Diapositiva 1 - Protezione Civile

The Art. 11 of the Law 77/09:
the National Fund for Seismic Risk Prevention and
the Seismic Microzonation
Art. 11 della Legge 77/09:
il fondo nazionale per la prevenzione del rischio
sismico e la MS
Mauro Dolce
Director General - Italian Civil Protection Department, Rome
Professor of Structural Engineering, University of Naples, Federico II
OUTLINE
1. Past and expected earthquake losses in Italy
2. Actions for seismic risk mitigation
3. Past risk mitigation activities in Italy
4. National Plan for seismic risk mitigation
5. Conclusion
1
Costs of Italian Earthquakes
Costo dei terremoti in Italia tra il 1968 ed il 2003 (€ 2005)
last 50 yrs (m€-2005)
Cumulo dei costi per terremoti in Italia tra il 1968 ed il 1998 (€ 2005)
140.000
60.000,00
120.000
50.000,00
100.000
80.000
40.000,00
4500 FATALITIES
20.000
-
MOLISEPUGLIA
UMBRIA
MARCHE
FRIULI
10.000,00
BELICE
20.000,00
40.000
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
30.000,00
IRPINIA-BASILICATA
60.000
2005
1968
1972
1978
1980
1983
1990
1997
2000
2002
2003
2003
+ ABRUZZO 2009 + EMILIA 2012 (30.000???)
1
SEISMIC RISK
Hazard
Vulnerability
X
Exposure
X
Seismic Risk
Estimate (probabilistic) of effects (human losses, injured,
damage to properties and waste of eceonomic activities) that
earthquakes in a given area produce on exposed elements
1
SEISMIC HAZARD IN ITALY
Peak ground
acceleration
475 yrs return period
(Prob. 10% in 50 yrs)
Max PGA = 0.28g
SSN-GNDT 2000
INGV 2004
1
EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY
percentuale di abitazioni per epoca di costruzione
Percentage
of dwelings per year of
e tipologia (ISTAT 2001)
construction and structural type
Dwellings – Census 2001
16%
14%
c.a
12%
mur
Surface area of dwelings:
superfici delle abitazioni totali e non protette
total
and with no seismic provisions
%
10%
8%
1°600°000°000
6%
1°400°000°000
Total
totale
costr.
prima classification
della classif.
Built before
4%
1°200°000°000
2%
1°000°000°000
prima del
1919
19191945
19461961
19621971
19721981
19821991
epoca di costruzione
AGE
•
•
5% of masonry buildings
15% of R/C buildings
BUILT AFTER 1982
19912001
mq
0%
800°000°000
600°000°000
400°000°000
200°000°000
0
R/C
c.a.
MASONRY
muratura
STRUCTURAL
TYPE
tipologia costruttiva
Most of the buildings are obsolete
and designed with no seismic provision
EXPOSURE
Apartments
Population
1
SEISMIC RISK
People involved in building collapses
per municipality - Average percent in
100 years
ISTAT 2001
Collapsed dwellings per municipality.
Average percent in 100 years
ISTAT 2001
1
DESTRUCTIVENESS
OF ITALIAN EARTHQUAKES
The high seismic risk has to be ascribed to the high
vulnerability of the Italian building stock, mainly due to the
several factors, among which:
• Huge vulnerable cultural heritage and old historical
centres,
• Degradation of large urban settlements,
• Illegal buildings in high hazard and high exposure areas,
• Lack of knowledge of seismic hazard in the past
(inadequate seismic classification in the XX century),
• Inadequate standards and bad quality of construction.
2
SEISMIC RISK
ACTIONS FOR RISK MITIGATION
1. Improvement of knowledge
2. Reduction of vulnerability and exposure
3. Mitigation of effects
2
1. Improvement of knowledge
•
Technical-scientific knowledge
 promoting and financing applied research programs
(seismological, geological, engineering problems)
 PFG, GNDT, Competence centers (INGV, ReLUIS,
EUCENTRE)
•
Knowlegde of the territory and the building stock (*)
 promoting and financing studies on the territory for:
 knowledge of the building stock
 local hazard (seismic microzonation)
(*) To evaluate economic needs, total and for single categories,
to define strategies, general and for specific categories and to
increase awareness of public administrators
2
2. Reduction of vulnerability and exposure
2.1 Indirect actions – improvement of tools
• Design
 Hazard, Classification, Code,
• Planning
 Seismic Microzonation
 Urban planning
 Emergency planning
2.2 Direct actions – reduction of vulnerabily of constructions
• Seismic upgrading of public buildings and infrastructures
 hospitals,
 schools,
 transport infrastructures, etc.
• Seismic upgrading of the private dwelling building stock
2
3. Mitigation of effects
3.1 Improving seismic monitoring
3.2 Improving the organisation of the civil protection system
for a better response in case of earthquake
3.3 Testing emergency plans through exercises
3.4 Increasing risk awareness and civil protection culture of
people and public administrators, through communication and
information campaigns
3.5 …
3
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENTS
FOR SEISMIC PREVENTION IN RECENT YEARS
In the past years, starting from1986, very few investments
have been made in structural seismic prevention, almost
exclusively on strategic and important public buildings
(hospitals, schools, etc.).
