LESSLOSS A European Integrated Project o

LESSLOSS
A European Integrated Project on

Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
Editors: G.M. Calvi & R. Pinho
University of Pavia, Structural Mechanics Department

Via Ferrata 1, 27100, Pavia, Italy
July 2004
prodotto da:
Multimedia Cardano
Via Cardano, 14 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel.: (+39) 0382.539776 - fax: (+39) 0382.306406 - e-mail: multimediacardano@multimediacardano.191.it
distribuito da:
IUSS Press
IUSS, Collegio Giasone del Maino, Via Luino, 4 - 27100 Pavia, Italy
Tel.: (+39) 0382.375841 - fax: (+39) 0382.375899 - email: info@iusspress.it - web: www.iusspress.it
PREFACE
This report provides a detailed description of the LESSLOSS project, a research

endeavour funded by the European Commission within the scope of FP6, the Sixth
European Community Framework Programme for Research, Technological
Development and Demonstration; a collection of actions at EU level to fund and
promote research during the period of 2002 to 2006.
LESSLOSS is therefore an Integrated Project focusing on Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes

and Landslides that relies on the active participation of 46 European partners from both
academia and industry. It was approved by the EC in July 2003, within the framework of
the thematic sub-priority 1.1.6.3 (Global Change and Ecosystems), under Topic IV.2.a -
Integrated earthquake and landslide disaster management methodologies. Its start-up date
was scheduled to September 2004.
The contents of the current report consist, to a large extent, of a collection of the
technical material prepared by all LESSLOSS participants during the proposal drafting
stage, and assembled by the coordinators of the project (hereby acting as editors of these
volume), with the assistance of the project managers and the leaders of the three research
areas and the eleven sub-projects, all of whom are identified in the body of the document.
In addition, the contribution of each and every single participant to the project, whom
supplied the material to the aforementioned sub-project and area leaders, must also be
acknowledged by the Editors.
G.M. CALVI
R.PINHO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . Project Overview......................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project summary ..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project objectives.............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Participant list...................................................................................................................................4
1.4 Relevance to the objectives of the Global Change and Ecosystems Sub-Priority..................5
1.5 Potential Impact.............................................................................................................................11
1.5.1 Contributions to Standards ................................................................................................14
1.5.2 Contributions to policy developments .............................................................................15
2 . Outline implementation plan for the full duration of the project ...................................................17
2.1 Research, technological development and innovation activities .............................................19
Sub-Project 1.1 Landslide monitoring and warning systems..............................................21
Sub-Project 1.2 Landslide zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessment.......................23
Sub-Project 1.3 Innovative approaches for landslide assessment......................................26
Sub-Project 1.4 Landslide disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling....................30
Sub-Project 2.1 In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification of buildings and
infrastructures .............................................................................................33
Sub-Project 2.2a Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and
seismic isolators ..........................................................................................47
Sub-Project 2.2b Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction ...........................56
Sub-Project 2.3a Displacement-based design methodologies ............................................83
Sub-Project 2.3b Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications......................93
Sub-Project 2.4a Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban
areas..............................................................................................................95
Sub-Project 2.4b Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for
infrastructures .............................................................................................99
2.2 Demonstration activities............................................................................................................ 104
2.3 Training activities........................................................................................................................ 106
2.4 Management activities................................................................................................................ 107
2.4.1 General............................................................................................................................... 107
2.4.2 Key tasks............................................................................................................................ 108
2.5 Plan for using and disseminating knowledge.......................................................................... 109
2.5.1 The LESSLOSS Information Portal.............................................................................. 110
2.5.2 Collection of metadata of research results .................................................................... 111
2.5.3 The Data Repository of the project ............................................................................... 112
2.5.4 The EU-MEDIN Collaboration Framework ............................................................... 112
2.5.5 Dissemination material and means ................................................................................ 112
2.5.6 Dissemination activity...................................................................................................... 114
2.5.7 Exploitation....................................................................................................................... 115
2.5.8 Gender Action Plan ......................................................................................................... 117
vi LESSLOSS - Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
2.5.9 Raising public participation and awareness ................................................................... 117

2.6 Major milestones over full project duration............................................................................ 118
3 . Project Management ........................................................................................................................... 123
3.1 Strategic level............................................................................................................................... 124
3.1.1 Co-ordination Committee ............................................................................................... 124
3.1.2 Contractors Assembly ...................................................................................................... 125
3.2 Executive level............................................................................................................................. 125
3.2.1 Executive Committee....................................................................................................... 125
3.2.2 Advisory Committee ........................................................................................................ 126
3.3 Operational level ......................................................................................................................... 126
3.3.1 Sub-Projects....................................................................................................................... 126
3.3.2 Sub-Project Leaders.......................................................................................................... 127
3.3.3 Sub-Project Team ............................................................................................................. 128
3.4 Web-based project collaboration framework.......................................................................... 128
3.5 Management of knowledge and IPR ........................................................................................ 129
4 . Detailed Implementation Plan First 18 Months ........................................................................... 131
4.1 Introduction General description and milestones............................................................... 131
4.2 Planning and timetable............................................................................................................... 133
4.3 Graphycal representation of work packages ........................................................................... 137
4.4 Work package list (18 months period, month 1 - 18) ............................................................ 145
4.5 Deliverables list (18 months period, month 1 - 18) .............................................................. 146
4.6 Work packages descriptions (18 months period, month 1 - 18)........................................... 152
5 . Consortium Description..................................................................................................................... 163
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY

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 is
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 project addresses natural disasters, risk and impact assessment, natural
hazard monitoring, mapping and management strategies, improved disaster preparedness
and mitigation, development of advanced methods for risk assessment, methods of
appraising environmental quality and relevant pre-normative research.
In order for the multi-disciplinary S&T ingredients of the project to be tackled in an

efficient and productive manner, the research programme has been split into three
distinct areas: physical environment, urban areas and infrastructures. For each one of this
areas four main types of transversal fields have been identified as fundamental and
capable of producing permanent effects on risk mitigation: (i) instrumentation and
monitoring, (ii) methods and technologies to reduce vulnerability, (iii) innovative
approaches for design/assessment and (iv) disaster scenarios and loss modelling.
Within this general framework, specific objectives will be pursued, such as the
development of innovative methods and approaches to design and assessment of
structures and earth slopes for both short- and long-term implementation, the
development of advanced monitoring techniques and devices, and the development,
manufacturing and testing of innovative isolating and dissipating seismic devices.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

As described in Section 1.4 below, the current project endeavours 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
2 LESSLOSS - Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes and Landslides
implementation of an ambitious but feasible technical research programme, to be carried

out by a consortium of prominent institutions, managed in such a way so as to guarantee
that the set objectives are indeed met in their fullness and by means of an optimised use
of available resources. Within this framework, a number of specific technological
objectives have been identified and set as the prerequisites for advancement in earthquake
and landslide risk mitigation:
1- Development and application of improved tools for landslide monitoring

This is achieved through the development and implementation of state-of-the art
instrumentation techniques for monitoring of landslide-prone areas, which can be in-situ
or remote. Such techniques are complemented by GIS methodologies employed in the
assemblage of geo-databases and data analysis. Finally, a thorough re-assessment of
existing data will enable the definition of adequate alert threshold values, which can then
be used in disaster prevention exercises.
2- Development and application of in-situ assessment and monitoring techniques for structures
This is achieved through the employment of state-of-the-art instrumentation techniques
for (i) pre-earthquake structural monitoring and assessment of structures and (ii) post-
earthquake structural inspection and assessment. These improved methodologies can
then be employed in the elaboration of open access databases and in the improvement of
vulnerability estimates of monitored structural or infrastructure systems.
3- Development of innovative displacement-based earthquake-resistant design methods for structures

This comprises the further development of deformation-based member design criteria,
including effects of bi-axial loading and structure irregularity. The use of advanced
nonlinear analysis tool as a means for direct design and evaluation of the design of new
buildings and bridges is also re-assessed, together with extensive analytical parametric
studies to support a likely upgrade of current regulations for buildings and bridges.
4- Development of innovative approaches for prediction of landslide triggering

This is achieved through analytical and experimental re-appraisal of the mechanical
behaviour of geomechanics involved in mass movements, leading to a consequential
improvement of existing or/and develop new constitutive relationships to predict
landslide movements under static and seismic conditions. Investigation of landslide
mechanisms and triggering forces including topographic and site effects and development
of deterministic tools to predict displacements and to evaluate loses.
5- Development of innovative probabilistic risk assessment methods of structures

This comprises the development of methods for the determination of structure-specific
fragility curves (i.e. not fragilities for classes of structures), accounting for all sources of
uncertainty: seismic motion, mechanical parameters, capacity models, and for multiple
correlated modes of failure. Structural analysis tools will include both state-of-the-art and
practice-oriented models and it is envisaged that these innovative methods can then be
Project overview 3
used to validate existing and proposed deterministic procedures for seismic safety
assessment of structures.
6- Development of innovative methods for stabilisation of landslide-prone areas

This comprises the evaluation of the technical and economic efficiency of conventional
and innovative stabilisation methods by numerical modelling of well-documented slides.
7- Development and manufacturing of innovative anti-seismic devices

This is achieved through an extensive experimental programme whereby innovative low-
stiffness and electro-inductive energy dissipating devices are firstly developed and then
compared with already existing solutions. Test results are to be employed in the
development of standardisation documents required for widespread application of this
efficient tools for mitigation of earthquake effects on structures.
8- Definition of optimised structural intervention strategies for seismic vulnerability reduction

This is achieved through a comprehensive programme of conceptual, analytical and
experimental studies that aim at determining which structural intervention tools currently
available are best suited to reduce vulnerability of different types of building under
diverse set of circumstances. Issues such as relative cost of different techniques,
architectural impact (especially on historical buildings), availability of advanced material,
etc., will all be considered.
9- Improvement of disaster scenario prediction and loss modelling due to landslides and earthquakes
This is achieved through the development of state-of-the-art methodologies for
prediction of disaster scenarios and estimation of losses stemming from the occurrence
of landslides (non-seismically and seismically triggered) and earthquakes. These models
are to be calibrated through application on representative European sites and cities with
moderate-to-high landslide and seismic hazard exposure.
10- Improvement of pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies

It is also envisaged that developed tools will provide, based on state-of-the-art loss
modelling software, will be able to provide strong, quantified statements about the
benefits and costs of a range of possible mitigation actions, to support decision-making
by city and regional authorities for landslide and seismic risk mitigation actions, and to
contribute to a risk mitigation policy for future implementation at European level.
In Section 2, where the implementation plan for the project is described, the correlation
between the ten S&T objectives listed above and the operational research activities that
are to be carried out in LESSLOSS, is given, thus allowing the identification of the means
in and with which these objectives will be met.
Further, in Section 4, the quantitative criteria for verification of the progress in the pursue
of the aforementioned S&T objectives is effectively set, since the schedule of activities
and timed list of deliverables, directly connected to each of the operational research
activities that leads to attainment of the project objectives, is given.
1.3 PARTICIPANT LIST
Role* Nr. Name Short name Country Date enter Date exit
project project
CO 1 Universit degli Studi di Pavia UPAV Italy Month 1 Month 36
CR 2 ENEL.NewHydro Srl ISMES Italy Month 1 Month 36
CR 3 Applicazione Lavorazione Giunti ALGA Italy Month 1 Month 36
Appoggi SpA
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 BRGM France Month 1 Month 36
et Minieres
CR 8 Commissariat l'Energie Atomique CEA France Month 1 Month 36
CR 9 Centre Internacional de Mtodes CIMNE Spain Month 1 Month 36
Numrics en Enginyeria
CR 10 DENCO Development & DENCO Greece Month 1 Month 36
Engineering Consultants Ltd
CR 11 Dipartimento della Protezione Civile DPC Italy Month 1 Month 36
12
CR 13 Ente Nuove Tecnologie, lEnergia e ENEA Italy Month 1 Month 36
lAmbiente
CR 14 Faculdade de Engenharia da FEUP Portugal Month 1 Month 36
Universidade do Porto
CR 15 Geodynamique et Structure, France GDS France Month 1 Month 36
CR 16 Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e INGV Italy Month 1 Month 36
Vulcanologia
CR 17 Institut National Polytechnique de INPG France Month 1 Month 36
Grenoble
CR 18 INSA-LYON, France INSAL France Month 1 Month 36
CR 19 Instituto Superior Tcnico 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 KOERI Turkey Month 1 Month 36
Research Institute
CR 23 Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia LNEC Portugal Month 1 Month 36
Civil
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 Necso Entrecanales Cubiertas SA NECSO Spain Month 1 Month 36
CR 28 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute NGI Norway Month 1 Month 36
CR 29 National Technical University of NTUA Greece Month 1 Month 36
Athens
Project overview 5
Role* Nr. Name Short name Country Date enter Date exit
project project
CR 30 Rheinisch-Westflische Technische RWTH Germany Month 1 Month 36
Hochschule Aachen
CR 31 Stamatopoulos and Associates Co. SAA Greece Month 1 Month 36
Ltd
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 UK Month 1 Month 36
CR 36 University of Cambridge UCAM UK 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 UK Month 1 Month 36
CR 41 Universit degli Studi di Milano UNIMIB Italy Month 1 Month 36
Bicocca
CR 42 University of Patras UPAT Greece Month 1 Month 36
CR 43 Universidad Politcnica de Madrid UPM Spain Month 1 Month 36
CR 44 Universit di Roma "La Sapienza UROMA Italy Month 1 Month 36
CR 45 University of Surrey USUR UK Month 1 Month 36
CR 46 VCE Holding GmbH VCE Austria Month 1 Month 36
CR 47 VINCI Construction Grands Projets VCGP France Month 1 Month 36
*CO = Coordinator
CR = Contractor
1.4 RELEVANCE TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE GLOBAL CHANGE AND

