EQECAT and ABS Consulting co-hosted a webinar, 2012 Spring Italian Earthquakes, on June 26, 2012 to address the damages and effects of the 2012 Northern Italy earthquakes on the insurance and reinsurance industries. The presentation addressed factors affecting the Emilia-Romagna region of Northern Italy, the area most impacted by the series of earthquakes in May 2012. These massive earthquakes claimed 26 lives and caused widespread damage and devastation to Italy's predominant economic production region.

1. THE SPRING 2012 ITALIAN EARTHQUAKES
To plan for the future we must understand the past
A seminar presented by:
The mission of ABS and ABS Group companies is to serve the public interest
as well as the needs of our clients by promoting the security of life and
property and preserving the natural environment.

2. MAY 2012 EARTHQUAKES NEAR BOLOGNA
A series of earthquakes
in Emilia Romagna, Italy
in May 2012
– Caused multiple fatalities
– Economic damage estimated
from €5 to €10 Billion
– Insured Losses estimated in the (€) hundreds of Millions
What can we learn from this event to better
anticipate the next earthquake?

3. BOLOGNA EARTHQUAKE 2012
• Today’s presentation
– The earthquakes and regional seismicity
– Building codes and practices
– Building damage – causes and mitigation
– Regional risk – what does the “big one” look like

4. TODAY’S PRESENTERS
• Tom Larsen, Product Architect, EQECAT
• Paul Thenhaus, Senior Geologist, EQECAT
• Brad Eccles, Principal Engineer, ABS Consulting
• Nathan Gould, Director and ELSR Chief of
Technology, ABS Consulting
• Kent David, Vice President, EQECAT

5. GEOLOGICAL AND SEISMOLOGICAL SETTING
The 20 May 2012 Emilia Romagna Earthquake
EQECAT EARTHQUAKE BRIEFING: 26 June 2012
Paul C. Thenhaus
Senior Geologist
EQECAT, Inc.

6. 2012 EMILIA ROMAGNA EARTHQUAKE SEQUENCE
~ 50 KM
May 20, 2:03 GMT, M6.0
May 20, 13:00 GMT, M5.1
May 29, 7:00 GMT, M5.8
May 29, 11:00 GMT, M5.3
May 29, 11:00 GMT M5.1

7. USGS COULOMB STRESS TRANSFER
May 29, M5.8 aftershock
occurred in a region of
increased stress due to the
May 20 mainshock.

8. INTERNATIONAL FOCAL MECHANISM SOLUTIONS:
20 MAY 2012 EMILIA ROMAGNA EARTHQUAKE
Thrust faulting on a
WNW-ESE
oriented fault plane.

9. CROSS-SECTION OF THE SOUTHERN PO PLAIN
SHOWING ACTIVE BLIND (BURIED) THRUST FAULTS

10. EMS-98 INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION

11. PREDICTED INTENSITIES
Predicted intensities given
the May 20 earthquake
magnitude and location from the
Sirovich et al. (2009) method.

12. THESE INTENSITIES WERE NOT SURPRISING!
Municipalities in the
epicentral area had a
long history of
intensity VI+
earthquake shaking!
(From Decanini et al., 2012)

13. PEAK GROUND ACCELERATIONS RECORDED

14. PREDICTED 475-YEAR PGA HAZARD ON ROCK
Areas Prone to Amplification
(From Vanini et al., 2007)

15. ACTIVE FAULT SOURCES OF ITALY

16. MAJOR EARTHQUAKES IN ITALY SINCE 1900
Date Location Fatalities Magnitude
Capo Vaticano, Calabria
08/09/1905 527 7.9
(offshore)
28/12/1908 Messina, Sicily 70,000 7.2
13/01/1915 Avezzano, Abruzzo 32,610 7.0
29/06/1919 Mugello, Tuscany 100 6.3
07/09/1920 Garfagnana, Tuscany 171 6.4
23/07/1930 Irpinia, Campania 1,404 6.5
15/01/1968 Salaparuta, Sicily 260 6.5
Gemona del Friuli, Friuli–
06/05/1976 1,000 6.5
Venezia Giulia
23/11/1980 Irpinia, Campania 3,000 6.5
26/09/1997 Annifo, Umbria 11 6.4
06/09/2002 Palermo, Sicily (offshore) 2 6.0
31/10/2002 San Giuliano, Molise 29 5.9
06/04/2009 L'Aquila, Abruzzo 295 6.3

