seismic risk scenarios for an efficient seismic risk ... · seismic risk scenarios for an efficient...

K. Pitilakis K. Pitilakis

M. M. AlexoudiAlexoudi, S. Argyroudis,, S. Argyroudis, A. AnastasiadisA. Anastasiadis

SEISMIC RISK SCENARIOS FOR AN EFFICIENT SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT:SEISMIC RISK SCENARIOS FOR AN EFFICIENT SEISMIC RISK MANAGEMENT:

THE CASE OF THESSALONIKI (GREECE)THE CASE OF THESSALONIKI (GREECE)

Aristotle University of ThessalonikiAristotle University of Thessaloniki

Dept. of Civil EngineeringDept. of Civil Engineering

Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, Foundations Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, Foundations

& Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering& Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

ADVANCES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERINGADVANCES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING FORFOR URBAN RISK REDUCTIONURBAN RISK REDUCTION

ISTANBUL ISTANBUL –– TURKEYTURKEY, , 30 MAY 30 MAY –– 1 JUNE 20051 JUNE 2005

RISKRISK--UE PROJECTUE PROJECT

DURATION:DURATION: 44 44 monthsmonths

1515thth JanuaryJanuary 2001 2001 -- 3131st st Sept. 2004 Sept. 2004

TOTAL BUDGETTOTAL BUDGET: : 2,5 M2,5 M€€

Contribution Contribution fromfrom EC: 1,625 MEC: 1,625 M€€

MANMAN--MONTHSMONTHS: : 900900

10 10 INSTITUTIONS + INSTITUTIONS + 7 7 CITIESCITIES

AN ADVANCED APPROACH TO EARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOS WITH APPLICATIONS TO DIFFERENT EUROPEAN TOWNS

AUTH

Generalitat de CatalunyaInstitut cartografic de Catalunya

IZIIS-Skopje

INVENTORY

VULNERABILITY Fragility Curves

Ground shaking Site effects for

d ifferent scenarios

SEISMIC HAZARD Seismicity, Seismic-

Source models-Scenarios

GLOBAL VALUE of L ifeline E lements

RESTORATION POLICY MITIGATION STRATEGY

Structural characteristics

Population, land use, social, functional, economic,

industrial and other criteria

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS (Damaged System)

MICROZONATION Local site effects -W ave propagation -Landslide hazard -Liquefaction -Fault rupture

Parameters of Strong Ground Motion shaking and induced phenomena for the

vulnerability analyses NETWORK ANALYSIS

(Undamaged System)

TYPOLOGY of Life line Elements

and Networks

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT- Damages Intensities and Distribu tion

LOSSES (Human, material, immaterial)

ECONOMIC IMPACT (Direct, Indirect)

INTERACTIONS

Flow-chart of the RISK UE methodology(with emphasis to lifelines)

Application to Thessaloniki

• Distinctive features of Thessaloniki

• Earthquake hazard assessment

- Geology, Tectonics, Seismicity, Geotechnical zonation

- Seismic hazard (deterministic, probabilistic)

- Site specific response analysis

- Microzonation study

• Urban system exposure (classification of elements at risk through a global

value analysis)

• Vulnerability analysis of:

- common buildings

- monuments

- lifeline elements (road, port, gas, water, waste water, telecommunication)

• Seismic risk scenarios (economic losses, debris, casualties)

The City of ThessalonikiThe City of Thessaloniki

ADVANCES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING FOR URBAN RISK REDUCTION ADVANCES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING FOR URBAN RISK REDUCTION

ISTANBUL ISTANBUL –– TURKEY, 30 MAY TURKEY, 30 MAY –– 1 JUNE 20051 JUNE 2005

THESSALONIKI

Location: crossroad between

Asia, Africa and Europe

Second city in population in Greece

(1.048.151 people)

Area of the city: 13130Ha (1991),

Density: 216 people/Ha

History: 2400years

Important: Industrial, Commercial,

Administrative Education, Research and

Denvelopment Centre

Touristic activity

Active scientific community

RESTORATIONRESTORATIONRESTORATION---MITIGATIONMITIGATIONMITIGATIONEARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOSEARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOSEARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOSVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS & LIFELINESVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS & LIFELINESVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS & LIFELINES

URBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTTHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKI

History

• Hellénistique (Macedonian) period (315-168 BC)

