PSI - Issue 44

Maria Polese et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 123–130 Maria Polese et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

129

7

Some basic layers, such as those related to schools, hospitals, and roads, can also be visualized. These elements were not considered in the risk analyses, which include only the residential buildings, but it may be useful to know their location for emergency management planning. Referring to the case study presented in this paper, the first input data displayed on the platform are the hazard maps. The seismic hazard model considered is the ESHM20 model (Danciu et al. 2021). For the six expected return periods (50, 101, 476, 976, 2500, and 5000 years), the platform shows the value of PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) at the barycentre of each municipality. It is also possible to visualize the distribution of soil type in each municipality, i.e., the % of soil A, B, etc. The second essential element that the platform shows are the fragility curves used to calculate seismic risk. These curves refer to structural types and floor classes. As described in the previous sections, the curves were obtained by a heuristic approach. Both the numerical representation of the curves and the graph of the curves are displayed on the platform. The third element with contributes to the risk calculation and which can be visualized in the platform is the exposure in terms of number of buildings, dwellings, population, and area of residential buildings. Finally, the last two buttons allow viewing the risk results in terms of damage and impact indicators. Damage is given according to the five damage levels (from D1 to D5) of the EMS98 scale (Gruntal 1998), while the risk indicators considered for seismic risk are economic losses, victims, injured, and unusable buildings. Fig. 4 shows how the fragility curves are displayed on the platform; as shown in figure, there is the possibility of comparing the curves obtained by the heuristic model combination on both sides of a transboundary area.

Fig. 4. Example fragility curve visualization on the BORIS platform.

5. Conclusions

The paper presents preliminary results of the application of a harmonized methodology for cross-border seismic risk assessment referring to the two municipalities of Gorizia and Nova Gorica at Italy-Slovenia border. For seismic hazard, the ESHM2020 model was applied. The same typology-based classes are introduced for fragility assessment. The vulnerability models to be applied in both countries were suitably adapted starting from the existing models used at the national level employing a heuristic approach. Also, the consequence models were harmonized so to ensure consistent results. The application demonstrates the usefulness of employing a harmonized approach for cross-border risk assessment to avoid biased risk assessment in transboundary areas. The development of the platform is still in progress. In the coming months, all pilot 2 area data and all flood data will be integrated. Very important will be the tool to visualize the multi-risk i.e., the combination of the risk given by the earthquake and by the flood, which is one of the outputs of the BORIS project.