Fig.17.

Figure 17 Acceleration vs. distance for the Second Scenario

Then we represented peak ground acceleration ranges in circles their center is the epicenter

and the radius is increasing by 0.5 Kilometer. Then by using GIS software, we have

represented the seismic input map as shown in Fig.18.

0.100

1.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a/g

Distance (KM)

47


Figure 18 Pga (m/s2) map of Second Scenario


By using the procedure described before for estimation of sections damage, in Fig.19

showing the average sections damage for Scenario 2. We notice that the majority of sections

have law to moderate damage percentage.

48




In this scenario we find out that, the average of damage of the buildings is less that 80% for all

sections and as a result, we do not have any interruption for the entire roads for each section.

Just for sections intersecting with the landslide and the rock fall we have roads interruption as

shown in Fig.20.

49


Figure 20 Roads Damage Map for Scenario no.2



50



As a result, majority of low and moderate level of damage for buildings, the required

resources for the rapid damage assessment are not so much. However, for the detailed damage

assessment, there is a need for large number of teams with their necessary equipments as we

can see in the following two tables.

Responsibilities

Resources

Men Vehic

les

Compu

ters

Communic

ation

Sce

na

rio

2

Ra

pid

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ma

yo

r • Send Inspection Requests to COM.

- - - -

CO

M

Dir

ect



• Coordinate between different COM

sections

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief

• Make sure of the available resources

• Assign tasks for the inspection teams

defining the working zones using list of

inspection requests received.

• Coordinate with other departments for

required support.

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s

• Preliminary assessment of damage.

• Providing information for definitive damage

assessment

• Determination of the unsafe buildings

4 teams

2

persons/

crew

2

vehicl

es

4

4 Cell Phone

4 Walki

Talkie

Cameras

Usability

Forms

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Ensure access and exit for all emergency

services.

• Check streets for dangers and block the

roads using map in Fig.20

3 men 1 - Megaphone

2

Log

isti

cs

• Process, organize, and deal with data

received from different departments. 4 men - 4

4 cell

phones

51


Figure 21 Map for Response Intervention Priority for Scenario 2

52


Responsibilities

Resources


Sce

na

rio

2

De

tail

ed

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

CO

M D

ire

cto

r • Monitor the ongoing activities


COM sections.


homeless people.


1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources



zones using the priority map in

Fig.21



support


assessment report

1 - 1 1 Cell Phone

1 Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s

• Determination of the most

damaged zones.

• Detailed assessment of

damage.



12

teams

2

persons

/team

6

vehicles 6

6 Cell Phone

6 Walki Talkie

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Secure, protect and preserve

the scene, and control traffic.


block the roads.


assist evacuation.



6 men 3 - Megaphone

3

Log

isti

cs




6 men - 6 6

cell phones

53


7.3.3. Scenario 3


By using the earthquake magnitude for scenario 3 and the attenuation law presented in Eqn.1

it was possible to produce the chart presented in Fig.22.

Figure 22 Acceleration vs. distance for the Third Scenario

By using the above chart shown in, it was possible to estimate the distribution of acceleration

values over distance. Then we represented the acceleration ranges in circles its center is the

epicenter and the radius is increasing by 0.5 Kilometers. Then by using these acceleration

values GIS software we have drawn the seismic input map.

0.100

1.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a/g

Distance (KM)

54


Figure 23 Pga (m/s2) map of Third scenario



the average sections damage for Scenario 3. As we can see in the map in Fig.24, high

percentage of the buildings were collapsed.

55




Because of buildings collapse, all the city roads were interrupted which affects the emergency

response activities.

56




The number of people affected by the earthquake was calculated using the same steps used in

the previous scenarios. Due to the high percentage of buildings were collapsed, we have very

high number of people were affected by the earthquake in this scenario.


Due to the first investigations done by the civil protection teams, it was found that all the

buildings were collapsed. So all the efforts were directed towards the search and rescue and

evacuation tasks.

57


7.3.4. Scenario 4




Figure 26 Acceleration vs. distance for the Forth Scenario

By using the above chart shown in Fig.26, it was possible to estimate the distribution of

acceleration values over distance. Then we represented the acceleration ranges in circles its

center is the epicenter and the radius is increasing by 0.5 Kilometers. Then by using these

acceleration values GIS software we have drawn the seismic input map.

0.100

1.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

a/g

Distance (KM)

58


Figure 27 Pga (m/s2) map of forth scenario


By using the procedure described before for estimation of sections damage, in Fig.28

showing the average sections damage for Scenario 4. We notice that the majority of the

sections have low to moderate levels of damage.

59




In this specific scenario, we find out that the average of damage of the buildings is less that

80% for all sections and consequently we do not have any interruption for the entire roads due

to buildings collapses, but only we have interruptions due to landslide and rock fall.

60





61



As a result, majority of low and moderate level of damage for buildings, the required

resources for the rapid damage assessment are not so much. However, for the detailed damage

assessment, there is a need for large number of teams with their necessary equipments as we

can see in the following two tables.

Responsibilities

Resources


Sce

na

rio

4

Ra

pid

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ma

yo


COM. - - - -

CO

M

Dir

ect




COM sections

1 - 1 1

Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources




requests received.



support.

1 - 1

1

Cell Phone

1

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s


damage.




buildings

4 teams

2

persons

/team

2

vehicles 4

4 Cell Phone

4 Walki Talkie

Cameras

Usability Forms

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin


emergency services.



Fig.[29]


Log

isti

cs





62


Figure 30 Map for Response Intervention Priority for Scenario no.4

63


COM

Sec. Responsibilities

Resources


Sce

na

rio

4

De

tail

ed

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

CO

M D

ire

cto



COM sections.


homeless people.


1 - 1 1

Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources


teams defining the working zones

using the priority map in Fig.30


departments for required support


assessment report

1 - 1 1 Cell Phone

1 Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s


damaged zones.

• Detailed assessment of damage.