17. MOST OF ITALY HAS MODERATE TO HIGH
SEISMIC HAZARD

18. CONCLUSIONS
1. The 20 May 2012 Emilia Romagna earthquake occurred in a region of recognized
moderate seismic hazard.
2. The mainshock event ruptured a blind thrust fault in the southern Po Plain in a
region of known active thrust faults.
3. Over a period of nine days, the mainshock triggered a series of aftershocks
that extended ruptures both east and west over a distance of approximately
50 km.
4. The earthquake and its aftershocks came as no surprise: hazard maps
previously defined the hazard, ground motion amplification was expected in
Po Plain, municipalities in the epicentral area had long histories of intensity
VI+ earthquake effects.
5. Most of Italy is characterized by moderate-to-high seismic hazard:
The country has a long history of devastating earthquakes.

19. EQECAT
Risk Quantification and Engineering
(RQE)
Paul C. Thenhaus
Senior Geologist
EQECAT, Inc.
pthenhaus@eqecat.com
www.eqecat.com/

20. Overview of Seismic Design
Regulations for Italy
Dr. Brad Eccles
Principal Engineer
ABS Consulting Ltd.

21. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
• First design regulations were
introduced in December
1908
• As a response to the 1908
Messina Earthquake
• M 7.1
• 90,000 fatalities
• Only applicable to Calabria
region
• Applicable to new design
and repair of damage Reference: Italian seismic hazard: experiences and new building code
application, Roberto W. Romeo, Associate Professor of Seismic Risk,
University of Urbino, Italy

22. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
1908 to 1980
• A series of new regulations
were introduced following
significant earthquake events
• RD 573/1915, RD 431/1927
and RD 640/1935
• Only applicable to affected
regions
• Differentiation of High and
Moderate Risk
• Applicable to new design and
repair of damage
Reference: Italian seismic hazard: experiences and new building code
application, Roberto W. Romeo, Associate Professor of Seismic Risk,
University of Urbino, Italy

23. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
1981 to 1984
• First formal hazard
definition based on
scientific studies
• 475 year return period
hazard
• 3 discrete hazard zones
• Northern Italy was largely
not considered
Reference: Seismic classification of the Italian territory (1984). MLP
Decree of 14/07/1984 and subsequent decrees, National Institute of
Geophysics and Volcanology, http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/

24. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
1984
• Horizontal Force
Fh = CRIW
• Importance Factor
– 1.4 - civil protection, 1.2 – high risk occupancy, 1.0 -
others
• CR – horizontal force coefficient
( S − 2)
C=
100

25. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
2003
• First formal study to
expressly define seismic
hazard levels to
consider in design for
all of Italy
• This increased the
seismic loading for new
build
• This was in preparation
for the introduction of
Eurocode 8 in 2004
Reference: Seismic zones of the Italian territory (2003). Order PCM 3274
of 20/03/2003., National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology,
http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/

26. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
Zone Acceleration (pga)
1 0.35
2 0.25
3 0.15
4 0.05
• 10% Probability of exceedance
in 50 years on hard ground
(Vs > 800m/s)
• Zone 4 – 5% g which was
judged to be lower than other Reference: Seismic zones of the Italian territory (2003). Order PCM 3274
of 20/03/2003., National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology,
loadings http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/

27. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
Comparison of 1984 and 2003

28. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
Areas classified as seismic zone Seismic Classification of the Major Cities in
for the first time in 2003 Emilia –Romagna Region
City 1984 Zoning 2003 Zoning
Bologna N.C. 3
Cesena 2 2
Ferrara N.C. 3
Forli 2 2
Modena N.C. 3
Parma N.C. 3
Piacenza N.C. 4
Ravenna N.C. 3
Reggio Emilia N.C. 3
Rimini 2 2
Reference: Pericolosità sismica, normativa e zone sismiche
nell’Aquilano, a cura di C. Meletti e M. Stucchi (INGV-MI), 16 Reference: Order of 20/03/2003 PCM 3274, http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/
aprile 2009 , National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology,
http://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/

