4-LESSLOSS-Publishable Final Activity Report

FP6 – IP Project LESSLOSSRisk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides PUBLISHABLE FINAL ACTIVITY REPORT Sept, 1 st 2004 – Aug, 31 st 2007 1 Project N. GOCE-CT-2003-505448 LESSLOSS Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides Integrated Project Priority 1.1.6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems LESSLOSS ANNUAL REPORT Publishable Final Activity Report Period covered: from September, 1 st , 2004 to August, 31 st , 2007 Date of preparation: September, 2007 Start date of the Project: September, 1 st 2004 Duration: 36 months Partner Name: Gian Michele Calvi Organisation Name: Università degli Studi di Pavia Revision: Final 2 LESSLOSS Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides www.LESSLOSS.org 1. Project Execution Earthquake and landslide risk is a public safety issue that requires appropriate mitigation measures and means to protect citizens, property, infrastructure and the built cultural heritage. Mitigating this risk requires integrated and coordinated action that embraces a wide range of organisations and disciplines. For this reason, the LESSLOSS IP has been formulated by a large number of European Centres of excellence in earthquake and geotechnical engineering integrating in the traditional fields of engineers and earth scientists some expertise of social scientists, economists, urban planners and information technologists. The LESSLOSS IP project has endeavoured to address both the general aims of the Integrated Project FP6 instrument as well as the specific goals identified in the Thematic Priority 1.1.6.3 (Global Change and Ecosystems), through the implementation of an ambitious but feasible technical research programme, which has been carried out by a consortium of prominent institutions (see Table 1 for the list of participants), managed in such a way so as to guarantee that the set objectives were met in their fullness and by means of an optimised use of available resources. Within this framework, a number of specific technological objectives were identified and set as the prerequisites for advancement in earthquake and landslide risk mitigation: - Development and application of improved tools for landslide monitoring - Development and application of in-situ assessment and monitoring techniques for structures - Development of innovative displacement-based earthquake-resistant design methods for structures - Development of innovative approaches for prediction of landslide triggering - Development of innovative probabilistic risk assessment methods of structures - Development of innovative methods for stabilisation of landslide-prone areas - Development and manufacturing of innovative anti-seismic devices - Definition of optimised structural intervention strategies for seismic vulnerability reduction - Improvement of disaster scenario prediction and loss modelling due to landslides and earthquakes - Improvement of pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies In order for the multi-disciplinary Science and Technological (S&T) ingredients of the project to be tackled in an efficient and productive manner, it was found necessary to split the research programme into three distinct areas of research; physical environment, urban areas and infrastructures. The rationale for such subdivision is clear; each of these areas call for different research expertise and approach methodologies. Then, the four main types of research activity that are required to achieve the S&T objectives described above were identified; (i) instrumentation and monitoring, (ii) vulnerability reduction, (iii) innovative approaches for design/assessment and (iv) disaster scenarios and loss modelling. Taking stock of the above, the S&T implementation plan can be readily obtained through the merging and cross-cutting of each of the three areas of research with the required four research activity types, leading to the implementation framework schematically depicted in Fig. 1, where the project’s research components are identified. The latter constitute in fact the underlying working structure of the LESSLOSS project. 3 Table 1: Participant List P a r t i c i p a n t R o l e * P a r t i c i p a n t N u m b e r P a r t i c i p a n t N a m e P a r t i c i p a n t S h o r t n a m e C o u n t r y D a t e e n t e r p r o j e c t D a t e e x i t p r o j e c t CO 1 Università degli Studi di Pavia UPAV Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 2 ENEL NewHydro S&P ISMES Italy Month 1 Month 2 CR 3 Applicazione Lavorazione Giunti Appoggi SpA ALGA Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 4 Algosystems SA ALGO Greece Month 1 Month 36 CR 5 Arsenal GmbH ARS Austria Month 1 Month 36 CR 6 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki AUTH Greece Month 1 Month 36 CR 7 Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres BRGM France Month 1 Month 36 CR 8 Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique CEA France Month 1 Month 36 CR 9 Centre Internacional de Métodes Numérics en Enginyeria CIMNE Spain Month 1 Month 36 CR 10 DENCO Development & Engineering Consultants Ltd DENCO Greece Month 1 Month 36 CR 11 Dipartimento della Protezione Civile DPC Italy Month 1 Month 36 12 CR 13 Ente Nuove Tecnologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente ENEA Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 14 Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto FEUP Portugal Month 1 Month 36 CR 15 Geodynamique et Structure, France GDS France Month 1 Month 36 CR 16 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia INGV Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 17 Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble INPG France Month 1 Month 36 CR 18 INSA-LYON, France INSAL France Month 1 Month 36 CR 19 Instituto Superior Técnico IST Portugal Month 1 Month 36 CR 20 Istanbul Technical University ITU Turkey Month 1 Month 36 CR 21 Joint Research Centre JRC EU Month 1 Month 36 CR 22 Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute KOERI Turkey Month 1 Month 36 CR 23 Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil LNEC Portugal Month 1 Month 36 CR 24 Maurer Soehne GmbH & Co. KG MAURER Germany Month 1 Month 36 CR 25 Middle East Technical University METU Turkey Month 1 Month 36 CR 26 Munich Reinsurance Company MUNICHRE Germany Month 1 Month 36 CR 27 ACCIONA Infraestructuras ACCIONA Spain Month 1 Month 36 CR 28 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute NGI Norway Month 1 Month 36 CR 29 National Technical University of Athens NTUA Greece Month 1 Month 36 CR 30 Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen RWTH Germany Month 1 Month 36 CR 31 Stamatopoulos and Associates Co. Ltd SAA Greece Month 1 Month 36 CR 32 Studio Geotecnico Italiano Srl SGI-MI Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 33 Swedish Geotechnical Institute SGI-SW Sweden Month 1 Month 36 CR 34 STAP SA STAP Portugal Month 1 Month 36 CR 35 University of Bristol UBRIS United Kingdom Month 1 Month 36 CR 36 University of Cambridge UCAM United Kingdom Month 1 Month 36 CR 37 Universite de Liege ULIEGE Belgium Month 1 Month 36 CR 38 University of Ljubljana ULJ Slovenia Month 1 Month 36 CR 39 University of Naples Federico II UNAP Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 40 University of Newcastle upon Tyne UNEW United Kingdom Month 1 Month 36 CR 41 Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca UNIMIB Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 42 University of Patras UPAT Greece Month 1 Month 36 CR 43 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid UPM Spain Month 1 Month 36 CR 44 Università di Roma "La Sapienza UROMA Italy Month 1 Month 36 CR 45 University of Surrey USUR United Kingdom Month 1 Month 36 CR 46 VCE Holding GmbH VCE Austria Month 1 Month 36 4 P a r t i c i p a n t R o l e * P a r t i c i p a n t N u m b e r P a r t i c i p a n t N a m e P a r t i c i p a n t S h o r t n a m e C o u n t r y D a t e e n t e r p r o j e c t D a t e e x i t p r o j e c t CR 47 VINCI Construction Grands Projets VCGP France Month 1 Month 36 CR 48 CESI SpA CESI Italy Month 3 Month 36 *CO = Coordinator (contact Prof. Gian Michele Calvi – [email protected]) CR = Contractor Research area 1 Physical environment Research area 2 Urban areas Research area 3 Infrastructures Research component 1.1 Landslide monitoring and warning system Research component 1.2 Landslide zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessment Research component 1.3 Innovative approaches for landslide assessment Research component 1.4 Landslide disaster scenarios predictions and loss modelling Research component 2.4a Earthquake disaster scenarios predictions and loss modelling for urban areas . Research component 2.1 In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification Research component 2.4b Earthquake disaster scenarios predictions and loss modelling for infrastructures Buildings Bridges, Lifelines Research component 2.2a Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and seismic isolators Research component 2.2b Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction Research component 2.3a Displacement-based design methodologies Research component 2.3b Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications Research activity 1 Instrumentation and monitoring . Research activity 2 Vulnerability reduction Research activity 3 Innovative approaches for design/assessment Research activity 4 Disaster scenarios predictions and loss modelling . Buildings Bridges, Underground Buildings Bridges, Viaducts Buildings Bridges, Lifelines Buildings Bridges, Lifelines Fig. 1. Scientific and Technological Implementation Plan In order to meet the objectives of the project, a large variety of research activities have been carried out by all partners involved during the three years of the project, including state-of-the-art methodology reviews, data collection, constitutive modelling, analytical modelling, manufacture of prototypes, laboratory testing, experimental testing, structural monitoring, software development, and methodology calibration. This has led to the production of a total of 169 deliverables during the project, as presented in Table 2. The deliverables produced are available for download on the dissemination section of the project’s web portal (www.LESSLOSS.org/main). A major objective of the project has been to describe current best practice or usual practice in each area investigated. During the third year of the project, LESSLOSS produced a series of Technical reports addressed to specific Users Communities and Stakeholders with the following titles: LESSLOSS 2007/01: Landslides: Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilization, LESSLOSS 2007/02: European Manual for in-situ Assessment of Important Existing Structures LESSLOSS 2007/03: Innovative Anti-Seismic Systems Users Manual LESSLOSS 2007/04: Guidelines for Seismic Vulnerability Reduction in the Urban Environment 5 LESSLOSS 2007/05: Guidelines for Displacement-based Design of Buildings and Bridges LESSLOSS 2007/06: Probabilistic Methods for Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures LESSLOSS 2007/07: Earthquake Disaster Scenarios Predictions and Loss Modelling for Urban Areas LESSLOSS 2007/08: Prediction of Ground Motion and Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European Urban Environments The target audience of these reports includes technical and scientific communities, national, regional and local public administrations, design offices, and civil protection agencies. These reports were produced and printed in time for the Final LESSLOSS Workshop which took place on 19 th -20 th July in Belgirate, Italy. This workshop was attended by 120 participants, all of whom obtained a full set of the LESSLOSS Report Series. These reports have also been uploaded onto the LESSLOSS website (www.LESSLOSS.org/main) and hyperlinked versions of the reports have been created to aid consultation. The reports have also been sent to selected stakeholders. The organisation of the 9 Training Workshops in 6 different European Countries was another major objective of the LESSLOSS Project (see Figure 2). The audience of these workshops included those from technical and scientific communities, national, regional and local public administrations, design offices, and civil protection agencies. TWS - Topic Workshops Country/Place Date Responsible Partner Local Org. Partner Target Addressees* TWS1- New Technologies for landslide monitoring and warning systems Italy UNIMIB TWS1-1 Italy, Varenna 2 and 4 May, 2007 UNIMIB Technical community. Public Administrations, Scientific community, Civil Protection TWS2 – In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification of buildings and infrastructures Austria ARS TWS2-1 Vienna, Arsenal Research 14 and 15 June, 2007 ARS Scientific/technical communities, Public administration (Commission, National), Civil protection Agencies TWS3 – Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Buildings and Infrastructures Portugal, Turkey and Spain ULIEGE TWS3-1 Portugal, LNECLisbon May 24, 2007 IST TWS3-2 Turkey, ITU, Istanbul April 26, 2007 ITU&KOERI, METU TWS3-3 Spain, CIME, Barcelona May 18, 2007 CIMNE Scientific/technical communities Design offices. Public Administrations. Civil Protection TWS4 – Probabilistic risk assessment: new methods and applications to code-calibration Italy UROMA TWS4-1 Rose School, Pavia May 23 2007 Univ. Pavia Scientific/technical communities and Civil Protection Agencies s TWS5 –Earthquake disaster scenarios predictions and loss modelling for urban areas: application Portugal, Greece and Turkey UCAM TWS5-1 Portugal, LNECLisbon May 25, 2007 LNEC TWS5-2 Greece, Univ. Thessaloniki April 20, 2007 AUTH TWS5-3 Turkey, ITU, Istanbul April 27, 2007 ITU&KOERI, METU National, Regional, Local Public administrations, Civil protection Agencies, Scientific/technical communities FWS – Final International Workshop Italy 19/20 July, 2007 JRC JRC Scientific communities, Public Administrations and Policy-makers *Target Addresses [Examples (non-exhaustive)]: Scientific community, Technical community, Public administration (Commission, National, Regional, Local), Civil protection Agencies Fig. 2. Training workshops organised as part of the LESSLOSS project Due to the presence of such a multi-disciplinary research and implementation team within the LESSLOSS IP, the societal needs in landslide and earthquake disaster preparedness have been addressed and thus the repercussions of such research should be a reduction in the risk posed to the European population, both in terms of human and financial losses. Furthermore, the LESSLOSS project has reshaped the way in which earthquake and landslide risk mitigation research is carried out in Europe, resulting in a European research area able to compete, in particular, with US and Japanese centres in all fields related to landslide and earthquake risk mitigation. The methodologies and approaches used in each of the 13 Sub-Projects are described in the following sections. Particular emphasis has been given to the achievements of the project, the state-of-the-art, the work performed, the results achieved and the expected impact of the project. 