12

teams

2

perso

ns/cre

w

6

vehicles 6

6 Cell Phone

6 Walki Talkie

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Secure, protect and preserve the

scene, and control traffic.


block the roads.


assist evacuation.

• Ensuring that the partly damaged

houses are vacant

6 men 3 - 3

Megaphone

Log

isti

cs



departments.

6 men - 6 6

Cell phones

64


7.3.5. Scenario 5




Figure 31 Acceleration vs. distance for the Fifth Scenario

By using the above chart shown in Fig.31, it was possible to estimate the distribution of

acceleration values over distance. Then we represented the acceleration ranges in circles its

center is the epicenter and the radius is increasing by 0.5 Kilometers. Then by using these

acceleration values GIS software we have drawn the seismic input map.

0.100

1.000

-1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15

a/g

Distance (KM)

65


Figure 32 Pga (m/s2) map of Scenario no.5

7.3.5.2. Buildings Vulnerability

In this scenario, we used the same values for buildings vulnerability as the previous scenarios.


By using the fragility curves as shown in Eqn.4 it was possible to estimate the damage for

each single building. In this scenario as we can see from damage map in Fig.33, all the city

buildings were collapsed with damage value >80%.

66




Road damage and isolation areas have been computed also as mentioned in the previous

scenarios.

67



In this specific scenario, we find out that the average of damage of the buildings is quiet high

for the most of the area and therefore we expect a majority of road interruption for the roads as

shown in the map.


The number of people affected by the earthquake was done the same as the previous scenarios.

Due to the high percentage of buildings were collapsed, we have very high number of people

were affected by the earthquake in this scenario.

68


7.3.6. Scenario 6


By using the earthquake magnitude for Scenario no.5 and the attenuation law presented in

Eqn.1 it was possible to produce the chart presented in Fig.35.

Figure 35 Pga (m/s2) map for Scenario no.6

Then we represented the acceleration ranges in circles its center is the epicenter and the radius

is increasing by 0.3 Kilometers. Then by using these acceleration values GIS software we

have drawn the seismic input map.

7.3.6.2. Estimation of Sections Damage


the average sections damage for Scenario 4. We notice that the majority of the sections have

moderately high to high levels of damage.

69




Road damage and isolation areas have been computed also as mentioned in the previous

scenarios.

70



In this specific scenario we find out that the average of damage of the buildings is quiet high

for the some of the sections and therefore we expect interruption for the roads as shown in the

map in Fig.37.



71



Responsibilities

Resources


Sce

na

rio

6

Ra

pid

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ma

yo


COM. - - - -

CO

M

Dir

ect




COM sections

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources




requests received.



support.

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s


damage.




buildings

3 teams

2

persons

/team

2

vehicles 3

3 Cell Phone

3 Walki Talkie

Cameras

Usability Forms

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin


emergency services.



Fig.37


Log

isti

cs





72



73


COM


Resources

Men Vehic

les

Compu

ters

Communic

ation

Sce

na

rio

6

De

tail

ed

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

CO

M D

ire

cto



sections.

• Request sheltering plans for homeless

people.


1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief



defining the working zones using the



required support

• Check and approve the final assessment

report

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s

• Determination of the most damaged

zones.


• Providing information for definitive

damage assessment

10 teams

2

persons/

crew

6

vehicl

es

6

6 Cell Phone

6 Walki

Talkie

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Secure, protect and preserve the scene,

and control traffic.

• Check street for dangers and block the

roads.

• Secure dangerous areas and assist

evacuation.

• Ensuring that the partly damaged houses

are vacant

6 men 3 - Megaphone

3

Log

isti

cs



8 cell

phones

74


7.3.7. Scenario 7


We represented acceleration ranges in circles its center is the epicenter and the radius is

increasing by 0.3 Kilometers. Then by using these acceleration values GIS software we have

drawn the seismic input map as shown in Fig.39.



In this scenario, we tried to find the effect of changing the vulnerability data on the final

building damages. Therefore, we reduced the buildings vulnerability by 30% from the values

was previously used. The values used for buildings vulnerability for this scenario is presented

in the map in Fig.40.

75


Figure 40 Buildings Vulnerability Values for Scenario no.7

7.3.7.3. Estimation of Sections Damage


the average sections damage for Scenario 4. We notice that the majority of the sections have

moderate to moderate-high levels of damage.

76



77



Road damage and isolation areas have been estimated also as mentioned in the previous

scenarios and shown below in Fig.42


In this specific scenario we find out that the average of damage of the buildings is less that

80% for all sections and as a consequence we don’t have any interruption for the entire roads

due to buildings collapses, but only we have interruptions due to landslide and rock fall.



78



Responsibilities

Resources

Men Vehic

les

Compu

ters

Communic

ation

Sce

na

rio

7

Ra

pid

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ma

yo


- - - -

CO

M

Dir

ect




sections

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief



defining the working zones using list of

inspection requests received.


required support.

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s



damage assessment

• Determination of the unsafe buildings

6 teams

2

persons/

crew

3

vehicl

es

3

3 Cell Phone

3 Walki

Talkie

Cameras

Usability

Forms

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Ensure access and exit for all emergency

services.

• Check streets for dangers and block the

roads using map in Fig.42

4 men 2 - Megaphone

2

Log

isti

cs


received from different departments. 4men - 4

4 cell

phones

79



80


COM


Resources

Men Vehic

les

Compu

ters

Communic

ation

Sce

na

rio

7

De

tail

ed

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

CO

M D

ire

cto



sections.

• Request for External resources

• Request sheltering plans for homeless

people.


1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief



defining the working zones using the



required support

• Check and approve the final assessment

report

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s

• Determination of the most damaged

zones.



damage assessment

20 teams

2

persons/

crew

8

vehicl

es

10

10 Cell

Phone

10 Walki

Talkie

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Secure, protect and preserve the scene,

and control traffic.

• Check street for dangers and block the

roads.

• Secure dangerous areas and assist

evacuation.

