UNIVERSITÉ DE GRENOBLE

UFR PHYSIQUE, INGÉNIERIE, TERRE, ENVIRONNEMENT,

MÉCANIQUE

Seismic risk in Italy

MASTER 1 - GEOPHYSICS AND EARTH IMAGING
Realized by: BENCHABANE SYLIA
 1. Introduction:

The destructive effects of earthquakes are from landslides, tsunamis, fires, and fault
rupture. The violent shaking of the ground produces the greatest property losses and personal
injuries.
In California, the collapse of buildings, roads and infrastructure produced eight of the ten
costliest earthquakes in the last one hundred years. The U.S. Geological Survey reports there
is a 72 percent probability that an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or larger will strike the San
Francisco Bay area within the next 30 years. Southern California has a 60% chance of
experiences an earthquake measuring magnitude 6.7 in the same timeframe.

The damage caused by earthquakes is from ground shaking, ground rupture, landslides,
tsunamis, and liquefaction. Earthquake damage from fires is the most important secondary
effect.

The Ridgecrest earthquakes that hit on July 4 and July 5, 2019 with a magnitude 6.4 and
7.1, respectively, were the most recent major earthquakes in Southern California. The second
quake with a magnitude 7.1 lasted 12 seconds and was felt by about 30 million people from
Sacramento to San Diego. More than 6,000 homes lost powe

Italy is the most prone-earthquake area in Europe where includes active tectonics and plate
margins and two mountain belts. During the instrumental-area, Italy has been hit by 260
earthquakes with magnitudes larger than 5.5. About 13 Earthquakes of 3.6 magnitude
occurred in last six months. An earthquake prone country like Italy needs reliable seismic
activity maps to locate earthquakes and mitigate the earthquake risk.

Seismic risk is defined as the probability of exceeding a specified level of loss for a set of
goods within a reference period of time-by earthquakes. Seismic fragility is the intersection of
hazard, exposure, and fragility/vulnerability components (Crowley et al., 2019).  
The exposure component provides information on the built environment, including
vulnerability class, functionality, cost of reconstruction and spatial distribution. The hazard
component defines the deformation in the area of interest. It is based on probabilistic seismic
hazard assessments or deterministic rupture assessments or deterministic rupture scenarios.
Finally, hazards and exposures are correlated to determine the likelihood of potential damage
in the Vulnerability/Failure component.
 2. Seismotectonic of Italy:
Three tectonic plates are interacted with each other in Italy which are (Eurasian, Africa,
Adria) (Carminati and Doglini, 2012). Different earthquakes occur in this region with
processes of extensional, compressional and transcurrent stress zones (Fig. 1) Two mountain
chains (Alps and Appenies) had the subduction process building these mountain belts and
producing Appenies back-arc extensional basin (Carminati and Doglini, 2012). Above
subduction zones these mountain belts are developed and with slab convergence and
divergence. Southern Appenies demonstrate different types of contractions, the east side is
Calabria, the southern side is Tyrrehenian basin and in central northern Adriantic margins
between the northern and southern Alps. Western side contains accretionary prism, and the
Appenies are in extensional manner. Folds and faults are characterized by active normal
faulting (Carminati and Doglini, 2012). The significant role is of accretionary prism and in
backarc basin, as in strike-slip faulting zones. In foreland basin the lithospheric faults
lithospheric transcurrent faults act as tear zones having differential slab in retreating manner,
where most of the earthquakes occur. (e.g Malta escarpment and Gargano areas). (P.Petricca
et al, 2022 )

Figure1: seismotectonic of Italy (reference)

3. Past major seismic events:

As already mentioned, Italy is one of the world's most seismically active countries. Since the
beginning of the 20th century, the country has experienced several devastating seismic events
of at least magnitude 6.0, with the highest seismic activity concentrated along the Apennines
in south-central and north-eastern Italy.
3.1. Aquila Earthquake