ECOSYSTEMS SUB-PRIORITY
The LESSLOSS IP endeavour is carried out within the framework of the thematic sub-
priority 1.1.6.3 (Global Change and Ecosystems), under Topic IV.2.a (Integrated
earthquake and landslide disaster management methodologies), which features the
following specific goals, directly extracted from the call text:
i) New methods and technologies for improving the earthquake resistant design of
historic, existing, new constructions and geotechnical structures (including local
ground motion variations)
ii) Evaluation of the intervention/implementation costs, social and economic impacts
iii) Mechanisms and processes leading to landslides
iv) Integration and accessibility of earthquake, landslide data and knowledge, in particular
for engineering purposes
v) Exchange and dissemination of related information to user communities in order to
improve pre-disaster planning, preparedness, communication and risk awareness for
formulation of mitigation policies
Point (i) of the call is fully addressed by the proposals S&T objectives 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8,
which feature the development of innovative earthquake-resistant design and assessment
methods for structures and landslide-prone slopes, together with the development of
methods and techniques for reduction of vulnerability of buildings, infrastructures and
geotechnical structures.
Point (ii) of the call is integrally tackled by the proposals S&T objectives 6, 8 and 10,
where both technical as well as economical aspects of a realm of conventional and state-
of-the-art vulnerability reduction techniques are thoroughly scrutinised and evaluated, and
integrated within pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies at both local and regional
level.
Point (iii) of the call is explicitly included in the proposals S&T objectives 1, 4 and 6,
where innovative approaches for prediction of landslide triggering mechanisms and
resulting movements are considered, together with the development of techniques to
eliminate or at least minimise the occurrence of such slides.
Point (iv) of the call is covered by the proposals S&T objectives 1 and 2, which involve
the assemblage and employment in a harmonised and concerted manner of landslide- and
earthquake-related data and knowledge (e.g. building stock characteristics, landslide
threshold values, variability parameters, hazard and vulnerability distribution, etc.).
Point (v) of the call is wholly comprised in the proposals S&T objectives 9 and 10 that
explicitly deal with disaster scenario prediction and loss modelling due to landslides and
earthquakes and with the development of pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies for
dissemination to user communities and responsible entities, through the means described
in Section 2 below, where envisaged disseminations activities are described.
If the general aims of the Integrated Project FP6 instrument are considered, the following
non-thematic objectives can be identified:
radical innovation in long term
new applicable knowledge
integration of different subject/activity areas
clear and quantified deliverables
from basic research to dissemination and training
involvement of governments, contractors, industry, universities, research institutions
Again, the LESSLOSS IP endeavour fully addresses all such objectives since, as described
in Section 1 above, it features (i) an integrated multi-disciplinary approach to earthquake
and landslide risk mitigation, (ii) the development of innovative methods and approaches
to design and assessment of structures and earth slopes for both short-term application
(e.g. employment of loss assessment results in urban planning policies) and long-term
implementation (e.g. introduction of displacement-based approaches in design
regulations), (iii) a comprehensive set of deliverables (e.g. technical reports, open
databases, etc.) listed in Section 4, (iv) thorough dissemination and implementation
Project overview 7
activities plan (described below) and (v) direct involvement as participants in the
LESSLOSS project of governmental organisations, contractors, industry partners (in the
form of both large corporation and small medium enterprises), higher education and
research institutions, as described in Section 5, where it is noted that a third of the
participants in the project are in fact industry partners, the majority of which in the form
of SMEs.
Finally, reference should also be made to the EU workshop Mitigation of Seismic Risk
Support to Recently Affected Countries (http://elsa.jrc.it/workshop2000) held in
Belgirate (Italy) on 27-28 November 2000, in the aftermath of the earthquakes that struck
Turkey and Greece in 1999. This event was jointly organized by the Joint Research
Centre, DG-Environment and Civil Protection Unit with collaboration from DG
Research, DG Enterprise, the European Consortium of Earthquake Engineering
Research Infrastructures and several European Associations, institutions and experts.
Following interventions by MEPs, Commissioners, National Authorities representatives
and academic, research and industry experts, the following five-point priority list for
European seismic risk mitigation was drawn:
1. To involve all the relevant European institutions and organisations;
2. Protecting citizens of the expanded and densely populated Europe from earthquake
risk;
3. Address identified areas of research and development in a multi-disciplinary
environment integrating science, engineering management and social-economic
aspects;
4. To coordinate national earthquake risk management bodies and to advise on the
balance between research, education, regulation and civil protection;
5. To increase the international cooperation with USA and Japan.
Clearly, the LESSLOSS Integrated Project responds to all the above requirements, as
follows:
It acts as a facilitator and a nucleus for the involvement of all relevant European
institutions and organisations, since it includes universities, research laboratories,
consulting/construction firms, governmental organisations and is in contact with a
number of regulatory authorities and civil protection agencies. It thus fulfils
substantially requirement 1 above;
Provides holistic solutions and comparison of cost-benefit for various seismic risk
mitigation measures, hence it contributes significantly to the protection of the
expanded and densely populated Europe. This responds to the second requirement in
a major manner;
Deals with the most immediate research needs identified in the EU workshop report,
in a multi-disciplinary environment that includes scientists, engineers, urban planners,
information technologists, management consultants and economists. Requirement 3
above is therefore addressed;
As part of its dissemination plans, the LESSLOSS set-up aims at advising national
seismic risk management organisations and to draw guidelines for the optimum
balance between research, education, regulation and civil protection. As such, the
network makes a contribution towards the fourth requirement stated above;
The project includes formal links with leading US and Japanese institutions (e.g. Mid-
America Earthquake Centre, Tokyo Institute of Technology) and is therefore uniquely
suited to progress the fifth objective defined by the EU workshop.
As far as scientific and technological advancement is concerned, the development targets

listed in Section 1.2 above will contribute significantly to the enhancement of the state-of-
the-art in the area of earthquake and landslide risk mitigation not only because they
constitute clear advancements in specific sub-fields of research (e.g. in-situ and remote
monitoring, displacement-based design, probabilistic structural assessment, electro-
inductive energy dissipating devices, etc.) but, more importantly, because these S&T
advancements will be pursued, for the first time in Europe, within an integrated
framework.
Indeed, and considering first the case of landslides, the last decades have witnessed an
extensive number of independent research programmes that have focused on prediction
of the probability, occurrence, location and size of ground instabilities. However, and
independently of the degree of success of such efforts, present experience clearly shows
that a strategy combining the identification of the predisposition and natural or human
triggering factors, suitable conceptual models with sound theoretical background and the
identification of relevant physical input properties and calibration requirements is
determinant for a better comprehension and for actual risk management.
This can be achieved only by adopting a fully integrated scientific approach, combining
field monitoring theoretical research, data collection and organization in database from
field observations, geophysical and geotechnical investigations, laboratory
experimentation, physical model testing, etc., as well as processing techniques and
numerical simulations and use of advanced GIS techniques for mapping and analysing the
data. The LESSLOSS project, therefore, sets the ideal framework for significant
advancement to be achieved in the field of landslide disaster management, due to its
inherent and underlying integrated multi-disciplinary approach to problem solving.
Considering instead the case of seismic safety assessment of urban areas and
infrastructures, it is equally clear that this constitutes also a multi-faceted problem whose
main aspects start from that of the availability of an inventory of the built environment
and of the industrial apparatus with its facilities and its complex system of interactions. It
then follows the task of assessing the performance of individual components (buildings,
bridges, dams, industrial and power plants, etc.) when subjected to seismic actions and,
based on this, to evaluate the state of physical and functional damage of the whole
system.
Project overview 9
Recent years have witnessed rapid progresses in the development of probabilistic

methods of assessment for various types of structures that possess the necessary
requisites of adequate accuracy and practical affordability. The essential features common
to these methods consist in the use of a limited number of natural accelerograms so as to
estimate the variability of the demands (multiple failure mechanisms) and then to
compare them with the corresponding random capacities. The results consist in fragility
functions giving the probability of exceedence of any desired performance objective.
More refined methods attempt to incorporate the uncertainty in the mechanical
properties into the analysis of the demand. In all cases one can observe that the use of
non-linear analysis has become a commonplace. Improvement of these methods and
their extension to different types of structures is, however, still a subject requiring
substantial progress.
For as essential as the fragility functions for individual structures are, they nevertheless
constitute only the building blocks for a higher level analysis, i.e. one that examines the
consequence of a seismic event on the whole environment. Even setting apart the long-
term socio-economic aspects, the analysis of the interaction between the individual
components in an infrastructure and, hence, its loss of functionality due to the various
levels of damage of its components, is a subject still in need of sustained qualified
research efforts.
The conclusive aspect of the assessment problem consists in the identification of the
elements whose influence is critical in the functioning of the considered system and in the
quantification of the enhancement of their performance necessary to achieve a target level
of protection. Established formal methodologies to solve the problem of optimal
allocation of resources among critical elements are still missing, and further research is
also needed to develop effective and economic upgrading techniques and strategies.
Notwithstanding the paramount role that assessment of seismic vulnerability of the

existing building stock and infrastructure networks plays in earthquake risk mitigation, it
is equally important that the developments in the area of design of new construction do
not become overlooked. This is so as to ensure that the expansion and renewal of present
building does effectively contribute to a reduction of risk. For this reason, one of the
objectives of the LESSLOSS IP is to further develop, with a view to allow its eventual
implement, the innovative displacement-based methodologies that have been introduced
in the past decade as a rational alternative to traditional force-based approaches for
design of buildings and bridges in seismic areas.
Indeed, the concepts for displacement-based seismic design of new structures seem to
have now matured to the point that their implementation in the intermediate term within
codified seismic design seems feasible. Certain gaps need to be filled, though, before such
an implementation. Some of these gaps are common with nonlinear analysis, static or
dynamic, as noted above. More specific to DBD is the need for extension, elaboration
and calibration of the methodology to buildings irregular in plan, which need to be

analysed in 3D and their columns designed and detailed for strongly bi-directional
deformation demands. As a matter of fact, lack of symmetry and uniformity in the plan
layout of structural elements (plan irregularity) is quite common in the seismic regions
of Europe, even in new buildings. Plan irregularity is considered to have considerably
contributed through the resulting torsional response around vertical axis to heavy
damages and collapses in past and recent earthquakes.
Current seismic design codes for new buildings, including the prEN (2003) version of
Eurocode 8 do not treat the problem of irregularity and torsional response sufficiently.
The relevant clauses are based on elastic considerations of simple models or are totally
empirical. Moreover, some codes, especially in the American ones (IBC, NEHRP 2000,
SEAOC Blue book), confuse the problem of torsional response of irregular structures by
assuming independence between strength and stiffness of structural elements and using
member displacement ductility factors as the underlying criterion for member design. A
DBD approach takes realistically into account the coupling between member strength
and stiffness (by using a yield deformation that depends on dimensions of the member
and not its strength) and places the emphasis on absolute member deformations as the
criterion. So, it is intrinsically better suited than forced-based approaches to tackle the
problem of torsion of irregular structures. The primary question to be resolved, then, is
the calculation of member inelastic displacement demands in 3D in the presence of
torsion, in the framework of DBD (meaning that such calculation will have to take place
before members are dimensioned and detailed, rendering the use of nonlinear models
difficult).
By providing an holistic approach to earthquake and landslide risk mitigation, integrating

all issues of local and remote monitoring, vulnerability assessment and reduction of earth
slopes, structures and infrastructures, estimation of disaster scenarios and losses and
development and provision of pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies, the
LESSLOSS IP effectively contributes to a significant advancement of European scientific
and technological knowledge in the area.
In summary, the LESSLOSS project addresses natural disasters, risk and impact
assessment, natural hazard monitoring, mapping and management strategies, improved
disaster preparedness and mitigation, development of advanced methods for risk
assessment, methods of appraising environmental quality and relevant pre-normative
research, all of which are within the scope of the thematic area 1.1.6.3 - Global Change
and Ecosystems. In addition, the LESSLOSS project (i) integrates European research and
development in all aspects affecting societal response to earthquake and landslide risk and
(ii) enriches this integration by profiting from the experience in earthquake risk
assessment and mitigation from other countries, especially the USA and Japan, thus
leading to an integrated risk management framework that addresses the seismic and
landslide risk to which European society is subjected. Finally, the LESSLOSS endeavour
Project overview 11
provides the ideal framework for the integration, within an integrated seismic risk and
losses mitigation system, of the significant investment, in funding and organisation effort,
made by the EC throughout the lifetime of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Framework Programmes,
to foster the development of regional and pan-European solutions to the seismic loss
assessment and mitigation equation.
1.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT

The vulnerability of the European environment to earthquakes has been repeatedly
demonstrated in recent years. Recent and historical earthquakes in the Mediterranean
basin caused extensive human, economic and cultural losses (e.g. more than 100,000
death toll in Italy in the last century; about 40,000 deaths, 600,000 homeless and 35% of
the industry exposed in a single earthquake in Turkey in 1999; collapse of the Basilica di
San Francesco dome of Assisi in 1997, with severe damage to the invaluable frescos by
Giotto). In addition, recent small-to-medium size events occurring near densely
populated areas (Irpinia, 1980; Kalamata, 1986; Umbria-Marche, 1997), which struck
communities where seismic design is mandatory, still caused considerable financial
and/or human losses, highlighting the high vulnerability of the exposed inventory. In
effect, the ensuing economic cost might constitute a non-negligible percentage of the
gross national product of these areas/countries, affecting the livelihood of communities
for many years following the earthquake; the Irpinia and Kalamata earthquakes caused
losses equivalent to 6.8% and 2% of the GNP in the same year respectively.
Landslides, on the other hand, constitute also an increasing threat to European

population, particularly when one takes into account the intensive urbanisation and land
use trend that is currently observed in Europe. Moreover, current climate change trends
seem to point into the direction of an increase in extreme weather conditions for the next
50 years, which will unavoidably lead to an equally augmented number of destructive
landslide event and population exposure. The 1999 World Disaster Report estimated that
in the period 1988-1997 landslides alone caused 9,000 deaths and total damages of about
USD 450 million. Furthermore, tsunamis formed by rapid mass movements or massive
rock slides present extreme threats to coastal areas, as verified in Norway where 174 lives
were loss due to a landslide-triggered tsunami (1990) and, more recently, in Stromboli
(Italy).
It is thus clear that the consequences of these two types of natural disasters, earthquakes
and landslides, affect vulnerable communities, causing severe disruption to the whole
gamut of complex societal systems. Since the effect is comprehensive in nature,
mitigation, response and recovery considerations should also be holistic and integrated.
Hence, the rationale for the LESSLOSS integrated project in earthquake and landslide
risk mitigation was that stepping up to the challenge of reducing earthquake
consequences required an integration of the expertise of social scientists, economists,
urban planners, information technologists as well as traditional fields of engineers and

earth scientists.
Having managed to secure such a multi-disciplinary research and implementation team

within a concerted and coherent project, the LESSLOSS integrated project is in a
privileged position to effectively address societal needs in landslide and earthquake
disaster preparedness, leading to a reduction in the risk posed to European population,
both in terms of human and financial losses.
In addition to direct financial losses, business interruption has emerged lately as a major
concern to industry. This is the effect of largely non-structural damage causing business
closure, which in turn leads to financial disruption and hardship. Another angle on this
effect is the loss of market share, which results from interruption to production in
industrial facilities and difficulties in securing the share of the market, which the affected
business previously held. Thus, the occurrence of earthquakes and landslides in Europe
may in some cases lead to the loss of share, to the benefit of non-European competitors,
of a given industry sector that might have been heavily disrupted by the event.
Oppositely, mitigating earthquake and landslide effects, minimises also the likelihood of
such negative effects on industry and commercial activities, thus effectively reinforcing
competitiveness of European industry within the world market.
Plans for increasing the competitiveness of the European manufacturing industry by

means of innovation-related activities are also envisaged. Indeed, as already introduced in
Section 1.2 and further expanded in Section 2.1, one of the objectives and main focus of
activity of the LESSLOSS project is the development of innovative anti-seismic devices.
This activity features the direct involvement of a number of leading European
manufacturing corporations, which aim at increasing the competitiveness of the
European manufacturing industry for a wide ranging extension of applications of their
devices in both the European and non-European markets.
Dissemination is a duty of every partner of the consortium. It is indeed expected that

representatives of every institution will spread the information concerning the topics of
the LESSLOSS Integrated Project (IP) via lecturing, seminars and contacts with local
media, promote local developments on a broad scale in conferences and workshops, and
writing scientific notes and publications, and play a visible role in the global development
of research in Natural Hazards by active participation in appropriate working groups. The
promotion of the project results will be pursued through the presence at conferences,
workshops and, if appropriate, exhibitions, conference/workshop presentations and
journal publications are envisaged for the dissemination of valuable scientific results. The
industrial partners will guarantee pro-active reactions to market opportunities and
exploitation possibilities. Possibilities for licensing or even spinning off companies will be
investigated.
Project overview 13
Furthermore, the project features also a centralised effort, which will be developed and
applied within the framework of the EU-MEDIN initiative of the EC, to disseminate and
exploit to the full the results achieved through the project. Such effort is described in
great detail in Section 2.5, followed by an equally in depth depiction of the plans for
interacting with the public as whole and raising its awareness to the work and results of
the LESSLOSS project (see Section 2.5.9)
Interaction and accounting of other national and international activities is fully predicted
and envisaged within the framework of the LESSLOSS project. As described in Section
2, the assembled consortium includes the vast majority, if not the entirety, of leading
academic and research institutions in the field of landslides and earthquake risk
mitigation. Naturally, such leading institutions have been involved, throughout the years,
in a large number of nationally-funded or EC-supported projects (e.g. PREC8, ICONS,
SAFERR, ECOEST, ECOLEADER, and many others), where they have played roles of
coordinators or core participants, as described in Section 2. The knowledge acquired in all
those projects is to be fully incorporated in the LESSLOSS endeavour, where exchange
of results and information with currently running national EC projects is also envisaged,
as explicitly specified in Section 5.
With regards to overseas research activities, formal agreements to cooperate, without