6 Sub-Project 1: Landslide monitoring and warning systems Sub-Project 1 has focused on the development and utilization of monitoring techniques and geodatabases for the recognition and mitigation of landslides. This includes: in-situ and remote monitoring techniques (Task 1.1.1), GIS- geodatabases (Task 1.1.2); alert thresholds through GIS data analysis (Task 1.1.3); and documentation of selected landslides (Task 1.1.4). To accomplish these objectives three main research groups were engaged: University of Milano – Bicocca (UNIMIB), University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UNEW), Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI-SW). Other research groups were involved in the collection and preparation of datasets on landslides that have been used within other Sub-Projects. Task 1.1.1: Regarding the implementation of in- situ and remote techniques for landslide monitoring, the activity was focused on three main topics: LIDAR for topographic mapping (Sub-task 1.1.1.1), low cost GPS stations for in-situ monitoring (Sub-task 1.1.1.2), and monitoring shallow slope failures (Sub-task 1.1.1.3). The first activity allowed to assess the potential of Laser scanning (LIDAR) digital terrain model for landslide hazard zonation (cfr. Deliverable 7), and for local scale slope stability analysis (cfr. Deliverable 6). The high resolution topography derived by LIDAR was found to be excellent to find old landslide scars, erosion, and other features that can be significant for landslides. For hazard assessment, an automated algorithm have been implemented to process the high resolution topography within the Swedish landslide hazard zonation method. Tests has been performed in Lilla Edet Town, situated at the banks of the Göta Älv River in southwest Sweden. The second activity allowed the development and testing of a low cost dual frequency (L1/L2) GPS station for in-situ monitoring (cfr. Deliverable 5). A low cost GPS monitoring system, in comparison to commercially available GPS systems, has the advantage to allow an increase in the spatial distribution of GPS stations, e.g. on a landslide, for the cost of one commercial GPS receiver. Therefore, more dense, detailed and accurate information on landslide movements, which is of paramount importance, can be available for improved modelling and monitoring. The complete GPS system was acquired for 4410.35€, and is composed as follow: GPS receiver NovAtel OEM- G2-L1/L2W (3,435 €), GPS antenna (858.02 €), cables (117.38 €). The receiver records both L1 (1575 MHz) and L2 (1228 MHz) GPS frequencies. During the development of the station, it was necessary to: 1) Evaluate the GPS antenna with benchmark testing with respect to other GPS fixed stations; 2) Improve script of GPS data recording at predefined intervals (Refine data logging as required); Develop communication and data transfer algorithms: scripting of automatic data transfer using GPRS; Assemble autonomous GPS monitoring system and deploy system to a remote site in UK for further testing. The third activity led to the instrumentation of a slope parcel for in situ monitoring of hydrological processes potentially responsible for shallow landslide triggering (cfr. Deliverable 92). The field site is a 1600 m2 open- slope parcel (Montemezzo, Como lake, central Italian Alps), 1150 m a.s.l. in elevation. The slope gradient ranges from 30° to 40°, and the soil cover is constituted by 1-2 m thick glacial and slope-colluvial debris with low to medium hydraulic conductivity (10-6 m/s). The slope parcel has been instrumented with a continuous monitoring system composed of: a rain gauge, thermometers, tensiometers and equi- tensiometers (for the measurement of soil suction), FDR soil moisture measurement probes, and pressure transducers (for the measurement of piezometric level). Data collection every 30 minutes allowed to build a significant database of rainfall events with different intensity and duration. These data helped in characterizing the dynamical behaviour of the slope system. The most interesting result from the monitoring activity are: 1) the high variability of the water content vertical profile monitored with FDR sensors installed at different depths (i.e., 10, 20, 40, 60, 100 cm), even within a distance of a few meters; 2) the absence of a perched water table above the bedrock; 3) the relatively large amount of surface runoff (up to 30% of rainfall). In addition, an infiltration test with artificial rainfall was performed, monitoring the hydrological response with 1 tensiometer, 2 FDR profile probes, 6 TDR sensors (for water content measurement), and cross-hole Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT). As a result, it was possible to observe a fast infiltration within the soil cover and a significant infiltration within the bedrock, 1.5 m deep. This is consistent with the observation that no perched water table exists above bedrock in the slope parcel. Finally, a rapid drainage of soil cover, slower for the bedrock, was also observed. Task 1.1.2: The second task of the sub-project was focused on GIS-geodatabase for landslide hazard mapping. The activities of this task allowed to produce a large dataset for demonstration activity in a study area located in the Italian Southern Alps (Val Trompia and a sector of Val Sabbia, Lombardy, Northern Italy), 510 km2 in size. For the development of the database, innovative techniques for data collection and data management within ArcGis (ESRI inc.) environment has been applied. First, all available data have been integrated within a common geographic framework, 7 solving problems related to heterogeneity in the format and the scale of the original data. Then, new data on landslide have been collected with a multi-temporal aerial photo-interpretation. In all, 9 different flights have been interpreted for the following years: 1954, 1958, 1965, 1970, 1982, 1986, 1995, 2000, 2004. This allowed to build temporal inventories, where the activation of new or reactivated landslides was attributed to the period comprised between two successive flights. As a consequence, it was possible to investigate the rate of recurrence of the landslides, thus allowing to estimate the temporal probability, which is of fundamental importance in hazard assessment. At the same time, a multi-temporal inventory of urban development was prepared, to estimate the variation of risk exposure and vulnerability in the last half century. Methodologically, the traditional use for stereoscopes has been complemented with the use of stereographic software and GPS survey. Task 1.1.3: In order to define alert thresholds through data analysis, a new approach has been developed for the construction of probabilistic rainfall thresholds for shallow landslide triggering, using both a statistical (logistic regression) model and a physically-based model. The logistic regression model was implemented using both hourly and daily rainfall data. The spatially- distributed coupled hydrological and slope stability model (Iverson, 2000; Crosta and Frattini, 2003) was applied to the study area, using a high resolution 5x5 m Digital Elevation Model. In order to account for the uncertainty about the model parameters (i.e., hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic diffusivity, soil cohesion, friction angle, soil depth) a stochastic approach using Monte Carlo simulation was used. As a result, the probabilities of failure associated to different combinations of rainfall intensity, rainfall duration, and potentially destabilized area were calculated. The thresholds derived using the two different approach resulted to be comparable. In addition, the stochastic physically-based model provided an estimation of the percentage of potentially unstable areas (degree of severity) that can be triggered with a certain probability of failure. Finally, the return period of rainfall responsible for landslide triggering was studied, by using a Gumbel Scaling Model of Intensity-Duration-Frequency curves (IDF, Borga et al., 2005). In order to obtain realistic results, it was needed to account for the antecedent rainfall. For that, a simple new approach was adopted for the correction of the return period, by filtering the rainfall maxima with a fixed threshold of antecedent rainfall. Task 1.1.4: Regarding the documentation of selected landslides, many research groups were involved. The aim of the task was to provide all the LESSLOSS partners with data to be used for landslide modelling. Hence, the activity of this task was mostly exploited in other sub-projects (especially Sub-Project 3 and Sub- Project 4). The list of landslides that have been included in the case studies is the following (in parentheses, the partners responsible for data collection): Nikawa landslide, Japan (NTUA); Corniglio landslide, Italy (SGI-MI); Petacciato landslides, Italy (SGI-MI); Grand Ilet landslide, la Reunion, France (BRGM); Rudbar landslide, Iran (NGI); Las Colinas landslide, San Salvador (UNIMIB); Bindo landslide, Italy (UNIMIB); Vajont landslide, Italy (UNIMIB). All deliverables from this Sub-Project can be downloaded from the LESSLOSS website: www.LESSLOSS.org. References Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P. (2003) Distributed modelling of shallow landslide triggered by intense rainfall. NHESS, 3, 81-93. Iverson, R. M. (2000), Landslide triggering by rain infiltration, Water Resour. Res., 36, 1897-1910. Borga, M., C. Vezzani, and G. Dalla Fontana (2005), Regional Rainfall Depth–Duration–Frequency Equations for an Alpine Region, Natural Hazard, 36, 221–235. Figure 1.1 A landslide inventory: acti ve landslides for 1965 are drawn together with all landslides recognized in the demonstration area. 8 Sub-Project 2: Landslide zoning, hazard and vulnerability assessment Sub-Project 2 has dealt with two main elements of risk analysis in landslides: i) hazard zonation, and ii) vulnerability assessment. Both these topics have gained much attention during the past few years due to an increase in number of disasters initiated by landslides. Five main research groups were engaged in Sub-Project 2: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), VCE Holding GmbH (VCE), Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI-SW), University of Milano – Bicocca (UNIMIB), University of Newcastle upon Tyne (UNEW). The following is a summary of activities performed in SP2 in each of the aforementioned topics: Landslide zonation. Fairly good progress has been made in the past few years in developing methods for landslide zonation. The methods, which range from heuristic to statistical and more advanced probabilistic methods, are quite different in details. This is due to the fact that landslide zonation depends on many factors, such as scale of zonation (i.e. local and regional), method of zonation (e.g. inventory, statistical and physically-based), type of landslide (i.e. creep, fall, slide and flow), triggering mechanism (e.g. rainfall, earthquake, human activities, etc.), and purpose of zonation (risk assessment, land-use planning, or stabilisation/countermeasures). In order to address this dynamically evolving topic, the project partners considered the following activities: i) Conduct a critical review of the existing methods of landslide hazard zonation, including the standard practice in different countries; ii) Based on this review, select several methods and apply them to different study areas - it was believed that this would reveal the positive and negative sides (deficiencies) of these methods; iii) Apply different methods to the same site - this would more specifically identify the advantages and disadvantages of the methods; iv) Establish procedures for qualitative and quantitative assessment of the zonation methods; and finally, v) Document the implemented landslides zonation cases for future applications by other researchers. In line with these objectives and following a comprehensive literature review, a number of zonation methods were selected and were applied to well-documented study areas. They include a GIS-based bi-variate statistical method using weights-of-evidence method applied to the village Lichtenstein-Unterhausen in the Swabian Alb, Germany; landslide hazard zonation at Swedish site Åby, by qualitative, and physically-based methods which have become standardised in Norway, Sweden and Canada; physically-based landslide mapping at a sandy site in Sweden, different statistical (most notably the discriminant model) and physically-based methods applied to Landslide hazard mapping at Val Trompia, Italy Val di Fassa area, Eastern Alps; statistical and probabilistic models (such as logistic regression, frequency ratio and first-order second-moment) for landslide hazard zonation of quick clay sites in Shien in Norway and Swedish site Åby. In addition, a different method, based on hydrological data of rainfall was developed for debris flow mapping in large areas. The model was applied successfully to the Valsassina catchments, Southern Albs, Italy, and Ijuez catchment, central Pyrenees, Spain. Most of these methods were implemented in a GIS-framework which provided a flexible computational tool as well as demonstration features. These studies have demonstrated that the methods applied in the present research are reliable and mature enough to be used in research and practice and are quite effective if implemented in a GIS framework. The principles and state-of the art review of landslide zonation are presented in Deliverable 9 and the details of the applications to the study areas are given in Deliverable 94. Vulnerability assessment. Unlike hazard zonation, the progress towards establishing quantitative methods for vulnerability assessment in landslides has been very limited. Realising this situation, the project aimed at developing a probabilistic framework for the quantitative estimation of the vulnerability of the built environment to landslides. To this end, it was noted Figure 2.1 Example landslide hazard map from a Logistic Regression Model 9 that there are considerable uncertainties in the parameters and models relevant in vulnerability assessment, and thus there was a need for quantification of uncertainty if one aims at improving the quality of risk assessment. In the developed model approach, the built environment is subdivided into categories of elements at risk. Then Vulnerability, V, is defined in terms of both the landslide Intensity, I, and the Susceptibility, S, of the elements at risk as V = I • S. Landslide intensity is characterised by its displacement (creep type) and velocity (debris flow and rapid slides). Both the landslide intensity and the element susceptibility have been modelled in the second moment sense, and First-Order Second- Moment (FOSM) approximation has been used to obtain the category vulnerability. Additionally, both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties have incorporated in the developed model. The aleatory uncertainty in vulnerable elements is related to the degree of homogeneity of category susceptibility inside the reference area. Epistemic uncertainty is related to the lack of knowledge regarding such degree of homogeneity and in the imprecision in its estimation. Susceptibility functions have been proposed for various elements at risk such as houses by accounting for their type, age and maintain ace, and for people in houses and open spaces accounting for such factors as age, gender and income. Through the formalisms of FOSM approximations, expressions have been developed for the mean and standard deviation (or coefficient of variation) of the vulnerability. A satisfactory application of the proposed model is contingent on availability of susceptibility data for the various elements at risk. So parallel with the development of the probabilistic framework, attempts have also been made in the project to develop criteria for susceptibility assessment. Through a large number of calibrated numerical simulations of the response of structures to support motions, fragility curves have been developed for structural damage. Similarly, fragility curves have been proposed, based on literature data and numerical simulations, for roads and pipelines to ground motions. The developed model has been applied to the village of Lichtenstein-Unterhausen in Swabian Alb (Germany) for which a landslide susceptibility assessment was performed in the project. The vulnerability was assessed for both structures and people in four distinct zones in the region. The factors considered in the vulnerability assessment have been buildings (accounting for type and maintenance) and people (considering, number, age and income). The results, which are in form of average and standard deviation of total vulnerability for the four zones, clearly indicate the significance of accounting for uncertainty. Such results should be valuable for both land-use planning and prioritising stabilisation and preventive measures by decision makers. A review of existing approaches for the estimation of vulnerability of the built environment to landslides have been described in Deliverable 10 and the details of the developed methodology as well as application to the study area are given in Deliverable 93 which are both available from the LESSLOSS website: www.LESSLOSS.org. 10 Sub-Project 3: Innovative approaches for landslide assessment and slope stability The work carried out in Sub-Project 3 covered several different topics ranging from the study of triggering mechanisms of landslides (rainfalls, earthquakes) to the improvement or even development of new constitutive models and predictions of landslides displacements. One of the significant advances concerns the prediction of landslides displacements. Seven main research groups participated in Sub-Project 3: Geodynamique et Structure (GDS), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres (BRGM), Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble (INPG), National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Stamatopoulos and Associates Co. (SAA) and University of Milano – Bicocca (UNIMIB). The models that have been tested and developed in Sub-Project 3 can be broadly classified into two categories: those who predict permanent but limited displacements and those required for the evaluation of long-run out slides. The former models are based on rather simplified constitutive models (equivalent linear model for instance) and are applicable to non degrading materials. They have been used to highlight the importance of specific earthquake related features on the seismic response of slopes (topography, directivity, flings, etc.); most often it has been shown that previous results ignoring these effects significantly underestimate the induced displacements or ground motion amplification due to the slope topography. The latter models have been the subject of new and sophisticated developments; the most important requirement of those models is their capability of keeping track of the changes in geometry of the slope as landsliding proceeds. Several models, based on different constitutive assumptions, have been developed or expanded for loadings related to earthquake situations. They range