•
1986 – 2003: a total of € 316 Million have been invested
(apart from post earthquake interventions), of which 66 M€
for private buildings in Sicily (Law 433)
•
2003 – 2009: a total of € 750 million have been invested
for prevention, mainly of schools
4
WHAT ARE WE DOING TODAY?
ART. 11 L.77/2009
NATIONAL PLAN FOR THE SEISMIC
RISK PREVENTION
4
6 April 2009
H. 3.32
Mw 6.3
Max IMCS IX-X
Max PGA 0.66g
4
Law by Decree n.39
(converted by the Law N.77 23 June 2009)
Besides the provisions aimed at the emergency
overcoming and at the reconstruction of L’Aquila
and surroundings, two important provisions were
taken for the seismic risk prevention at national
level:
• Art. 1bis: full enforcement of the Technical
Norms (promulgated by the DM 14.01.08)
was anticipated to 1.07.09
• Art.11: fund allocation for the seismic
prevention of 965 M€ in 7 years
4
Law n. 77 24.06.2009
Article 11: Interventions for seismic risk prevention
In the state of prevision of the Ministry of economy and finance a
fund for the seismic risk prevention is established.
At this aim the following expense is authorised:
•
•
•
•
•
M€ 44 (then reduced to 42,5) for the year 2010,
M€ 145,1
for the year 2011,
M€ 195,6
for each of the years 2012, 2013 e 2014,
M€ 145,1
for the year 2015
M€ 44
for the year2016.
Annual funds (M€)
200
Total 965 M€ (963,5)
150
100
50
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
18
4
General strategy of the plan
•
Pointing towards the reduction of the risk of human losses,
rather than economical losses, given the Italian generalised
situation of unsafe structures, then limiting the interventions to
the areas with the highest hazard (ag≥0.125g);
•
Dealing with a wide spectrum of problems, then stimulating
the attention of private owners and administrators towards the
different problems of seismic risk (retrofit of public as well as
of private buildings, retrofit of urban infrastructures,
seismic microzonation, urban and emergency planning);
•
Asking for co-funding by local public administrations and
by private owners, in order to increase the actual effects of
the allocated State funds.
ACTIONS
Action
a) Seismic microzonation studies
b) Seismic retrofit or reconstruction of
buildings and infrastructural
constructions of strategic interest or
critical for the consequence of their
collapse, with the exclusion of schools.
c) Interventions of seismic upgrading or
reconstruction of private buildings.
d) Other urgent interventions.
2010 2011
2012
4 M€ 8 M€ 16 M€
34
M€
(*)
130
M€
(*)
170
M€
(*)
4 M€ 4 M€ 8.5 M€
(*) Points b) and c) are globally funded as in the table. The funding of private
buildings was voluntary in the first year, but compulsory in the following
years, between 20% and 40% of the total.
4
Distribution of funds among the regions
Based on the seismic risk studies carried out by ReLUIS and
EUCENTRES and by the DPC itself
They use the same hazard as given by DPC-INGV S1 (20042006) Project and the same exposure data (people and
buildings) provided by ISTAT 2001 census, differing for the
vulnerability evaluation:
1. DPC: empirical damage probability distribution (Goretti et
al., 2008).
2. EUCENTRE: fragility curves drawn from mechanical models
of sample buildings designed according to the standards and/or
the uses of the period of construction (Borzi et al. 2011).
3. ReLUIS : empirical damage probability distribution (Goretti
21
et al., 2008) purposely recalibrated at regional level
4
WEIGHTED REGIONAL RISK INDEX
IRG provides a measure of the total risk of loss of life in the Region
IRS provides a measure of the risk of loss of life of each individual
IRG medio
IRG NORMALISED
ΣIRG =1
IWRR = IRG + IRS
IRS medio
 = 0.5
 = 0.77
IRS NORMALISED
 = 0.5
 = 0.23
ΣIRS =1
Year 2010
Year 2011, 2012
1/28
4
Distribution of funds
among the Regions for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012
2012
2011
2010
4
a) Seismic microzonation
Some principles are assessed aimed at giving operational
capability and concreteness to the financed seismic
microzonation program:
•
Microzonation studies incorporated in the urban planning
of municipalities;
•
Uniform methods and standards
at national level;
•
Coordination, in the long run, of the
different interventions for risk
mitigation, aiming at the efficiency of the
emergency management system.
1/28
4
a) Seismic microzonation
CURRENT SITUATION:
432 municipalities (one region missing) have been microzoned
with the 2010 funds, with an average contribution of about € 9204
/ Municip.
Applications for 500 municipalities approved (five region
missing) with the 2011 funds, with an average contribution of
about € 11400 / Municip. Expected number of the order of 700.