financial interest, within the scope of the research programme and activities of
LESSLOSS have already been achieved with a number of highly-reputed and
internationally recognised centres of excellence in the US, Japan and New Zealand; Mid-
America Earthquake Center, University of California at San Diego, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, University of Kyoto and University of Canterbury in New Zealand. The
significance of these cooperation agreements is laudable since it not only gives raise to the
opportunity for valuable exchange of technical information with research centres that are
at the forefront of research in the field, but also because they constitute the recognition
of (i) the competence and prestige, within an international perspective, of the participants
in the LESSLOSS project and (ii) the validity and contemporariness of its technical
programme.
With regards to the latter point, i.e. the timely character of the scientific objectives of
LESSLOSS, it is perhaps noteworthy that the current research plan of the MAE Center,
one of the worlds leading research institution in the field of earthquake engineering, aims
exactly at streamlining a series of research thrust areas, both generic and specific in
character, that will produce the necessary systems integration, enabling technologies and
advanced knowledge needed to reach its vision of creating innovative solutions for
earthquake hazard mitigation. Clearly, this is in line with the premises for the setting up of
the LESSLOSS initiative, both from a conceptual general viewpoint but also in terms of
areas of activity. As a result, opportunities for cooperation abound.
In summary, it is believed that the impact of the LESSLOSS project in reshaping the way
earthquake and landslide risk mitigation research is carried out in Europe will be
significant, particularly in what concerns the creation of the bridges between different
fields of knowledge and the coordinated remote use of facilities, resources and data, in
view of the technology transfer to the stakeholders for effective risk reduction. A
European research area able to compete, in particular, with US and Japanese centres in all
fields related to landslide and earthquake risk mitigation will result and may progressively
lead to the creation of permanent, geographically distributed, centres, as successfully
implemented in the US and Japan. Furthermore, the assembled research team, with its
history of fruitful cooperation, multi-disciplinary and highly qualified personnel, is poised
to act as the focal point for the integration and creation of tangible European added value
through the synthesis of a wide range of recent developments.
1.5.1 Contributions to Standards

With regards to contribution to standards and regulations, the main target group for
dissemination of the outcome of the project will be (i) the technical bodies of CEN,
namely CEN/TC250 Structural Eurocodes (prEN 1998), Subcommittee 8 (SC8), and
CEN/TC167 Structural Bearings (prEN 1337), which provide guidance and instruction
to Project Teams (PTs) setup for drafting parts of European Norms (EN).
The partnership of the LESSLOSS IP is ideal for the dissemination of the project results
to the bodies above, as it overlaps with them; the coordinator of the Sub-project
Displacement-based Design of the IP, Prof. Fardis, is Chairman of CEN/TC250/SC8
for the period 1999-2005 and ex-officio member of the Project Team responsible for the
conversion to EN1998-3. The scientific responsible for LNEC in LESSLOSS, Dr.
Carvalho, is the permanent Technical Secretary of CEN/TC250/SC8. Several
LESSLOSS project participants integrate Project Teams or are National representatives in
the CEN Technical Committees (e.g. the scientific responsible for ULJ in this project,
Prof. Fajfar, is the representative of Slovenia in CEN/TC250/SC8).
The Joint Research Centre Research (JRC) established a very close and direct co-
operation with DG ENTERPRISE and is committed to carry out research in support of
standardisation in construction and construction products in the framework of its
institutional Multi Annual Work Programme. Dr. A. Pinto is the JRC representative at the
Eurocodes National Correspondent Group set-up by DG ENTERPRISE to facilitate
approval of the Eurocodes as European Norms (EN). The Commission (DG
ENTERPRISE) puts priority on the approval of the Eurocodes and on the need for a
suitable maintenance/revision scheme, which should allow to incorporate innovation in
the codes and to solve any issues resulting from their practical application.
Due to the unique liaison between the project partners and the process of the conversion
to European Norms (EN) and the strong involvement in most of the standardization
Project overview 15
bodies guaranties full dissemination and integration of the outcome of the project
relevant to the European standards. Furthermore, the IP includes participants from
almost all EU countries and Candidate Countries, who integrate the Eurocode 8 -
National Annexes Committees. The outcome of LESSLOSS relevant to standardization
will be also conveyed to these Committees. In addition to this participation and direct
contact in/with European and National standardisation bodies and Authorities,
LESSLOSS intends to produce adequate technical information relevant for codes and
standards. A typical example of those is part the EU-LESSLOSS Reports, described in
Section B.4.1, which will constitute a sort of pre-normative documents.
1.5.2 Contributions to policy developments

For what concerns authorities and public administrations responsible for urban planning
and risk mitigation policies, the dissemination activity aims at stimulating the
implementation of demonstration projects based on LESSLOSS and previous European
research projects. The stimulation action will also take advantage of the experience of the
Civil Protection Department of Italy (which for instance already applies very advanced
GIS technologies for damage scenario assessment) and may include the preparation of
feasibility assessments and specifications for specific demonstration projects (to be
carried out with national funds). The following strategy will be implemented:
- Early contacts with public authorities in order to illustrate the on-going research
project, to identify the possible subsequent demonstration projects and to gather user
specifications on the research future products. The contacts with local authorities will
be arranged exploiting three sources of information; (i) the project partners, (ii) the
priorities indicated by National Civil Protection authorities and (iii) possible output of
EU-MEDIN project
- Preparation of technical reports illustrating the recommended specifications. Such
reports will be prepared in close contact with LESSLOSS partners belonging to the
country where the project is to be carried out.
2. OUTLINE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE FULL
DURATION OF THE PROJECT
As described above, the rationale and mission statements of the LESSLOSS project call
for an integrated, multi-disciplinary, holistic and articulated framework for dealing with
earthquake and landslide risk issues affecting the growing, complex and densely
populated Europe, capable of providing the platform for fulfilling the aims of protecting
European citizens and the community at large from the perils of these natural disasters.
In order for the multi-disciplinary S&T ingredients of the project to be tackled in an

efficient and productive manner, it is firstly 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 set in Section 1 have also
been 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 Fig. 1, where the projects research components are identified. The latter
constitute in fact the underlying working structure of the LESSLOSS project.
The correlation between the S&T research components identified in the implementation
plan and the ten S&T objectives of the LESSLOSS project, identified in Section 1.2, is
depicted in Fig. 2 below, where it is observed that the devised S&T implementation plan
does indeed enable the project to achieve its objectives. Recalling that the latter have been
proved to wholly fulfil the prerequisites of the call for proposals, it results thus equally
verified that the implementation plan constitutes an adequate response to the
requirements set by the Commission.
The manner in which each of these research components are interconnected amongst
themselves to form and integrated and coherent project is schematically shown in Fig. 3.
This level of interconnectivity has been devised in such a way so as to keep an
Research area 1 Research area 2 Research area 3

Physical environment Urban areas Infrastructures
Research activity 1 Research component 1.1 Research component 2.1

In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification
Instrumentation and Landslide monitoring and
warning system Buildings Bridges, Lifelines
monitoring .
Research component 2.2a

Development and manufacturing of energy
Research activity 2 Research component 1.2 dissipation devices and seismic isolators
Vulnerability reduction Landslide zonation, hazard Buildings Bridges, Viaducts
and vulnerability
assessment Research component 2.2b
Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction
Buildings Bridges, Underground
Research component 2.3a

Displacement-based design methodologies
Research activity 3 Research component 1.3
Buildings Bridges, Lifelines
Innovative approaches Innovative approaches for
landslide assessment Research component 2.3b
for design/assessment
Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and
applications
Buildings Bridges, Lifelines
Research activity 4 Research component 1.4 Research component 2.4a Research component 2.4b
Disaster scenarios Landslide disaster Earthquake disaster Earthquake disaster
predictions and loss scenarios predictions scenarios predictions and scenarios predictions and
modelling and loss modelling loss modelling for urban loss modelling for
. areas . infrastructures
Fig. 1 S&T implementation plan
appropriate balance between the need to optimise the quality of research output (which
grows in proportion to the degree in which different research activities are connected)
and the requirement to avoid the creation of inter-dependencies so strong that the whole
research program could be at risk in case one given research component would for any
reason fail to meet its envisaged objectives.
The latter effectively constitutes a contingency plan since it ensures that, that in the
extremely unlikely event of failure of a component delivery, the overall research
programme and project objectives are not placed in jeopardy. It is noted, however, that,
as described in Section 12, all participants in LESSLOSS feature unblemished track
records in National and European research projects, for which reason it is not foreseen
that there will be any difficulties in ensuring compliance to the delivery targets.
Furthermore, the management and coordination structure of the project, described in
Section 7, has been devised in such a way that any eventual counterproductive deviations
from the envisaged work plan, will be flagged at an earlier stage, in time for corrective
measures to be adopted, where and if needed.
Outline implementation plan for the full duration of the project 19
RESEARCH COMPONENT 1.1 - LANDSLIDE

MONITORING AND WARNING SYSTEM OBJECTIVE 1 - DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF
. IMPROVED TOOLS FOR LANDSLIDE MONITORING
RESEARCH COMPONENT 1.2 - LANDSLIDE

OBJECTIVE 2 - DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF IN-
ZONATION, HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY
ASSESSMENT SITU ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING TECHNIQUES FOR
STRUCTURES
RESEARCH COMPONENT 1.3 - INNOVATIVE
APPROACHES FOR LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE 3 - DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE
. DISPLACEMENT-BASED EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT
RESEARCH COMPONENT 1.4 LANDSLIDE
DESIGN METHODS FOR STRUCTURES
DISASTER SCENARIOS PREDICTIONS AND LOSS
MODELLING OBJECTIVE 4 - DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE
APPROACHES FOR PREDICTION OF LANDSLIDE
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.1 - IN-SITU TRIGGERING
ASSESSMENT, MONITORING AND TYPIFICATION
.
OBJECTIVE 5 - DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.2a - DEVELOPMENT PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS OF
AND MANUFACTURING OF ENERGY DISSIPATION STRUCTURES
DEVICES AND SEISMIC ISOLATORS
OBJECTIVE 6 - DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE METHODS
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.2b - TECHNOQUES
FOR STABILISATION OF LANDSLIDE PRONE AREAS
AND METHODSFOR VULNERABILITY REDUCTION
..
OBJECTIVE 7 - DEVELOPMENT AND MANUFACTURING OF
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.3a - DISPLACEMENT- INNOVATIVE ANTI-SEISMIC DEVICES
BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
. .
OBJECTIVE 8 - DEFINITION OF OPTIMISED STRUCTURAL
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.3b - PROBABILISTIC INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR SEISMIC
RISK ASSESSMENT: METHODS AND VULNERABILITY REDUCTION
APPLICATIONS
OBJECTIVE 9 - IMPROVEMENT OF DISASTER SCENARIO
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.4a EARTHQUAKE
PREDICTION AND LOSS MODELLING DUE TO LANDSLIDES
DISASTER SCENARIOS PREDICTIONS AND LOSS
MODELLING FOR URBAN AREAS AND EARTHQUAKES
RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.4b EARTHQUAKE OBJECTIVE 10 - IMPROVEMENT OF PRE-DISASTER

DISASTER SCENARIOS PREDICTIONS AND LOSS PLANNING AND MITIGATION POLICIES
MODELLING FOR INFRASTRUCTURES
Fig. 2 Correlation between S&T objectives and S&T research components
2.1 RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION

ACTIVITIES
As depicted Fig. 1 above, the research/innovation effort within the LESSLOSS project is
comprised of a number of different research components. Each of this research
components, on the other hand, features a number of technical and implementation
goals, or deliverables, that need to be achieved in order for the objectives of the S&T
objectives of the current project to be successfully attained.
A number of inter-disciplinary research tasks, which call for the input/intervention of

different institutions with diverse areas of expertise and activity, are thus carried out
within each of the projects research components. Clearly, if efficiency and productivity
are to be maximised, such type of inter-disciplinary activity needs to be matched with an
independent management structure for each of the research components. Whilst
Sub-Project 2.1
Sub-Project 1.1 In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification
Landslide monitoring and
warning system
Sub-Project 2.2a
dissipation devices and seismic isolators
Sub-Project 1.2
Landslide zonation,
Sub-Project 2.2b
hazard and vulnerability
assessment
Sub-Project 2.3a
Sub-Project 1.3
Innovative approaches
for landslide assessment
Sub-Project 2.3b
applications
Sub-Project 1.4 Sub-Project 2.4a Sub-Project 2.4b
Landslide disaster Earthquake disaster Earthquake disaster

scenario predictions scenario predictions and scenario predictions and
and loss modelling loss modelling for urban loss modelling for
areas. infrastructures
Fig. 3 Research components interrelationship
discussion of this sub-structuring of the projects management structure belongs

elsewhere (Section 3), it is noted here that the projects research components are
henceforth referred to as Sub-Projects.
In what follows, the contribution of each of the LESSLOSS Sub-Projects (i.e. research
components) to its S&T research programme is described. It is perhaps worth noting that
whilst the intervention/contribution of each project participant are described on a
subproject-by-subproject basis, the exploitation of results and plan for disseminating of
knowledge beyond the consortium are given in the subsequent section (2.5), and thus
apply to the entirety of sub-projects and related research/innovation activities.
Sub-Projects RTD activities are carried out in blocks of work, identified as Tasks and/or
Sub-Tasks, which therefore come fully described in what follows. In addition, the
partner(s) responsible for carrying out each of these tasks/sub-tasks is also identified in
what follows. Taking into account that, as shown above, these Sub-Project activities are
clearly linked to the progress of the project as whole, it results evident that by identifying
the direct involvement and contribution of each participant to such activities, then their
relevance and contribution to the project as whole becomes also readily available, and
their participation in the project thus justified.
Sub-Project 1.1 Landslide monitoring and warning systems

Landslides are one of the major causes of changes in landscape morphology for which
reason the continuous monitoring of the latter must be considered as mandatory for
landslide hazard and risk assessment. Landslide monitoring and instrumentation can be
performed at different levels and considering diverse set of parameters. The objectives of
this Sub-Project are thus to (i) implement in-situ and remote monitoring techniques, (ii)
use GIS for geodatabase or for data analysis and (iii) define alert thresholds through data
analysis. The Sub-Project is coordinated by UNIMIB and features the participation of
SGI-SW, UNEW and VCE, as described in the Table below:
UNIMIB SGI-SW UNEW VCE

Task 1.1.1
Sub-Task 1.1.1.1 9
Sub-Task 1.1.1.2 9
Sub-Task 1.1.1.3 9
Task 1.1.2 9 9
Task 1.1.3 9
Task 1.1.1: In-situ and remote monitoring techniques