from an extension of the well known Newmark rigid block model to a multi-blocks model, to the implementation of depth integrated rheological models, Bingham models, grain crushing models or the definition of new failure criteria (explaining the diffuse type of failure observed in some gentle slopes). All these models were successfully used to explain, at least qualitatively, some of the observed slope failures either during earthquakes or following intensive rainfalls. Using those models few additional studies were carried out to assess the impact of a sliding soil mass on a structure located within the slope, i.e. impacted by the moving mass, or near the crest of the slope. Design methods were proposed to take into account those effects. These methods really improve the existing ones, mostly based on empirical correlations, by relying on mechanically based evaluations of the downstream velocity of the sliding mass. They represent a step towards more economic design strategies: the structure can be designed to accommodate the imposed displacements as opposed to common practice which requires stabilisation of huge areas of unstable slopes. In some instances it has been possible to propose dimensionless charts for preliminary design of piles located in the unstable slope. Finally, new stabilising techniques for unstable slopes have been investigated and specific numerical tools developed to ensure a rationale and efficient design. These techniques are based on the use of stiff inclusions to increase the resistance of the reinforced soil volume; contribution of the inclusions takes place not only through their extensional stiffness and resistance, as in classical soil nailing, but mostly through their bending stiffness and resistance. The improved stability is checked with respect to the ultimate capacity but also, more importantly, through the evaluation of induced displacements. This is made possible through the development of a new elastoplastic constitutive model based on a homogenisation technique. All the tools have been tested, and to the extent possible validated, by applying them to the data base of case histories compiled by SP1. In some cases the same slope was analysed using different models. It is interested to note that the observed displacement patterns can be satisfactorily predicted from different fundamental assumptions on the constitutive behaviour. This points out the difficulty of explaining the observed slope failure from data based on global observation. All deliverables produced within this Sub-Project can be downloaded from www.LESSLOSS.org. Figure 3.1 Contours of plastic deformations in the case of a one-storey building at 8m from the crest of the slope with given load subjected to a record with 0.8g, when the foundation is (a) mat foundation and (b) isolated footings. 11 Sub-Project 4: Landslide disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling Evaluation of the risk due to landslides needs a good understanding of the geological setting, material behaviour, and physical mechanisms, as well as the use of adequate, flexible computational models to make the predictions. Experience shows that getting sufficiently reliable parameters is one of the main challenges in risk analysis. Crucial for a better comprehension and actual management of the risk is a strategy combining the definition of the predisposing and the natural or human triggering factors, suitable conceptual models, and the identification of relevant physical input properties and calibration requirements. Being concerned with landslide risk assessment, Sub-Project 4 is closely related to Sub-Projects 1, 2 and 3. Four main research groups were involved in Sub-Project 4: Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres (BRGM), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) and Studio Geotecnico Italiano, Milano (SGI-MI). The achievements within the four tasks which were tackled in this Sub-Project are described below. Task 1.4.1: Characterisation and hazard assessment of representative landslide sites: Hazard assessment, i.e. the determination of the probability of occurrence of unfavourable events for a given location and time exposure, is one of the first steps in the landslide risk assessment method. It is largely dependent on the availability and the quality of the (geo-referenced) geological, geo-morphological, and geotechnical data. In this task, the data collection and analysis of the Corniglio landslide case history (mountainous Apennines region of Northwestern Italy) has been performed. In particular, substantial data has been collected on the landslide movements (from December 1995 to March 2000) and the effects caused to the buildings laying within the Village area. The set of data consisted of inclinometer measurements, building displacements (from geodetic surveys) and crack monitoring with instruments placed on the damaged buildings. In addition, a complete census of the buildings subjected to ground movements in the Village area has been conducted: for each building a photo has been taken and the main data collected (type of structure, number of floors etc.). The data has been collected and organised with the aim of assessing the relationship between the absolute movement of the ground (measured by the inclinometers), the displacement of the buildings (identified by the geodetic survey) and the damage occurred in terms of crack opening. Inclinometer data gaps were filled and extrapolated using the continuous displacement recordings of nearby buildings. For a set of buildings the data revealed itself to be consistent and a set of correlation plots has been prepared. Finally, seismic as well as non seismic 2D/3D numerical analyses were performed for the Corniglio landslide case, using the provided data. Apart from characterizing a real landslide and assessing related hazard, a bibliographical and critical review of the existing methods (empirical, semi- analytical, deterministic, probabilistic) was performed for: • the estimation of permanent ground displacements due to ground failure (liquefaction, landslides and surface fault rupture), orientated to the seismic risk assessment of lifelines and general loss estimation purposes; • the large scale modelling within landslide hazard assessment. Works performed in Task 1.4.1 are detailed in Deliverables 1 (“Documentation of selected landslides”), 16 (“Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications (I): Large scale models”), 18 & 121 (“Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications (III): Applications to real active landslide sites” - Phases I & II), and 96A & 96B (“Application of numerical models to case histories: Non earthquake & Earthquake cases – Phase II”), all of which are available from www.LESSLOSS.org. Task 4.2: Loss estimation models for urban areas (mainly lives) and displacement thresholds for lifelines In this task, a critical review of the existing methods (mostly empirical) for the estimation of the indirect – economic losses of lifelines due to ground failure after strong earthquakes, as well as a pilot application to a urban water and gas system (Thessaloniki), were performed to evaluate the applicability of the method. Furthermore, a classification of lifelines components (water system, gas system, waste-water system) was combined with an attempt to concentrate their construction costs, as well as a critical comparison between the construction costs based on Greek and American practice, accompanied with a critical review of the loss modelling bibliography about direct losses of lifelines was performed. Finally, a bibliographic and critical review of existing permanent displacement thresholds for selected lifeline elements (water, transportation) was performed. Regarding the direct loss caused by a landslide to a set of buildings lying within the area affected by the ground displacements, focus has been given on a scenario-based probabilistic estimation (First Order 12 Second Moment, or FOSM). The proposed approach has been applied to the urban area of Corniglio. The main aim of the performed study was the quantitative assessment of the uncertainties arising from the interaction between the landslide phenomena and the built environment. The probabilistic framework employed allows explicit consideration of the uncertainties affecting the parameters and models which describe the intensity of the reference landslide, the vulnerability of the built environment to the landslides, and the post-event restoration costs. Parameters are modelled as second- moment random variables and the propagation of the uncertainties is addressed through a FOSM approximation. The second-moment perspective adopted allows for an efficient quantification of the uncertainty in the estimation of direct loss. Works performed in Task 1.4.2 are part of Deliverables 17 (“Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications (II) – Methods for loss analysis in built areas”), 93 (“Vulnerability Assessment for Landslides - Phase II”) and 121 (“Landslide risk assessment methods and applications (III) – Application to real active landslides – Phase II”). Task 4.3: Early warning systems to calibrate loss models and evaluate losses Performed works in this task aimed mainly at identifying and integrating the components required for the Stochastic Design of Early Warning Systems (SDEWS) within a decision- making framework. The focus was placed on the development of a rational methodology for defining warning thresholds that account for both the hazard intensity and the corresponding consequences. An extensive literature review was developed to investigate the state of knowledge about the application of EWS to Geohazards and the methodological gaps and opportunities needed to improve them. For this purpose decision tools capable of managing different information sources including data, models and even experts beliefs were introduced. Due to the lack of evidence to validate and calibrate the loss model embedded into the EWS (meaning measurements of structures and people consequences as observed after the impact of a natural hazard with varying intensities), different scenarios were proposed for addressing the applicability of EWS at the regional scale. As a first approach, the performed work discussed the validation of the vulnerability components that allow for a direct estimate of losses conditioned on specific hazard intensities related to landslides. In particular, simulations of typical scenarios were developed for the validation of the methodology proposed in LESSLOSS Deliverable 93, specifically the Intensity- Susceptibility-Vulnerability Method ISVM. Results on the validation of the components of the ISVM showed consistent results for a broad set of typical conditions. Further development is expected on classification, smoothing and forecasting based on real time data, such that the operation of Stochastic Early Warning Systems SEWS can be fully implemented. Figure 4.1 A landslide-building interaction curve (response function, which represents the response of the building (RDB – relati ve displacement between building and ground) in terms of the nominal value of the intensity (ADG – absolute displacement of the ground) 13 Task 4.4: Recommended practice for landslide risk assessment Within this task, two bibliographical and critical reviews have been performed: • one presents the methods used in practice to estimate building deformations induced by ground movements (e.g. landslides). In addition, a complete analysis has been performed, to identify the response parameters that govern the behaviour of a structure subjected to differential settlements, focusing essentially on simple reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures. Several characteristics and different types of parameters (preferably uncorrelated) of the structure model were examined, in order: i) to evaluate their importance in the structural response, ii) to provide classification criteria and finally, iii) to define damage limit states and to propose fragility curves useful for landslide vulnerability assessment. • the other presents the available empirical models for the seismic risk analysis of lifeline elements due to ground failure and the resulting permanent ground displacements caused by localized abrupt relative displacement. Also, a validation and proposal of improved vulnerability functions for selected lifeline elements at risk (transportation, water system) along with a critical review of the definition of the damage state thresholds and possible correlation between functional and/or economical losses with damage states was made. These works are part of Deliverable 93 (“Vulnerability assessment for landslides – Phase II”) which can be downloaded from the LESSLOSS website: www.LESSLOSS.org. Apart from these works, the major research effort in this task was to provide a synthesis of the outcomes of Sub-Projects 1 to 4 (Area 1), through Deliverable 120 (“Recommended practice for landslides risk assessment”), which proposes useful recommendations for the landslide risk assessment practice, thus representing an important output of the LESSLOSS project. 14 Sub-Project 5: In-situ Assessment, Monitoring and Typification Sub-Project 5 covers In-situ Assessment, Monitoring and Typification of Buildings and Infrastructure. Five research groups have participated in Sub-Project 5: Arsenal GmbH (ARS), CESI Spa (CESI), Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen (RWTH) and VCE Holding GmbH (VCE). This Sub-Project focuses on innovative methods for the assessment of the following important existing structures: • Buildings whose integrity during earthquakes is of vital importance for civil protection, e.g. hospitals, fire stations, power plants, telecommunication facilities, etc. (importance class IV according to EN1998-1:2004) • Bridges of critical importance for maintaining communications, especially in the immediate post-earthquake period, bridges where failure is associated with a large number of probable fatalities and major bridges, where a design life greater than normal is required (importance class III according to EN 1998-2:200X) • Buildings whose seismic resistance is of importance in view of the consequences associated with a collapse, e.g. schools, assembly halls, cultural institutions, etc. (importance class III according to EN1998- 1:2004) • Industrial facilities, where secondary risks, e.g. the risk of release of toxic and/ or explosive materials exist • Cultural heritage. It is of high importance, that these structures remain greatly undamaged and serviceable. If necessary, their earthquake resistance has to be increased based on the results of assessment. Normally a Level III assessment with a detailed 3D structural model, updated by using measured dynamic properties, has to be carried out. It is one of the most important tasks of SP5 to integrate experimental techniques into the assessment procedure. If such investigations are carried out in the pre- earthquake phase, measures for seismic upgrading can be undertaken in due time. In the post-earthquake phase these investigations enable the determination of the remaining safety and the serviceability, especially if models for the undamaged status were Figure 5.1 Illustration of the topics invol ved in Sub-Project 5 15 elaborated before. Hence, even the task damage detection is important within LESSLOSS/ SP5. Different degrees of accuracy of model updating are necessary for the pre-earthquake assessment and the post-earthquake assessment. In the first case the updated modal frequencies need not be fit with very high accuracy to the measured frequencies, since the frequency content of the input earthquake for the earthquake analysis is known only roughly. In most cases response spectra from EN 1998-1 will be applied. On the other hand, when changes of modal frequencies are used to quantify and localize earthquake damages, the agreement between measured and calculated frequencies should be small. Especially for bridges the changes of modal frequencies due to local damages are quite small, hence the differences should be maximum within 0,01 and 0,1 Hz. Eventually, simplified vulnerability models for some types of important structures can be elaborated from detailed case studies, which can be also used in the context of Level I (or II) approaches. The need for such models and possible benefits have been discussed with LESSLOSS/ SP 10 and 11 (Earthquake disaster scenarios predictions and loss modeling for urban areas/ infrastructures) and LESSLOSS/ SP 9 (Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications). The elaboration of proper Assessment Manuals has been an important task. The people to be trained should have a fundamental education in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering (SD&EE). But the most important chapters of SD&EE, which are relevant for structural assessment, have to be summarized in an adequate, illustrative way. The basis for the manuals have been the already finished main deliverables for the first year, D19 and D20. Especially in the Application – Version the procedures will be demonstrated via case studies (e.g. chapter 3.1 – Hospital Innsbruck/ Austria in D20). The examples of investigated structures (Annex 20A) can be mainly used for training. Also displacement based design methodologies are important for structural assessment. A chapter on the method and an example of application have been elaborated in cooperation with LESSLOSS/ SP8. Further, at least references on methods for the reduction of vulnerability, on energy dissipation devices and seismic isolators have been given especially in the application version of the Assessment Manual. The references and even some summaries have been elaborated in cooperation with LESSLOSS/ SP6 and SP7. The most innovative task of LESSLOSS/ SP5 is the Update of vulnerability estimates via monitoring.Two main deliverables D19 and D20 and two smaller deliverables were elaborated. D19 and D20 mean the background documentation for the European Manual for in-situ Assessment of the Earthquake Resistance of Important Existing Structures. Further, the layout for a European Assessment Code was elaborated. . 