29. SEISMIC DESIGN HISTORY IN ITALY
• Summary in Context
• There was no formal seismic design requirement for
much of Northern Italy until 2003
• Many of the cities were put into Zone 3 with a pga of
0.15g
• This level of hazard is not insignificant and will cause
damage to structures designed without earthquake
loading taken into consideration

30. Performance of Structures
Nathan Gould, D.Sc., PE, SE
Director and ELSR Chief of Technology
ABS Consulting
ngould@absconsulting.com

31. PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURES
• In this region of Italy, buildings constructed prior to
2003 likely have little, if any, seismic design
• Concrete frames with masonry infill are popular. The
infill is typically not accounted for in the design of the
lateral force-resisting system
• Precast concrete frame construction is also popular in
the region. Seismic performance of these systems is
dependent on connections
• Little attention has been paid to the lateral restraint of
non-structural elements

32. MANTOVA (NW OF THE EPICENTER)

33. MANTOVA

34. MODENA (SW OF THE EPICENTER)

35. MODENA

36. BOLOGNA (SOUTH OF THE EPICENTER)

37. INDUSTRIAL SITES (PGA = 0.30 G)

38. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – SANT’AGOSTINO
• Ceramics Storage Building
– Steel frame structure with heavy storage loads
– Inadequate lateral system
– Flexible structure which resulted in large displacements
Reference: Decanini, LD, Liberatore L., Sorrentino L, 2012, Preliminary
Report on the 2012, May 20 Emilia Earthquake

39. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – SANT’AGOSTINO
• Precast Reinforced Concrete Industrial Building
– Popular type of structure in the impacted region
– Historically poor performers in past earthquakes
– Performance is dependent on connections and detailing
Reference: Decanini, LD, Liberatore L., Sorrentino L, 2012, Preliminary
Report on the 2012, May 20 Emilia Earthquake

40. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – SANT’AGOSTINO
• Precast Reinforced Concrete Industrial Building
– Failure of connections impacts not only the primary
building structure but also the perimeter cladding
Reference: Decanini, LD, Liberatore L., Sorrentino L, 2012, Preliminary
Report on the 2012, May 20 Emilia Earthquake

41. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – SANT’AGOSTINO
• Precast Reinforced Concrete Industrial Building
– Failure of connections supporting the roof framing
Reference: EPICentre Field Observation Report No. EPI-FO-200512, The 20th
May 2012 Emilia Romagna Earthquake
41

42. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – FINALE EMILE
• Precast Reinforced Concrete Industrial Building
– Plastic hinging of the primary columns
Reference: EPICentre Field Observation Report No. EPI-FO-200512, The 20th
May 2012 Emilia Romagna Earthquake

43. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – MIRANDOLA
• Collapse of perimeter panels due to connections
Reference: Decanini, LD, Liberatore L., Sorrentino L, 2012, Preliminary
Report on the 2012, May 20 Emilia Earthquake

44. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – MIRANDOLA
• 2005 Precast Concrete
Frame Building
– Connection failure likely led
to partial collapse
Reference: Decanini, LD, Liberatore L., Sorrentino L, 2012, Preliminary
Report on the 2012, May 20 Emilia Earthquake

45. INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURES – MIRANDOLA
• Partial Collapse
• Connection Failures
• Stiffness / Geometry Issues
Reference: Decanini, LD, Liberatore L.,
Sorrentino L, 2012, Preliminary Report on the
2012, May 20 Emilia Earthquake

46. MITIGATION
• Initial Step
– Understand the vulnerabilities
• Structural
• Non-Structural
• Financial
• Develop a Comprehensive Mitigation Approach
– Performance Requirements
• Life Safety or Continuous Operations
– External Factors
• Power
• Transportation

47. Mitigation

48. LESSONS LEARNED
• Active seismic region where much of the
existing building stock has not been designed
for seismic loads
• Numerous structural vulnerabilities, many due
poor connections and detailing
• Little attention is typically paid to the proper
restraint of non-structural elements
• Loss of structure and/or major non-structural
issues leads to large BI exposure