• Ensuring that the partly damaged houses

are vacant

8 men 4 - Megaphone

4

Log

isti

cs



16 cell

phones

81


7.3.8. Scenario 8


We represented acceleration ranges in circles its center is the epicenter and the radius is

increasing by 0.3 Kilometers. Then by using these acceleration values GIS software we have

drawn the seismic input map.



Like what we did in the last scenario, in this scenario we tried to find the effect of changing

the vulnerability data on the final building damages. Therefore, we increased the buildings

vulnerability by 30% from the initial values presented in the assessment report [25]. The

values used for buildings vulnerability for this scenario is presented in the map in Fig.45.

82


Figure 45 Buildings Vulnerability Values Map for Scenario no.8


After estimation of the buildings damages, it was possible to generalize the damage for each

section as shown in Fig.46 for the average damage. It is possible to see that the most damaged

sections are concentrated in the city historical center which includes many of the strategic

facilities.

83




Based on the average damage value for each section, we evaluated the status of the roads

going through those sections. The map in Fig.47 is showing the situation of roads in this

scenario.

84





85



Responsibilities

Resources


Sce

na

rio

8

Ra

pid

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ma

yo


- - - -

CO

M

Dir

ect




sections

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources


teams defining the working zones

using list of inspection requests

received.

• Coordinate with other departments

for required support.

1 - 1 Cell Phone

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s



damage assessment


buildings

4 teams

2

persons

/team

2 2

4 Cell Phone

4 Walki Talkie

Cameras

Usability Forms

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Ensure access and exit for all

emergency services.

• Check streets for dangers and block

the roads using map in Fig.47


Log

isti

cs



departments.

4men - 4 4 cell phones

86



87


Responsibilities

Resources


Sce

na

rio

8

De

tail

ed

Da

ma

ge

Ass

ess

me

nt

CO

M D

ire

cto



COM sections.


homeless people.


1 - 1 1

Cell Phone

Usa

bil

ity

Ass

ess

me

nt

Ch

ief


resources



zones using the priority map in

Fig.48



support


assessment report

1 - 1

1

Cell Phone

1

Walki Talkie

Insp

ect

ion

Te

am

s


damaged zones.




8 teams

2

persons

/team

4

vehicle 8

8 Cell Phone

8 Walki Talkie

Po

lice

an

d

Fir

efi

gh

tin

g

• Secure, protect and preserve the

scene, and control traffic.


block the roads.


assist evacuation.



6men 3 - 3

Megaphone

Log

isti

cs



departments.

8 men - 8 8

cell phones

88

88 Model Application for Salò

7.3.9. Comparing the Damage Scenarios

After we completed the eight seismic scenarios, we will try to figure out the comparison criteria

which we can use in the similarity function. Therefore, we developed many graphs between the

different scenarios for different comparison criterion and based on this we will decide the

suitable criterion for comparison.

In the chart shown in Fig.49 we plotted the average sections damage in the first 6 scenarios,

which has the same buildings vulnerability values, versus the sections. We noticed that for the

most of the sections, the trend of the damage change was similar when changing the epicenter

and the magnitude of the seismic input. Therefore we decided to consider peak ground

acceleration as a comparison criteria in our model.

Figure 49 Comparison chart for 6 Scenarios based on average section damage

In Fig.50, we plotted the average damage values for different magnitudes and epicenters. We can

notice that on average, the trend of damage is the same for the three scenarios.

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

Se

ctio

n A

ve

rag

e D

am

ag

e

Section

Scenario 1

Scenario2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

89


Figure 50 Damage Comparison Chart for 3 Scenarios

Another option for the comparison could be the buildings vulnerability as shown in the chart in

Fig.51. This chart is comparing between scenarios 6,7&8 when changing the vulnerability for the

same seismic inputs and we can see that the damage trend was almost the same for the three

scenarios. Another concern about vulnerability is that when it’s know we can easily estimate the

expected damage using the fragility curves.

Another important criteria in comparing the different scenarios, could be the need to compare

with the damage of strategic facilities. As we can see in the following table 6, the damage for

strategic buildings was consistent with what we found before for the sections average damage.

This means that we can consider a criteria for comparison depends on the damage percentage of

the strategic building.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

37 15 13 16 12 18 26 2 9 21 24 20 30 22 19 17 11 31 33 35 36 23 25 27 10 7 14 1 0

Scenario1 Scenario2

Scenario4 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Scenario1)

2 per. Mov. Avg. (Scenario2) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Scenario4)

90


Figure 51 Comparison of the Sections Damage when changing Vulnerability

Strategic

Facility

Damage Value for Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Carabinieri 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7

Traffic

Patrol 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5

Municipality 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7

Local Police 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9

Fire Station 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5

Hospital 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9

Table 4 Damage for Strategic Facilities in the 8 Scenarios

So we chosen the peak ground acceleration as a first input to the comparison criteria which

assists the decision maker just few minutes after the shake to choose the most similar scenario

among the recorded ones. Knowing the epicenter and the magnitude, will be used to calculate the

peak ground acceleration for each section. Further, we can use the peak ground acceleration for

the preliminary estimation of the sections damage based on the recorded data about sections

vulnerability. Sometime after the shake, some data are collected from site about the real damages

for some sections, this can be used to modify the data used before to reevaluate the similarity. By

using the reliability factor, we can modify the degree of accuracy for the data used by time when

receiving more accurate data about the actual situation.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

26 2 13 21 20 15 18 24 37 12 16 30 19 22 17 23 31 33 36 35 25 9 7 11 27 14 10 1 0

Se

ctio

n A

ve

rag

e D

am

ag

e

Section

Scenario 6

Scenario 7

Scenario 8

91


7.4. Application of the Model

First we need to define the model’s knowledge base which contains the data we estimated for the

eight scenarios. In the knowledge base we will record all the data regarding the earthquake

inputs; the magnitudes and coordinates of epicenter for each scenario. The resulting sections

damage, damage for roads, affected population, and the damage of strategic buildings.

Based on the comparison we presented in the previous section, we decided to choose two

comparison criterion. The first is the peak ground acceleration for sections ,and the second is the

average damage for sections. Then we defined the similarity functions using Matlab scripts to

apply the formulas for the similarity functions presented in Section 6 to compare between the

different scenarios (Refer to Appendix F ).

Figure 52 Data Input for the new Scenario

92


For any new scenario, it will be required to enter the data regarding the earthquake epicenter and

magnitude, and the coordinates of each zone. The program will calculate the peak ground

acceleration for each zone and then the corresponding damage. The user has the option either to

use calculated damage values by the model or to enter directly the data collected from site if

available.

Figure 53 Earthquake Inputs for the New Scenario

Then the similarity function will compare the new scenario with the recorded and displays the

recorded data for the most similar scenario.

93


Figure 54 Data Recorded for the Scenario no.1

In Fig.55 we can see the outputs of the model in case that the scenario no.1 is the most similar

scenario. We can show maps for buildings damage, number of inured or victims, people need

sheltering, and the response intervention priority for different sections.

94


Figure 55 Model Outputs: Number of Homeless people

95

95 Conclusions

8. Conclusions

Crisis management consists of three main stages that include: Crisis management before the crisis

takes place, Crisis management at the time of the crisis, Crisis management after the crisis.

Therefore, facing the emergency starts during the peacetime through preparedness and after the

crisis through learning from experience. This kind of models, which we proposed in our work,

supports the concept of being prepared through collecting and analyzing data about different items

involved in the crisis.

The model supports the concept of being prepared through coordinating between different partners

by sharing the lessons learnt from previous crises. Also through building different scenarios, they

prepare themselves for different emergencies and the suitable contingency plan for each

emergency. This allows the organization to plan for and provide the optimum resources that suits

the response for different emergencies. While preparing the model, we found the importance of

assessing the vulnerability for buildings, and different infrastructures in order to discover the

weaknesses, which need to be solved.

The model supports the decision making process in the first moments of emergency through giving

an image for the expected consequences. This reduces the number of uncertainties in the decision

making process. In addition, having an image about the expected consequences of the earthquake

reduces the time needed to decide the action plan for the different emergency teams.

After the crisis, it will support the learning by recording all the data collected during the emergency

in order to be used for the future events. This supports the organizational performance when facing

possible situations similar to those happened in the past and consequently increase the

organizational resilience.

The model can be improved by using real data from different crises in order to be more confident

about the retrieved data. This can be used to add independent comparison criterion to the similarity

function like collapse of a bridge. In addition, it can be used in emergency planning processes by

recording the corresponding contingency plan for different seismic scenario. During the crisis, it

will be possible to retrieve the contingency plan for a scenario similar to the occurring one.

96

96 References

9. References

[1] A.Boin, P.Lagadec(2000), Preparing for the Future: Critical Challenges in Crisis Management.

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 8,Number 4,November 2000.

[2] W.Perry,K.Lindell(2003), Preparedness for Emergency Response: Guidelines for the Emergency

Planning Process. Disasters,2003, 27(4): 336-350.

[3] S.Sherif, Y. (1991). Earthquake, Risk, Damage and Recovery. Reliability Engineering and System

Safety.

[4] Community-Scale Damage, Disruption, and Early Recovery in the 2010 Haiti Earthquake(2011).

Earthquake Spectra, Volume 27, No. S1, pages S431–S446, October 2011

[5] EERI Special Earthquake Report. Learning from Earthquakes, The March 11,2011, Great Japan

(Tohoku) Earthquake and Tsunami: Societal Dimensions. August 2011

[6] Marincioni F., Appiotti F., Ferretti M., Antinori C., Melonaro P., Pusceddu A., Rosi R.O., Perception

and Communication of Seismic Risk: The 6 April 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake Case Study, Earthquake

Spectra, Volume 28, No. 1, pages 159–183, February 2012.

[7] http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/1906/18april/

[8] Lecture notes of Prof. Scira Menoni

http://corsi.metid.polimi.it/col/groups/loadGruppo.jsp;jsessionid=E2F6F6423C4C944D768512D1445B

E8CD.tomcat1?cod_gruppo=089908_105793

[9] Comfort L.K.(1994),Risk and Resilience: Inter-organizational Learning Following the Northridge

Earthquake of January 17,1984

[10] Jones T. H.(1995). Implementing Integrated Emergency Management. Urban Hazard Project,

Research Paper No.2.

[11] McConnell A., Drennan L.(2006), Mission Impossible? Planning and Preparing for Crisis. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 14,Number 2,June 2006.

[12] Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.

[13] Ringland, G. (1998). Scenario planning: Managing for the future. New York: John Wiley.

[14] PI L- S IM_ SIMULATION OF SCENARIOS FOR THE LOMBARDIA-PIEMONTE MACRO-REGION

[15] Comfort L.K., Sungu Y., Johnson D., Dunn M.(2001) Complex Systems in Crisis: Anticipation and

Resilience in Dynamic Environments. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume

9,Number 3,September 2001.

[16] Sabetta F., Pugliese A. Attenuation of peak ground acceleration and velocity from Italian strong

motion record. Bulletin of Seismic Society of America, 77, 1987, p 1491-1513.

[17] Lagadec P.(1997),Learning Process for Crisis Management in Complex Organizations. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, Volume 5,Number 1,March 1997.

97

97 <

[18] Luzi L., Pergalani F. (1996) Application of statistical and GIS techniques to slope instability zonation

(1:50.000 Fabriano geological map sheet), Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier

Science, vol. 15, 2, pp 83-94

[19] Corsanego, A. and Gavarini C.(1993) Ten years of research into the Seismic Vulnerability of

Constructions in Italy, Annali Di Geiofisica, Vol. XXXVI, N.1, April 1993.