PROJECTION  2016:
4000-5000 municipalities microzoned
1/28
4
b) Seismic Upgrading of
Public Buildings and Bridges
The State contribution is evaluated as a quota (proportional to the
seismic safety gap) of a conventional total cost for intervention
given by:
•
•
•
Local strengthening:
100 €/cm of the total volume of the building,
300 €/sqm of the bridge deck;
Seismic upgrading:
150 €/cm of the total volume of the building,
450 €/sqm of the bridge deck;
Demolition and reconstruction:
200 €/cm of the total volume of the building,
600 €/sqm of the bridge deck.
1/28
4
b) Seismic Upgrading of
Public Buildings and Bridges
CURRENT SITUATION:
76 buildings (one region missing) are being retrofitted with the
2010 funds, with an average contribution of about € 410,000 /
bldg.
142 buildings (two regions missing) are being retrofitted with
the 2011 funds, with an average contribution of about € 513,000 /
bldg.
PROJECTION  2016:
800-1200 Buildings upgraded.
1/28
4
c) Seismic Upgrading of
Private Buildings
the State contribution is evaluated as a quota of a conventional
total cost for intervention given by:
•
•
•
Local strengthening:
100 €/sqm total surface area of the building (max € 20,000
per dwelling unit, € 10,000 per other unit);
Seismic upgrading:
150 €/sqm total surface area of the building (max € 30,000
per dwelling unit, € 15,000 per other unit);
Demolition and reconstruction:
200 €/sqm total surface area of the building (max € 40,000
per dwelling unit, € 20,000 per other unit).
Further incentive: up to 50% tax deduction in ten years on the costs exceeding
the State contribution
1/28
4
c) Seismic Upgrading of
Private Buildings
CURRENT SITUATION:
32 buildings (only one region activated the program for private
buildings) are being retrofitted with the 2010 funds, with an
average contribution of about € 17400 / bldg.
No final data for 2011 are available yet.
PROJECTION  2016:
8000-12000 Buildings upgraded.
4
d) Other urgent interventions
Upgrading critical infrastructural components of local civil
protection plans, such as bridges in the main escape and
communication transport routes, inside or leading to urban
settlements.
ag ≥ 0.2 g
(0.15 g in areas subjected also to volcanic risk).
6 bridges are being upgraded with the 2010 funds.
1/28
4
d) Other urgent interventions
CURRENT SITUATION:
6 viaducts (only two regions applied) are being retrofitted with the
2010 funds, with an average contribution of about € 498000 /
bldg.
Applications for 15 viaducts (only two regions) have been
made until now for the 2011 funds, with an average contribution of
about € 174000 / viaduct.
PROJECTION  2016:
150-300 Viaducts upgraded.
1/28
4
LIMIT CONDITION FOR THE EMERGENCY
LCE is defined as the condition for which, after a seismic event,
the urban settlement undergoes such physical and functional
damage as to interrupt almost all its urban functions, including
dwelling, while the functionality is preserved of:
•
•
•
most of the strategic functions for the emergency
management,
the interconnection routes between strategic elements
the access routes from the external territorial context.
The analysis of LCE has been introduced for the first time in the
Ordinance 4007 (for 2011 and 2012 funds), as a voluntary
application, with some incentives, connected to SM studies.
1/28
5
CONCLUSION
• It is well recognised that the main action to mitigate seismic risk
should be the generalized reduction of the seismic
vulnerability of existing constructions, besides guaranteing
adequate seismic safety to new constructions.
• This objective is the lengthiest and by far the most expensive to
be attained: huge investment and very long term risk
mitigation policies are required.
• The progressive implementation of vulnerability reduction
measures must be accompanied by other less expensive
short time “soft” measures, aimed at:
 rationalizing, optimizing and accelerating interventions,
 reducing exposure and the consequences of earthquakes.
1/28
5
CONCLUSION
•
The fund allocation is still largely insufficient : a purely
structural retrofit program at such rate would require some
centuries to be completed. Meanwhile hundreds of billions of
Euro would be spent after future destructive earthquakes.
•
The 2010-2016 National Plan for Seismic Risk Prevention
aims at realising an integrated program to optimize and
multiply the effects of the State investments.
1/28
5
CONCLUSION
Qualifying aspects of 2010-16 Plan for Seismic Risk Prevention:
• Clear objective: reducing human losses;
• Flexibility: actions reformulated each year ;
• Seismic microzonation integrated into urban and emergency planning;
• Evaluation of the limit condition for emergency (LCE) to improve the
seismic emergency system, increase the awareness of public administrators
and better define a risk reduction strategy at local level;
• Retrofit of public buildings;
• Retrofit of private (besides public) buildings;
• Retrofit of bridges and viaducts important for emergency planning;
• Flexibility for the type of retrofit interventions;
• Full integration of SM, LCE and retrofit interventions in the near future.
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION