The 2nd Kobe University Brussels
European Centre Symposium
Panel Discussion
Hormoz MODARESSI
Head, Risks Division
BRGM, France

Scientific Perspectives following GEJET> Comprehension of mechanism• Analysis and modeling the seismic source• Improving Tsunami generation models• Analysis of Systemic Vulnerability (FP7: Syner-G)• Risk Analysis including transient vulnerability,
Cascading and Conjoint events (FP7 MATRIX)> Knowledge transfer and capitalizationfrom Japanese experience on Early
Warning and Alert• Elaboration of Early Warning Systems :• European : (FP7 : REAKT)• Regional : (RATCOM)

2Numerical Seismic Source Modeling> Seismic motion in 3D
Miyagi (120 km East of the epicenter)

Ibaraki (400 km South-West of the epicenter)

FDM simulation
GENCI-CINES (128 proc)
3

Tsunami modeling> Generation> Example : Antilles (Barduda, M 8,3)

> Submersion> Example : Papenoo (Tahiti, PF)> Utilization of SurfWB> Taking into account buildings andland roughness> Better estimation of attained zones

4Two examples of recent collaboration with Japon
on Tohoku Earthquake(Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)/French National Research Agency( ANR) )> ONAMAZU : Quantitative assessment of nonlinear soil response during

the great 2011 Tohoku earthquake
with• Disaster Research Prevention Institute (DPRI), Hiroshi Kawase• National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention (NIED),Nelson Pulido• Shimizu Corporation, Kenichi Tsuda> DYNTOHOKU : Dynamics of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake: from longterm stress accumulation to asperities
with• National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention (NIED), Eiichi Fukuyama• University of Tokyo (UTOKYO) Satoshi Ide• Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) : Takuya Nishimura
5

SYNER-G
Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis
for Buildings, Lifeline Networks andInfrastructures Safety Gain
Coordinator: Prof. Kyriazis Pitilakis, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece
Duration: 36 months (starting date: Nov. 1st, 2009)
Project Webpage: http://www.syner-g.eu/

6

14 participants from 11 countries
GRE

AUS

FRA

BEL

NOR

ITATUR

GER

UK

USA

JAP

1

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIAUTHGREECE

2

VIENNA CONSULTING ENGINEERS

VCE

AUSTRIA3

BUREAU DE RECHERCHES GEOLOGIQUES ET MINIERESBRGMFRANCE

4COMMISSION OF THE EC ‐ DIRECTORATE GENERAL JOINT RESEARCH CENTREJRCBELGIUM

5NORWEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTENGINORWAY6UNIVERSITY OF PAVIAUPAVITALY7UNIVERSITY OF ROMA “LA SAPIENZA”

UROMAITALY8MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITYMETUTURKEY

9ANALYSIS AND MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS, UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES FEDERICO IIAMRAITALY

10UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHEKIT‐UGERMANY

11UNIVERSITY OF PATRASUPATGREECE

12WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGSWILLISUK13MID‐AMERICA EARTHQUAKE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISUILLINOISUSA14RESEARCH CENTRE FOR URBAN SAFETY AND SECURITY, KOBE UNIVERSITY

UKOBEJAPAN7

SYNER‐G concept and goals
PhysicalDamage

Assessmentof Impact

Utility andInfrastructure
Systems

CriticalFacilities

Long Term
Housing

Emergency Shelter,
Temporary Housing

Social and Economic Vulnerability

Transportation
Systems

Social and Economic
Consequences
Short Term

Building Stock

Systemic vulnerability

HazardEvent

Direct Damage, Price
Increases, Business
Interruption, SupplyDisruption

Fiscal Impacts,

Economic Business Failure,
Job Loss,
Loss

Casualties,
Fatalities, Health Care
Disruption

Emergency Supplies,
Family Separation

Relocation,
Displacement

Reconstruction

HealthPsychologicalDistress,
Chronic Injury

SocialFamily Stress,
Disruption Neighborhood
Disruption

8

SYNER‐G three main objectives• Select the most advanced fragility functions and methods toassess the physical and societal‐economic vulnerability of all
assets, improving and further developing new ones wherenecessary, considering European distinctive features• Develop a unified methodology to assess vulnerability at asystem level considering interdependencies between
elements at risk (physical and non‐physical), belonging todifferent systems and between different systems as a wholeat city and regional scale• Build an appropriate open‐source software and tool to deal
with systemic vulnerability
9SYNER‐G project
workflow