[20] S. Menoni, F. Pergalani, M.P. Boni, V. Petrini (2002).Lifelines earthquake vulnerability assessment: a

systemic approach, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering ,Volume 22, Issues 9–12, October–December 2002, Pages 1199–1208

[21] Quarantelli E.L. (2007).Problematical Aspects of the Computer Based Information Communication

Revolution with Respect to Disaster Planning and Crisis Managing. University of Delaware, Disaster

Research Center, Preliminary Paper No.35.

[22] Jain S., McLean C.(2003). A Framework for Modeling and Simulation For Emergency Response.

Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference.

[23] Mejri O., Plebani P., SocialEMIS: Improving Emergency Preparedness Through Collaboration(2012).

[24] Grimaz, S., Meroni, F., Petrini, V., Tomasoni, R., and Zonno, G., 1996. Il ruolo dei dati di

danneggiamento del terremoto del Friuli, nello studio di modelli di vulnerabilità sismica degli edifici in

muratura, Proceedings of the Conference on “La scienza e i terremoti-Analisi e prospettive

dall’esperienza del Friuli-1976/1996,” Udine, Italy, pp. 89–96.Fragility Curves

[25] “Determinazione del rischio sismico a fini urbanistici in Lombardia”, Regione Lombardia - C.N.R-

I.R.R.S., 1996.Vulnerability

[26] Petrini V., Boni M.P., Elaborazione di scenari sismici di danno in alcune aree sismiche della toscana,

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale - Politecnico di Milano, Maggio 2004 Victims

[27] S. Dimova, E. Mola, P. Negro, A.V. Pinto A. Colombo (2004). The Garda Area (Italy) Earthquake of

24 November 2004:A Field Report. Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen European

Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA)

[28] Pinto, A. V., Taucer, F. - Editors (2007): Field Manual for post-earthquake damage and safety

assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES). JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. EUR

22868 EN – 2007.

[29] Boni M.P., Menoni S., Pergalani F., Petrini V. Developing Complete Event Scenarios Starting From

Lifelines Damage Assessment. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

98

10. Appendices

Appendix A : FIRST LEVEL FORMFIRST LEVEL FORM

98 Appendices

99

99 Appendices

100

100 Appendices

Appendix B

Second Level Forms for Masonry Buildings

101

101 Appendices

Appendix C

Second Level Forms for R.C. Buildings

102

102 Appendices

Appendix D

Sections Damage Calculations for Different Scenarios

Scenario No.1

Section Min

damage

Average

Damage

Maximum

damage Victims Injured

Need for

sheltering

0 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.00 9.00 0.00

1 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 12.00 0.00

2 0.33 0.57 0.73 0.00 43.00 317.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.00 5.00 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.32 0.55 0.84 0.00 44.00 355.00

10 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.00 5.00 0.00

11 0.29 0.46 0.75 0.00 25.00 0.00

12 0.33 0.71 0.84 0.00 81.00 394.00

13 0.35 0.78 0.87 0.00 139.00 577.00

14 0.33 0.35 0.73 0.00 10.00 0.00

15 0.71 0.83 0.84 122.00 73.00 121.00

16 0.31 0.74 0.84 0.00 99.00 449.00

17 0.43 0.47 0.76 0.00 20.00 0.00

18 0.35 0.64 0.80 0.00 51.00 298.00

19 0.33 0.49 0.71 0.00 22.00 0.00

20 0.31 0.53 0.71 0.00 28.00 236.00

21 0.33 0.54 0.71 0.00 28.00 228.00

22 0.35 0.50 0.73 0.00 43.00 0.00

23 0.35 0.43 0.73 0.00 47.00 0.00

24 0.33 0.54 0.73 0.00 33.00 271.00

25 0.35 0.41 0.45 0.00 29.00 0.00

26 0.35 0.58 0.76 0.00 40.00 276.00

27 0.36 0.39 0.76 0.00 26.00 0.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.45 0.53 0.76 0.00 18.00 157.00

31 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 3.00 0.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 51.00 0.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 5.00 0.00

36 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 14.00 0.00

37 0.92 0.92 0.92 81.00 49.00 80.00

103

103 Appendices

Scenario No.2

Section Min damage Average

Damage

Maximum


Need for

sheltering

0 0.79 0.81 0.84 0.00 7.00 0.00

1 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.00 8.00 0.00

2 0.79 0.94 1.00 0.00 37.00 317.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.00 4.00 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.77 0.87 1.00 0.00 4.00 0.00

10 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.00 5.00 0.00

11 0.72 0.89 1.00 0.00 7.00 0.00

12 0.79 0.98 1.00 0.00 33.00 0.00

13 0.84 0.99 1.00 0.00 69.00 577.00

14 0.79 0.81 1.00 0.00 9.00 0.00

15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 22.00 0.00

16 0.77 0.99 1.00 0.00 31.00 0.00

17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 21.00 0.00

18 0.84 0.96 1.00 0.00 38.00 298.00

19 0.79 0.89 1.00 0.00 15.00 0.00

20 0.77 0.91 1.00 0.00 23.00 0.00

21 0.79 0.94 1.00 0.00 24.00 228.00

22 0.84 0.94 1.00 0.00 36.00 0.00

23 0.84 1.00 1.00 0.00 45.00 0.00

24 0.79 0.94 1.00 0.00 27.00 0.00

25 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.00 26.00 0.00

26 0.84 0.96 1.00 0.00 35.00 276.00

27 0.84 0.88 1.00 0.00 20.00 0.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 16.00 0.00

31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 48.00 0.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 0.00

36 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 12.00 0.00

37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 13.00 0.00

104

104 Appendices

Scenario No.3

Section Min

Damage

Average

Damage

Maximum


Need for

sheltering

0 0.33 0.33 0.33 216.00 130.00 215.00

1 0.33 0.33 0.33 243.00 146.00 242.00

2 0.31 0.53 0.67 159.00 96.00 158.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.38 0.38 0.38 51.00 31.00 50.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.27 0.32 0.67 178.00 107.00 177.00