16 Sub-Project 6: Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and seismic isolators The aim of Sub-Project 6 (Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and seismic isolators) is the development and validation of two innovative antiseismic devices (a low stiffness isolator and an electroinductive damper), the improvement of the performances of a sliding isolator with curved surface and the evaluation of benefits and limits of isolation systems based on steel hysteretic dissipaters coupled with flat sliders. Five main research groups have participated in Sub-Project 6:Ente Nuove Tecnologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente (ENEA), Applicazione Lavorazione Giunti Appoggi SpA (ALGA), Maurer Soehne GmbH & Co. KG (MAURER), STAP SA (STAP) and Vinci Construction Grands Projets (VCGP). The Low Stiffness Isolator (LSI) was developed by ALGA and is particularly addressed to light structures like family houses. The electroinductive damper (DECS), developed by ALGA, is an energy dissipater based on the interaction of a diamagnetic material, like aluminium, with an electric field generated by permanent magnets. The Sliding Isolation Pendulum (SIP) developed by MAURER is an improved curved surface slider, capable of withstanding high weights for long periods without creep effects and high velocity deformations without damages due to friction. Finally, several types of Steel Hysteretic Elements (SHE) of different geometries and materials, have been analysed and tested in order of evaluating the benefit and the limits of such devices, with particular regards to the re-centring capabilities. All the abovementioned devices have been numerically modelled by ENEA and tested on the ENEA shaking table, using a suitable mock-up (300 kN weight) capable of providing significant forces on the devices in the acceleration and frequency ranges of interest, using several natural and artificial acceleration time histories purposely developed. Applications to real structures like family houses, civil buildings and bridges have been analysed in cooperation with ENEA, STAP and VCGP. Low Stiffness Isolators have been developed by ALGA with the aim of applying the base isolation technique also to light structures such as two- three storeys family houses. As a matter of fact, with the “standard” isolators, the horizontal stiffness is normally too high to reach the optimal isolation period (2 s) for light structures. Low stiffness isolators are made, like traditional ones, of rubber layers and steel plates, but with a large internal hole filled with a suitable material with small horizontal stiffness, capable of dissipating energy. The isolator stiffness, in fact, increases with the rubber shear modulus (G) and the isolator cross section, while decreases with the total rubber height. It is worth noting that the minimum G modulus for dissipating rubber compounds is about 0.4 MPa; moreover, the cross section can not be reduced too much, since the isolator has to carry the vertical load; finally, the total rubber height can not increased too much to avoid instability. Thus, due to the abovementioned reasons, it can be quite difficult isolate light structures. The innovative idea developed in LESSLOSS is to use the minimum reinforced rubber cross section to carry the vertical load with adequate rotational inertia and to fill the internal hole with a different material to minimize the horizontal stiffness. The rubber compound used for the LSI is very soft, having a G modulus of about 0.4 MPa and a damping coefficient of 10%; the internal “core” is made of polinorbornene. Two sets of isolators have been manufactured and tested: the first is circular and the second is square; they have an internal cylindrical hole filled with soft material. Prototypes isolators have been tested at the ALGA laboratory on a dynamic test machine to evaluate their properties in term of vertical and horizontal stiffness and damping. Then, the square isolators have been used at ENEA Casaccia labs, in Rome, for a shake table campaign on a base isolated frame subjected to many earthquakes. Tests provided very good results. The DECS operative principle is based on the generation of electrical power from mechanical (vibrational) power, using the device deformations caused by the earthquake; the aim is that to limit and damp the displacements of the protected structure. The generated electric energy is then dissipated into heat. DECS can be passive or semi-active. In passive devices the energy conversion is uncontrolled; in semi-active devices the energy dissipation is modulated, usually by employing low power level controlling auxiliary devices. In the framework of the LESSLOSS project ALGA designed and manufactured two devices with maximum reaction force 40 kN and Figure 6.1 Finite element model of a Low Stiffness Isolator 17 1000 kN, respectively. The first one was a scaled model particularly addressed to the shaking table tests, which are aimed at simulating the response of an isolated mass (representing for example a deck) supported by low stiffness rubber isolators. The aim of these tests was to experimentally verify the benefit, in terms of structural response reduction, which is obtained by adding an energy dissipater to a seismically isolated structure. The full scale DECS has been designed with a maximum capacity of 1000 kN to verify the feasibility of a damper to be installed on a real structure such as a bridge deck and to compare the response, the dimensions, the initial and maintenance costs, with respect to other dampers (such as hydraulic devices) already available on the market. The full scale DECS was tested in the ALGA laboratory on the dynamic test machine. In both the experimental campaigns, DECS showed a very good capacity of dissipating energy with very stable hysteresis loops. MAURER designed and manufactured lots of different SHE, which have been tested on the ENEA shaking table, coupled with flat sliders. The specific objective of this activity was that of evaluating the benefits and limits of such devices, and in particular, assessing and validating the recently proposed criterion for evaluating the re- centring capability of the isolation systems. It should be noted that this study represents an important novelty, because, at present, the re- centring matter is dealt within the: AASHTO: “Guide specifications for seismic isolation design”; − Eurocode 8: “EN 1998-2: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 2: Bridges”; Euro Norm: “prEN 15129: Anti-seismic Devices”. However, the above standards adopt completely dissimilar evaluation approaches and the severity of the requirements specified differs by one order of magnitude. To conduct the studies within the framework of LESSLOSS, several steel hysteretic elements were designed, manufactured and subjected to characterization tests at the Munich Bundeswehr University. The steel hysteretic element is the “Triangular Plate Damper” type, which was selected for its ease in both dimensioning and construction – but especially so because it has not been subject to any limitations patent-wise. Just four types of elements were retained for the two exacting testing campaigns, which were distinguished by the following values of (post-elastic)/(elastic) stiffness ratio η=0,022 − η=0,031 − η=0,034 and η=0,071 respectively. The mock up was a SDOF isolation system comprising four PTFE sliding spherical bearings, one to three steel hysteretic element(s) and a rigid reaction mass equal to 12,2 and 16,4 t. The seismic inputs were a synthetic time history specifically prepared by ENEA, as well as various natural records, such as the Alkion, Bolu Mountain, Colfiorito, to name a few. Several devices of each one type of element were used during the tests. Each device was subjected to a progressively increasing seismic input, so as to obtain displacement time-histories with different values of ductility ratio m (from 1 to 11). It is worth mentioning that, among other achievements, this testing campaign has allowed the verification of the restoring capability evaluation according to the three above mentioned standards. In conclusion, the experience gained with the flat surface sliders coupled with hysteretic elements proves that these systems are easy to design and manufacture, user-friendly, reliable and repeatable. Nonetheless, their restoring capability needs to be verified on a case-by-case basis. SIPs have been designed and manufactured by MAURER with the specific objective of experimentally substantiating/disproving the characteristics and advantages claimed by curved surface sliders (friction pendulum systems). To wit, the testing campaign has investigated the effects of substantial changes in the supported mass and its claimed capacity to minimize the adverse torsional motions that could take place in non-symmetrical structures. The mock-up used to this purpose was essentially the same used for the test with SHE, with the following important alterations, to wit:: a) the Nr. 4 PTFE sliding spherical bearings were replaced with as many Sliding Isolation Pendula (SIP) manufactured by Maurer, where the special sliding material MSM® is used, which is suitable for high- speed movements; b) the unidirectional guides were removed from the rig, thus turning the SDOF system into a three-degree of freedom system (translations along x and y axes, rotation about z axis); c) the reaction mass was increased to 29,1 t. Twenty tests were conducted with the symmetric mass configuration. The results were in perfect accordance with the mathematical modeling estimate. Then four concrete blocks (4x1,15 t = 4,6 t) were removed from one side of the isolated frame and the same seismic input were applied. No appreciable torsional effects were observed, thus the theoretical prediction was confirmed. Finally, another important objective is that of investigating the effects of creep induced deformation on the break-away force of curved surface sliders. This experimental test, which represents an absolutely innovative approach, is still in progress. In conclusion, all the initially planned goals have been reached in Sub-Project 6. Innovative antiseismic devices like Low Stiffness Isolators and Electroinductive Dampers have been developed and successfully qualified. These devices are ready for the first applications. In addition, more traditional devices like sliders (with flat or curved surfaces) have been deeply studied and tested and their behaviour has been improved. 18 Sub-Project 7: Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction The aim of Sub-Project 7 of the LESSLOSS Project is the reduction of the seismic vulnerability of buildings and infrastructures. This can correspond to very different interventions, as there are many types of structures, many materials and many ways to reduce vulnerability. This explains that a variety of topics is treated. Six research groups have participated in Sub-Project 7: Universite de Liege (ULIEGE), Centre Internacional de Métodes Numérics en Enginyeria (CIMNE), Istanbul Technical University (ITU), Istituto Superior Técnico (IST), Middle East Technical University (METU), Acciona Infraestructuras (ACCIONA) and the University of Bristol (UBRIS). A synthesis of the work performed during three years by seven Institutions has been published in the form of a book in which the reader can have an overview of the output of research. The overview is already wide, since the book has over 300 pages. Its reference is: “Guidelines for Seismic Vulnerability Reduction in the Urban Environment”, IUSS Press, 2007, A.Plumier Editor, ISBN 978-88-6198-008-2. The first chapter deals with the screening of buildings on an urban scale to identify which need retrofitting. In the second chapter, conventional methods for retrofitting are described. In all the following chapters, new techniques for retrofitting are presented. The application of Fibre Reinforced Polymers (FRP) on existing structures is a technique which has developed a lot recently. The content of Chapter three is related to the design of FRP solutions: a user friendly design tool, experimental data on durability and fatigue and a design method considering the contribution of steel rebars and FRP to resistance. An effective numerical model for composite is presented. Chapter three also describes experimental studies on masonry infill which FRP can effectively reinforce against transverse motion and for their in-plane strength. Rehabilitation using that technique can be applied at an urban scale. The use of dissipative devices to reduce the vulnerability of structures is the subject of Chapter four. The technique is applied to precast concrete portal frames and to steel frames with concentric bracings. The use of base isolation for seismic upgrading of historical buildings is developed in Chapter five, in which a displacement - based method is applied to a light house. The mitigation of hammering between buildings, with a methodology to face various situations, is the subject of Chapter six. A displacement based methodology of analysis for underground structures in soft soils is presented at Chapter seven. The Report : “Guidelines for Seismic Vulnerability Reduction in the Urban Environment”, focuses on practical applications rather than on theory, but it can serve as an orientation to more detailed explanations about the research work of the different Institutions and the results obtained, as those information can be found in the specific “deliverables” of the LESSLOSS project, available on the LESSLOSS website (www.LESSLOSS.org). F FR RP P t t i i e e I In nf f i i l l l l s st t r ru ut t P Pl l a as st t i i c c h hi i n ng ge e e el l e em me en nt t w wi i t t h h f f i i b br re e d di i s sc cr re et t i i z za at t i i o on n e el l a as st t i i c c f f r ra am me e e el l e em me en nt t s s Figure 7.1 A reinforced concrete infilled frame strengthed with FRP and model with infill struts and FRP ties 19 Sub-Project 8: Displacement based design methodologies Sub-Project 8 deals with the displacement-based design of buildings, bridges and equipment in industrial facilities, Seven research groups have participated in this Sub-Project: University of Patras (UPAT), Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA), DENCO Development and Engineering Consultants Ltd. (DENCO), Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble (INPG), INSA-LYON (INSAL), Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the University of Pavia (UPAV). Structural displacements and member deformations do not enjoy a primary role in current force-based seismic design. Their absolute magnitude is of interest only for aspects considered of secondary importance for seismic performance and safety: for the calculation of P-∆ effects, the limitation of non-structural damage in buildings by controlling interstorey drifts, the control of pounding between adjacent structures, the design of bearings and moveable connections in bridges, providing clearances and overlap lengths to avoid unseating, etc. In the main phases of current force-based design, namely that of member dimensioning for given strength demands and of member detailing, structural displacements and member deformations enter in an average sense and indirectly, through their ratio to the corresponding value at yield: through the displacement ductility ratios, global and local, which determine the global behaviour factor and the member detailing requirements, respectively. Recent years have seen an increased interest in the absolute magnitude of displacements and deformations as the basis of seismic design. The main reason for this is the recent recognition that displacement- and deformation-, rather than strength-, demands and capacities, are what determine seismic performance and safety. The earthquake is a dynamic action, representing for a structure a demand to withstand certain displacements and deformations, but not specific forces. Ductility factors, although convenient for the determination of strength demands, are poor descriptors of deformation capacity, as the introduction of another, sometimes ill-defined variable, i.e. the yield displacement or deformation, often