Sub-task 1.1.1.1: LIDAR for topographic or bathymetric mapping
In-situ and remote observations can help in this work. LIDAR (Light Detection and
Ranging) is a technology that uses laser light for topographic or bathymetric mapping.
The production of highly accurate topographic maps and multiple surveys through
LIDAR could show the onset and occurrence of slow mass movements, the volume of
displaced mass during fast mass movements, the main morphological features controlling
the movement or characterising it. Furthermore, accurate topography could result very
useful in the description of micro-topography and then in the understanding and
modelling of water runoff and erosion.
LIDAR is used in this project to study landslides in clay slopes. A complete

understanding of the advantages of LIDAR in slope stability investigations and
monitoring has never been performed and this project could be a starting point for at
least some geological and geomorphological settings.
Nevertheless, LIDAR is still quite expensive and its use can be prohibitive for small
administrations. The aim of the project is also to investigate the cost-benefit issues
regarding the use of LIDAR technology for landslide zonation and mapping. The same is
true for other monitoring instrumentation and for GPS stations in particular.
Sub-task 1.1.1.2: Low cost GPS stations for in-situ monitoring

A low cost GPS station will be developed that could be deployed in greater networks or
greater densities. This GPS stations will be tested on some landslides where in-situ
monitoring networks already exist. Quality of GPS data will be assessed with respect to
other GPS fixed stations already located within the test site areas. The aim is to develop a
new low cost technology of GPS stations which will allow dense monitoring which is of
paramount importance for landslide mapping. It also acts towards the prediction of
models and the improvement of alert systems and the development of efficient strategies
and policy.
Sub-task 1.1.1.3: Monitoring shallow slope failures

Monitoring becomes more difficult when coping with shallow slope failures which
involve only colluvial and debris cover. This subject will be investigated in the project.
Because of the variety of morphological conditions usually observed in coincidence of
such slope failures, and of their abundance in alpine and pre-alpine areas, classical
morphological and displacement oriented monitoring techniques dont seem applicable.
Monitoring of the pore pressure status, and its changes within the debris and colluvial
cover, and rainfall pattern and intensity become much more relevant. These parameters
allow the definition of triggering conditions and the calibration and validation of slope
stability models.
Task 1.1.2: GIS-geodatabases and analysis

Spatially distributed models will be implemented in the project, through GIS tools, in
which hydrological models are coupled with slope stability models (e.g. infinite slope).
This approach will allow to find more unstable areas and eventually to define some
deterministic rainfall thresholds which will correlate probability of occurrence and
possible surface of unstable areas. To accomplish this aim a pilot landslide inventory map
at a regional scale (Central Italian Alps) will be produced starting from historical data and
aerial photos. This geodatabase will allow also the preparation of landslide hazard maps,
for some demonstration area (300-600 km2) by applying multivariate statistical
techniques.
Task 1.1.3: Alert thresholds through GIS data analysis

Starting from in-situ monitoring data, a method for the definition of displacement (or
velocity, etc.) thresholds will be developed. Threshold definition will be performed by
using both a semi-empirical approach, starting from existing models, and numerical
models. The coupling of these techniques should give safer thresholds, more stable and
capable to decrease the number of false alarms and direct and indirect costs as well as
externalities deriving by them. Availability of existing and new in-situ monitoring data for
large slope instability will allow the preparation and validation of such thresholds so to
make them reliable and usable by local and regional administrators. The aim is to develop
an accurate method to define alert thresholds for warning systems to be directly applied
in Disaster Management (Fig. 4).
Disaster planning, preparedness,
Accessibility of
data integration
Data
ALERT THRESHOLDS
Meteo-climatic Displacements, etc.

Type, position, development, on site and remote
(SAR-Permanent Scatterers Technique)
Failure time,
Monitoring Instrumentation:
probability, etc.
Effects of:
type and/or sequence
of perturbations
Climatic changes,
glaciation/deglaciation,
permafrost thawing,
etc.
Methodology for the Definition of Alert Thresholds

for Warning Systems to be directly applied in
Disaster Management
Fig. 4 Development of an accurate method to define alert thresholds for warning

systems to be applied in Disaster Management
Sub-Project 1.2 Landslide zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessment

An essential step in stabilisation and land use planning in areas prone to landslide is
mapping of landslide hazard. This work package investigates the elements of landslide
zonation, including collection of data to produce inventory maps, improving the maps
with the use of high-resolution images, embedding the maps in a geo-database containing
other pertinent data, the probabilistic aspects of triggering mechanism (rainfall and
earthquake), and uncertainties in the soil strength parameters.
The objectives of this Sub-Project are thus to (i) apply advanced landslide zonation
methods to focus areas in selected landslide prone regions in Europe and develop and
implement new models of landslide mapping, (ii) evaluate the technical and economic
efficiency of conventional and innovative stabilization methods by numerical modelling
of well-documented slides and (iii) develop tools for pre-disaster planning and mitigation
policies. The Sub-Project is coordinated by NGI and features also the participation of
GDS, SAA, SGI-SW, UNEW and UNIMIB, as described in the Table below:
NGI GDS SAA SGI-SW UNEW UNIMIB

Task 1.2.1 9
Task 1.2.2 9 9
Task 1.2.3
Sub-Task 1.2.3.1 9 9 9
Sub-Task 1.2.3.2 9 9
Task 1.2.1: Mapping inventory for landslide hazard (Hazard Zonation)

Slope movements are caused by changes of external conditions, such as earthquake
and/or heavy rainfall. When the magnitude of anticipated slide displacement under these
conditions is excessive, mitigation/stabilisation measures are required.
A geodatabase containing data for a 4000 km2 highly populated mountainous region
(focus area in Italy) will be produced. Spatial frequency, typology and size of the mapped
landslides will be analysed through statistical techniques to produce landslide hazard
maps. The adopted technique will use half basins as terrain units to be successively
classified in different levels of hazard probability. Different future scenarios could be
simulated by changing areal distribution of parameters such as land use and vegetation
cover.
The comparison of the produced inventory maps will allow evaluating the possible
increase in the level of information and especially the reduction of mapping and
subjective errors. The final inventory map will be embedded in a geodatabase to be
integrated with existing in-situ monitoring data to create a tool to suggest the best
planning and mitigation approaches to local and regional technical and non-technical
administrators.
Task 1.2.2: Probabilistic landslide hazard zonation techniques and vulnerability

assessment
Having developed and implemented the methods described in Task 1.2.1, this work
package aims to extend the techniques that are well developed for other types of hazards
(e.g. snow avalanche) or other types of geological setting (e.g. deep sea environment) and
apply them to landslide hazard mapping. The probability of a given location being
affected by a landslide may be considered as a product of two probabilities, namely the
probability of slide initiation times the probability of the run-out distance of the slide
going past the point of interest. The former is closely related to the occurrence
probability of the triggering mechanism and uncertainties in the soil strength parameters.
The latter is related to dynamics of the slide mass/debris flow, which because of the
complexity of the physical phenomenon, is often estimated from statistical models.
The deliverable for this work is a quantitative, probability-based landslide hazard zonation
technique. The demarcation line between the 'safe', 'potentially unsafe' and 'unsafe' areas
will be based on the annual probability of being exposed to a landslide. The preceding
probabilistic zonation technique will be tested and validated in two regions in Scandinavia
and re-calibrated if necessary. In addition, at one of the sites, the results will be
compared with those of a deterministic hazard zoniting method. The hazard zonation
procedure will also form the basis for making landslide risk maps by combining the
hazard maps with vulnerability of exposed population/facilities/infrastructure, and the
associated costs.
Task 1.2.3: Mitigation methods and policies

Sub-task 1.2.3.1: Stability techniques to prevent ground movement and
instabilities
The stabilization of natural slopes is achieved by a variety of methods, including
enhanced drainage and earthworks, such as retaining structures. The choice of the
stabilisation method depends primarily on the cost and implementation time. This work
package investigates the effectiveness of various stabilisation measures against earthquake
and rainfall, using calculation models with varying degree of detail and sophistication,
ranging from elaborate elasto-plastic finite elements methods to sliding-block models.
Well-documented case histories of landslide will be used to verify/calibrate the models.
In addition to state-of-art methods, this work package will investigate the effectiveness of
an innovative stabilisation method consisting of driving stiff inclusions near the toe of
slope. The use of stiff inclusions has recently been implemented to improve the
earthquake behaviour of the foundations of a large bridge. These inclusions will not only
increase the average soil shear resistance due to their high shear and bending capacities,
but will also nail the slope by pushing the potential failure surfaces towards layers of
higher strengths. The method will be applied to actual slopes having suffered severe
damages during past earthquakes. The new methodology will be validated against more
sophisticated calculation tools and the potential effectiveness of the improvement
technique will be assessed.
Sub-task 1.2.3.2: Tool for pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies

The major objective of this work package related to landslide hazard is to enhance our
capability for predicting the impact of debris flows at the scale of a river basin, as a
function of climate, land use and rainfall return period. Until recently techniques for
hazard assessment tended to be approximate (because of lack of data) and gave only
qualitative or relative estimates of hazard. Also they could not be used predictively to
indicate the effects of possible future changes in land use and climate. Recently, though,
through various research initiatives a range of modelling techniques, applicable at scales
from the hillslope to the region, have been developed and applied.
The work will consist of collecting datasets and climate scenarios for the focus areas in
the central Spanish Pyrenees and the Italian preAlps. The climate scenarios will be refined
and rainfall events of different return periods (allowing for duration and intensity) will be
generated for both current and possible future climatic conditions. The model will be run
to give debris flow incidence and sediment yield for the different events. The relationship
between rainfall return period and the debris flow incidence, spatial distribution and
sediment yield will then be quantified, for example in rainfall duration-intensity
thresholds for different levels of debris flow. The results, as representative descriptions of
the focus basin regions, will be discussed with the end-users as the basis for improved
pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies. The above landslide model can predictively
examine the occurrence of shallow landslides and debris flows on a spatially distributed
basis at the scale of a river basin (up to 500 km2 as opposed to most other landslide
models, which typically are limited to scales of a few square kilometres).
Sub-Project 1.3 Innovative approaches for landslide assessment

Numerous landslides have been triggered in past earthquakes causing a large number of
fatalities. The dynamics of landslides is not straightforward since it involves widespread
areas, may induce large displacements after triggering and is very much influenced by the
soil strength parameters that may vary during the process of landsliding. The knowledge
of the physical mechanisms governing flow-induced movements is poor and,
consequently, prediction of the extent of the flow slides is more than uncertain.
It is thus the objective of this sub-project to make an attempt to quantify the influence of
the parameters that govern the mechanisms of landslides, to assess the consequences in
terms of induced displacements and effects on the built environment. Both aspects
related to the driving forces (pore pressure changes due to rain falls, temperature changes
due to glaciation, rainfall earthquake induced forces taking into account the topographic
amplification, the forward directivity and fling effects) and related to the soil constitutive
behaviour (rigid plastic, viscous-rigid plastic (Bingham model) and elasto-plastic) will be
examined. Various modelling techniques will be adopted: rigid block models, Lagrangian
finite element models, arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian finite element models. Rate effects
on the behaviour of soils are also of paramount importance and will be experimentally
investigated.
These theoretical studies will be completed by the compilation of a database of well-

documented case histories of major landslides during a number of instrumented
earthquakes. This will serve for the validation of the various numerical modelling that are
proposed with the scope of this sub-project. The final goal will be to develop practical
design tools for determining landslide movements and for designing defensive measures.
The sub-project is coordinated by GDS and features also the participation of AUTH,
BRGM, NTUA, SAA and UNIMIB, as described in the Table below:
GDS AUTH BRGM NTUA SAA UNIMIB

Task 1.3.1 9 9 9 9 9
Task 1.3.2
Sub-Task 1.3.2.1 9 9 9 9
Sub-Task 1.3.2.2 9 9
Task 1.3.3
Sub-Task 1.3.3.1 9 9
Sub-Task 1.3.3.2 9 9 9 9
Sub-Task 1.3.3.3 9 9 9 9
Task 1.3.4 9 9 9 9
Task 1.3.5 9 9 9
Task 1.4.4 9 9 9
Task 1.3.1: Documentation of selected landslides

Compilation and thorough documentation of a selected number of landslides, involving a
variety of mechanisms, from numerous earthquakes, such as Kobe (1995), Kocaeli (1999),
El Salvador (2001), to serve as validation tests for the development of the new numerical
approaches.
Task 1.3.2: Constitutive relationships of soil behaviour to predict landslide

movements
Sub-task 1.3.2.1: Development and improvement of constitutive relationships
Assessment of appropriate soil constitutive relationship(s) for the prediction of landslides
movements involves sophisticated elasto-plastic model with the capacity of predicting soil
behaviour due to temperature and pore pressure changes, with soil softening. The
development of more dedicated models is also foreseen which could be incorporated in
specific numerical tools in relation with the prediction of large displacements associated
with liquefaction (sliding-surface particle breakage, constitutive law for the liquefied soil).
Once liquefaction has been triggered, the soil constitutive behaviour governing further
movements is more than controversial.
Some researchers assume that the liquefied soil behaves as a viscous fluid, others model
the soil behaviour as a rigid plastic material with a residual shear strength and some
others invoke the formation of a water film at the sliding surface to explain the large
observed movements. Each of these assumptions will be reviewed and other new ones
(viscous fluid with a threshold strength - Bingham model) will be investigated. The
objective will be to develop a consensus, if possible, on the most appropriate constitutive
modelling of soil during the progress of a landslide.
In general, models for analysing slope stability, rockslides and debris flows, run-out
distance, impact forces and tsunamis need to be improved or developed. With the
improved understanding of the geological processes, an important aspect of the research is

the development of reliable numerical models for simulating geo-hazards and modelling
ground deformation. Further research tasks include:
Improvement or development of new material models for unsaturated soils, gas-
charged sediments and gas hydrates, weathered and residual soils, and strain-softening
soil (e.g. sensitive clays), geo-hydrological regime to predict pore pressure response to
rainfall and flooding events, slope stability and deformations for different geological
settings and for different triggers, and run-out distance and forces on objects hit by a
submarine slide, rock falls or rock slides.
Improvement or development of analysis methods to predict soil liquefaction and
slide development due to earthquakes; include soil response analysis from seismic
source to site, impact of dynamic and static stresses, and long-term instability effects
over a large region.
Sub-task 1.3.2.2: Laboratory investigation of the mechanical behaviour of

geomaterials involved in mass movements
Laboratory investigations by means of ring shear tests into the large shear strain
behaviour and in particular residual strength of cohesive soils and the influence of rate of
displacement on shear strength of both previously unsheared and presheared cohesive
soils, which are involved in slope stability problems. The aim is to identify the type of rate
effect on the behaviour of soils, as well as soils that may loose strength at fast rates of
displacement. The results will lead to the formulation of a model of soil behaviour,
linking shear strength with displacement on the shear surface, while the model will be
used in both co-seismic and post-seismic kinematics of sliding mass. The soil mass
performance will also be assessed using displacement and velocity as criteria rather than
factors of safety used in conventional stability analysis.
Task 1.3.3: Landslide mechanisms and triggering forces

Sub-task 1.3.3.1: Hydraulic-triggered ground motion mechanisms
The effects of local soil conditions leading to large deformations will be investigated,
specifically the role of progressive accumulation of water at the interface between soil
layers with high permeability contrast. This process is observed not only in earthquake-
triggered landslides, but also under quasi-static conditions and may be initiated by heavy
rainfalls or water flow (infiltration, etc.).
Sub-task 1.3.3.2: Earthquake-triggered ground failure mechanisms