10 0.38 0.38 0.38 52.00 31.00 51.00

11 0.25 0.34 0.59 155.00 93.00 154.00

12 0.33 0.46 0.67 197.00 119.00 197.00

13 0.33 0.54 0.71 289.00 174.00 288.00

14 0.31 0.35 0.71 173.00 104.00 173.00

15 0.46 0.48 0.67 122.00 73.00 121.00

16 0.29 0.44 0.63 225.00 135.00 224.00

17 0.43 0.48 0.74 115.00 69.00 114.00

18 0.35 0.55 0.74 149.00 90.00 149.00

19 0.29 0.44 0.63 108.00 65.00 108.00

20 0.29 0.49 0.63 118.00 71.00 118.00

21 0.31 0.51 0.67 114.00 69.00 114.00

22 0.31 0.47 0.71 214.00 129.00 214.00

23 0.35 0.43 0.74 349.00 210.00 349.00

24 0.31 0.50 0.67 136.00 82.00 135.00

25 0.33 0.40 0.45 262.00 157.00 261.00

26 0.33 0.55 0.71 138.00 83.00 138.00

27 0.33 0.37 0.71 292.00 176.00 292.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.43 0.50 0.71 79.00 48.00 78.00

31 0.45 0.45 0.45 15.00 9.00 14.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.43 0.44 0.45 331.00 199.00 331.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.40 0.41 0.43 33.00 20.00 33.00

36 0.43 0.43 0.43 88.00 53.00 88.00

37 0.46 0.46 0.46 81.00 49.00 80.00

105

105 Appendices

Scenario No.4

Section Min

damage

Average

Damage

Maximum


Need for

sheltering

0 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.00 1.00 0.00

1 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.29 0.49 0.65 0.00 30.00 0.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.00 6.00 0.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.37 0.43 0.62 0.00 24.00 0.00

10 0.39 0.40 0.42 0.00 6.00 0.00

11 0.29 0.38 0.62 0.00 13.00 0.00

12 0.30 0.45 0.65 0.00 30.00 0.00

13 0.30 0.49 0.65 0.00 56.00 0.00

14 0.29 0.32 0.65 0.00 4.00 0.00

15 0.45 0.47 0.65 0.00 21.00 0.00

16 0.29 0.45 0.62 0.00 33.00 0.00

17 0.33 0.37 0.62 0.00 9.00 0.00

18 0.29 0.49 0.65 0.00 29.00 0.00

19 0.29 0.43 0.65 0.00 14.00 0.00

20 0.29 0.48 0.62 0.00 22.00 0.00

21 0.29 0.47 0.62 0.00 20.00 0.00

22 0.29 0.41 0.62 0.00 24.00 0.00

23 0.29 0.35 0.62 0.00 17.00 0.00

24 0.29 0.46 0.62 0.00 23.00 0.00

25 0.27 0.31 0.35 0.00 4.00 0.00

26 0.27 0.47 0.62 0.00 24.00 0.00

27 0.27 0.30 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.28 0.36 0.59 0.00 5.00 0.00

31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00

36 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00

37 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 13.00 0.00

106

106 Appendices

Scenario No.5

Section Min

damage

Average

Damage

Maximum


Need for

sheltering

0 1.00 1.00 1.00 216.00 130.00 215.00

1 0.90 0.91 1.00 243.00 146.00 242.00

2 0.90 0.97 1.00 159.00 96.00 158.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 1.00 1.00 1.00 51.00 31.00 50.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 1.00 1.00 1.00 178.00 107.00 177.00

10 0.90 1.00 1.00 52.00 31.00 51.00

11 0.90 1.00 1.00 155.00 93.00 154.00

12 1.00 1.00 1.00 197.00 119.00 197.00

13 1.00 1.00 1.00 289.00 174.00 288.00

14 0.90 0.99 1.00 173.00 104.00 173.00

15 1.00 1.00 1.00 122.00 73.00 121.00

16 0.90 1.00 1.00 225.00 135.00 224.00

17 1.00 1.00 1.00 115.00 69.00 114.00

18 0.90 0.98 1.00 149.00 90.00 149.00

19 0.90 0.94 1.00 108.00 65.00 108.00

20 0.90 0.95 1.00 118.00 71.00 118.00

21 0.90 0.97 1.00 114.00 69.00 114.00

22 0.90 0.96 1.00 214.00 129.00 214.00

23 0.90 1.00 1.00 349.00 210.00 349.00

24 0.89 0.96 1.00 136.00 82.00 135.00

25 0.86 0.95 1.00 262.00 157.00 261.00

26 0.86 0.96 1.00 138.00 83.00 138.00

27 0.86 0.89 1.00 292.00 176.00 292.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.88 0.93 1.00 79.00 48.00 78.00

31 0.93 0.93 0.93 15.00 9.00 14.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.93 0.93 0.93 331.00 199.00 331.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.88 0.88 0.88 33.00 20.00 33.00

36 0.88 0.88 0.88 88.00 53.00 88.00

37 1.00 1.00 1.00 81.00 49.00 80.00

107

107 Appendices

Scenario No.6

Section min damage Average

Damage

Maximum

damage Victims Injured Need for sheltering

0 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.00 54.00 431.00

1 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 61.00 485.00

2 0.55 0.82 1.00 159.00 96.00 158.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00 16.00 101.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.53 0.63 1.00 0.00 59.00 355.00

10 0.52 0.56 0.62 0.00 14.00 103.00

11 0.43 0.61 0.89 0.00 49.00 309.00

12 0.55 0.78 1.00 0.00 94.00 394.00

13 0.54 0.82 1.00 289.00 174.00 288.00

14 0.54 0.57 1.00 0.00 47.00 346.00

15 0.77 0.81 1.00 122.00 73.00 121.00

16 0.43 0.75 1.00 0.00 101.00 449.00

17 0.66 0.70 1.00 0.00 46.00 229.00

18 0.54 0.81 1.00 149.00 90.00 149.00

19 0.54 0.73 1.00 0.00 47.00 216.00

20 0.54 0.81 1.00 118.00 71.00 118.00

21 0.55 0.81 1.00 114.00 69.00 114.00

22 0.55 0.73 1.00 0.00 92.00 428.00

23 0.55 0.67 1.00 0.00 128.00 698.00

24 0.55 0.80 1.00 0.00 68.00 271.00

25 0.56 0.64 0.67 0.00 89.00 523.00

26 0.56 0.84 1.00 138.00 83.00 138.00

27 0.56 0.60 1.00 0.00 89.00 584.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.64 0.75 1.00 0.00 36.00 157.00