• Roman period (till 325 AC)

• Byzantine period (till 1430 AC)

• Othoman period (till 1912)

• Modern period, after 1912



Hellenistic ages

Roman ages

Byzantine ages

1430-1917

1922-1940

Expansion of the urban area 135000

157889

174350

251254

260000

278145

297164

350000

380648

557072 7

06180

786550

749048

0,0E+00

1,0E+05

2,0E+05

3,0E+05

4,0E+05

5,0E+05

6,0E+05

7,0E+05

8,0E+05

9,0E+05

1904

1913

1920

1928

1935

1940

1951

1958

1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

Years

Population

Population growth of

Thessaloniki



Latest major earthquake (1978)

Epicenter: 25 km NE

Focal depth: 8 km,

Magnitude: M=6.5, PGA= 0.15g

Predominant period: 0.45 sec

Social and economical results:

37 deaths

One collapse and few partial collapses and

extended damage to buildings

Calculated cost: >250 million $



Earthquake Hazard Assessment

ADVANCES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING FOR URBAN RISK REDUCTION ISTANBUL – TURKEY, 30 MAY – 1 JUNE 2005

Geology Seismogenic features


URBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTTHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKI EARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Geotechnical zonation of the Thessaloniki urban area (Anastasiadis et al., 2001)



Geotechnical Data



Synthesis of all available geotechnical data

9 main soil formations

Main RoadByzantine City Walls

0 1000 2000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Thickness of artificial fills


0 1000 2000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Thickness of loose sandy-silts with organics


0 1000 2000

0 10 20 30 40 50

‘upper surface’ of very stiff to hard clays

probabilistic scenarios

Fault A

PGA (g)

Fault B

PGA (g)



PGA (g)

Assiros,1903

deterministic

scenarios

SSZ case

PGA (g)

Grid spacing:

500 x 500 m

250 x 250 m

→→ 393393 pointspoints

→→ 203 points203 points

Area for the

performance of the 1D

analysis

Site Specific Response Analysis



0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

PHGA (g)

Ring R

oad

Thessaloniki's Gulf

0m 1000m 2000m

Mean PHGA (g)

Site Specific Response Analysis (475 years)



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

PGV (m/s)

Thessaloniki's Gulf

Ring R

oad

0m 1000m 2000m

Mean PGV



T=0.0 sec T=0.3 sec T=0.6 sec

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8

T=1.0 sec T=2.0 sec

Spectral Amplifications

Comparison: 1D vs. Seismic Hazard Assessment

H19: ‘rock-like’

I20: ‘stiff to very stiff’

K22: ‘loose to soft’

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Period (sec)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

PS

A/

PH

GA

averageaverage±stdev

EC8 (C)DeterministicProbabilistic

K22

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Period (sec)

0

1

2

3

4

5

PS

A/

PH

GA


EC8 (B)Deterministic

Probabilistc

I20

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Period (sec)

0

1

2

3

4

5

PS

A/

PH

GA


EC8 (A)DeterministicProbabilistic

H19



W

C

E 1-E

2-E

3-E4-E

1-C

2-C3-C

1-W

2-W

3-W

4-W

R*

2-E

4-E

KAL? ??

1-C

3-W

1-W

Seismic zonation of Thessaloniki based on 1D theoretical analyses

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

T(sec)

0

1

2

3

4

Sa / PHGA

1W

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

T(sec)

0

1

2

3

4

Sa / PHGA

4W

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

T(sec)

0

1

2

3

4

Sa / PHGA

3E

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

T (sec)

0

1

2

3

4

Sa / PHGA

3C



Liquefaction Risk

Assessment of possibility for liquefaction in 37 locations

Estimation of Permanent Ground Displacement



Urban System Exposure



Development of a global value analysis system in urban areas


URBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTTHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKI URBAN SYSTEM EXPOSURE

Periods:

- Normal

- Crisis

- Restoration

Definition of appropriate criteria/ indicators for each element at risk

ELEMENTS at RISK

LINESLINES

Transportation - Water – Telecommunication – Gas – Waste Water Networks

Utility Buildings

Educational units

HotelsFree Zones

Entertainment (Cinemas, Theatres)

Emergency equipment (Police, Fire Station)

Health facilities (Clinics, Hospitals)