increases, rather than reduces, uncertainty. In displacement based design seismic displacements are the primary response variables for the design: design or acceptance criteria and capacity-demand comparisons are expressed in terms of displacements rather than forces. Since their introduction in the early 1990s, displacement-based concepts have found their way more into seismic evaluation or assessment of existing structures, than in the design of new ones. For existing structures the application of displacement-based concepts is rather straightforward: members sizes and reinforcement are known and simple or advanced analysis procedures can be employed for the estimation of inelastic displacement and deformation demands throughout the structure, to be compared with member deformation capacities. Full application of displacement-based design to new structures is still facing difficulties. For example if the reinforcement of concrete members has not been determined yet, the distribution of a given global displacement demand to individual members is difficult. Moreover, direct procedures for reinforcement dimensioning on the basis of given deformation demands have not been developed yet, to replace time-proven strength-based procedures for member dimensioning. Recourse to iterations between member design and nonlinear analysis is often necessary to overcome the first difficulty. To bypass the second one, practically all DBD procedures proposed so far translate global displacement demands into a global strength demand, expressed in terms of a design base shear. Nonlinear static (pushover) procedures of analysis go hand-in-hand with displacement-based seismic design, as they are normally employed for the evaluation of a design produced by DBD. They also share with DBD common acceptance and evaluation criteria, namely the magnitude of inelastic member deformations. Nonlinear analysis, static (Pushover) or dynamic, is also accepted by Eurocode 8 for the design of new buildings without recourse to a global behaviour factor. In such an approach members are dimensioned/checked on the basis of acceptance criteria in terms of deformations, instead of forces. Nonetheless, the elaboration of such criteria is left for the National Annexes of Eurocode 8. A similar gap exists in Eurocode 8 regarding member nonlinear models to be used within the framework of nonlinear analysis, static or dynamic. An additional difficulty comes from the fact that common nonlinear member models require the geometry and the reinforcement of members to be known in detail a-priori, while such information is not available unless the structure has been fully designed. So, although Eurocode 8 has opened the door for the use of nonlinear analysis for direct seismic design, it has failed so far to provide the tools needed to use this option. This is simply due to lack of widely accepted member acceptance criteria in terms of deformations, simple and validated nonlinear member models, etc. Displacement-based seismic design has now come of age, especially for buildings. The work in Sub-Project 8 (Displacement based design methodologies) of LESSLOSS contributed to further advancement of DBD, both for buildings and for bridges, by focusing on special crucial subjects and unresolved questions. 20 The work has been divided in two distinct but closely knit parts: one for buildings and another for bridges. Both for buildings and for bridges, the work has covered both the estimation of displacement and deformation demands and that of component force and deformation capacities. For buildings, the work on analysis for estimation of displacement and deformation demands evaluated nonlinear analysis methods and the corresponding modelling at various degrees of sophistication, on the basis of experimental results (including identification of model parameters affecting reliability of deformation predictions) and compared nonlinear dynamic to linear analyses (static or modal) for irregular in plan buildings. It covered also soil-structure interaction in 3D, including uplift and the effect of base isolation. It concluded with a description of the latest advances in adaptive pushover analysis for irregular buildings. Tools for the estimation of displacement and deformation demands in buildings were developed, in the form of effective elastic stiffness of concrete members for use in linear analyses emulating nonlinear ones and of ductility-dependent equivalent damping. Regarding component force and deformation capacities, acceptance and design criteria in terms of deformations at various performance levels were developed and proposed, for concrete members under uni- or bi-directional cyclic loading. The work on bridges included an overview of displacement-based design methodologies for bridges without seismic isolation (i.e., with integral deck and piers), including an evaluation of iterative procedures. A new approach for the cost- effective and rational design of the piers and the deck directly on the basis of displacement and deformation demands without analysis iterations, was proposed and evaluated through application to real bridges and comparison of cost- effectiveness and performance with those of their force-based design counterparts. The aspect of estimation of displacement and deformation demands was catered for via comparisons of nonlinear static analysis with dynamic and with linear analysis. Moreover, a method for adaptive pushover analysis for bridges was proposed and implemented and its advantages over conventional pushover analysis were demonstrated. Tools for the analysis and for DBD were developed on the basis of test results and numerical approaches. These tools included the secant-to-yield stiffness and the equivalent damping of concrete piers. Regarding the component force and deformation capacities, the work focused on concrete piers, developing simple rules for the estimation of their flexure- or shear-controlled cyclic ultimate deformation, on the basis of test results and numerical analyses. A distinct part has been devoted to seismic isolators, dealing with the evaluation of their displacement and re-centring capacity and the effect of exceedance of isolator displacement capacity on the bridge seismic response. This latter work produced a proposal for immediate implementation into an amendment of the re-centring requirements in EN 1998-2:2005 for seismic isolators. The effect of the variation of the axial force of friction pendulum isolators on the response of the isolated bridge has also been studied and was found, in most cases, to be minor. On a side development referring to building-like industrial infrastructures, procedures were proposed for the construction of acceleration and displacement floor spectra for the seismic design of equipment (piping, tanks, pumps, storage racks, etc.). This fills a gap in seismic design codes, that currently have empirical rules for this purpose. Figure 8.1 (a) North West view of a full scale test building, (b) Finite element mesh and concentrated masses and (c) fibres in a given section. 21 Sub-Project 9: Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications Probabilistic thinking is connatural to earthquake engineering and pervades every aspect of this discipline, from the definition of the hazard to the assessment of structural response, with the associated consequences of damages, threat to life, direct and indirect monetary losses. Probabilistic thinking has actually been at the root of the development of modern earthquake engineering in the second half of the last century, and reflections of this thinking permeate more or less visibly the present day seismic design regulations. Recent disastrous earthquakes occurred in highly developed and/or populated areas have brought about the need for an expanded and explicit recourse to probabilistic approaches for two main purposes: better control of the expected performances of new construction, assessment of the expected losses with accompanying development of mitigation measures, for the built environment. Major research programs have been launched to cope with the above issues, the larger and more systematic ones being currently underway in the US. LESSLOSS is the first European project which includes two sub-projects: SP9 and SP10, dealing with probabilistic risk analysis, of individual structures and infrastructures, and of urban areas, respectively. Seven research groups were involved in Sub-Project 9: Università di Roma “La Sapienza” (UROMA), Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto (FEUP), University of Bristol (UBRIS), University of Ljubljana (ULJ),. Univeristy of Naples Federico II (UNAP), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) and the University of Surrey (USUR). The objective of SP9 has consisted in examining the more valid existing procedures, to advance/modify them as deemed appropriate, to propose one or more of these as suitable for general use in practice, to validate and exemplify them through a number of applications, to consolidate the proposal in a final document containing, in addition to a detailed description of the selected methods all the information necessary to carry out the analysis. The stated objectives have been achieved through a number of intermediate stages, the end of which being marked by the emission of one or more documents. Stage 1 consisted essentially of a critical review of available “engineering” approaches, condensed into a comprehensive documents of about 120 pages, plus one original document providing a probabilistic extension of a well-known nonlinear static method of assessment. Stage 2 followed in logical sequence, with the production of a voluminous document of more than 200 pages containing a number of applications to such structures as 2D and 3D RC frames, a continuous multi-span bridge, a steel moment resisting frame and an oil-storage tank. At the same time, during Stage 2, a critical review of probabilistic assessment methods for key infrastructural systems was undertaken, with focus on road networks, industrial plants and water-supply systems, resulting in three corresponding state-of-the-art reports. Finally, in Stage 3 the maturity acquired through the previous stages of work has allowed the production of a manual presenting in a self-contained manner the final selection of methods for structure-specific assessment, accompanied by worked-out examples of application. Additionally, the parallel activity on selected infrastructures has progressed with the production of three follow-up research documents, each dealing with a specific aspect identified during the review phase (Stage 2) as in need of further investigation. Based on the results of SP9, it can be stated that, as far as the (relatively) simpler task of probabilistic seismic risk assessment for individual structures, such as buildings and bridges, is concerned, the (too) few European research groups active in the field can be considered at a stage of maturity comparable to that of the leading institutions worldwide (see the LESSLOSS Report number 6). It is then strongly recommended to improve on “quantity”, rather than “quality”. As far as infrastructures (transportation, water-supply, gas and electricity networks and Figure 9.1 Identification of failure modes for a plane frame 22 industrial plants) are concerned, a considerably more data intensive and complex problem due to the many multi-level interactions between components, the situation is less advanced, and far greater resources are needed. With the long-term goal of being able to quantify the actual total societal cost of our built environment in mind, consisting of initial construction cost but also of the direct and indirect loss incurred in catastrophic events such as earthquakes, probabilistic methods do appear to provide the most rational answer. Much research effort is to be devoted towards the achievement of the mentioned goal, the results of which need to be spread broadly within the scientific and professional communities. A major and decisive step awaiting solution from future research is that of transforming existing assessment methods into tools for direct design. References Sub-Project 9 [2007] “Probabilistic Methods for Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures”, LESSLOSS Report No. LESSLOSS-2007/06, 163 pages. Jalayer, F., Franchin, P., Pinto P.E. [2007] “A scalar damage measure for seismic reliability analysis of RC frames”, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Wiley, Special Issue on Seismic reliability Analysis of Structures Cornell C.A. (Editor), in press. Franchin, P., Pinto, P.E. [2007] “Transitability of mainshock-damaged bridges”, Proc. 1st Joint US- Italy Workshop on Seismic Design and Assessment of Bridges, Pavia, Italy, April 19th – 20th. Dolšek, M., Fajfar, P. [2007] “Simplified probabilistic seismic performance assessment of plan-asymmetric buildings”, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., Vol. 36, in press, DOI:10.1002/eqe Peruš, I., Fajfar, P. [2007] “Prediction of the force - drift envelope for RC columns in flexure by the CAE method”, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., Vol. 36, accepted for publication Vega, J., Gaspar, J.M, Benito, B., Pastor, J.A., Alarcon, E. [2007]: “Bridge Response Under Seismic Action” (in Spanish), Proc. 3rd Spanish Congress on Seismic Engineering. Romão, X., Guedes J., Costa A., Delgado R. [2006] “Seismic Risk Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Proceedings of the 1st European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Geneva, Switzerland. Delgado, P., Monteiro, R., Marques, M., Costa, A., Delgado R. [2006] “Probabilistic seismic safety assessment of bridges – application to a real case," Proceedings of the 1st European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Geneva, Switzerland. Kazantzi, A.K., Righiniotis, T.D., Chryssanthopoulos, M. [2007] “Fragility and hazard analysis of a welded steel moment resisting frame”, Jnl Earthquake Engineering, to appear. Di Carluccio, A., Manfredi, G., Iervolino, I., Fabbrocino, G. [2007] “Fragility analysis of liquid storage steel tanks in seismic areas” Proc. of ISEC-4 4th Structural Engineering and Construction International Conference, Melbourne, Australia. 23 Sub-Project 10: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban areas The overall aim of Sub-Project 10 has been to create a tool, based on state-of-the-art loss modelling software, to provide strong, quantified statements about the benefits of a range of possible mitigation actions, in order to support decision-making by urban authorities for seismic risk mitigation strategies. A further larger aim has been to contribute to a seismic risk mitigation policy for future implementation at European level. Among the European cities for which loss estimation studies have been carried out are Istanbul, Lisbon and Thessaloniki, and tools, using GIS mapping, have been developed by research teams in each of these cities; these were made available for further development to examine mitigation strategies within SP10. Related research studies on ground motion estimation, on the assessment of human casualties, and on the evaluation of uncertainty have been carried out by other research teams across Europe which includes INGV, UCAM and USUR, respectively. The idea of SP10 was to draw this expertise together to improve the loss-modelling tools available, to apply them to evaluate some of the possible routes towards earthquake risk mitigation listed above, in collaboration with the city authorities, and to present the results to the city authorities. Methods The partners in the SP10 project and their particular role in the SP10 project are shown in Figure 10.1 below with the overall structure of the Sub-Project as set out in the accompanying figure. In all three of the cities, a common general approach to loss modelling has been adopted which includes representing the earthquake hazard as a set of alternative ground motion scenarios (typically those with an expected return periods of 50 and 500 years), and applying the ground motion over a target area of known population and building stock. Losses have then been estimated for this target area in terms of levels of building damage and human casualties expected both in the existing state of the target area, and after certain selected potential mitigation actions have been carried out. This has been done in each case using building stock classifications and vulnerability data specific to the particular city concerned. In each case the scope of the proposed mitigation action has been described, and its expected benefit in terms of reduced losses and human casualties has been determined. For each city GIS maps of the ground motion scenarios and the expected losses both before and after mitigation have been presented. And also, in each case some preliminary assessment of uncertainty has been made. Findings 1. For Istanbul, the proposed mitigation action would be to upgrade all those structures which have the highest propensity to collapse in the event of the 500-year scenario earthquake (4.1% of all the reinforced concrete frame buildings in the city). Having carried out this mitigation programme, in the event of the 475-year earthquake, there would be a reduction of 94% in the number of collapsed buildings, and of 92% in the number of deaths, saving 29,000 lives. 