The role of some features related to the source mechanisms and propagation process of
the seismic ground motion will be investigated in this sub-item, such as azimouthal,
directivity and fling effects, spatial variability of ground motion and loss of coherency of
seismic waves, apparent velocity.
Improvement of our knowledge of the role of "topographic amplification" of the ground

motion, and of the significance of ground shaking influenced by "forward directivity" and
"fling" effects on the magnitude of the driving forces. This will be achieved with
numerical parametric studies with a classical equivalent linear soil constitutive
relationship.
Sub-task 1.3.3.3: Advanced geomechanical modelling of localised and diffused

failure
It is proposed to further improve geomechanical modelling of localised and diffused
failure based resp. on Rice and Hill criteria. Failure mechanisms are investigated through
various criteria. The analysis of localised failure is based on Rices criterion (vanishing
determinant of the acoustic tensor), while the diffuse failure is described by Hills
criterion (vanishing second order work, linked to vanishing determinant of the symmetric
part of the constitutive tensor). The classical plastic analyses (limit analysis methods) are
based on vanishing values of the determinant of the constitutive tensor itself, which
occurs always after Hills criterion. Finally the geometric instabilities are exhibited by
bifurcation analyses. Two main domains can be distinguished in the proposed research
approach:
landslides, where the hypothesis of continuous media can be assumed and a finite
element method be applied. For simulation purposes, existing software will be used,
together with special constitutive models for natural media, which have been properly
validated at an international level in the past;
rockfalls, where the computations need to be developed inside the framework of the
discrete mechanics. For simulation purposes, 2 codes are used either based on the
Contact Dynamics method or on the Molecular Dynamics method.
The developed analytical procedures will be calibrated by backanalysis of well-

documented case histories of seismic landslides.
Task 1.3.4: Deterministic tools to predict landslide displacements

Development of numerical tools to predict the displacements associated with landslides
and their effect on the built environment. Classically, slopes displacements are calculated,
since the pioneering work of Newmark, with uncoupled rigid blocks mechanisms. This
method suffers serious limitations especially for the case of flow-induced liquefaction. It
is proposed to further developed the method by taking into account the strength
degradation, by better locating the initial position of the sliding mass for real complex
slope profiles and geometries and by introducing some degree of coupling between the
induced forces and the associated displacements. Other numerical tools will also be either
developed or improved, based on more rigorous mechanical approaches: Eulerian finite
element model, or arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian finite element model.
Task 1.3.5: Validation of developed constitutive relationships, triggering

mechanisms and tools
Application of the above numerical tools to assess the influence of ground motion
parameters on sliding deformations, and examine alternative intensity measures (such as
PGA, PGV, Spectral Intensity, Arias Intensity, etc.) to best characterize the
destructiveness of shaking, measured in terms of landslide displacement.
Task 1.3.6: Evaluation of consequences of landslides

Evaluation of the consequences of landslides movements and of the impact of rockfalls
on existing structures. The end product of the work conducted in this sub-project will
constitute a valuable staring point for the large scale soil instabilities as well as for the
estimation of losses and the evaluation of stabilization measures dealt within other Sub-
projects (i.e. 1.2 & 1.4).
Sub-Project 1.4 Landslide disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling

The aims of this work-package can be summarised as (i) to develop a global methodology
for non-seismic and seismic landslide risk assessment and disaster scenarios prediction,
(ii) to elaborate landslide loss models in relation with Sub-projects 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 and (iii)
to assess risk due to landslides triggered by any kind of mechanism either by performing
disaster scenario predictions (deterministic and probabilistic) or by implementing new
procedures of early warning systems. The Sub-project is coordinated by BRGM, and
features also the participation of AUTH, INPG, NGI, NTUA, and SGI-MI, as described
in the Table below:
BRGM AUTH INPG NGI NTUA SGI-MI

Task 1.4.1
Sub-Task 1.4.1.1 9 9 9 9
Sub-Task 1.4.1.2 9
Sub-Task 1.4.1.3 9 9 9
Task 1.4.2 9 9 9 9
Task 1.4.3 9
Task 1.4.4 9
Task 1.4.1: Landslide risk assessment and disaster scenarios prediction

Sub-task 1.4.1.1: Development and improvement of existing large scale
deterministic modelling tools and calibrations
Development of modelling tools. Geomechanical modelling is considered here to predict
ground failure and large deformation process at large scales. The research and
technological effort in this sub-item will be devoted to improving an existing
deterministic modelling tool to predict the diffuse large displacements occurring during
landslides and induced by various predisposition and triggering factors. In this context,
this subtask is directly related and follows Sub-project 1.3 and especially Tasks 1.3.2, 1.3.3
and 1.3.4. Moreover, it is in direct relation with Sub-project 1.2 through the geodatabase
and zonation mapping while it is also linked with Task 1.2.3 (mitigation methods). The
existing and improved numerical tools will be implemented in a meshfree numerical
framework with possible coupling with the finite element method. It will be improved to
account for the following aspects:
Various initial, boundary and loading or triggering (static/dynamic) conditions.
Various hydraulic and draining conditions for geomaterials (totally or partially
saturated assumptions, undrained analysis).
Multiphase interactions into soil considered as a continuous porous medium.
Small or finite transformation assumptions, depending on the motion phases to be
modelled (triggering, failure and/or propagation of soil mass).
Non linear constitutive models for geomaterials involved in the sliding process,
including strain hardening/softening behaviour, in order to predict irrecoverable
deformation and in case of earthquake-triggered landslides, to predict shear-strength
loss, liquefaction and lateral spreads, post-liquefaction behaviour.
Water accumulation occurring at the interface between geomaterials with high
permeability contrast.
2D/3D kinematics.
Calibration of modelling tools. The reliability of existing analytical models needs to be verified
and quantified. The best approach to do this is to make predictions with the models, and
to verify these with model tests or prototype measurements. The analytical and
experimental data should, as far as possible, be confirmed with observations in-situ. The
main research efforts will be devoted to:
Prioritise verifications and calibrations that need to be done.
Select case studies that best will validate predicted ground deformation with back-
analyses of events from the databases (link with Sub-project 1.3, Task. 1.3.1)
Design model tests.
Calibrate predicted slope movements with model test results and back-analyses of
events from the landslide database available in different countries. Predictive
simulations of ground deformation for recent large sliding events (gravitational solid
motions) where different predisposition and triggering factors (earthquakes, heavy
rainfalls etc) are involved. Comparison of predicted results with available data
(databases, field observations/monitoring, back-analyses).
Review experience elsewhere, e.g. Hong Kong, Japan, Canada, Latin America; form
international alliances for sharing of data, correlations and experience.
Define priorities for location of monitoring stations, select parameters to be
monitored, develop monitoring programmes and, through related research
programmes, install instruments; in some cases, use or expand existing monitoring

stations.
Use satellite radar interferometry (SAR) data for high-resolution regional monitoring
and "early-warning" of movements in natural terrain, rock and softer sediments.
Sub-task 1.4.1.2: Probabilistic analysis and earthquake shaking scenarios

This sub-task comprises the following activities:
Survey of existing methods for landslide risk assessment: probabilistic approaches
based on geometry, strength and pore pressure; historical data; influence of rainfalls
and earthquakes on the probability of occurrence.
Identification of an area of high combined earthquake and landslide hazard (e.g.
Southern Calabria), that suffered a catastrophic earthquake in 1783, which caused
more than 200 landslides.
Survey of the relevant geomorphological and geotechnical properties of the selected
area in Southern Calabria
Estimation of costs due to landsliding from a repetition of the 1783 earthquake.
Reliability of simplified approaches based on gross geomorphological and
geotechnical information.
Sub-task 1.4.1.3: Evaluation of alternative preventing measures

The research effort will aim at assessing the effectiveness of a number of alternative
preventive measures against land-sliding (such as soil mailing, buttressing, stone columns)
using both observational data and numerical analyses. This Sub-Task is also linked to the
overall scope of Sub-project 1.2 and 1.3.
Task 1.4.2: Unified global hazard and risk assessment for landslides under static
and seismic conditions
The risk due to landslide can only be evaluated with a good understanding of the geology,
material behaviour, physical mechanisms and the computational models used to make the
predictions. Experience shows that getting sufficiently reliable parameters is one of the
main challenges in risk analysis. Slide hazard and risk mapping will be carried out to
evaluate risk level. Procedures for mapping slide hazard and risk need to be developed,
including selection of criteria for setting priorities. Hence, this important task is fully related
to all previous and it is the final synthesis of all previously described Sub-projects. Major
research tasks include:
Develop global risk analysis approaches integrating deterministic or probabilistic
modelling of ground deformation for static and dynamic (seismic) triggering forces.
Select a set of criteria for slide hazard and risk mapping, considering sliding potential
and consequence of sliding for different triggers and types of slides.
Quantify deformations observed in sliding events for different geological settings and
different triggers.
Establish parameter uncertainty on basis of statistical data and engineering judgement.
Quantify safety and risk level for specific slopes and various slide types.
Compare with other low-, medium- and high-risk situations and draw conclusions on
risk level; compare with international results and requirements.
The final output of this task is the development of a unified global hazard and risk
assessment methodology for landslides.
Task 1.4.3: Loss estimation models

The consequences of landslides (i.e. losses) in terms of landslide displacements and their
effects to environment, urban areas and infrastructures (transportation systems, water and
gas/oil pipelines etc) could be finally estimated for each specific case using the
methodologies, methods and tools developed in all previous tasks of the project. Output
of this Task is also useful for Sub-project 2.4a and 2.4b dealing with urban areas and
infrastructures.
Task 1.4.4: Early warning systems to calibrate loss models and evaluate losses
Data need to be collected to develop methods to calibrate the developed loss
(consequence) models and predictions of ground deformations and risk evaluations, thus
reducing the risk due to landslides. To reduce risk, systems need to be developed to
provide means to monitor long term slide evolution and to forewarn of an impending
hazard. The reliability of the loss models can be verified and quantified only through
predictions with the models and where possible comparisons with landslides, hopefully
new ones (prototype measurements). The main research tasks include:
Select criteria for parameters to be monitored, optimum location and threshold values
for different ground conditions.
Develop equipment and systems; plan monitoring programmes for high-risk areas.
Develop early warning systems, including computer-aided decision-making tools.
Prioritise verifications and calibrations that need to be done, and design verification
programme.
Calibrate predicted losses (consequences) with model test results and back-analyses of
events from landslide databases.
Sub-Project 2.1 In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification of buildings and

infrastructures
Electronics and IT provide many new possibilities, but require guidelines and
methodologies for a proper employment of devices. There is considerable experience
spread all over the world, but a global harmonised overview is missing. Hence, for Sub-
project 2.1, the development an implementation of experimental devices is envisaged,
with the focus being both on the collection and evaluation of results obtained so far in
other projects but also on the development of innovative concepts. Further, feasibility
studies and discussions of benefits, which could be obtained by additional measures, e.g.
the implementation of monitoring systems, will be carried out. The Sub-project is

coordinated by ARS, featuring also the participation of RWTH, ISMES, LNEC and
VCE, whose involvement in the different tasks of the Sub-project is summarised in the
following Table:
ARS ISMES LNEC RWTH VCE

Task 2.1.1
Sub-Task 2.1.1a 9
Sub-Task 2.1.1b 9
Sub-Task 2.1.1c 9
Sub-Task 2.1.1d 9
Sub-Task 2.1.1e 9
Task 2.1.2
Sub-Task 2.1.2a 9
Sub-Task 2.1.2b 9
Sub-Task 2.1.2c 9
Sub-Task 2.1.2d 9
Sub-Task 2.1.2e 9
Task 2.1.3 9
Task 2.1.4
Sub-Task 2.1.4a 9
Sub-Task 2.1.4b 9
Task 2.1.5 9 9
Task 2.1.6 9 9 9 9
The following set of objectives, directly related with dynamic in-situ measurements and
instrumentation, will be pursued:
1) Evaluation of all concepts using in-situ measurements, installed instrumentation and
monitoring as tools for risk mitigation
2) Dynamic in-situ testing can be used in order to assess dynamic parameters of existing
structures. Then, FE models can be fitted to the test results. But it must be
emphasized, that models elaborated in the above way, have to be considered as linear
starting points, which reflect the first vibrational phase during an earthquake quite
well. In a further step the expert has to realize the areas where nonlinear behaviour
will occur. This areas have to be considered adequately in the final model and even in
the design of a retrofit resulting from the calculations. The benefit obtainable by the
above strategy has to be discussed from several points of view. Within an Austrian
project, masonry buildings were excited by a reaction mass exciter. The reaction force
was not applied in the classical way but using a rod chain, which was put between
building an reaction mass under 45. The force of excitation was 20 kN, the force
transducer is integrated into the chain. The sinusoidal excitation force was swept in
the range 0 10 Hz. The response of the building was measured at each storey level in
several points. For each measurement point a transfer-function is obtained, which is
the optimum basis for an experimental modal analysis.
3) Let us hope, that in future it becomes state of the art to start the assessment of the
earthquake resistance of important existing structures/ lifeline structures
(Importance class I and certain of class II in prEN 1998-1) by dynamic in-situ testing.
Further, it would be very helpful to put the results (dynamic properties) of some
selected structures into a database. If forced vibration is used, besides of
eigenfrequencies, mode-shapes and damping ratios also dynamic stiffnessess can be
elaborated. The results obtained for selected structures are then benchmarks, which
mean a basis for interpolation for similar structures.
4) In the future there must be a shift from pure ductility concepts to the use of
innovative devices and concepts for energy dissipation. If such concepts are used
for retrofit, there will be frequently the intrinsic need to know the dynamic properties
of the structure before the measure is designed.
5) The dynamic properties of the structure must be also known in the case, that an
installed instrumentation is planned.
6) There is also the question of a quick assessment of the safety and serviceability/
operability of safety relevant structures and lifeline structures immediately after an
earthquake. Continuous monitoring systems (installed systems) providing information
about changed modal parameters as a consequence of damage could be used to trigger
warnings and alarm. The measurement system must be a tailored one, which works
together with an expert system. Warning- and alarm levels have to be elaborated in
advance by sensitivity studies carried out with a structural model fitted to reality
(using test results). Such expert systems have also to consider the influence of
changing environmental conditions, especially temperature. Alternative to an installed
monitoring system, the change of modal parameters could be assessed after the
earthquake via further in-situ tests.
A second set objectives, concerning the use of GIS and other IT technologies to store
and visualize all assessed information (from measurements and many different other
sources (e.g. from National inventories) in order to provide quick and powerful tools for
seismicriskmitigation-decision making has also been identified:
1) The are several good tools available (e.g. software SEISMOCARE; project ENV4-
CT97-0588). But rules and guidelines for the users (e.g. authorities) of these systems
must be prepared. The first question is a clear definition of the foreseen goals (e.g. use
in the phase of seismic upgrading or use for a proper and quick response after an
earthquake). Next, it must be defined under which circumstances such systems have
to be implemented (e.g. seismic hazard, population density, etc. at the site) and further
what degree of sophistication is necessary for the system. In less important
situations probably less parameters will be needed, while in very important

situations all imaginable information should be combined.
2) One important buildingstone of each risk assessment is the Building Typification
on which the investigations are based. The typification can range from rough to
sophisticated, depending on to expected precision of the analysis.
On the whole, Sub-project 2.1 will try to elaborate rules and guidelines for
implementation and use of in-situ measurements, instrumentation, databases and GIS in
order to support Seismic Risk Mitigation. Further development of the methods will take
place in already planned projects (e.g. priority 3: IP EMOI Sub project V2: Re
Evaluation of Civil Structures for Natural Hazards (RECS)) or in future STREPs.
Task 2.1.1: Rules and guidelines for the implementation and use of in-situ
assessment methods, installed instrumentation, databases and GIS
implementation; development of tools
In-situ assessment methods comprise general methods and methods based on
measurements, especially dynamic in-situ testing. The rules and guidelines will cover:
pre-earthquake assessment
structural inspection after earthquakes
permanent monitoring (installed systems)
Task 2.1.1 is divided into five Sub-Tasks, as follows:
Sub-task 2.1.1a: Pre-earthquake assessment: methods
Background: An important step is the assessment of the structural vulnerability, which is