On April 6, 2009, an earthquake named Aquila with a magnitude of 6.3 occurred in central
Italy. It was located at about 42°.334 North, 13.334 East and was the strongest earthquake to
hit Italy since the Irpinia earthquake in 1980. The depth of the earthquake was 8 km. It was
felt throughout central Italy. Rome, 90 km to the southwest, was also hit.
At least 308 people were killed. It is estimated that around 1,500 were injured and 60,000
buildings were damaged or destroyed. This is an example of a moderate intensity and large
earthquake. The impact on the population is disproportionate given the fragility of the
building stock in Abruzzo. (Alexander D.E ,2010 )
Figure 2 shows the intensity map for the shaken area by the 2009 Aquila earthquake. As can
be observed the intensity reaches VII and VIII which can be considered to be an earthquake
with large destructions. In addition, Figure 3 depicts the shake map caused by the event for
the area.

Figure 2. Map of how the population feels, Aquila earthquake USGS.  "M6.3 – central Italy"

Figure 3: shake Map, of Aquila earthquake (Italy). USGS. "M6.3 – central Italy"

This earthquake was generated by a normal fault in a NW-SE striking structure of central
Apennine, which extends from Tartary Bay in southern Italy to southern margin of Po basin,
in northern Italy. In geological terms, the Apennines are an additive wedge, formed mainly
because of subduction. The region is complex in both structural and geological terms, with the
east-west subduction of the Adriatic microplate beneath the Apennines and the continental
impact of the Eurasian and African plates forming the Alps further north-west. The
development of this system in large areas of Italy and the central Mediterranean has led to the
simultaneous expression of all the different tectonic styles. The earthquake of 6 April 2009,
mainly due to the opening of the Tyrrhenian Basin faster than the compression between the
Eurasian and African plates, was associated with normal faults and east-west stretching
tectonics across the Apennine Belt. (USGS. "M6.3 – central Italy")

3.2. The 2016 Central Italy Seismic Sequences

Between August and October 2016 the Central Italy hit by a strong seismic sequence, where
three of these earthquakes occurred in October and two in August.

The mainshock occurred on August 24 at 3:36 am (local time) with epicenter close to
Accumoli (Rieti province) and a magnitude Mw 6.0; it was followed, at 4.33 am, by an
aftershock with epicenter close to Norcia (Perugia province) and a magnitude Mw 5.3. These
events caused a total of 299 fatalities, 386 injured and about 4800 homeless (Italian
Department of Civil Protection, 2017). Heavy damage and collapse of residential buildings
were reported. (Gabriele .F et al, 2017)

On October 26, there were two strong aftershocks, the first at 19:10 with Mw 5.4 and the
second at 21:18 with Mw 5.9 (Visso Event). The earthquake of Norcia occurred in October
30, at 7:40 am, with a MW 6.5, being the largest event in terms of released energy that
occurred in Italy since the Mw 6.9 1980 Irpinia earthquake. The event occurred less than 5 km
from NE of Norcia due to upper crustal normal faults on an almost 30 km long, NW-SE
oriented and south-dipping fault system known as the Mt. Vettore-Mt. They follow an
approximately 80 km long NW-SE trend between the towns of Camerino in the north and
Pizzoli in the south. This area of the central Apennine chain is characterized by a NE-SW
oriented extensional regime, which overlies NE-trending thrust belts. (USGS, “M6.6 - 6km N
of Norcia, Italy”)

The events of October 26 and 30 didn’t cause any victim thanks to the fact that people had
been already evacuated from damaged and vulnerable houses after the previous seismic
events, where many buildings had been strengthened after the 1997 earthquake. Nevertheless,
while the earthquake of August 24 had a very destructive impact on a restricted area included
in the above listed municipalities, the impact of the following seismic events was distributed
on a larger portion of territory extending northwards in the Marche Region. Many small towns
and villages, which have survived to the first earthquake, were heavily damaged during the
October 30 earthquake. In the Figure 4, the shake map intensity for Norcia earthquake is
observed, and it can be found that the intensity reaches VIII and IX in the region so close to
the epicentral area. (Gabriele .F et al, 2017)

Figure 4: Intensity Shake Map,for Norcia earthquake (USGS, “M6.6 - 6km N of Norcia,
Italy”)

4. Seismic risk in Italy

Seismic risk can be expressed as the probability of loss at a given location and is obtained by
convolving three parameters: Exposure, vulnerability, seismic hazard. A fourth parameter can
then be added to relate the seismic risk to a social or economic loss.