2. For Thessaloniki, several possible mitigation actions were considered. One proposed mitigation action would be to upgrade the worst 5% of the reinforced concrete building stock, the frame buildings built before 1983 up to current standards. Having carried out this mitigation programme, in the event of the 500-year earthquake scenario, there will be a reduction of about 40% in the number of buildings destroyed, and people killed. 3. For Lisbon the proposed mitigation action is strengthening of all masonry buildings built before 1985 on hard and intermediate soils, masonry buildings built between 1985 and 2001 located on intermediate soils and RC buildings built between 1961 and 2001 located on intermediate soils (numbering 371,888 buildings in all, 78% of the total). Having carried out this mitigation programme, in the event of the 500-year earthquake scenario, there will be an expected reduction of between 28% and 65% in severely damaged buildings, 38% to 78% in destroyed buildings, and between 38% to 71% in numbers of deaths. SP10 loss modelling has produced results which are indicative of the possible reduction in losses which could be achieved by building retrofit programmes. Uncertainty in ground motion and damage is high, but the benefit in terms of proportional reduction in losses may not be much affected by uncertainties in absolute values. Further work should involve systematic building-by-building assessments of the high-risk classes, involving action by urban authorities. In addition, SP10 has generated the development of a new approach to casualty modelling and application to 24 European conditions and a proposal for a probabilistic loss estimation framework and assessment of uncertainties in modelling methodologies. Partner Roles University of Cambridge, Department of Architecture (UCAM) Coordinator, vulnerability, casualties Bogazici University, Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI) Loss estimation, Istanbul Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC) Loss estimation, Lisbon Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh) Loss estimation, Thessaloniki Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) Ground motion scenarios University of Surrey (USUR) Uncertainty and probabilistic methods MunichRe Overview, economic impacts Figure 10.1 Partners in the SP10 project, their particular role and the overall structure of the Sub- Project. 25 Sub-Project 11: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for infrastructures The European experience and research on seismic vulnerability and damage scenarios of Infrastructural Systems (IS) are at a less developed stage than in the case of building damage analyses and scenarios. This explains why the emphasis of Sub-Project 11 has been placed more on the tools for achieving the different steps of a scenario and on their application, rather than on the (economic) loss evaluation, and on the impact of the loss of function of neuralgic IS on economic and social activities in the immediate post-disaster emergency. Destructive earthquakes of recent decades in Europe did not cause large scale damage to IS, most likely because the magnitude of such events has rarely exceeded 7.0, and IS damage is strongly driven by localised permanent ground deformations (e.g. caused by soil liquefaction, land sliding, surface faulting) which in turn depend on the source energy and the shaking duration. The main verification of the IS seismic performance should address the Damage Limitation State, in conformity with Eurocode 8 Part 4; hence, the severity of the applicable seismic action should preferably be compatible with the appropriate return period (order of 100 years), although it should be limited to that. Since the advanced probabilistic approaches to seismic damage assessment of infrastructural systems IS (as used e.g. in USA) may at the present be oversized for Europe, the objectives of LESSLOSS SP11 were: • Select and apply tools for generating urban- scale scenarios of earthquake shaking parameters, including transient ground strain, but also of permanent (tectonic) ground deformations (Task 2.4b.1); • select/define vulnerability functions for IS components (Task 2.4b.2); • identify requirements for inventories of urban IS systems; • develop tools for constructing IS damage scenarios (Task 2.4b.3); • demonstrate their performance through application to selected cases (Task 2.4b.4). In Figure 11.1, the flow chart of SP11 is depicted, from the definition of the earthquake shaking scenario toward the creation of damage and loss scenarios. The partners participating in SP11, together with their involvement in each of the Sub-Tasks are listed in Table 11.1. Most of the partners have been involved in the whole SP, with the only exception of INGV which focussed its activity on the preparation of the earthquake shaking scenarios, constituting the base of the analysis carried out by the other partners. The former participant MUNICH-RE resigned from the SP11 team at the end of the first year of the project. Table 11.1 involvement of the partners for each of the tasks of SP11. Partner Task 2.4b.1 Earthquake shaking scenarios Task 2.4b.2 Improved vulnerability functions Task 2.4b.3 Damage estimation models Task 2.4b.4 Creation of damage scenarios for selected cities COORDINATOR Studio Geotecnico Italiano Srl, Milano (SGI-MI) X X X X Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) X X X X Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma (INGV) X X Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Istanbul (KOERI) X X X X 26 SHAKING SCENARIO on local soil: ground motion parameters, time histories 1D, 2D or simplified analysis of ground response Geological/Geotechnical Site Conditions (Soil Type, Layer Thickness, GWL, Vs Profile, Dynamic Soil Properties) VULNERABILITY CURVES DAMAGE SCENARIO At district level R e p a i r R a t e / K m PGV, PGS, PGD Selection of scenario earthquakes Probabilistic /Deterministic Shaking Scenario on Bedrock Outcrop (Peak values, or Time Histories) IS Inventories Structural response of pipe mains Identification of damaged pipe sections SHAKING SCENARIO on local soil: ground motion parameters, time histories 1D, 2D or simplified analysis of ground response Geological/Geotechnical Site Conditions (Soil Type, Layer Thickness, GWL, Vs Profile, Dynamic Soil Properties) VULNERABILITY CURVES DAMAGE SCENARIO At district level R e p a i r R a t e / K m PGV, PGS, PGD Selection of scenario earthquakes Probabilistic /Deterministic Shaking Scenario on Bedrock Outcrop (Peak values, or Time Histories) IS Inventories Structural response of pipe mains Identification of damaged pipe sections Figure 11.1 Flowchart of the SP11 method. Year 1 of the project saw the selection of cities for which damage scenarios were to be produced: in addition to Thessaloniki and Istanbul, Düzce (Turkey) constituted a case history of real interest due to the damage caused by the 1999 earthquakes. KOERI, AUTH and SGI-MI worked for the compilation of a dataset including the inventory of lifelines in the reference cities (including Catania, Italy, not further analysed), which has been collected in Deliverable D88, which is available from www.LESSLOSS.org along with all other deliverables produced in this Sub-Project. Efficient computer codes for seismic wave propagation in heterogeneous media, directly developed by a partner or by other research groups in the previous European projects (as RISK-UE), were used by INGV to produce numerical simulations of earthquake ground motion over the urban area of Thessaloniki and Istanbul. Maps of peak ground velocity and displacement were produced for the scenario earthquakes, and a first technical report on this activity released (Deliverable D83). During the 2 nd year much refinement in this work has been done. INGV produced new scenarios for bedrock motion for Thessaloniki and Istanbul. With such reference ground motion, AUTH and KOERI have calculated the surface response within the selected cities, taking into account the local soil profile and using 1D numerical models. SGI-MI on his part has performed advanced 2D seismic response analyses along representative cross-sections in Thessaloniki and Düzce (in the latter case with a combined model that includes the 1999 earthquake source). In addition to those of peak ground parameters, also distributions of peak transient ground strains (PGS) have been obtained, allowing to use vulnerability/damage curves as a function of PGS. The issue of earthquake generated ground strains has been described in detail in Deliverable D87. During the first year INGV, with the support of SGI-MI, has carried out the interpretation of aerial photo for the identification of areas of potential soil instability in the Catania urban area, selected as a suitable application site for this technique, with creation of geomorphological maps in GIS environment and superposition of these layers with the pipeline network. Regarding the simplified evaluation of transient ground strains, SGI-MI developed a simplified formula to compute peak ground strains, based on few parameters representative of subsoil conditions and e.g. peak ground velocity. This activity encompassed the first 2 years of the project, and the results were summarised in Deliverable D87. In particular, during the 2 nd year, the formula proposed has been extensively validated against the results of the 2D numerical simulations and fully documented in Deliverable 116. Numerical investigations for the evaluation and improvement of existing vulnerability functions and their formulation either in terms of peak ground strain or peak ground velocity have been conducted mostly at AUTH and, to a limited extent, at SGI-MI. A full picture of the tools developed to evaluate the vulnerability and damage of pipelines, quay walls and tunnels under shallow cover is contained in 27 deliverable D89, released in final form at the end of year 2. Two computational tools devoted to the evaluation of the seismic response of buried pipes were developed, i.e.: • At city district level, Koeripipe, developed by KOERI, is a software tool developed for evaluating damage scenarios for pipeline networks, based on the approach adopted by the software KoeriLoss2 that operates through Geo-cell systems over GIS layers for evaluating the urban building damage scenario. It is fully described in the devoted Deliverable 118. • At the single pipe stretch level, Seismipipe, developed at SGI-MI, is a computer code which performs a FE analysis of a single pipeline supported by springs that simulate the reaction of the surrounding soil. The damage scenarios for selected cities constitute an important outcome of the project. A damage scenario for the water and gas distribution systems of Thessaloniki has been developed by AUTH, and for Istanbul and Düzce by KOERI. More detailed analyses were carried out on Düzce by SGI-MI. Activity in the third year of SP 11 saw the completion of the earthquake shaking scenarios for Thessaloniki, Istanbul and Düzce by INGV. For Thessaloniki, the shaking parameters obtained from 1D propagation analyses were compared by AUTH with the results obtained from the Microzonation study performed in the metropolitan area. SGI-MI carried out 2D soil amplification analysis on selected cross sections along the Metro line of Thessaloniki, while KOERI performed 1D analysis for the case of Istanbul. 2D analysis for the case of Düzce were performed by SGI-MI on soil data provided by KOERI. The results obtained are described in Deliverable 116. All the partners (with the exclusion of INGV who were more devoted to the previous phase of shaking scenario definition) were involved in the creation of damage scenarios for selected IS of Thessaloniki, Istanbul and Düzce. The results (described both in Training Report LESSLOSS 2007/08 and Deliverable D117) were obtained by making combined use of the ground motion scenarios, the available vulnerability functions for the relevant system components and, for the cases of Istanbul and Düzce, the software developed within the project (KoeriPipe and Seismipipe). Also the simplified formula to predict ground strains from PGV was used to evaluate the Repair Rate distribution along a longitudinal section of Düzce. During the 3 years of SP11, several Deliverables internal to the project were released, as previously indicated, and a Training Report (LESSLOSS 2007/08) “Prediction of Ground Motion and Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European Urban Environments”, prepared and disseminated. The University of Thessaloniki organised a Training Workshop #5 entitled “Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban areas - Application: TWS5-2: Thessaloniki”, held at AUTH in April 2007. All the objectives of SP11 as stated in the Dow at the beginning of the project have been essentially reached, as planned. The entire path of activities has been encompassed from the generation of the shaking to the creation of the damage scenarios for different case histories, with comparison to the observations available for the last relevant earthquakes. The conclusions of SP11 see the scenario ground motion maps as an indispensable ingredient to perform evaluations of seismic damage to ISs in a city; the simpler approaches for their construction are acceptable as long as the seismic hazard is moderate, the near-surface geology exhibits no strong lateral variations, and near field effects from seismic fault ruptures at close range are unlikely; such approaches include those based on propagating in 1D representative recorded accelerograms through local soil profiles to obtain spatial distributions of PGA, PGV and the like, but (at an even simple level) also producing GIS maps of the same parameters through the use of geological/geotechnical maps and appropriate attenuation relations. When, instead, the previous factors (high seismic hazard, irregular superficial geology etc.) are present, the combined influence of earthquake source, propagation path and site effects should be investigated by more advanced tools, including 2D and 3D wave propagation analyses on selected local geological configurations. The Repair Rate (RR), i.e. the expected number of repairs (leaks and breaks) per km of pipe length, appears to be the most convenient indicator of seismic damage for distribution networks consisting of water and gas distributions systems; RRs are typically estimated through fragility correlations from PGV, PGA (and permanent ground displacement), or – preferably – from longitudinal ground strain. In cases where a more accurate strength verification of a pipeline segment may be required, this can be performed on structural models of the pipes accounting for interaction with the surrounding ground, as illustrated in Training Report 2007/08. In the context of simplified damage assessment, emphasis should be put on transient, longitudinal peak ground strains as an indicator of the local severity of wave propagation effects, in preference to standard parameters such as PGV, because the strain in question is physically more appropriate for representing the seismic action on buried flexible 28 pipelines. However, permanent ground deformations resulting from induced seismic effects (soil liquefaction, landsliding) or fault rupture, tend to be the leading cause of seismic damage to buried pipeline networks. RR assessments resting on scenario ground motions based on 1D amplification analyses of local soil profiles, either via PGV or peak ground strains, may underestimate damage because they do not account for important wave propagation effects (e.g. surface waves). The spread in IS seismic damage estimations resulting from different fragility correlations shown to be substantial (up to a factor of 5 or so), and much work remains to be done for providing an appropriate conceptual framework to handle this problem. Coordination with other sub-projects Special care has been devoted to achieving consistency with SP10 (Scenario prediction and loss modelling for urban areas), as regards the characteristics of earthquake input motion for the same cities analysed (Thessaloniki, Istanbul). Throughout the LESSLOSS project, the computation of the shaking scenarios was focussed on obtaining the same input ground motion in both subprojects by means of a so called “Broad Band” (BB) technique, that produces acceleration histories with a deterministic low frequency part, and a stochastic high frequency part. 29 Sub-Project 12: Dissemination The dissemination sub-project of the LESSLOSS IP had the objective of spreading the output of the project to a wide audience of people involved in natural hazards and related disasters. The partners involved were ALGOSYSTEMS, UPAV, DPC, JRC and CESI. The tasks and activities related with this objective are presented here next. The LESSLOSS information portal has been developed during the first year of the project and is accessible at the Internet address http://www.LESSLOSS.org . The website has been optimized for search engines robots (SEO) in order to promote its contents when searching though the Internet. The contents are optimized for search using the three major search engines Google, Yahoo and Altavista. A monthly submission of LESSLOSS webpages to Search Engines improved the ranking of the website in the search engines results. Sub-Task 12.1 The LESSLOSS Information Portal Further from developing the LESSLOSS web portal, ALGO created specific web pages for LESSLOSS within the EU-MEDIN web portal (http://www.eu- medin.org/projectPage.php? acronym=LESSLOSS) . These web pages, placed under the EU-MEDIN, Multirisk projects section, include an overview of the project and its objectives as well as details of the consortium and a link to the LESSLOSS web portal. In addition to the above, ALGO created syndication links between the two portals of LESSLOSS and EU- MEDIN. The average number of the site’s visitors exceeded 5000/month in 2006. 