49. 2012 Northern
Italy Earthquakes
A modeled view of the events
June 26, 2012

50. MODELING PARAMETERS

51. EQECAT CATASTROPHIC RISK MODELING
Vulnerability
Model
Hazard Model
Exposure
Model

52. 2012 EMILIA-ROMAGNA EQ LOSS ESTIMATES
Catwatch Estimates: Model Proxy for Event:
• €300M to €700M Insured
Loss Total (including Event ID – 21773
aftershocks) Epicenter – N44.77 E11.18
• Loss estimates highly
sensitive to insurance take
Magnitude – 6.0
up rate Depth – 12.8 km
• Damage estimate of €14.2 B
consistent with insurance Mean Damage – 14.2 € B
take rates of 2%-5% Sigma Damage – 7.2 € B

53. EMILIA EARTHQUAKE – FOOTPRINT COMPARISON
USGS Shake Map EQECAT Shake Map (MMI)
Epicenter
May 20, 2012 Hypothetical
M 6.0 M 6.0
N44.80, E11.19 N44.77, E11.18
Depth 5.0 km Depth 12.8 km

54. MODEL INSIGHTS

55. ITALY WIDE DAMAGE EXCEEDANCE CURVE
Emilia (2012)
Damage – 14.2 € B
RP – 6 Yrs.

56. CONCENTRATIONS OF CATASTROPHIC EVENTS
• Italian Earthquake
Z6
Z5 model has 33075 events
Z7
• 218 events have
Z4
damage > = 100 € B
• Largest damage
Z3
causing event in the
Z2
Campania region (40 km
east of Naples)
Z1
Emilia Earthquake

57. CONCENTRATIONS OF CATASTROPHIC POTENTIAL
Zone No of Min Max Min Max
Events Magnitude Magnitude Damage Damage
Z5 (€B) (€B)
Z6
Z7
Z1 10 7.0 7.2 100.4 134.6
Z4
Z2 107 6.0 7.4 100.4 457.8
Z3 5 6.2 7.2 107.6 115.5
Z3 Z4 33 6.4 6.8 100.3 196.5
Z2 Z5 52 6.6 7.2 100.0 169.7
Z6 4 6.0 6.4 100.6 113.6
Z7 7 6.2 6.6 104.1 186.7
Z1
Emilia Earthquake

58. CONDITIONAL DAMAGE DISTRIBUTION IN PO
VALLEY
Po Valley • Max Modeled Damage in Po Valley – 116.7 € B
• May 20, 2012 event 99% NEP of Po events
• 50% NEP in Po valley ~€100M
100%
90%
80%
70%
Non Exceedance Probability
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Source: Wikipedia
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Damage in Euro Billions

59. PO VALLEY MAGNITUDE / LOSS SCATTER
140
E2
120 Emilia Earthquake
100
E1
Damage in € B
80
60
40
20
0
5.00 5.20 5.40 5.60 5.80 6.00 6.20 6.40 6.60 6.80 7.00
Magnitude
Emilia Earthquake

60. RISK MANAGEMENT

61. CATASTROPHE MODELING – RISK
MANAGEMENT
• Portfolio Analysis
– Insight into overall economic risk
– Identify critical facilities based on PML / expected loss…
– Full consideration of uncertainty, quality factors
• Detailed Analyses / Evaluations
– Business Interruption / Contingent Business Interruption
– Facility evaluation / engineering study
– Retrofit and risk mitigation

62. MAY 2012 BOLOGNA EARTHQUAKES
• The earthquakes occurred in an area where
infrequent, smaller earthquakes are expected to
occur
• Damage was widespread, concentrated upon
buildings based upon older building codes
• Strengthening of older buildings can reduce
fatalities and disruption from these events
• The greater region presents the potential for much
larger earthquake losses

63. INTERACTIVE Q&A
• Paul Thenhaus, Senior Geologist, EQECAT
pthenhaus@eqecat.com
• Brad Eccles, Principal Engineer, ABS Consulting
beccles@absconsulting.com
• Nathan Gould, Director and ELSR Chief of
Technology ABS Consulting
ngould@absconsulting.com
• Kent David, Vice President, EQECAT
kdavid@absconsulting.com