a measure of the intrinsic capability of a structure to answer a given demand of service.
The structural capability is basically function of the global and partial stiffness that the
structure can demonstrate, which in turn results from a set of parameters such as the
geometry, the physical-mechanical characteristics of the materials, the type and efficiency
of the inside and outside constraints, the typology and the characteristics of the
foundation, etc. The vulnerability estimate requires therefore the identification of the
characteristic parameters of the structural response, the quantification of these parameters
and a measurement of the mutual interaction. The seismic vulnerability evaluation can be
carried out at levels of increasing detail, which is a function of the quality and quantity of
the available data and information for the examined area.
Work plan: The focus of this task will be both on the collection and evaluation of results
obtained so far in other projects (literature review, elaboration of a SOA report) but also
on the development of innovative concepts. Feasibility studies and discussions of
benefits, which could be obtained by additional measures, will be carried out. A
discussion of existing codes like FEMA 310 and the draft of prEN 1998-3 will be also
included into Deliverable 2.1.1a.
The focus will be on dynamic methods. Dynamic in-situ testing can be used in order to
assess dynamic parameters of existing structures. Criteria for the application of the
appropriate excitation (ambient or forced excitation) will be given in order to keep the
expense of the experiments as low as possible. Then, FE models are fitted to the test
results. But it must be emphasized, that these models have to be considered as linear
starting points, which reflect the first vibrational phase during an earthquake quite well.
In a further step the expert has to realize the structural locations where nonlinear
behaviour will occur. These areas have to be considered adequately in the final model
and even in the design of a retrofit resulting from the calculations. The benefit obtainable
by the above strategy has to be discussed from several points of view. For RC- and steel
structural elements the nonlinear behaviour can be predicted with good precision, if the
complete design documentation is available, which is frequently not the case. With load
bearing masonry elements the situation is much more complicated. Hence it will be also
important to look for other non destructive testing - methods which can be used to
assess material parameters (especially the probable ultimate capacity of materials). But
also sound engineering judgement will always play an important role. Some
demonstrative examples will be given in the SOA report.
One part of D2.1.1a will be the summary of the most important findings (manual), which
is the basis for Task 2.1.5 Layout for an European code on the in-situ assessment of earthquake
resistance of existing structures.
Sub-task 2.1.1b: Structural inspection after earthquakes: assessment of remaining

capacity and repair of industrial structures
Background: see Sub-Task 2.1.1a
Work Plan: The sub-task will start with a specification of assessment - importance
categories for industrial facilities. The importance will depend on the potential impact
on population and environment. Rules will be specified for the consideration of failure
paths affecting the integrity of safety relevant structural components. This will lead to
integration of safety measures into the design philosophy and recommendations of
general design criteria for non-collapse and damage limitation requirements.
Structural and non-structural elements belonging to industrial facilities will be classified

with particular regard to their seismic response, requirements for modeling and ductility.
Recommendations for after-earthquake checks with regard to identified weak points in
the structure, to secondary elements (e.g. industrial components) and damage limitation
(available serviceability after a seismic event) will be elaborated.
Case studies on selected examples of existing industrial structures (mainly steel- and
composite structures; RWTH is a specialist for steel) will be carried out. The structures
will be modeled and the seismic response calculated. The available seismic resistance will
be determined, considering the non-linear behaviour. Potential weak points will be
identified and failure modes estimated. Recommendations for strengthening measures
will be given and the feasibility of the proposed measures will be evaluated.
In addition partner RWTH will work on procedures for the evaluation of seismic
resistance of existing structures and facilities. The seismic resistance will be also estimated
by comparison to the design for wind loads. This question is very interesting for large
parts of Europe, which are zones of moderate seismicity. Further, former material related
requirements will be compared with current requirements. The most important findings
concerning the assessment methods will be also introduced into the assessment manual
(D2.1.1a).
The specification of assessment - importance categories for industrial facilities will be

also included in D2.1.3 Typification of structures. Hence, this classification must be available
for Task 2.1.3 in month 10.
Sub-task 2.1.1c: Permanent monitoring: feasibility studies
Background: Monitoring data are usually identified from time series of the structural
response parameters that are furnished by instrumentation installed on the structure,
which can be of either static or dynamic type. The acquired quantities are typically
displacements, rotations, accelerations, velocities and settlements. The acquisition and
elaboration of the quantities that are furnished by the installed instrumentation allow
setting up a structural behaviour model that is considered as regular; the periodic
elaboration of the acquired measurements and the comparison with the model allow to
point out indicators of potential structural damages. The availability of periodic surveys
of the cause quantities allows moreover setting up statistical models of the structural
behaviour, where the structural response is statistically correlated to the trend of the
cause quantities; these models allow a control in time of the structural response by
pointing out meanwhile the weight of the cause quantities.
There is also the question of a quick assessment of the safety and serviceability/
operability of safety relevant structures and lifeline structures immediately after an
earthquake. Continuous monitoring systems (installed systems) providing information
about changed modal parameters as a consequence of damage could be used to trigger
warnings and alarm. The measurement system must be a tailored one, which works
together with an expert system. Warning- and alarm levels have to be elaborated in
advance by sensitivity studies carried out with a structural model fitted to reality (using
test results). Such expert systems have also to consider the influence of changing
environmental conditions, especially temperature.
Work plan: The task work will start with a literature review and a SOA report on (the
few) existing monitoring systems. A feasibility study will be carried out, for which types
of safety relevant structures and lifeline structures such continuous monitoring systems
could be beneficial. The central question is always, which damages are expected and how
strong they will influence measurable parameters. Focus will be again on the
measurement of dynamic parameters. But also the measurement of the position in
space (optical methods, GPS, etc.) and stress measurements provided at important load
bearing elements will be discussed.
One part of D2.1.1c will be the summary of the most important findings, which is also
very important for Task 2.1.5 Layout for an European code on the in-situ assessment of earthquake
Sub-task 2.1.1d: Databases and GIS implementation
Background: Reliable predictions of losses due to earthquakes in a city or region need an

integrated methodology that need to be encoded in a procedure. This has to support the
seismic risk mitigation decisions for a town (e.g. selective retrofitting of existing
structures, monuments etc.) and for its future expansions (new construction: where and
how), in order to optimize the planning process from a social and economic viewpoint.
The procedure should integrate data and models relevant to hazard evaluation,
vulnerability methodology and seismic risk reduction at various levels of detail according
to available data and cost constraints, with the aim of providing a practical tool for
responsible authorities. Central to this process has to be the Geographical Information
System (GIS) due to its ability to store and retrieve information on the structures
inventory in a graphical fashion. Such procedures have been developed by ISMES
concerning seismic, hydraulic and hydrogeologic field.
Work program: There are several good tools available (e.g. software SEISMOCARE;
project ENV4-CT97-0588). In this task rules and guidelines for the users (e.g. authorities)
of these systems will be prepared. The first question is a clear definition of the foreseen
goals (e.g. use in the phase of seismic upgrading or use for a proper and quick response
after an earthquake). Next, it will be defined under which circumstances such systems
have to be implemented (e.g. seismic hazard, population density, etc. at the site) and
further what degree of sophistication is necessary for the system. In less important
situations probably less parameters will be needed, while in very important situations all
imaginable information should be combined. During the work there will be a strong
interaction with other Sub-Projects in the project LESSLOSS, which use GIS (e.g.
Research activity 4).
One part of D2.1.1d will be a summary of the most important findings, which is also very
important for Task 2.1.5 Layout for an European code on the in-situ assessment of earthquake
Sub-task 2.1.1e: Structural inspection after earthquakes: development of output

only modal identification software
Background: see Task 2.1.1a
Work program: Development of output-only modal identification software using the

frequency domain decomposition method for dynamic characterization of building
structures after earthquakes. The software will also include a component for model
updating and damage detection. This software will be developed with LabView, although
some routines might be implemented in other languages, compiled and called by a
LabView main program. The use of this software for permanent monitoring and model
updating of building structures shall also be considered.
It is the opinion of the Sub-Project consortium, that an inexpensive and robust software
should be developed, since the greater part of software available on the market is quite
expensive. The efficiency and robustness of this software will be tested and demonstrated
within Task 2.1.2e Test of output only modal identification software on physical models of structures
damaged at the LNEC shaking table.
Task 2.1.2: Assessment of existing structures and models

The sub-tasks 2.1.2.a, 2.1.2.b, 2.1.2.c and 2.1.2.d deal with the assessment of pre-
earthquake resistance of existing structures based on dynamic in-situ testing. The sub-task
2.1.2.e deals with dynamic testing of physical models (mock-ups from other projects),
which will be damaged to different degrees by simulated earthquakes using the LNEC
shaking table.
Sub-task 2.1.2a: Buildings
Background: In 1997 an important change took place in the Austrian Seismic code
B 4015. The areas of Vienna south-west of the river Danube belong now to seismic zone
3 (effective horizontal ground acceleration 0,8 m/s). There are many old masonry
buildings in this area. Hence, in the case of reconstruction, a new earthquake analysis is
requested by the authorities if considerable changes of horizontal capacity are planned.
During the years many shops were placed at ground floors. Parts of load bearing
structures were removed in order to get additional floor area without considering strong
horizontal loading. The tendency is still holding on, owners of buildings want to get more
and more floor area. There are certainly some dangerous situations existing and more
restrictive procedures are necessary for the future. Hence reconstruction of masonry
buildings can be a demanding and responsible task for the designer, if also the earthquake
resistance has to be considered. The modelling is frequently a difficult task, hence arsenal
research started a test series on old buildings in February 2002. The main task of the in-
situ tests is the elaboration of eigenfrequencies, modeshapes, damping ratios and dynamic
stiffnessess. First, a five storey masonry building with irregular U ground plan was
investigated. A FE- model was elaborated which was fitted to the test results. Further two
tests were carried out in 2002 and in 2003.
Work program: preliminary FE models for several investigated masonry buildings

will be fitted to measured dynamic parameters. As model updating is still a very open
field, effort will be spent on further improving of the existing models, searching also for
alternative updating strategies. The measured data plus the final FE models will then be
made available in European databases (e.g. EUMEDIN database, SAMCO database, etc).
Further relevant data will be compiled on basis of literature review.
Sub-task 2.1.2b: Concrete bridges
Background: ARS has carried out the procedure described in paragraph 1, objective 2)
for many bridges. Some investigations were done in the framework of European research
projects (e.g. SIMCES, VAB). In SIMCES (System Identification to Monitor Civil
Engineering Structures, BRPR-CT96-0277) the main goal was damage detection and to
check the possibility for developing special monitoring systems for the safety monitoring
of bridges. The VAB project (Andanced Methods for Assessing the Seismic Vulnerability
of Existing Motorway Bridges, ENV4-CT97-0574) was towards the assessment of the
earthquake vulnerability of existing motorway bridges. VCE has tested a large number of
bridges using ambient vibrations.
In 2001 the reaction mass exciter VICTORIA of arsenal research was also successfully
used to excite a railway bridge vertically from a position below the bridge, using the rod
chain described in paragraph 1. This technique opens a much broader spectrum for
practical application, since it is not further necessary to excite the bridge directly at the
deck and to close the bridge (at least some lanes) for traffic.
Work program: Based on past experience accumulated by the participants and on results
found in literature, the benefits of implementation of in-situ measurements,
instrumentation, databases and GIS to concrete bridges with lifeline character will be
studied (feasibility studies, for some important bridges in zone 3 and 4 in Austria).
Within the planned feasibility studies the aspects presented for Task 2.1.2c will be
pursued, but in a much less detailed manner than in the case of Europabrcke.
There will be close cooperation with Sub-Project 2.3a. Mainly the appropriate calculation
methods, which have to be applied in the single cases, will be discussed. But the work of
both Sub-Projects will not depend timely on each other.
Sub-task 2.1.2c: Steel bridges - case study Europabrcke
Background: see Task 2.1.2b
Work program: This sub-task will deal with the seismic capacity of the famous Austrian
steel bridge Europabrcke. RWTH is a specialist for steel structures, hence this task is
given to RWTH.
Within the framework of another project, eigenfrequencies and modeshapes of the bridge
will be identified and a monitoring system with transducers at several important structural
parts will start working beginning of 2004. Hence, also the changes of the modal
parameters due to environmental influences (especially temperature) will be available for a
period of about one year before this sub task starts.
First, a FE model will be fitted to the measured results. Europabrcke is not situated
directly in a zone of high seismicity, but the area Hall and Innsbruck (seismic zone 4) is
not very far. Hence seismic input from zone 4 will be assumed as a hypothetical seismic
load and the maximum stresses and deformations of the bridge deck, the maximum loads
and deformations at the bearings (required clearances, required strength of anchorages),
the maximum loads and deformations of the piers (especially verification of ductility,
which is probably poor!) and the maximum forces at the foundation will be elaborated.
The resulting seismic loads will be compared with the wind loads used for design. All
structural parts, which have to be checked after an seismic event, will be identified.
Next a parametric study will be carried out, assuming that local damage has occurred at
certain parts of the structure. The influence of these damages (stiffness decrease) on the
modal parameters (modal frequencies and mode shapes) will be elaborated. Then it will
be checked, if changes of the modal parameters due to damages can be separated from
the changes due to the environmental influences (which are known from the continuous
monitoring). In the positive case a layout for a tailored monitoring system could be
developed and warning and alarm levels for a save use of the bridge even after an
earthquake could be defined.
Steel bridges are quite different from concrete bridges. They consist of much more
structural elements. Further, their vibrational behaviour is considerably influenced by type
and condition of the connections between the elements. Hence, two separate tasks are
planned for both bridge types.
Sub-task 2.1.2d: Hospitals
Background: The seismic vulnerability of 6 large hospitals in seismic zones 3 and 4 in

Austria will be assessed within a national project. In all cases the investigations will start
with in-situ mesurements of structural- and soil response using the reaction mass exciter
VICTORIA. In this way FE models of the most important structures will be elaborated.
Models and methods with different accuracy will be used in parallel in order to find out
the most adequate model and most adequate method of analysis for each case. This is part of a long
term strategy to collect information about the optimum way in order to avoid
unnecessary amount of work but also to guarantee at the same time the necessary safety level.
The assessment will cover the structure and the soil, but will include also functional
topics, e.g. the serviceability of operation theatres, of supply of energy, water etc. Further
also sources for secondary risks from moving or falling equipment and secondary elements
will be identified.
For the assessment mainly FEMA 310 will be used, but the Austrian seismic code B 4015
has to be considered in parallel.
In this national project the research team has to deal with different structures. Many of
them are masonry buildings and RC buildings. But all of them were built without aiming
for a ductile behaviour. Further, effective ground accelerations in the Austrian seismic
map have been considerably increased within the last years and in addition the maximum
amplification factor in the old spectrum was only 1,6. Hence, the project will be a very
demanding one. It will be of crucial importance to fully understand the structural
behavior and to find out any existing overstrength- and/ or ductile potential before
requesting any retrofit. The project will be finished until September 2004.
Work program: Advanced studies will be carried out using already well-prepared data,
available from the national project activities described above. Past work will be evaluated
and further improved, considering especially all relevant parts of EC8. Much practical
input for Task 2.1.5 is expected from this work.
Close cooperation with Sub-Project 2.2b, especially on optimum retrofit methods, is

envisaged. But the work of both Sub-Projects will not timely depend on each other.
Sub-task 2.1.2e: Test of output only modal identification software on physical

models of structures damaged at LNEC shaking table
Background: see Task 2.1.1a
Work program: Output-only modal identification software will be tested with experimental
results from the activity that will take place at LNEC shaking table. The models will be
available from other projects. Assessment of damage building state (model updating),
after each stage of increasing level of shaking will be carried out; ambient vibration
measurements will be performed for output-only modal system identification and
compared with traditional input-output vibration measurements.
The involvement of the LNEC shaking table into the Sub-Project work is very important,
since it completes the set of experimental tools, which can be applied for structural
assessment.
Task 2.1.3: Typification of buildings and infrastructures at European level
Background: At national level, in many European countries studies have been carried
out in recent years for the vulnerability assessment and seismic risk analysis of cities,
regions or countries as a whole.
Naturally these studies rely on the information available for each situation which normally
is organised so that the structures of the building stock are typified according to the more
common or relevant characteristics of the construction techniques or structural materials
in each region. In order to extend these studies in a reliable fashion to the European level,
it is essential that the typification of the building stock is carried out in a co-ordinated
way..
Work program: The purpose of this part of the project is to review the current and more
common types of construction in seismic regions of Europe, based in available published
studies in various countries. This shall provide the identification and establishment of a
set of structural typologies of buildings in Europe, encompassing the relevant
characteristics that influence its seismic behaviour.
Along with this typification effort, the evolution of the seismic design codes in the
different countries shall be examined so that some quantitative measure of the seismic
resistance of the different structural typologies may be inferred.
The proposed approach shall enable a more consistent evaluation of the seismic
vulnerability of buildings throughout Europe and the corresponding seismic risk
assessment across the various regions of Europe. Contacts will be held with the ongoing
project RISK-UE (http://www.risk-ue.net/) in order to avoid duplication of effort and
results. Liaison with Sub-Projects 2.3a, 2.3b and 2.4a will be carried out so that
harmonized results can be obtained.
RWTH will contribute the specification of assessment - importance categories for

industrial facilities to D2.1.3.
Task 2.1.4: Update of vulnerability estimates via monitoring and integration of the
vulnerability models in a GIS Environment
It will be not possible within this project to develop a fullyoperable system, but
concepts will be elaborated. It is proposed to set up a methodology/ procedure leading to
up-to-date vulnerability estimates that makes use of the monitoring data. This activity will
concern vulnerability assessments of levels 2 and 3, which are susceptible to be improved
by the monitoring data.
Sub-task 2.1.4a: Level II vulnerability assessment
Work program: Within the vulnerability model of Level II, the possibility to have at
disposal a monitoring system is expected to allow from a side improving the evaluation of
some parameters that contribute to the definition of the vulnerability index (for example
the parameter quality of the resisting system, conventional shear resistance and
maintenance conditions). The presence of a monitoring system installed on the structure
could be moreover an additional parameter that concurs to the vulnerability index
evaluation. The monitoring at this assessment level can consist of quick measurements by
means of simple special tools as the seismic bag, or simple hammer tests or some
advanced exciter.
The elaboration of the data that are furnished by the monitoring system could allow
evaluating more precisely the effects, which are due to the strengthening and/or
adjustment intervention. In particular, it could be possible to identify which parameters
are affected by the intervention and in which measure. In both cases the inclusion of the
monitoring implies the revision of the scores and weights of the parameters by means of
the statistical analysis. Target structures are residential buildings in reinforced concrete
and masonry.
The structural models used for the above approaches will be discussed with Sub-Project
2.3a and 2.3b. But the work of the Sub-Projects will not depend timely on each other.
Sub-task 2.1.4b: Level III vulnerability assessment
Work program: The results furnished by the monitoring system would constitute the
indispensable basis for the setting up of an appropriate mechanical structural model of
Level 3. The structure is simulated by means of a simplified mathematical model with
concentrated masses and stiffnesses (stick model), which reproduces the fundamental
structural seismic functioning. The identification of the fundamental structural scheme
shall have to be diversified in function of the different structural typologies (the resisting
to an earthquake mechanisms of a box-structure masonry building are different from the
ones of a reinforced concrete frame structure). For the assignment of the geometrical and
mechanical model elements its necessary to have at disposal a wider and less qualitative
data base than the one that is enough for the Level 2 evaluation, which includes the
physical mechanical material characteristics, the value and the location of possible
damage conditions, a greater geometrical detail, etc. The availability of surveys of the
structural response allows moreover calibrating the mathematical model on the measured
response, so that a more representative computational model of the actual structural
condition is available. The seismic response of the arranged simplified model is computed
by means of a non-linear incremental static analysis of push over type, which furnishes
the horizontal load horizontal displacement curve till the collapse; such curve
constitutes the structure vulnerability function. The non-linearity of behaviour has to be
identified on the basis of the structural typology under exam. Target structures are
bridges, infrastructures (lifelines, hospitals, schools).
The structural models used for the above approaches will be discussed with Sub-Project
2.3a and 2.3b. But the work of the Sub-Projects will not depend timely on each other.
Task 2.1.5: Layout for an European code on the in-situ assessment of earthquake
resistance of existing structures
Work program: Basis for this task is the manual part of D2.1.1a. Further important
contributions will result from all other tasks. Hence, the work of all other tasks has to end
6 months before the end of the project.
The draft of prEN 1998-3 (strengthening and repair of buildings) contains only few
statements on in-situ assessment. Some parts of FEMA 310 seem to be very useful and
will be probably used also for Task 2.1.5 (e.g. checklists).
Partner RWTH will provide recommendations for code improvements with regard to:
importance categories in particular for industrial facilities
evaluation and strengthening measures of existing industrial structures
in-situ monitoring of existing bridges in order to identify potential risk in case of
seismic events.
The work on Task 2.1.5 will be started in the last year. The first draft will be discussed
with the Sub-Projects 2.3a and 2.3b. But the work of the Sub-Projects will not depend
timely on each other.
Task 2.1.6: Demonstration of assessment

During the last year, the assessment methods described in Deliverable 2.1.1a and 2.1.5
will be applied to 2 4 structures, which will be selected later, in order to demonstrate
the proper use. Probably all partners using cost model FC (which have their own strategic
funds and which will be the main end users: ARS, ISMES, LNEC, VCE) will be
involved.
Sub-Project 2.2a Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices

and seismic isolators
The current earthquake codes for conventionally protected structures, though they
prevent collapse, allow even severe damage under strong earthquakes. In fact, the seismic
resistance of the conventionally protected structures relies on their capacity to undergo
significant inelastic deformations in strong earthquakes, namely on their ductility.
Moreover, the conventional techniques provide no protection to the contents of a
building nor to secondary structural features. The prevention of earthquake damage to
contents such as sensitive equipment is vital for hospitals and other critical facilities like
museums.
Passive control systems of seismic vibrations (e. g. seismic isolation and energy
dissipation) are innovative techniques which are worldwide considered to be already fully
mature for providing mitigation of seismic damage for civil structures and components or
equipment and have proven to be reliable and cost-effective for bridges and viaducts,
civil buildings, cultural heritage and critical facilities.
Seismic isolation (SI) provides a method for protecting not only the structures but also
the non-structural members and the structure contents, by means of a considerable
reduction of the seismic loads transmitted through the foundations into the
superstructure. The horizontal stiffness of the SI system has to be sufficiently low as to
make the fundamental response frequency of the structure well below the frequency
range of the ground motion; the SI systems must also possess sufficient damping
capability, in order to limit the horizontal displacement to an acceptable value. For
buildings the SI system is usually installed at the base or at the first floor, while for
bridges and viaducts it is usually installed at pier top.
Energy dissipation (ED) consists in the use of special devices, which attract on
themselves and dissipate there a large amount of the seismic energy: for buildings they are
installed at the base (usually in conjunction with SI devices), or more frequently inside
them between positions subjected to significant relative displacements; for bridges and
viaducts they are installed (similar to the isolators) at pier top or more frequently, between
deck and abutments. ED systems may be used in most cases where SI is not applicable,
e.g. for retrofits of buildings that are not provided with sufficiently large gaps,
construction of high rise buildings, components which require small lateral displacements,
soft soils, etc.
Several types of seismic isolators and energy dissipators have been developed, both inside
and outside Europe. As regard isolators, the High Damping Rubber Bearings (HDRBs)
can very often provide a simple and economical isolation system, as they combine the
required low stiffness and displacement capacity with a sufficiently large level of damping.
The high-to-medium stiffness HDRBs presently available on the European and non-
European markets are excellent for a wide variety of applications, but there exist several
circumstances where their use is technically difficult, if not impossible. These
circumstances include, for instance, light structures, like small buildings or electrical
equipment, which are quite important potential markets for SI.
Furthermore, the performance of presently available ED devices may be considerably

improved from both the technical and economical points of view. Finally, other
innovative ED devices, based on different physical phenomena, can be developed.
Hence, the main objectives of Sub-Project 2.2a are:
the development of innovative low stiffness isolators (LSIs) to be used in civil
applications characterized by light structures (residential houses) or for light industrial
equipment;
the development of innovative electro-inductive devices (DECS) to be used in civil
applications characterized by heavy structures (bridges and viaducts);
the evaluation of the benefits, as well as ascertaining the limitations, of two important
types of devices actually available on the market: sliders coupled with hysteretic
elements and friction pendulum systems.
Activities related to the first two objectives will be carried out by ALGA, while those
related to the third one will be performed by MAURER. Some contribution to these
activities will be also provided by STAP and VCGP, in the role of technical consultants.
The abovementioned objectives will be accomplished by testing the devices on the
shaking table of the ENEA Laboratories of Casaccia (near Rome), using a suitable mock-
up. The design, development and qualification of the devices will be supported by
numerical analyses, which will be carried out by developing original non-linear
mathematical models. Particular efforts will be paid in the dissemination of the results; to
this aim, an User Manual will be prepared by all the partners in the last part of the project
with the aim of helping the Designers and other potential End User to design structures
incorporating such devices. The results of Sub-Project 2.2a activities will also provide
input for the development of European standards for the antiseismic devices and
structures provided with them.
Sub-Project 2.2a is coordinated by ENEA, featuring also the participation of ALGA,

MAURER, STAP and VCGP, whose involvement in the different tasks of the Sub-
project is summarised in the following Table:
ENEA ALGA MAURER STAP VCGP

Task 2.2a_1 9
Task 2.2a_2 9
Task 2.2a_3 9
Task 2.2a_4 9
Task 2.2a_5 9 9
Task 2.2a_1: Development, manufacturing and qualification of low stiffness

isolators and electro-inductive devices
Activities of this task, which is coordinated by ALGA, will be grouped in two main sub-
tasks:
- Sub-task 2.2a_1.1: Development, manufacturing and qualification of innovative low stiffness isolators
- Sub-task 2.2a_1.2: Optimisation, qualification and industrialisation of innovative electro-inductive
devices
As far as Subtask 1.1 is concerned, ALGA proposal concentrates on alternative,

innovative seismic design approaches, in particular, a novel SI system based on low
stiffness rubber bearings. These devices are complementary to the existing rubber
bearings, and will have a great potential for application to the large number of structures
and situations for which currently available HDRBs are not a viable option, and to the
direct protection of industrial equipment. Most of the base isolation projects based on
HDRBs utilise bearings with a damping varying between 10 and 15%, whose stiffness is
such to obtain a natural period of vibrations ranging between 2 and 2.5 s. Under these
circumstances, the design displacement of the structure during earthquake mainly
depends on the response spectrum and therefore on the seismicity level and the soil
conditions. Normal values of the design displacements normally range between 100 mm
for very low seismicity levels (for instance Italy category 3) up to 400 mm, or even more,
for very high seismicity areas (for instance Turkey). HDRBs geometrical dimensions
usually grant a sufficient stability of the bearing itself. But it may happens that, if the
weight of the structure is relatively low (for instance 2 or 3 storey building), even using
very soft rubber compounds, it is not possible to obtain the required horizontal stiffness
with a suitable geometrical dimension.
Aim of the research activities to be carried out by ALGA is the development of new
types of Low Stiffness Isolators (LSIs) that could provide a very low horizontal stiffness
while ensuring, at the same time, stability under extreme displacements. The development
of the novel system will also duly consider the need to become to a industrial product
competitive, in term of cost, to similar devices available on the market. ALGA will
develop two types of LSIs: one circular and one rectangular (or square) shaped.
The development of both the two types of the novel LSIs will require activities on the
following topics:
development of new concept of isolators with low-stiffness and high stability;

definition of performance needs for the innovative antiseismic devices;
development of improved materials and functional mechanisms and geometry of the
devices;
design verification and optimisation through numerical models;
development and realisation of manufacturing techniques and tools for the
construction of the devices;
manufacturing of the prototypes;
experimental characterisation of the behaviour of the devices;
analysis of tests results and optimisation of the devices based on experimental
evidence;
validation of analysis methods for LSIs design and use;
evaluation of the benefits in the design of safe structures;
preparation of design procedure, technical data sheet and/or catalogue.
As far as Subtask 1.2 is concerned, ALGA, in order to overcome the performance of

presently available dampers, already started theoretical studies aimed at the development
of an innovative damper, based on electro inductive phenomena. The main technical
advantages of the electro-inductive devices (DECS) as well as the enhancement with
respect to the existing dampers performances are hereinafter summarised: energy
dissipation is the only viable system to reduce the effect of the earthquake while
simultaneously controlling the relative displacements of the structural components. Until
now, the physical principles used in the wide variety of existing energy dissipating devices
are based on:
Yield of metals;
Viscosity of fluids or elastomers;
Friction.
As a consequence, all the existing ED devices are characterised by one or more

disadvantages such as:
Limited cycle life;
Response depending on temperature and ageing;
High scattering of the response;
Heat generation may alter the response or damage the devices.
In addition, the currently available ED devices have the need for a rather frequent
maintenance for ensuring their prescribed performances and frequently for replacement
during the structure life.
The DECS supersede all the above mentioned disadvantages and, in addition, can really
provide a maintenance free performance. The basic idea of the DECS consists in an
electric generator that produces current exploiting the movements generated by the
earthquake. The current is then dissipated in a short circuit so that all the mechanical
energy supplied to the device is converted into heat. Aim of the research program is to
optimise and industrialise the manufacturing of the DECS. ALGA will develop two types
of DECS, different in size, in order to produce a set of devices able to cover a wide range
of potential applications. A small and a large size of DECS will be designed,
manufactured and tested.
The optimisation and industrialisation of the innovative DECS will require activities on
the following topics:
design of an optimised small size DECS with characteristics of 250 kN;
design of an optimised large scale DECS with characteristics of 1000 kN;
optimisation of the manufacturing process in order to minimise the production costs;
experimental characterisation of the behaviour of the devices;
validation of analysis methods for DECS design and use;
evaluation of the benefits in the design of safe structures;
preparation of design procedure, technical data sheet and/or catalogue;
Timing of the abovementioned activities relevant either to LSIs and DECS is included in
the Deliverable and Milestones lists.
Task 2.2a_2: Performance assessment of seismic isolation systems based on