30 Sub-Task 12.2 Collection of metadata of research results ALGO adapted the metadata forms of the EU- MEDIN scheme for addressing the need of collecting information concerning the results of the LESSLOSS project. Eleven Word templates (.dot) have been prepared and distributed to all the members of the LESSLOSS consortium following to the DoW. The partners used these forms for reporting their dissemination activity (by means of deliverables, journal papers, presentations, web site, books, software, prototype, data sets etc) in a common and compatible way. The purpose of this sub-task was to keep track of the project results, to support their dissemination requirements. ALGO collected in collaboration with the UPAV all the material and results produced by the project and organized them in collaboration with Numeria (A.Dusi), according to the EU-MEDIN metadata scheme. The metadata records refer mainly to the project deliverables and reports that have been created and stored in the EU-MEDIN database. Sub-Task 12.3. The data repository of the project A specific area of the LESSLOSS portal was foreseen according to the DoW to be used for storing original documents, data sets and software. The material has been organized in a comprehensive way and is accessed both by the members of the consortium and external elements to the project. This area was developed within the web portal and provided an organizational structure of its content based on the planned output of the project and the type of the output expected (Deliverable, Report, Data set, Software, Dissemination material, Training material). All the project deliverables have been organized and stored in the web repository of the project. The public deliverables are accessible by the visitors of the website for downloading. No other type of data e.g. datasets or software have been made available by the partners to the data repository. Some numbers regarding the dissemination items stored up to date in the LESSLOSS portal are reported below. More items will be added over the next few months based on the work from the last year of the project. – Deliverables: 87 (Entire Project: 2, SP1: 5, SP2: 2, SP3: 4, SP4: 1, SP5: 5, SP6: 12, SP7: 19, SP8: 18, SP9: 4, SP10: 5, SP11: 5, SP12: 2, SP13: 3) – Presentations: 27 (Entire Project: 15, SP1: 1, SP2: 1, SP3: 1, SP4: 1, SP5: 1, SP6: 1, SP7: 1, SP8: 1, SP9: 1, SP10: 1, SP11: 1, Training: 1) – Reports: 8 (Entire Project: 1, A1:1, SP5:1, SP6:1, SP7:1, SP8:1, SP9:1, SP10:1, SP11:1) – Publications: 14 (Entire Project: 1, SP1:1, SP5:7, SP6: 2, SP8: 1, SP10:1) – Meetings: 27 (Entire Project: 2, SP1: 1, SP2: 1, SP3: 1, SP4: 1, SP5: 3, SP6: 7, SP7: 4, SP8: 3, SP9: 3, SP11: 1) Sub-Task 12.4. The EU-MEDIN Collaboration Framework According to the DoW, ALGO developed and tested – in the context of the LESSLOSS project- software tools which address the collaboration requirements of research teams, improving thus the efficiency and results of the R&D activity. The collaboration tools that are mentioned in the DoW of LESSLOSS include the Electronic Forum, the Chat Facility and the LESSLOSS Collaboration Framework. The Electronic Forum Area of LESSLOSS ALGO developed the first two types of collaboration tools i.e. the Forum and the Chat facility, linked with the LESSLOSS web portal. Forum topics have been created following the subject of the LESSLOSS sub- projects. The LESSLOSS Chat facility The LESSLOSS chat facility was developed by ALGO and it is integrated in the LESSLOSS web portal. The use of the chat facility is mainly intended for exchanging ideas and comments regarding the contents of the web portal. The LESSLOSS Collaboration Framework The LCF is a suite of software tools that can support communication and collaboration between the members of the working teams of the project. The LCF as described in the DoW of the project aims to provide a collaboration platform that will be developed and tested in the context of LESSLOSS and which will be available to other projects for supporting collaboration. 31 ALGO tested a number of open source collaboration tools in order to check their efficiency, robustness, characteristics and suitability for supporting the needs of R&D collaboration. The C-phone and the Surabaya Open source project have been selected for further development and integration in the context of implementing the LESSLOSS CF. ALGO developed a pilot version of this framework and set up the LCF services to run on servers hosted by ALGOSYSTEMS (193.92.74.46) . The current implementation of the LCF consider audio conferencing facilities over the web, application sharing, file sharing, whiteboard use, messaging service and Internet browsing sharing. Debugging of the software code, testing of the network requirements and limitations has been performed by ALGO and Numeria. The main characteristics of the LESSLOSS Collaboration Framework are the following: Based on Open Source projects (Surabaya and Cphone) which are applications under the SourceForge.net project The server part of the application needs to be installed on a machine with a real IP address, in order for the service to be accessible from anywhere From the LESSLOSS collaborative workspace, one can also start the Cphone audio conference application Program sharing (e.g. PowerPoint), with the creation of shortcuts to the executable files, File sharing with easy drag-and-drop, Whiteboard utility Small firewall issues (specific ports have to be opened for users in LANs – provided in the instructions document) Software and instructions are available from the LESSLOSS website Sub-Task 12.5 Dissemination material and means The project brochures and the Newsletter are considered the main material for disseminating the progress and the results of LESSLOSS. ALGO designed a standard template for the LESSLOSS general brochure and produced a number of brochures based on this template. Brochures were distributed in a variety of events such as Interschutz/Interpolice Trade Fair, ECRI 2007, ARMONIA Workshop 2006, IDRC 2006, PSC Forum, SHIFT 07 etc. ALGO prepared the LESSLOSS Information Package for supporting the dissemination task. This is formed by a two A4-pages folded envelop, which can hold up to 10 A4 flyers. One general flyer or brochure is considered for LESSLOSS while one flyer for each sub-project has to be printed. According to the DoW, the Lesslos IP produced an annual newsletter, where the most important new, prominent results and achievements of the project were reported. A publication of 4-8 A4 pages is considered for this purpose. The newsletter was mailed to a list of recipients from the data bases of the EU-MEDIN, enriched with details of people provided by the dissemination teams of LESSLOSS. Furthermore ALGO has integrated in the LESSLOSS the possibility of publishing an electronic newsletter (e-zine) using the web content of the portal. Four electronic newsletters have been prepared by ALGO and distributed to the LESSLOSS Interest group. This group is 32 formed by experts and people interested for the project achievements. Regarding the LESSLOSS newsletter an active feedback mechanism is included in the material sent in order to improve the interaction with the recipients. This mechanism is related to the request of material from the project (deliverables, reports, papers ..) LESSLOSS has been promoted to a number of projects with relative subject and objectives. These projects during the second year of the project included ARMONIA, ORCHESTRA, EU- MEDIN, NERIES and ESPON. A specific promotion of the project deliverables through the project electronic newsletter has been made. This led to increased downloading of these deliverables from the LESSLOSS website. Indicative figures regarding the interest of the visitors of the website for the public deliverables are the following: Deliverable 19 – Rules Guidelines and Development of Tools (1017 Downloads) Deliverable 56 – Design methods for X truss braces with dissipative connections (931 Downloads) Deliverable 85 - Report for each city containing reference loss estimates (908 Downloads) Deliverable 4 – Procedures for the determination of the transition from slow to fast moving landslides (875 Downloads) Deliverable 83 – Technical report on the scenario earthquake definitions for three cities (837 Downloads) Deliverable 86 – Technical report on the creation of earthquake ground shaking scenarios (693 Downloads) Deliverable 14 - Development & validation of soil constitutive models (683 Downloads) 33 Sub-Project 13: Training The development of the LESSLOSS Training programme was carried out through six (6) main tasks, namely: 1) Definition and consolidation of the LESSLOSS training activities, achieved during the first year of the project; 2) Organisation of nine (9) LESSLOSS Topic Workshops, spread during the second half of the project; 3) Organisation of a Final International Workshop at the end of the project; 4) Editing, Printing and distributing eight (8) LESSLOSS Reports; 5) Survey, analysis and reporting on Emergency Management systems and training of technicians across Europe; and 6) Organisation of training courses and material for post-earthquake assessors and dissemination of the training material resulting from the LESSLOSS research activities. Nine (9) Topic Workshops were held in several EU countries, organised in each country by the topic coordinator and the local organizing partner. The Workshops covered the main research topics of LESSLOSS. A consolidated list of Topic workshops was achieved, and the topics, number of workshops, places, responsible partner and local organizer were identified during the first 18 months of the project. The final dates of the workshops were fixed before the end of the second year of the project. The workshops were grouped in five different topics: “New Technologies for landslide monitoring and warning”, “In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification of buildings and infrastructures”, “Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Buildings and Infrastructures”, “Probabilistic risk assessment: new methods and applications to code-calibration” and “Earthquake disaster scenarios predictions and loss modelling for urban areas: application”, and were held in seven different countries (Italy, Austria, Portugal, Turkey, Spain, Slovenia and Greece). LESSLOSS Final International Workshop, which served as a training event for researchers and technicians, and as a dissemination and implementation instrument, as stakeholders and policy makers participated as well. This event was scheduled for the end of the project and constituted a major instrument for training and dissemination, since it was devoted at disseminating the up-to-date and effective guidelines and recommendations for mitigating landslide and earthquake losses that are the product of the LESSLOSS project. The workshop took place in Belgirate (Italy) and included also presentation and approval of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for the European Earthquake Engineering Community. An announcement leaflet was prepared and distributed to members of the scientific community, public administration and policy-makers, as first announcement of the LESSLOSS Final International Workshop. The workshop programme included the summary of the activity within each Sub-Project, main achievements and discussion of future activities. Furthermore, the workshop had the contribution of two key-note speakers from USA and Japan involved in similar large-scale project in their home countries. Each Project participant (Partner) and other external participants had the opportunity to expose a poster with the partner contribution and principal achievements. The workshop took place in Belgirate (Italy) and included also presentation/discussion and approval of the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for the European Earthquake Engineering Community. The LESSLOSS Reports Series constitute a major milestone of the Integrated project as they were intended to constitute a first European instrument for the assessment and mitigation of seismic and landslide risks in Europe. The project entailed the writing, review and production of eight (8) State-of-the- art reports, which will constitute eight (8) corresponding Milestones for LESSLOSS. These reports were intended as State-of-the-art, guidelines, manuals, etc. In order to secure a balanced and high- level quality, a review process was considered. The titles of the LESSLOSS Report Series are provided below: • 2007/01: Landslides: Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilization • 2007/02: European Manual for in-situ Assessment of Important Existing Structures • 2007/03: Innovative Anti-Seismic Systems Users Manual • 2007/04: Guidelines for Seismic Vulnerability Reduction in the Urban Environment • 2007/05: Guidelines for Displacement-based Design of Buildings and Bridges • 2007/06: Probabilistic Methods to Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures • 2007/07: Earthquake Disaster Scenario Predictions and Loss Modelling for Urban Areas • 2007/08: Prediction of Ground Motion and Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European Urban Environments 34 The list of reports was set-up with proposed Editors and Reviewers during the first year. Subsequently, the JRC communicated with the Editors and Reviewers and a definitive list of Reports (Titles, Editors, Reviewers, and Addressees) was achieved. Furthermore, the process of writing (Template included) and Production of the Reports was agreed. The JRC coordinated the process and UPAV was responsible for the publication and distribution. Guidelines for the writing, reviewing and production of the LESSLOSS Reports were also issued timing the report production and reviewing. The reports were all produced and were distributed at the workshop. The report number 5 was distributed just after the workshop, before the end of the project. Additional copies of the reports will be distributed to members of the scientific community, public administration and policy makers. Furthermore, the reports are available in digital form at the project website. Emergency Management systems and training of technicians: This task comprised a review of the emergency management systems and training of technicians in Italy and other European countries, in order to compare them and identify synergies towards more uniform approaches. The activity included meetings with the different Civil Protection Agencies (CPA), Survey and Analysis and reporting. Furthermore, it was made available a presentation on this issues at the Topic workshops (as appropriate) as this would facilitate contact and discussion with the different CPAs, which were deemed to attend and participate in the workshops. A review and comparison of the state-of-the-art on the different systems that are currently in place for the management of emergencies was carried out in those European countries where earthquake hazard is significant. The information for compiling the review on the state-of-the-art of emergency systems was gathered by surveys and meetings with the concerning CPAs in charge of emergency management in each of the selected countries for the study. A report was compiled analysing and summarising all the information from the state-of- the-art, surveys and meetings gathered in the two previous tasks. A report will be compiled analysing and summarising all the information from the state-of-the-art, surveys and meetings gathered in the two previous tasks. A training course for post-earthquake damage assessors (Post-earthquake building safety and damage assessment) was organized (in collaboration with Rose School, in February 2006, Pavia, Italy). In addition, appropriate training material was prepared and provided to the participants. A very important activity is the extraction of training material from the research work carried out in LESSLOSS. Training material resulting from LESSLOSS research activities: This activity developed mainly during the last months of the project and consisted of elaboration of training contents, production of Presentation and dissemination of the training material (slide presentations, Multimedia CDs, web-based applications). Extraction and collection of the training material resulting from work carried out in the different sub-projects of LESSLOSS. Dissemination of these training materials resulting from the LESSLOSS training activities in the form of slide presentations, multimedia CD’s and web-based applications is made through the LESSLOSS web-portal. Other Activities: LESSLOSS participated in several other activities and events promoted by professional and scientific organizations (Training and dissemination aspects) they constitute also a means for the dissemination of the project results. Examples are: (i) European policy meeting on mitigation of earthquake risks (Lisbon 31/10/2005) (ii) International Conference “250th Anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake” (Lisbon 1-4/11/2005), (iii) European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Switzerland, Geneva, 2-6/09/2006); (iv)The active participation in the definition of Strategic Research Agenda for the Earthq. Engineering in Europe (2006-); (v) The participation the European Technology Platforms (Construction and steel) (2005-). Conclusion: The training activities designed for LESSLOSS comprised preparation of training material (Reports, Presentations, Multimedia CDs, Web-based Applications), workshops (Topic workshops and final workshop), training courses and survey and analysis of different EM systems and training of technicians in Europe. Some of the activities constitute themselves an outreach instrument. However, it is important to underline that the LESSLOSS Report Series are probably the most relevant legacy of the integrated project, which should constitute a instrument for the assessment and mitigation of earthquake and landslide risks in Europe. 