Administrative (Consulates, Ministries, Services)Residential Zone

Trade Zone

Building Stock

Cultural (Archeological Sites, Churches, Cultural Centers, Landmarks, Museums)

Urban UnitsUrban Units

POINTSPOINTSPOLYGONSPOLYGONS



Port

Residential and Mixed Residential andSmall industry

Tertiary Sector and Trade

Residential and Small industry

Tertiary sector

University

Residential, Trade & Tertiary sector

Residential & Trade

Residential

Land UseStudy Area: 20 Homogeneous Units



Normal

Global Values

Element at risk:Element at risk: Residential zoneResidential zone

�

�

�

NN

-

-

�

CC

Influence Scale

Housing Area Density (sq.m/Ha)

Inhabitants /Ha

Measuring UnitsMeasuring Units

�RadianceIdentity

�HousingFunctions

Residents

IndicatorIndicator

-

RR

Population

ComponentComponent

Crisis

Recovery



Global Values

HOSPITALS- GLOBAL VALUE

NORMAL& RECOVERY PERIOD

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

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

Main

Important

Second.



��Total Number of

patients/ yearPatients

�

�

�

�

R

-

-

�

�

C

Influence Scale

Built sq. meters

Number of beds

Total number of workers

Measuring Unit

�Radiance

�Building

�Social

�Workers

NIndicator

Element at risk:Element at risk: HospitalsHospitals

Vulnerability of Buildings




URBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREURBAN SYSTEM EXPOSUREEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTEARTHQUAKE HAZARD ASSESSMENTTHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKITHE CITY OF THESSALONIKI

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS & LIFELINES& LIFELINES& LIFELINES

Methodology for building damage assessment

§ Fragility curves for all building types were developed using a

combination of analysis and statistical data, the so-called ‘hybrid’

approach (Kappos et al. 1998, 2001).

§ 6 damage states (DS0 to DS5) were used in order to better suit the needs

of the risk scenario

Typical fragility curves for R/C buildings

Medium frame infilled EAK

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

PGA (g)

P[d

s>

=d

si|

PG

A]

DS1

DS2

DS3

DS4

DS5

Typical fragility curves for URM buildings

2nd Level vulnerability curves for 2storey Brick

URM Buildings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

pga

P(D

>D

S/I) 1

2

3

4

5




Scenario for current buildings

475 years mean return period

Number of buildings suffering damage states DS0 to DS5 in each

building block for the earthquake scenario

-

0 1.500750

Meters

Damage Distribution

DS0

DS1

DS2

DS3

DS4

DS5

Damage

State

Number of

buildings

Percentage

(%)

DS0 654 3.41%

DS1 6813 35.53%

DS2 6430 33.52%

DS3 3002 15.65%

DS4 1201 6.26%

DS5 1079 5.63%




Predicted tagging of buildings

• Green: DS0 & DS1

• Yellow: DS2 & DS3

• Red: DS4 & DS5

Total number of buildings in

each damage label

-

0 1.500750

Meters

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

Damage

Label

Number of

buildings

Percentage

(%)

Green 7467 38.93%

Yellow 9432 49.18%

Red 2280 11.89%

Vulnerability of Lifelines

ROADWAY

PORT

GAS

POTABLE WATER

WASTE WATER

TELECOMMUNICATION





VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS &BUILDINGS &BUILDINGS & LIFELINES

• Collection of inventory data

difficult and complex task, old networks, unknown data

• Definition of typology for each lifeline component

material, geometry, code level, structural type etc.

Spans Column bent type Span continuity Design

Conventional (<1986) Single span -

Seismic (>=1986)

Conventional Simple support

Seismic

Single column

Continuous Seismic

Conventional Simple support

Seismic

Multiple spans

Multiple column

Continuous Seismic

Common bridge types in Thessaloniki

• Development of fragility curves

- Using existing empirical/analytical models (HAZUS’99, ALA 2002, other)

- Validation of different vulnerability relationships in some cases (e.g. Lefkas 2003)

- Developing of new curves (e.g. metro tunnels)




Example of empirical vulnerability relationships for pipes

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100PGV (cm/sec)

R.R

/km

O’ Rourke & Ayala (1993)

Eidinger (1998)

Eidinger & Avila (1999)

Isoyama (1998)

ALA (2001)

