PSI - Issue 78

Antonio Sandoli et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 1302–1309

1306

exposure/vulnerability dataset and a fragility curve set from the “Maps” section. The generated map can be viewed directly on the platform or exported as a shapefile. The attribute table typically includes the ISTAT code and related metadata.

Table 1. Summary of the databases features useful for seismic risk analysis Database Name Source

Downloadable Yes (GitHub)

Data format

Scale

National Dataset of Italian Structural Aggregates

DPC

.shp

Municipal

Yes (ArcGis HUB, INGV)

Italian Seismic Hazard Map

INGV

.shp

National

Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

Tinitaly (INGV)

Yes

.tiff

National

Database of Individual Seismogenic Sources (DISS)

.mid/mid, .kmz, .shp, .gmt

INGV

Yes

National

Seismic Stations

ITACA (INGV)

Yes

.csv

National

. xlsx, SHP, WMS, .tiff, .kml, .geojson

Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes (CPTI) INGV

Yes

National

Seismic Microzonation Studies

Regional Entities DPC (ReLUIS project)

Yes

.pdf, .dwg

Regional

Municipal, Regional National, Regional, Municipal

CARTIS Dataset

Yes (account needed)

.csv

Italian Risk Maps Platform (IRMa)

DPC (EUCENTRE) Yes (account needed)

.shp

Ministry of Infrastructures

Digital Archive of Public Works (AINOP)

No

-

Municipal

Regional, Municipal

Database of the Observed Damage (DaDO)

DPC (EUCENTRE) Yes (account needed)

.shp, .csv

Despite the availability of this wide amount of data, significant heterogeneity persists in terms of data format, spatial resolution, and accessibility. This fragmentation complicates the integration and interoperability of datasets and limits the comparability of seismic risk analyses across different territorial scales. Furthermore, their use for multi-risk analysis is limited. 4. An operational workflow: the explanatory case of Termoli city Based on the above-mentioned data fragmentation and inhomogeneities, in order to enable a consistent multi scale analysis, a structured workflow was developed to allow data interoperability and integration within a GIS environment. The workflow - manageable remotely - includes procedures for harmonizing building-level data from multiple sources, enriching them with exposure and typological attributes, and associating them with relevant hazard and vulnerability parameters. In particular, the operational workflow can be summarized in the following steps: a) data acquisition and integration from different open-source databases; b) geospatial data implementation and harmonization in GIS environment with identification of building aggregates and/or single buildings through a unique code (IDAG) and GPS coordinates, obtained through a Python script; c) data fusion and interoperability assessment aimed at multi-scale seismic risk assessment (Fig. 1). The resulting procedure allows for the construction of geospatial datasets that are consistent, scalable, and suitable for use in risk modeling platforms.

c)

a)

b)

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the operational workflow