35 2. Dissemination and use Publishable results of the Final Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge Table 2: Final List of Deliverables of the LESSLOSS Project Deliverables List (Month 1- 12) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r 1 Documentation of selected landslides 1 UNIMIB 2 Historical datasets 1 UNIMIB 3 Report on spatially distributed deterministic models and rainfall thresholds 1 UNIMIB 4 Report on procedures for the determination of the transition from slow to fast moving landslides 1 UNIMIB 10 State-of-the-art report on vulnerability assessment for landslides 2 NGI 12 Report on existing methods of slope stabilisation 3 GDS 19 Rules, guidelines and development of tools – Stage 1 5 ARS 20 Assessment of existing structures and models – Stage 1 5 ARS 21 Typification of structures – Stage1 5 RWTH 26 Seismic Input 6 ENEA 27 Shaking table mock-up 6 ENEA 28 Circular LSIs prototypes 6 ALGA 29 Square LSIs prototypes 6 ALGA 30 Sliding isolators and SH elements 6 MAURER 32 Full-scale SP 6 MAURER 43 Nonlinear method for control of auto-adaptative semi active base isolators 7 ITU 44 Rapid screening method of vulnerability of building stock in Istanbul 7 ITU 58 Proposals for acceptable deformations of RC members at different performance levels and for overall partial safety factors on member deformation capacity under unidirectional loading 8 UPAT 59 Simple rules for estimation of effective elastic stiffness of RC members for use in linear analyses emulating nonlinear ones 8 UPAT 60 Evaluation of definition of design displacement capacity of common isolator types within current bridge design practice and investigation of the effects of its exceedance on bridge seismic response 8 DENCO 61 Effects of axial force variation in the seismic response of bridges isolated with friction pendulum systems 8 UPAV 62 Ductility-dependent equivalent damping equations for DBD 8 UPAV 63 A displacement-based adaptive pushover methodology for 2D structures 8 UPAV 76 Extension of N2 method to probabilistic assessment of 3D structures 9 ULJ 77 Practical methods for structure-specific probabilistic seismic risk assessment 9 UROMA 82 Report on mitigation options and actions to be studied for each to the three cities 10 UCAM 36 Deliverables List (Month 1- 12) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r 83 Report on the selection of 50 year and 500 year scenarios for each location 10 INGV 84 Report on building stock inventory and vulnerability data for each case study 10 UCAM 86 Technical Report on the creation of earthquake ground shaking scenarios appropriate to lifelines systems with examples of application to selected urban areas (Part 1). 11 INGV D12.1 Project Information Portal 12 ALGO D12.2 Project brochure 12 ALGO D13.1 Consolidated programme for LESSLOSS Training Activities 13 JRC D13.2 Guidelines for editors, reviewers and production of the LESSLOSS Reports 13 JRC Deliverables List (Month 13- 24) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r 5 Report on GPS station component performance and suitability for integration, integration problems and potential problems for mass production and performance of automated processing and analysis. 1 UNEW 6 Topography assessment of slopes by LIDAR 1 SGI-SW 7 LIDAR data for slope stability analyses 1 SGI-SW 9 Report on methods of landslide hazard zonation 2 NGI 10_Re v1 Vulnerability assessment for landslides - Phase I 2 NGI 13 Landslides displacements – Approaches – Phase 1 3 GDS 14 Landslides displacements – Models – Phase 1 3 INPG 15 Landslides displacements – Applications – Phase 1 3 SAA 16 Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications: – Large scale models (phase 1). 4 BRGM 17 Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications: II – Methods for cost analysis in urban areas (phase 1). 4 NGI 18 Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications: III – Applications to real active landslide sites (phase 1). 4 SGI-MI 19Rev 1 Rules, Guidelines and Development of Tools 5 ARS 19a European Manual for in-situ Assessment of Important Existing 5 ARS 37 Deliverables List (Month 13- 24) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r Structures – Part II: Practical Application 20Rev 1 Assessment of existing structures and models – Stage 2 5 ARS 21Rev 1 Typification of structures - Stage 2 5 RWTH 31 Characterisation tests of SH elements 6 MAURER 33 Validation of LSIs analysis method and design procedure 6 ALGA 34 Small size DECS device 6 ALGA 35 Large size DECS device 6 ALGA 37 Models of SP 6 MAURER 39 Numerical analysis of the SHS 6 ENEA 40 Numerical analysis of the LSIs 6 ENEA 41 Shaking table test report for SHS 6 ENEA 42 Shaking table test report for LSIs 6 ENEA 43Rev 1 Nonlinear method for control of auto-adaptive semi active base isolators 7 ITU 45 Design guide of low disturbance upgrading methods. Stage 1 7 ITU 46 Analysis of hammering problems. Stage 1 7 ULIEGE 47 Urban rehabilitation plan for pilot city Stage 1 7 METU 48 Results of experimental tests FRP. Computation method of resistance considering steel & FRP. Stage 1 7 ITU 49 Integration of knowledge on FRP retrofitted structures. 7 CIMNE 51 Guidelines for the application of FRP retrofitting. Stage 1 7 NECSO 52 Experimental data on durability and fatigue resistance. Stage 1 7 NECSO 53 DBD models for base isolated historical buildings. Chosen structure, 3D model. Stage 1 7 IST 54 Analysis of 3 energy dissipation devices application to 3 RC structures. 7 CIMNE 55 Analysis of 3 precast RC structures with dissipative connections. 7 ULIEGE 56 Design method for X truss braces with dissipative connections. Stage 1 7 ULIEGE 57 Methodology of analysis for underground structures in soft soils. 1 design. Stage 1 7 IST 106 Design guide of low disturbance upgrading methods. Stage 2 7 ITU 107 Urban rehabilitation plan for pilot city Stage 2 7 METU 119 Evaluation of real buildings response from strong motion arrays 7 METU 64 Acceptable deformations of RC members at different performance levels under bidirectional loading. 8 UPAT 65 Comparisons of results of nonlinear dynamic and linear analyses - static or modal - for a representative sample of irregular in plan buildings. 8 INSAL 66 Comparisons of experimental results to those of nonlinear analyses 8 INSAL 38 Deliverables List (Month 13- 24) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r with various modelling approaches and degrees of sophistication. Main model parameters affecting reliability of predictions of nonlinear analysis for member deformations. 67 Advancement of simplified modelling strategies for 3D phenomena and/or boundary conditions for base-isolated buildings or specific soil-structure interactions 8 INPG 68 Tools for estimation of secant-to-yield stiffness, of ultimate deformation and of shear force capacity of RC piers, on the basis of test results. 8 UPAT 69 Simplified models/procedures for estimation of secant-to-yielding stiffness, equivalent damping, ultimate deformations and shear capacity of bridge piers on the basis of numerical analysis. 8 JRC 70 Procedures for estimation of pier inelastic deformation demands, developed through nonlinear analyses (static or dynamic) of typical bridges. 8 DENCO 71 Procedures for design of piers for non-collapse performance directly on the basis of displacement and deformation demands, without iterations between analysis and verifications. 8 UPAT 72 Evaluation of iterative DBD procedures for bridges. 8 JRC 73 Proposals for redefinition of displacement capacity of common isolator types and for construction measures to enhance seismic behaviour of the bridge at large displacements 8 DENCO 74 Evaluation of current code requirements for displacement re- centering capacity of seismic isolation systems and proposals for revision. 8 DENCO 75 Rules for construction of displacement floor spectra in industrial facilities, taking into account nonlinearity in the equipment and/or in the supporting structure 8 CEA 78 Applications of probabilistic seismic assessment methods to selected case-studies 9 UROMA 79 State of the art on methods for seismic risk assessment of road networks 9 UROMA 80 State of the art on methods for seismic risk assessment of water- supply systems 9 UBRIS 81 State of the art on methods for seismic risk assessment of industrial plants 9 UNAP 85 Report for each city containing reference loss estimates 10 AUTH KOERI LNEC 115 Revised loss estimates based on alternative mitigation actions and evaluation 10 UCAM AUTH KOERI LNEC 87 Technical report on the simplified evaluation of dynamic ground strains with applications to representative geological configurations of selected cities (Part 1). 11 SGI-MI 88 Technical report including a CD, containing the dataset of the inventory of lifelines in the reference cities 11 KOERI 89 Technical report on the assessment of vulnerability functions for 11 AUTH 39 Deliverables List (Month 13- 24) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r pipelines, shallow tunnels and waterfront structures 12.3 Collaboration framework v 1.0 12 ALGO 13.3 Training material for post-earthquake damage assessors 13 UPAV Deliverables List (Month 25- 36) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r 8 Recommendations for planning, surveillance, inspection with LS DTM 1 SGI-SW 90 Historical datasets – Phase II 1 UNIMIB 91 Documentation of selected landslides – Phase II 1 UNIMIB 92 Report on monitoring slope hydrology in shallow soils 1 UNIMIB 11 Report on application of a tool for detailed hazard zonation of areas affected by debris flows 2 UNEW 93 Vulnerability assessment for landslides – Phase II 2 NGI 94 Application of landslides zonation techniques to study areas 2 NGI 95 Numerical models for prediction of landslides displacements – Phase II 3 GDS 96a Application of numerical models to case histories – Non earthquake cases 3 SAA 96b* Application of numerical models to case histories - Earthquake cases 3 NTUA 120 Recommended practice for landslides risk assessment 4 BRGM 121 Landslide Risk Assessment Methods and Applications (III) – Applications to real active landslide sites - Phase II 4 SGI-MI D19 Rev2 Rules, guidelines and development of tools 5 ARS D19a Layout for European Assessment Code – Stage 2 5 ARS D20 Rev2 Assessment of existing structures and models 5 ARS D21 Rev2 Typification of structures 5 RWTH D22 Update of vulnerability estimates via monitoring 5 ISMES/ CESI 36 Analysis of the shaking table tests on SHS 6 MAURER 40 Deliverables List (Month 25- 36) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r 38 Characterisation tests of FP models 6 MAURER 99 Qualification of large size DECS device 6 ALGA 100 Validation of DECS analysis method and design procedure 6 ALGA 101 Analysis of the shaking table tests on SP 6 MAURER 102 Numerical analysis of the SIP models 6 ENEA 103 Numerical analysis of DECS 6 ENEA 104 Shaking table test report for SIP 6 ENEA 105 Shaking table test report for DECS 6 ENEA 44 rev1 Rapid screening method of vulnerability of building stock in Istanbul. Stage 2. 7 ITU 46 Rev1 Analysis of hammering problems. Stage 1. 7 ULIEGE 50 Beta version of software for masonry structures. Experimental database and software calibration. Stage 1. 7 UBRIS 51 Rev1 Guidelines for the application of FRP retrofitting. Stage 1 Stage 2 7 ACCIONA 52 Rev1 Experimental data on durability and fatigue resistance. Stage 1 Stage 2 7 ACCIONA 53 Rev1 DBD models for base isolated historical buildings. Chosen structure, 3D model. 7 IST 56 Rev1 Design method for bracings with dissipative connections 7 ULIEGE 57 Rev1 Methodology of analysis for underground structures in soft soils. 7 IST 106 Design Guide of Low Disturbance Upgrading Methods (Final Version) 7 ITU 108 Results of experimental tests on FRP. Computation method of resistance considering steel and FRP. (D48 Stage 2) 7 ITU 109 Member acceptance and design criteria in terms of deformations - including the effect of bi-directionality - at different performance levels 8 UPAT 110 Verification of Ductility-dependent equivalent damping equations for DBD using real accelerograms 8 UPAV 111 A displacement-based adaptive pushover methodology for 3D buildings 8 UPAV 112 Validation of simplified procedures for predicting global response in 8 JRC 41 Deliverables List (Month 25- 36) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r the context of DBD of bridges, including the flexibility of foundations 113 Case study comparison of DBD iterative procedures for bridges 8 JRC 114 A displacement-based adaptive pushover methodology for the design of bridges 8 UPAV 122 Evaluation of the reliability of alternative nonlinear modelling and analysis approaches in 3D, on the basis of experimental results. 8 INSAL 123 Extensive validation of Soil-Structure-Interaction macro-element using experimental results 8 INPG 124 Case study comparisons of design and performance of bridges designed with DBD or code-type force-based design 8 UPAT 125 Redefinition of displacement capacity of common isolator types and implications for seismic design and performance of isolated bridges 8 DENCO 126 Evaluation of proposals for recentring capacity of seismic isolation systems of bridges, based on parametric analysis of typical bridge configurations 8 DENCO 127 Influence of the non-linearity of supporting structures on floor spectra 8 CEA 80 State of the art on methods for seismic risk assessment of water- supply systems 9 UBRIS 129 On the probabilistic evaluation of Eurocode 8 9 UROMA 130 Probabilistic seismic loss estiation for road networks: transitability of mainshock-damaged bridges 9 UROMA 131 Seismic risk assessment of a pilot water-supply system 9 UBRIS 132 Seismic risk assessment of a pilot industrial plant 9 UNAP 116 Technical Report on the creation of earthquake ground shaking scenarios, including 2D calculations, appropriate to lifelines systems with examples of application to selected urban areas (Part 2) 11 INGV 117 Damage scenarios for selected urban areas (for water and gas systems, sewage mains, metro tunnels, and waterfront structures): Thessaloniki, Istanbul (European side), Düzce 11 SGI-MI/ AUTH 118 Technical Manual for KoeriPipe for evaluating damage scenarios to pipeline systems 11 KOERI 12.4 Project Information Package 12 ALGO 12.5 LESSLOSS Target Groups 12 ALGO 12.6 LESSLOSS CD ROM 12 ALGO 13.4 Landslides: Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilization. 13 UNIMIB 13.5 European Manual for in-situ Assessment of Important Existing Structures 13 ARS 13.6 Innovative Anti-Seismic Systems Users Manual 13 ENEA 13.7 Guidelines for Seismic Vulnerability Reduction in the Urban Environment 13 ULIEGE 13.8 Guidelines for Displacement-based Design of Buildings and 13 UPAT 42 Deliverables List (Month 25- 36) D e l i v e r a b l e N u m b e r D e l i v e r a b l e N a m e S u b - P r o j e c t L e a d C o n t r a c t o r Bridges 13.9 Probabilistic Methods for Seismic Assessment of Existing Structures 13 UROMA 13.10 Earthquake Disaster Scenarios Predictions and Loss Modelling for Urban Areas 13 UCAM 13.11 Prediction of Ground Motion and Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European Urban Environments 13 SGI-MI 13.12 Analysis and reporting of state-of-the-art on emergency management systems 13 DPC 13.13 Analysis and reporting on state-of-the-art on training of emergency management of technicians 13 DPC 13.14 Training material from the work developed in the sub-projects 13 CESI-ISMES 13.15 Slide presentations, multimedia CD’s and web applications of the training material 13 ALGO, CESI- ISMES