Repair Ratio/km ~ Ground VelocityRepair Ratio/km ~ Ground Velocity PGV (cm/s)PGV (cm/s)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0 20 40 60 80 100PGD (cm)

R.R

/km

Honegger & Eguchi (1992)

Eidinger, Avila (1999)

ALA (2001)

Repair Ratio/km ~ Permanent Ground Displacement PGD (cm)

Analytical vulnerability curves for shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits

(Transversal direction)

- Typical metro tunnel configuration

- Typical soil profiles and input seismic motions

- Computation of seismic ground deformations (1D linear equivalent response analysis)




-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25acc (

g)

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

ac

c (

g)

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 10 20 30 40 50acc (g)

0 10 20 30 40

0,00

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

PGA (g)

sh

ea

r str

ain

(%

)

Umbro

Kozani

Palm Springs

Sturno

Mont_T

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40PGA (g)

P (

DS

>d

s|P

GA

)

Hazus minor

Hazus moderate

ALA minor

ALA moderate

This study-minor

This study-moderate

This study-extensive

- Definition of damage states

- Derivation of fragility curves (+uncertainties)

Analytical vs. empirical curves




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40PGA (g)

P (

DS

>ds|P

GA

)

Hazus minor

Hazus moderate

ALA minor

ALA moderate

This study*-minor

This study*-moderate

This study*-extensive

This study-minor

This study-moderate

This study-extensive

80%Mrd

Element at risk: Roads

CLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATION

1.0 0.5 0.3

Classification

1.0 0.5 0.2

1.0 0.5

Values

0.3

0.5

Secondary Collector

1.0

Secondary arterial Primary Collector

Measure Units

Major Important Low

Symbolic Weight

Major issue Important Secondary

Access to Residential and Commercial land use areas

Hospital, Police/Fire Station, Command Centers

Access to critical facilities

Road Class Freeway Major arterial




INVENTORY:

- Location

- Category

- Material

- Column bent type

- Span continuity

- # spans

- Skewness

- Max span length

- Total length

BRIDGES

CLASSIFICATION

üüüü-üüüüRoleIdentity

üüüü

üüüü

R

-

üüüü

C

üüüü

üüüü

N

#Spans

Road Class

On Under

Indicator

Function

Urban Space

Component




Vulnerability of bridges due to PSA (1.0s) – application of Hazus99 model

Vulnerability of roads due to PGD




Scenario: 475 years mean return period

PORTPORT

Size of area:Size of area: 1,500,000 m1,500,000 m22

Trade cargo:Trade cargo: 15,000,000 tons 15,000,000 tons

Capacity:Capacity: 200,000 containers200,000 containers

6 piers with 6,200m length 6 piers with 6,200m length

Cranes (Normal period)

Classification of importance

--

��

��

��

RR

--

--

--

--

CC

��

��

��

��

N N

High

Moderate

Low

Frequency of use

yes (>=10t)

no (<10t)

Container handling capability

>=12

>=10

<10

Location-Quay’s depth

(m)

>=40

>=15

<15

Lifting Capacity (t)

DescriptionDescriptionIndicatorIndicator

ELEMENTS at RISK (classification/vulnerability)

- Waterfront structures

- Cranes

- Railway, Roads

- Electric power

- Water, Waste-water system




Vulnerability of cranes based on PGA

Vulnerability of railway tracks based on PGD




normal

crisis

GAS SYSTEM: Classification

Pipes: function, emergency, radiance

M/R stations: function, emergency, alternative solution, radiance




GAS SYSTEM: Vulnerability

18Total

130.189PGD

50.069PGV

RepairsRR/km

Isoyama, 1998 & ALA, 2001Cause

PGV (m/sec)

DAMAGE STATE




Scenario: 475 years mean return period

WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

Connections in urban area:Connections in urban area: 420.000 420.000

Served population:Served population: 1.000.000people. 1.000.000people.

Size of served area:Size of served area: 55km55km22

Water consumption:Water consumption: 250.000m250.000m33

DIGITIZED NETWORKDIGITIZED NETWORK

1351.1km 1351.1km

42.5% of pipes have unknown diameter 42.5% of pipes have unknown diameter

>40% Unknown material>40% Unknown material

573.8

271.3

374.1

39.0

92.9

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0

Unknown

<100

<300

<500

>=500

Diameters (in km)




Pipe (ID1000)Pipe (ID1000)

200mmDiameter

PVCMaterial

120mLength

RectangularType

Tank Vlatadon

1977Year of construction

R/CRoof style

R/CMaterial

700m3Capacity

INVENTORY Urban importance of water system. Scenario: Residential use. Period: Crisis

Legend




VULNERABILITY OF WATER PIPES

7269141Total

5815730.054PGD

1454680.051PGV

BreaksLeaks

Number of repairs

RR/kmALA, 2001

2,000 0 2,0001,000 Km

in water system

Legend

Sea

ring road

FLEAKBREAK

break

leak

no-damage

No damage

Leak

Break




h

W

Wd

L

H

h

W

Wd

L

H

h

W

Wd

L

H

Estimation of road functionality due to building debris




-

0 1.500750

Meters

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

Building damages

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

W debris (m)

N (

Nb

of

sto

rey

s)

Model A,k=0.3, m=1.0

Model A,k=0.5, m=1.0

Model A, k=0.3, m=1.5

Model A, k=0.5, m=1.5

Model B, k=0.3, m=1.5

Model B, k=0.5, m=1.5

Model B, k=0.3, m=1.0

Model B, k=0.5, m=1.0

Model C, k=0.3, m=1.0

Model C, k=0.5, m=1.0

Model C, k=0.3, m=1.5

Model C, k=0.5, m=1.5

AVERAGEN = 0,06Wd2+0,35Wd

Simplified relation

Debris width- building height

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM: Classification

Central Offices: equipment, function, communication

capability, intervention and radiance

Cables: function, emergency, radiance

Normal period

Crisis period




Earthquake Risk Scenario



-

0 1.500750

Meters

DEATHS-12.00h

0

0 - 2

2 - 4

4 - 6319234

Light injury not necessitating hospitalization

371261Injury requiring hospital treatment

310216Life threatening cases needing immediate medical attention

360246Dead or unsavable

24:0012:00Time of earthquake

• The estimated casualties corresponds to

284 building collapses.

• Past experience from earthquakes in

Greece reveals lower death rate.

• Uncertainties: seismic hazard assessment,

methods for vulnerability analysis, casualty

model, etc.



EARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOS

Estimation of casualties

(Coburn & Spence, 2002)

-

0 1.500750

Meters

Debris-Concrete/Steel

0 - 1500 (tons)

1501 - 3000

3001 - 6000

6001 - 10500

10501 - 20500

426.8831.332.670

Brick, wood and other

Reinforced Concrete and

Steel

Debris (tons)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

RC

4.1L

LR

C4.

1ML

RC

4.1H

LR

C4.

2LL

RC

4.2M

LR

C4.

2HL

RC

3.1L

LR

C3.

1ML

RC

3.1H

LR

C3.

2LL

RC

4.1L

HR

C4.

1MH

RC

4.1H

HR

C4.

2LH

RC

4.2M

HR

C4.

2HH

M1L

M1M M3L

M3M

Building Type

De

bri

s (

ton

ne

s)

Concrete/Steel

Brick/Wood

The predicted quantity seems to be

overestimated. (empirical data from USA)



EARTHQUAKE RISK SCENARIOS

Restoration

3rd day



RESTORATION-MITIGATION

TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM

Vulnerability

Retrofitting Priorities

based on the classification of

importance (global value analysis)

and the vulnerability analysis

3rd priority

3rd priority

2nd priority

Leaks

2nd priority

1st priority

1st priority

Breaks

SecondaryImportantMain

IssuesUrban/ Seismic Risk







1 day after the event3 days after the event6 days after the event Restoration process of water system

CONCLUSIONS:

• RISK-UE methodology offers a valuable framework for development of

seismic risk scenarios

• importance of Site Specific Studies in seismic risk scenarios

• request for inventory data for buildings and lifelines

• development of fragility curves for buildings and lifeline components

based on the European distinctive features (European typologies)

• the organization of mitigation policies is a political and economic

decision





after Tokyo, Lisbon and Berkeley (2004) the next

4th International Conference

in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

will be hosted by Aristotle University in Thessaloniki

(end of June 2007)

You are kindly invited to contribute…

Thank you





seismic risk scenarios for an efficient seismic risk ... · seismic risk scenarios for an efficient...

Documents