Mathematically, the calculation of seismic risk entails the convolution of the seismic hazard
with vulnerability and exposure of the assets at risk the mean annual frequency of exceedance
of the ground motion intensity im. The calculation should be repeated for each vulnerability
class of the building inventory (according to the exposure model) and then the results should
be combined considering the proportion of each class in the considered asset.

The mean annual rate λk of reaching the damage state Dk for each generic building class
considered in the vulnerability model can be expressed as:
+∞
λ k =∫ P( Dk ∨¿ ℑ).∨d . λ ℑ( ℑ)∨¿ ¿
0
Where P (Dk|im) is the probability that a building of the same class will reach a damage state
greater than or equal to Dk when subjected to an earthquake of intensity im, and λIM is the
seismic hazard at the site. The calculation should be repeated for each vulnerability class of
the building inventory and then the results should be combined considering the proportion of
each class in the considered asset. (Mauro Dolce1 et al, 2020)

4.1 Seismic hazard

Seismic hazard problem lies in the determination of the ground motion characteristics
associated with future earthquakes, at both the regional and the local scale. Seismic hazard
assessment can be performed in various ways, with a description of the ground shaking
severity due to an earthquake of a given distance and magnitude or with probabilistic maps of
relevant parameters describing ground motion. (E. ZUCCOLO et al, 2010)

4.1.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)

It's the determination of the probability of various ground motion levels being exceeded over
a specified period of time. It’s the most used method for seismic hazard assessment is
nowadays. It is flexible, and takes into account as much data as you can throw at it. The main
elements of a PSHA assessment are:

1. The seismogenic zones (ZS), the definition of the seismic area which is subject to
considerable uncertainty

2. The recurrence characteristics of seismicity and the estimation of the maximum magnitude
for each seismogenic zone .

3. The attenuation relations (GMPE), which provide estimates of the ground motion
parameters at different distances from the sources. GMPEs estimate the peak ground motion
value and loading that a structure may undergo during a future earthquake.

PSHA is highly dependent on an adequate description of the seismicity and geological

conditions of the area under consideration. Probabilistic seismic hazard maps often need to be
revised after a major earthquake, with a general increase in seismic hazard in the affected
area. That's why the probabilistic seismic hazard map by INGV in 2004 it is the update of the
Italian seismic zonation after the Molise earthquake of 31 October 2002. The map was
calculated following the classical approach proposed by CORNELL (1968), using the CPTI04
catalog and the ZS9 seismic zonation. (E. ZUCCOLO et al, 2010)
Figure 5: Probabilistic seismic hazard map of Italy expressed in terms of expected PGA (g)
with a probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years (return period 475 years). The map is
drawn according to the estimations by Gruppo di Lavoro (2004)

The PSHA map computed by INGV shown in Fig.5. The colors in map indicate different
range of ground motion acceleration [g] that have the 10% of probability to be exceeded
within 50 years. In general, the colors associated with low values of acceleration refer to areas
that are less hazardous, and stronger earthquakes repeat less frequently, although they may
still occur. This provides the ‘‘reference map’’ for the current seismic regulation and building
codes over the Italian territory. (E. ZUCCOLO et al, 2010)

4.1.2. Neo-Deterministic Method

The NDSHA is based on modeling techniques, developed from knowledge of the seismic
source process and of the propagation of seismic waves that can realistically simulate the
ground motion due to an earthquake by means of synthetic seismograms.

This approach does not rely on the statistical characterization of earthquake recurrence, which
is greatly constrained by the available observations. Rather, it uses information about the
spatial distribution of large-magnitude earthquakes, which can be defined based on seismic
history and seismotectonic, and incorporates information from a wide range of geological and
geophysical data.

