GNGTS 2022 - Atti del 40° Convegno Nazionale

358 GNGTS 2022 Sessione 2.2 The vulnerability. The seismic vulnerability of ordinary buildings is represented, by classes, by the damage probability matrices which relate the seismic intensity and the discrete damage parameter Di (D0: no damage; D1: light damage; D2: moderate damage; D3: severe damage; D4: partial collapse; D5: total collapse). The DPMs used in the article have been built through a statistical analysis of damages observed following earthquakes occurred in Italy since 1980 (Zuccaro and De Gregorio, 2015 [13]). Impact. To estimate the damage caused by the reference earthquake, the input data are combined. The model discretizes the area under consideration through a square-mesh grid of size 250x250m. To each cell are assigned: • hazard data, in terms of macro-seismic intensity, • exposure data, in terms of number of buildings for each structural vulnerability class, Combining these data with seismic vulnerability (percentiles 16, 50 and 84%), the model provides, cell by cell, the number of collapsed buildings (D4+D5), the number of not available buildings (0.6xD3 + D4 + D5). With reference to the outcomes reported in Fig. 3, the municipalities with the greatest damage to buildings and occupants are Casamicciola and Lacco Ameno. Validation. The elaborations are congruent with the damage observed following the reference seismic event [7], which caused severe damage in a rather circumscribed area. A further validation has been done by estimating the damages to people and buildings through the IRMA (Italian Risk MAp) platform developed by Eucentre for the Department of Civil Protection (Borzi et al. , 2018 [14]), a tool that can produce impact scenario at municipality scale. Exposure and vulnerability used as input are consistent or at least comparable with those used for the National Risk Assessment. To compare the results, we proceeded to assess the damage induced by the reference event, having assumed the following factors: • HAZARD: the same shake map adopted for the elaborations presented here was adopted; Fig. 3 - Map of unsafe and lost buildings with E.A.S.E. model and comparison of the outcomes obtained by the E.A.S.E. model and the IRMA platform.