31 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.00 6.00 29.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.00 119.00 662.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.00 12.00 66.00

36 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.00 31.00 176.00

37 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.00 40.00 161.00

108

108 Appendices

Scenario No.7


Damage

Maximum


0 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.00 48.00 431.00

1 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.00 55.00 485.00

2 0.52 0.72 0.86 0.00 68.00 317.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.00 13.00 101.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.47 0.54 0.86 0.00 43.00 355.00

10 0.46 0.50 0.55 0.00 11.00 103.00

11 0.41 0.55 0.68 0.00 39.00 309.00

12 0.52 0.67 0.86 0.00 73.00 394.00

13 0.51 0.70 0.86 0.00 115.00 577.00

14 0.51 0.54 0.86 0.00 41.00 346.00

15 0.66 0.69 0.86 0.00 48.00 243.00

16 0.41 0.64 0.84 0.00 76.00 449.00

17 0.59 0.62 0.86 0.00 37.00 229.00

18 0.51 0.70 0.86 0.00 60.00 298.00

19 0.51 0.65 0.86 0.00 39.00 216.00

20 0.51 0.71 0.84 0.00 49.00 236.00

21 0.52 0.71 0.86 0.00 47.00 228.00

22 0.52 0.65 0.88 0.00 76.00 428.00

23 0.52 0.60 0.86 0.00 104.00 698.00

24 0.52 0.70 0.86 0.00 55.00 271.00

25 0.53 0.58 0.60 0.00 74.00 523.00

26 0.53 0.74 0.88 0.00 62.00 276.00

27 0.53 0.56 0.88 0.00 77.00 584.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.58 0.67 0.88 0.00 29.00 157.00

31 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.00 5.00 29.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.00 97.00 662.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 10.00 66.00

36 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.00 25.00 176.00

37 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.00 30.00 161.00

109

109 Appendices

Scenario No.8


Damage

Maximum


0 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.00 61.00 431.00

1 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 69.00 485.00

2 0.58 0.85 1.00 159.00 96.00 158.00

3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00 16.00 101.00

8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 0.59 0.72 1.00 0.00 75.00 355.00

10 0.58 0.63 0.69 0.00 17.00 103.00

11 0.46 0.69 1.00 0.00 61.00 309.00

12 0.58 0.88 1.00 197.00 119.00 197.00

13 0.57 0.91 1.00 289.00 174.00 288.00

14 0.57 0.60 1.00 0.00 52.00 346.00

15 0.91 0.93 1.00 122.00 73.00 121.00

16 0.46 0.87 1.00 225.00 135.00 224.00

17 0.73 0.76 1.00 0.00 54.00 229.00

18 0.57 0.85 1.00 149.00 90.00 149.00

19 0.57 0.76 1.00 0.00 50.00 216.00

20 0.57 0.82 1.00 118.00 71.00 118.00

21 0.58 0.85 1.00 114.00 69.00 114.00

22 0.58 0.77 1.00 0.00 101.00 428.00

23 0.58 0.74 1.00 0.00 154.00 698.00

24 0.58 0.84 1.00 136.00 82.00 135.00

25 0.59 0.70 0.75 0.00 105.00 523.00

26 0.59 0.87 1.00 138.00 83.00 138.00

27 0.59 0.64 1.00 0.00 100.00 584.00

28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 0.72 0.80 1.00 79.00 48.00 78.00

31 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.00 7.00 29.00

32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.00 144.00 662.00

34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.00 14.00 66.00

36 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.00 38.00 176.00

37 0.92 0.92 0.92 81.00 49.00 80.00

110

110 Appendices

Appendix E: Data for First Scenario

%%First Scenario function [acc1,D1,ne1]=First % insert magnitude of the First scenario M = 4.60; %%Epicenter coordinates of the First scenario scenarioXY=[1616945.315 5048374.887]; %%Read Coordinates of Sections seccordXY=xlsread('First.xlsx','Damage','R2:S39'); %%No. of sections [ne1]=length(seccordXY); %%No. of Population Pop1 =xlsread('First.xlsx','Damage','H2:H39'); RF=ones(ne1,1); %% Reliability Factor I=ones(ne1,1); %% Importance Factor

%%Calculation of the Peak Ground Acceleration for Sections%% for i = 1:ne1 R(i,1) = sqrt(abs((scenarioXY(1)-seccordXY(i,1))^2+(scenarioXY(2)-

seccordXY(i,2))^2)); end Rf = R/1000;

%%Constants for Attenuation Law%% a = -1.845; b = 0.363; c = -1; sigma = 0.19; h = 5; for i = 1:ne1 Y(i,1) = 10^(a + b*M + c*log10(Rf(i,1)^2+h^2)^1/2+ sigma); end acc1=Y*9.80; avgacc=mean(acc1);

%%Calculation of Sections Damage%% D1 = RF.*I.*xlsread('First.xlsx','Damage','G2:G39'); avgDam=mean(D1);

%% Damage of Strategic Facilities DamCritical1 = [0.5;0.3;0.5;0.5;0.3;0.5];

%%Effect on Popluation%% Victims1=xlsread('First.xlsx','Damage','I2:I39'); Injured1 =xlsread('First.xlsx','Damage','J2:J39'); Sheltering = xlsread('First.xlsx','Damage','K2:K39');

%%%% Response SecPr=[xlsread('First.xlsx','Response','A2:A39'),xlsread('First.xlsx','Response',

'C2:C39')];%% Section Response Priority RnkPr=sortrows(SecPr,2);

im= imread('C:\Users\Mohamed\Dropbox\Thesis\22-7-

2012\salo_1901\salo_1901_4.6\sec_homeless.jpg'); im1= imread('C:\Users\Mohamed\Dropbox\Thesis\22-7-

2012\salo_1901\salo_1901_4.6\sec_Priorities.jpg'); imshow(im1)

111

111 Appendices

Appendix F: Similarity Function

clear all close all clc Ns=8; %% Number of Recorded Scenarios %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % INPUT: acceleration values for each recorded scenario % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% [acc,D,ne]=New; [acc1,D1,ne1]=First; [acc2,D2,ne2]=Second; [acc3,D3,ne3]=Third; [acc4,D4,ne4]=Fourth; [acc5,D5,ne5]=Fifth; [acc6,D6,ne6]=Sixth; [acc7,D7,ne7]=Seventh; [acc8,D8,ne8]=Eigth; acce=[acc1,acc2,acc3,acc4,acc5,acc6,acc7,acc8]; Dmg=[D1,D2,D3,D4,D5,D6,D7,D8]; Nsect=[ne1,ne2,ne3,ne4,ne5,ne6,ne7,ne8];

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Setting up the solving system % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%comparison Criteria cc chooses either to compare for Pga or average %%damage %% cc= 1 Comparison criteria using peak ground Acceleration %% cc=2 Comparison Criteria using Damage for Sections cc=1; for j=1:Ns if ne==Nsect(j) % First approach fsimacc1=zeros(size(Ns),2); fsimDmg1=zeros(size(Ns),2); for i=1:Ns fsimacc1(i,1)=(mean(abs(acc-acce(:,i)))); fsimacc1(i,2)=i; end for i=1:Ns fsimDmg1(i,1)=(mean(abs(D-Dmg(:,i)))); fsimDmg1(i,2)=i; end [RKacc1]=sortrows(fsimacc1,1); [RKDmg1]=sortrows(fsimDmg1,1);

else fsimacc2=zeros(Ns,2); fsimDmg2=zeros(Ns,2); for i=1:Ns fsimacc2(i,1)=abs(mean(acc)-mean(acce(:,i))); fsimacc2(i,2)=i; end [RKacc2]=sortrows(fsimacc2,1); for i=1:Ns fsimDmg2(i,1)=abs(mean(D)-mean(Dmg(:,i))); fsimDmg2(i,2)=i; end [RKDmg2]=sortrows(fsimDmg2,1); end end

112

112 Appendices

if ne==Nsect(j) if cc==1 Rnk=RKacc1(1,2); disp(sprintf('The Similar Scenario is no %d',Rnk)) else Rnk=RKDmg1(1,2); disp(sprintf('The Similar Scenario is no %d',Rnk)) end else if cc==1 Rnk=RKacc2(1,2); disp(sprintf('The Similar Scenario is no %d',Rnk)) else Rnk=RKDmg2(1,2); disp(sprintf('The Similar Scenario is no %d',Rnk)) end end

if Rnk==1 run('First') else if Rnk==2 run('Second'); else if Rnk==3 run('Third') else if Rnk==4 run('Fourth') else if Rnk==5 run('Fifth') else if Rnk==6 run('Sixth') else if Rnk==7 run('Seventh') else run('Eigth') end end end end end end end

113

113 Appendices

Appendix G: Data for New Scenario

function [acc,D,ne]=New %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % INPUT: Data for the New Occuring Scenario % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%%Earthquake Magnitude of the new scenario M =xlsread('Input.xlsx','EQ','D1');

%Epicenter coordinates of the new scenario scenarioXY=xlsread('Input.xlsx','EQ','D3:E3');

%%Coordinates of Sections in New Scenario seccordXY= xlsread('Input.xlsx','C2:D39');

%No. of sections ne=length(seccordXY);

%% Reliability and Importance Factor RF=xlsread('Input.xlsx','F2:F39'); I=xlsread('Input.xlsx','G2:G39');

%%Calculation of Peak Ground Acceleration for the New Scenarios for i = 1:ne R(i,1)=sqrt(abs((scenarioXY(1)-seccordXY(i,1))^2+(scenarioXY(2)-

seccordXY(i,2))^2)); end Rf = R/1000;

%%Constants for Attenuation Law a = -1.845; b = 0.363; c = -1; sigma = 0.19; h = 5; for i = 1:ne Y(i,1) = 10^(a + b*M + c*log10(Rf(i,1)^2+h^2)^1/2+ sigma); end acc = Y*9.80; avgacc = mean(acc);

%%% Computation of the Damage

%% option =1 for Collected Data %% option =2 for Calculated Data option=1;

if option==1 D=RF.*I.*xlsread('Input.xlsx','E2:E39'); else

%%Constants for Fragility Curves alpha = 0.08; beta = 0.01304; alphac =1.53710; betac = 0.00097; gama = 1.80870; VI=xlsread('Input.xlsx','B2:B39');%%Vulnerability Index for Sections 1:ne

114

114 Appendices

for i = 1:ne u(i,1) = VI(i,1)+25; end for i = 1:ne Yi(i,1) = alpha*exp(-beta*u(i,1)); end

for i = 1:ne Yc(i,1) = (alphac*exp(-betac*(u(i,1))^gama))^-1; end

for i = 1:ne if Y(i,1)<=Yi(i,1) D(i,1) = 0; elseif Y(i,1)>=Yc(i,1) D(i,1) = 1; else Yi(i,1)<Y(i,1)<Yc(i,1) D(i,:) = RF(i)*I(i)*(Y(i,1)-Yi(i,1))/(Yc(i,1)-Yi(i,1)); end end Damage =D(i,:); end

A Similarity Model for Earthquake Scenarios Comparison

Documents

Transcript of A Similarity Model for Earthquake Scenarios Comparison