The procedure for defining earthquake locations and magnitudes for NDSHA makes the
method fairly robust to uncertainties in the earthquake catalog, which is not required to be
complete for magnitudes below 5. (E. ZUCCOLO et al, 2010)
 Figure 6: Deterministic seismic hazard map of Italy 2004, (E. ZUCCOLO et al, 2010)

4.1.3. Comparison between Neo-Deterministic and Probabilistic Maps

The comparison is made in terms of the macroseismic intensity (MSI) estimated from the
acceleration, taking into account the PGA given by the probabilistic method and the DGA
given by the neo-deterministic method. These ground motion parameters, although both
expressed in units of g, represent different physical quantities.

The comparison shows that the NDSHA gives higher values than the PSHA in areas of high
seismicity and in areas identified as prone to large earthquakes. Comparatively smaller values
are obtained in areas of low seismicity. This is a natural consequence of the smoothing
property of the PSHA. The highest values of NDSHA compare well with PSHA estimates for
long return periods (T C 2,475 years). (E. ZUCCOLO et al, 2010)

4.2 Vulnerability

Seismic vulnerability is defined as the ability of buildings to withstand seismic shocks, and
it's typically described by fragility curves, which express the probability of reaching different
levels of damage by varying seismic intensity.

To study the Vulnerability building in Italy six different models (VEM) (Figure7) for
vulnerability assessment and related exposure characterization are uploaded in IRMA and
employed for risk calculation, where four vulnerability models refer to masonry (M) and two
to reinforced concrete (RC) buildings.

Furthermore, the approaches to deriving these models are also different. Three models
(VEM1, VEM4, and VEM5) are based on an empirical approach, while VEM3 and VEM6
use an analytical approach to build the vulnerability curve. Finally, the VEM2 model is based
on a hybrid approach. And all VEMs describe the behavior of five vulnerability classes (A, B,
C1, C2, and D). (Mauro Dolce et al, 2020)
 Figure 7: The process of results aggregation: the output of models (average, maximum,
minimum) for masonry (VEM1 to VEM4) and RC (VEM5 and VEM6) are weighted and then
summed; for NRA 2018 equal weights are applied. The example in the figure shows as impact
quantity the average percentage of unusable dwellings for each town (unconditional risk in a
time frame of 1 year (Mauro Dolce, 2020)

4.2.1 Exposer

Building typologies are defined on the basis of the relevant parameters available in the
national census database (ISTAT 2001), namely construction material, number of floors,and
construction age, for the NRA 2018 it was decided to use the previous dataset (ISTAT 2001)
because it is characterized by more detailed information on some building characteristics,
such as number of store’s. Moreover, the small increase in exposure is due to buildings
designed according to modern seismic codes, which have therefore low vulnerability and do
not produce a substantial increase of risk at local and national levels.
The exposure models in IRMA, developed for each of the considered VEMs, allow the
building inventory to be processed in terms of relevant vulnerability classes starting from the
census building typologies. Each exposure model is described with a suitably defined
exposure matrix that defines the percental attribution of each typology to each vulnerability
class.
The generic row of such matrix, defined for each VEM, refers to any of the 56 typologies.
The same typology is subdivided differently in other VEMs. The resulting building inventory,
then, is different for each considered VEM, although the vulnerability is decreasing from class
A to D, each vulnerability class in each vulnerability model is characterized by a specific
fragility curve, which may be very different from one model to another. (Mauro Dolce et al,
2020)
4.2.2. Fragility Curves
The fragility curves in IRMA are defined for the five damage levels of the EMS 98 scale
(Grünthal et al. 1998). Given the intensity measure, expressed in terms of PGA, the
probability of reaching or exceeding a given damage state Di as a function of PGA is
expressed by a cumulative lognormal distribution:
p ( ds> DI|PGA ) =Φ[ log
( )
PGA
Φi
]

With Φ[·] the cumulative standard normal distribution, θi the median PGA value of the
fragility curve associated with damage state Di and βi the corresponding logarithmic standard
deviation.
By considering that each building type vulnerability is defined through one or more
vulnerability classes according to a percentage distribution, it is possible to obtain fragility
functions specific of each building type from the analytical formulation of fragility curves
above described. These can be obtained as a linear combination among fragility functions
(Mauro Dolce et al, 2020)
4.3 Seismic risk in terms of Damage level

The evaluation of the seismic risk in terms of expected damage levels is obtained by
combining hazard, fragility and exposure.
Processing can be performed with a reference of an earthquake with results of data from 50
years, in which the outcome shows potential damage assessment. With probability of potential
earthquake severity within the time window, should be noted. These results show
unconditional damage assessment. The unconditional damage assessment method is very
useful in finding potential Earthquake areas or country of investigation. The key point is to
assess the unconditional seismic risk analysis to know the earthquake of different origins.
Keeping the Consideration, with different levels of intensity. This is the main objective of
different vicinities of area of interest.
With the span of one year and fifty years, two time windows are considered for unconditional
damage, for NRA purposes. This case shows probability of level 5 damage consequences with
risk computation. Ordinary buildings contain 50 years life span therefore this window is
chosen.

The seismic hazard represents model MPSO4 on stiff soil (Stucchi et al. 2011). It shows that
this soil is everywhere, named as Type A. Median values of MPS04 model is used for to
minimize the variation of results based on hazard assumptions, and to give comparative
results However, with VEM’s different the minimum value of the soil acceleration with any
of the building type is 0.03g. With several computations, to avoid with low consequence
intensity and high probability this was the best fibest-fit in damaging computation and loss,
which in result increase the number of losses. (Mauro Dolce et al, 2020)
 5. Conclusion

What motivated me to choose this subject is that I want to develop knowledge and skills in
my domain. It is because of practicals of geophysical observations with my professors in this
university xx and xx. Working on the seismic risk assessment of Italy is because the
seismicity in Italy is mostly dominated by earthquakes, Which will help me to develop more
insights of seismology and help me achieving my career as a future seismologist. 
University of Grenoble Alpes is the best known university in seismology which will help me
to achieve my dreams as a seismologist.
Reference:
1. Alexander D.E ,(2010), “The L'Aquila Earthquake of 6 April 2009 and Italian
Government Policy on Disaster Response”, Journal of Natural Resources Policy
Research.  2 (4): 325–342.
2. Anna Maria Lombardi , Aybige Akinci , Luca Malagnini and Charles S.
Mueller ,2009, “Uncertainty analysis for seismic hazard in Northern and Central
Italy”, ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 48, N. 6, December 2005

3. E. ZUCCOLO, 1 F. VACCARI, 1,2 A. PERESAN, 1,2 and G. F. PANZA1, 2010,

Neo-Deterministic and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessments: a Comparison over
the Italian Territory, Springer Basel AG DOI 10.1007/s00024-010-0151-8

4. Gabriele Fiorentino, Angelo Forte, Enrico Pagano, Fabio Sabetta, Carlo Baggio,
Davide Lavorato,Camillo Nuti, Silvia Santini, 2017. Damage patterns in the town of
Amatrice after August 24th 2016 Central Italy earthquakes, Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering (2021) 19:2999–3032 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-01009-5

5. Mauro Dolce1,Andrea Prota2,Barbara Borzi3,Francesca da Porto4  ·

Sergio Lagomarsino5  · Guido Magenes6  · Claudio Moroni1  · Andrea Penna6  ·
Maria Polese2  · Elena Speranza1  · Gerardo Mario Verderame2  · Giulio Zuccaro, 22
May 2020, Seismic risk assessment of residential buildings in Italy, bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering (2021) 19:2999–3032 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-
01009-5

6. P.Petriccaa1E.CarminatiaC.Doglioni Estimation of the maximum earthquakes

magnitude based on potential brittle volume and strain rate: The Italy test
case.Tectonophysics volume 836, 5 August 2022, 229405

7. R. Civico, S. Pucci, F. Villani, L. Pizzimenti, P. M. De Martini, R. Nappi & the Open

EMERGEO Working Group (2018) Surface ruptures following the 30 October 2016
Mw 6.5 Norcia earthquake, central Italy, Journal of Maps, 14:2, 151-160, DOI:
10.1080/17445647.2018.1441756

Websites:

8. USGS. "M6.3 – central Italy". United States Geological Survey

9.  "M6.6 - 6km N of Norcia, Italy". United States Geological Survey. 30 October 2016.
Retrieved 30 October 2016.