GENERAL METHODOLOGYPHYSICAL VULNERABILITY &LOSSESfor elements and systems

SOCIO‐ECONOMIC
VULNERABILITY & LOSSESfor elements and systems

SYSTEMIC VULNERABILITY & LOSSES
Buildings &Aggregates

Utility
Systems

Transportation
Infrastructures

GUIDELINES &DISSEMINATION
Criticalfacilities

Interdependencies

SOFTWARETOOLSAPPLICATION & VALIDATION
Urban Scale
Thessaloniki city
Vienna city

Utility ‐ Transportation
Pipeline network
Motorway in Italy
Electric network in Italy
Harbor of Thessaloniki

Critical Facilities
Hospital facility inItaly

10Representative results: Object‐oriented Model

Seisomogentic sources &components’ sites geology

Seismic
hazard model

ShakeMaps

Components’fragility

Physical vulnerability
model

components’ damage

Systems’
topology

Integrated
physical/socio/economic
physical/socio/economic
system model

Performance Indicators

11

Representative results: Fragility Curves
New numerical fragility curves for bridge abutments based on 2D dynamic
analyses for different soil types, abutment geometries and input motions
Bridge abutments - Soil C

Probability of .damage

1.00.9Minor damageh=6m

0.8Moderate damageh=6m

0.7

Extensive damageh=6m

0.6Complete damageh=6m

0.5Minor damageh=7.5m

0.4
0.3

Moderate damageh=7.5m

0.2

Extensive damageh=7.5m

0.1

Complete damageh=7.5m

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Soil types (EC8): C, D
Abutment heights: 6,7.5m

1.2
1.4
PGA free field (g)12Representative results: Fragility Curves
New numerical fragility curves for waterfront structures based on 2D finiteelement analysis for different wall heights (> and ≤10m) and soil foundationconditions
Waterfront structures - H<=10m, Vs=250m/s

0,750,50

Waterfront structures - H<=10m, Vs=500m/s

0,25

0,00
0,00

1,00
0,20

0,40

0,600,80

PGA - rock (g)minor damages

moderate damages

1,00

1,20

Probability of exceedance

Probability of exceedance

1,00

1,40

0,75

extensive damages

0,50

0,250,00
0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

PGA - rock (g)minor damages

moderate damages

13

Representative results: Fragility Curves
New numerical fragility curves for shallow tunnels in alluvial based on 2D quasi
static analyses for different soil types, tunnel geometries and input motions

1.00

Soil type: CSoil C
Probability of damage

0.75

1.00

0.25

1.00

Minor damage

Extensive damage
Soil type: D

0.00
0.0

Μoderate damage

Probability of damage
2

Minor damage
Moderate damage

SoilBΒ
Soil type:

0.75

0.50

0.75
Probability of damage2

Extensive damage

0.50

0.25

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

PGA (g)Soil D

0.50

0.25

Minor damage
Moderate damage

0.00
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.60.8

1.0

1.2
0.00
0.0

1.4

Extensive damage

1.6

0.2
0.4
PGA (g)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4
PGA (g)

1.6

Circular/ Boredtunnels

14Representative results: Fragility Function Manager

15

Representative results: Fragility Function Manager
Comparison of Functions
RC, MRF, mid‐rise, seismically designed

16

Representative results: Integrated evaluation of physical andsocio‐economic performance indicators

17

Representative results:
Displaced Population (Uninhabitable Buildings)
UsabilityRatio
FU – Fully Usable
PU – Partially Usable
NU – Non UsableDamage Level
D0D1D2D3D4
D50,87 0,69 0,17 0,02 0,00 0,010,13 0,31 0,45 0,21 0,04 0,010,00 0,00 0,38 0,77 0,96 0,98

Utility Loss in each system j defined asone minus the ratio of satisfied to required
demandUtility Loss Tolerance
Thresholds
ULT
FU – Fully Usable
PU – Partially Usable

Weather Conditions
GoodBad1.0
0.9

0.00.0

Displaced Persons (UB):18

Representative results: Pilot

cities’ location and seismic sources

19

Representative results: Pilot application
Demand in each grid cell proportional to population
Cell demands aggregated to reference node

WSS topology + demands evaluated at nodes
20

Representative results: Pilot
Demand in each grid cell proportional to population on activity (industrial/residential)
Cell demands aggregated to reference node

EPN topology + demand evaluated at nodes
21

Representative results: Pilot

shakeMap for an M=7 scenario event22M = 7 Scenario event on source 2

Representative results: Pilot application

physical damage to blds, casualties & fatalities23

ご清聴ありがとうございました
Dank u voor uw aandacht
Merci pour votre attention
Thank you for your attention> 24