sliding isolators through a comprehensive experimental
investigation.
Seismic isolation was born with the use of conventional laminated rubber bearings that
could supply three of the four main functions (transmission of vertical loads, lateral
flexibility and re-centring capability). Subsequently HDRBs were developed to guarantee
the fourth function (i.e.: energy dissipation). Notwithstanding, the capacity of the latter to
dissipate energy does not suffice in certain sectors of seismic engineering (e.g.: bridges
and viaducts). So as to remedy this lack, much in terms of resources was invested during
the last quarter of the past century to develop new isolation systems endowed with
sufficiently high dissipating capacity and, at the same time, the capability to accommodate
the large displacements that characterize modern bridges of notable length. To fully
satisfy the above requirements, recourse was made to a combination of sliding elements
and hysteretic components (the latter being the ones supplying the energy dissipation
capability). Such devices are generally referred to as sliders. However, whereas
numerous research campaigns were conducted with rubber isolators that have yielded in-
depth knowledge of this type of device, the same cannot be said for steel hysteretic sliders
(SHS).
The main scope of this Task is to evaluate the benefits, as well as ascertaining the
limitations, of the two most important types of devices, namely:
sliders coupled with hysteretic elements
friction pendulum (FP) systems.
Sliding bearings have a long history throughout the word of applications in non-seismic
engineering, particularly in bridges, to accommodate movements produced by thermal
variations, creep etc.. In the above applications the relative sliding movements occur at
slow velocities, typical 0.01 mm/s or less, while for seismic applications velocity can be as
high as 500 mm/s. It is well known that sliding velocity dramatically affects dynamic
coefficient of friction, particularly for the composite sliding material used in friction
pendulum. Finally, the reason for undertaking this study resides in the fact that,
conversely to the case of rubber isolators, the former are all of a proprietary nature.
Therefore, experimental studies regarding them are essentially private-party type and their
results have seldom been published, at least with respect to the devices limitations or
shortcomings themselves. Two distinct sub-tasks are reserved to the examination of these
two classes of devices, namely:
- Sub-task 2.2a_2.1 - Evaluation of benefits and limits of isolation systems based on steel hysteretic
sliders
- Sub-task 2.2a_2.2 - Evaluation of claimed characteristics of isolation systems based on friction
pendulum
The objective common to the aforesaid sub-tasks is that of improving knowledge of

device behaviour in the presence of different seismic inputs, aiming to develop possible
improvements thereof as well as the assessment and validation of numerical models (see
Task 2.2a_3) in order to reliably and accurately predict the response of structures thusly
isolated.
The specific objective of sub-task 2.1 is that of studying the effects of different types of
sliders coupled with steel hysteretic elements on the structural response. Particularly, the
influence of the most representative parameter of this class of devices will be examined,
i.e. the elastic/post-elastic stiffness ratio.
The specific objective of sub-task 2.2 is that of experimentally substantiating/disproving

the characteristics and advantages claimed by friction pendulum isolation systems. To wit,
the testing campaign will investigate the effects of substantial changes in the supported
mass and its claimed capacity to minimize the adverse torsional motions that take place in
asymmetrical structures. Finally, still within the framework of sub-task 2, another
important objective is that of investigating the effects of creep induced deformation on
the break-away force. This experimental test, lasting approximately two years, represents
an absolutely innovative approach.
The activities undertaken within the framework of Task 2.2a.2 are essentially aimed at:
a) Defining a set of representative isolation systems that, utilizing the same mock-up,
permit the achievement of a maximum number of experimental results with a
minimum number of runs in the shake table testing.
b) Designing and manufacturing an adequate number of seismic devices to be used in the
shake table testing campaign.
c) Conducting characterization testing on the seismic devices.
d) Analyzing experimental results to evaluate benefits and limitations of each type of
device, and substantiate or deny claimed characteristics as well as develop possible
improvements thereof.
e) Designing and manufacturing a full-scale friction pendulum device to be subjected to
a long-term test.
The above mentioned activities are propaedeutic or consequent to the activities of Task 3
(Implementation and Validation of Numerical Tools) and Task 4 ( Shaking table tests). It
is stipulated that the characterization tests on seismic devices as per item c) will be sub-
contracted to the Technical University of Munich-Mechanik Lehrstuhl. Alternatively the
work could be sub-contracted to Universitt der Bundeswehr-Fakultt fr Bauingenieur
und Vermessungswesen - Munich.
During the Sub-task 1 tests, there will be used isolation systems with at least four (4)
different types of devices, each subjected to at least (3) time histories. If time permits, the
effects produced by the substitution of sliding bearing with laminated rubber bearings will
be studied. During the Sub-task 2, there will be used at least three (3) mass configurations
and as many friction pendulum systems. Whenever possible, bi-directional tests will be
conducted. Nature and number of devices are listed in the Deliverables table.
Most of the activities of this task are strongly interconnected with other tasks; in
particular ENEA will actively participate in the design and execution of creep tests on the
full scale friction pendulum (which will be carried out at the Montecuccolino labs of
Bologna). Moreover, STAP and VCGP, taking advantage of their experience in designing
structures incorporating energy dissipators, will cooperate with MAURER in the
definition of the main features of the hysteretic devices.
Task 2.2a_3: Implementation and Validation of Numerical Tools

The exploitation and dissemination of the innovative anti-seismic systems developed
within Workpackage 2.2a, then the number of future applications, will also depend on the
availability of reliable Numerical Tools capable of correctly describing the behaviour of the
abovementioned devices and systems and that of the structures incorporating them. As a
matter of fact, the Designers and other potential End Users are usually not familiar with
these technologies, yet; moreover, they generally use commercial structural codes (e.g.
Finite Element codes), which often are not suitable for describing the behaviour of so
highly nonlinear elements.
The main objective of Task 2.2a_3, which will be coordinated and mainly carried out by
ENEA (PROT-PREV Section), is the implementation and the validation, through the
shaking table tests and other laboratory activities, of suitable numerical models of the
devices developed within Tasks 2.2a_1 and 2 and the mock-ups provided with them.
Activities are subdivide into 5 sub-tasks (see the barchart below). Generally, simplified
non-linear numerical models, to be included in the finite element model of the whole
structure, will be developed for each kind of devices and calibrated based on the
qualification tests carried out by manufacturers. When necessary, detailed finite element
models of single devices or components will be implemented in non-linear computer
codes. This numerical activity is particularly aimed:
to help the manufacturers in optimising the device characteristics;
to design the shaking table tests;
to evaluate the benefits of such systems in real applications.
The aforesaid numerical models will then be also included and described in the User
Manual (Task 2.2a_5) for dissemination and exploitation purposes.
In the framework of Task 2.2a_3, the acceleration time-histories to be used for both the
numerical activities and the shaking table tests will also be defined (sub-task 2.2a_3.1 and
corresponding Deliverable 2.2a_3.1). The first step of this activity is the identification of
the maximum credible earthquake within an accepted return period (design earthquake)
and site characterization in terms of shear-waves profiles, local intensity and epicentral
distance as applicable to a selected site. The definition of the design earthquake is mainly
based on a seismotectonic approach, which takes into account both the seismic history of
the region and the seismogenetic potential of relevant neotectonic structures. Earthquake
parameters and site conditions with a fixed scatter will then be used to sort out
accelerograms recorded during events and sites the parameters of which are in the
selected ranges of the site.
After the execution of the shaking table tests, numerical-experimental comparisons will
be done, with the aim of fully validating the models. A deliverable will be released for
each kind of device developed by ALGA and MAURER (sub-tasks 2.2a_3.2-5 and
corresponding Deliverables 2.2a_3.2-5) .
Task 2.2a_4: Shaking table tests

All the scaled prototypes developed and manufactured in the framework of Tasks 2.2a_1
and 2 will be installed on a suitable mock-up and tested on the shaking table of ENEA
Laboratories (MAT-QUAL Section) with the aim of analysing their behaviour under real
(and possibly even more severe) seismic conditions.
The ENEA shaking table measures 4 m x 4 m and can support up to 300 kN dead load.
Its maximum overturning moment is 300 kNm; thus, the maximum acceleration
applicable at the base of the mock-up will depend on the height of the centre of mass.
The table can be controlled in 6 degrees of freedom, but the tests will be mainly carried
out in the horizontal direction, so as to simplify the evaluation of the results and the
comparison among the different devices.
The first activity of Task 2.2a_4, which will be coordinated by ENEA, will be the design
of the test mock-up. It should be quite a simple structure, like an one degree of freedom mass
able of reproducing a given frequency, namely the first mode of the reference structure
(which could be a building or the deck of a viaduct). The mock-up will be provided with
multipurpose attachments and will be the same for all the anti-seismic systems to be
tested. This will allow for a better comparison of the performances of the different
systems and will help their improvement. The mock-up, which will be designed and
manufactured by ENEA within the first year of the project (Deliverable 2.2a_4.1), will be
conceived in order to take advantage from the maximum potentiality of the shaking table
and to provide the highest excitation to the devices. The aim is to provide accelerations
to the mock-up base up to 1 g and, consequently, forces on the antiseismic devices up to
300 kN.
Four experimental campaigns will be carried out, one for each kind of the devices
developed in Tasks 2.2a_1 and 2. A deliverable, consisting in the design and description
of the test and the analysis of the experimental results, will be released after the
conclusion of each experimental campaign (Deliverables 2.2a_4.2-5). During each
experimental campaign, different set of devices will be tested, if necessary, to analyse
parametrical effects of various geometries or sizes.
Based on the input characterization (Deliverable 2.2a_3.1) two main series of tests will be
performed for each anti-seismic system. The first series will be carried out on the mock-
up subjected to a set of different synthetic earthquake inputs generated to match the same
design acceleration spectrum (AST type) characterized by a PGA (peak ground
acceleration) of 0.41 g, according to AASHTO specifications. The design spectrum,
established by a specific seismic hazard study, will be associated to an average return
period of 900 years, and has a 7.5% probability of exceedance in the expected structural
life (i.e. 70 years) for infrastructure and a design spectrum, established by a specific
seismic hazard study, associated to an average return period of 475 years, and has a 10%
probability of exceedance in the expected structural life (i.e. 50 years) for urban areas. The
second series will be carried out on the same model subjected to time-histories recorded
during the most severe earthquakes in Europe (i.e., Campano-Lucano Earthquake,
December 1980, Friuli Earthquake, September 1976, etc.). The corrected acceleration
time-histories from records obtained during the main shock will be collected from the
CD-ROM European Strong-Motion Database, which was created with the support of
the European Commission, ENVIRONMENT (contract ENV4-CT97-0397).
Task 2.2a_5: User manual

At the conclusion of the Project, an User Manual will be prepared by all partners involved
in Workpackage 2.2a, in particular by the designers/end users (STAP and VCGP) and
manufacturers (ALGA and MAURER). The User Manual is quite an important
document, which will be particularly addressed to potential End Users, with the aim of
providing them with practical tools to design structures equipped with the devices
developed in the framework of WP2.2a. This document will also help the manufacturers
in the dissemination of this technology. It will contain descriptions of the main features
and performances of the devices, and comparisons among different type, so as to help
the User to choose the most suitable device. In the framework of Task 2.2a_5, which will
be coordinated by STAP, designers manufacturers will also produce their own brochures.
Sub-Project 2.2b Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction

The aim of this Sub-project is to develop tools for the reduction of the seismic
vulnerability of buildings and infrastructures. These tools are of different nature,
depending on the level of knowledge available for one given technique or method and
depending also on the type of structure considered. Examples of the questions to which
answers when trying to assess and reduce the seismic vulnerability of buildings and
infrastructures are:
What is the best adapted existing retrofitting technique in order not to interrupt
service of buildings that are in use? How much would be the relative cost of one
retrofitting technique compared to another one?
How can one deal with potential hammering or support loss at expansion joints or at
joints between buildings?
How can the reinforcement of a bridge pier be made using FRP (Fibre Reinforced
Polymer) and considering the contribution of existing rebars? What is the most
effective technique to apply FRP? How can a structure retrofitted with FRP be
modelled? What about the durability of the reinforcement?
Can base isolation apply to historical buildings and how? Can base isolation using
semi active devices be modelled and how?
How can one design dissipative connections for precast concrete structures? How
should a truss bracing steel structure using dissipative connections be designed?
How should one implement retrofitting measures considering a complete building
stock?
Is there a need and a means for improving the seismic capacity of underground train
stations in soft soils?
The answers to these pertinent and contemporary questions will be found by means of an
extensive programme theoretical, numerical and experimental research activities, together
with the application to a series of case studies. The Sub-project is coordinated by
ULIEGE, featuring also the participation of CIMNE, IST, ITU, METU, NECSO and
UBRIS, whose involvement in the different tasks of the Sub-project is summarised in the
Table given below:
ULIEGE CIMNE IST ITU METU NECSO UBRIS

Task 2.2b.1
Sub-Task 2.2b.1.1 9 9 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.1.2 9 9
Task 2.2b.2
Sub-Task 2.2b.2.1 9 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.2.2 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.2.3 9
Task 2.2b.3
Sub-Task 2.2b.3.1 9 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.3.2 9 9 9
Task 2.2b.4
Sub-Task 2.2b.4.1 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.4.2 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.4.3 9 9 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.4.4 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.4.5 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.4.6 9 9
Task 2.2b.5
Sub-Task 2.2b.5.1 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.5.2 9
Task 2.2b.6
Sub-Task 2.2b.6.1 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.6.2 9
Sub-Task 2.2b.6.3 9
Task 2.2b.7 9
Task 2.2b.1: Selection of reference structures and infrastructures for case studies
Sub-task 2.2b.1.1: Selection of buildings case studies
General definition of objective
The first objective in the Sub-Project is to select a set of reference buildings which have
to provide elements with realistic dimensions and reinforcements in order to serve as a
common basis for all applications of vulnerability reduction techniques allowing
straightforward comparison between techniques.
State of the art

Objective 1 is of "logistic" nature, in the sense that no real breakthrough is expected from
the corresponding activity, but that it is of absolute necessity to achieve it in order to
provide a common working basis of reference "solids" in a group dealing with a number
of different structural intervention techniques. A similar selection of case study buildings
took place in other studies about other subjects (think of reference studies about the
structural behavior factor in the U.S. Talking about structural interventions in seismic
zones of Europe, on European widely distributed types of buildings, no such selection
exists.
Task 2.2b.1: Selection of reference structures and infrastructures for case studies
Sub-task 2.2b.1.1: Selection of buildings case studies
The first objective in the Sub-Project is to select a set of reference buildings which have
to provide elements with realistic dimensions and reinforcements in order to serve as a
common basis for all applications of vulnerability reduction techniques allowing
straightforward comparison between techniques.
State of the art

Objective 1 is of "logistic" nature, in the sense that no real breakthrough is expected from
the corresponding activity, but that it is of absolute necessity to achieve it in order to
provide a common working basis of reference "solids" in a group dealing with a number
of different structural intervention techniques. A similar selection of case study buildings
took place in other studies about other subjects (think of reference studies about the
structural behavior factor in the U.S. Talking about structural interventions in seismic
zones of Europe, on European widely distributed types of buildings, no such selection
exists.
Advances
A new set of reference structures will be defined using discussions within the Sub-Project
and considering in particular the context of the Turkish building stock.
The types of structures considered structures are:
2 medium rise RC buildings and one medium high rise buildings (12 storeys) made
with cast in situ concrete; all are weak design with respect to the seismicity of their
zone of construction; amongst the 2 medium rise building, one will be selected for the
case study on masonry infills. (METU, CIMNE and ITU)
one precast concrete building. (ULIEGE)
one structure with steel truss bracings. (ULIEGE)
Impact
The set of reference structures defined have a chance to become standard basis for
demonstrations on technological development in the future, because they will allow a
correct comparison between various interventions applied to few well-agreed cases. In
the project, those structures will be used as reference buildings available for design
examples in Objectives 4, 5 and 7.
Sub-task 2.2b.1.2: Selection of infrastructure case studies

For the case studies on seismic risk reduction in infrastructures, real case structures will
be selected to serve to comparison between the behaviour as built and after application of
seismic retrofitting techniques.
State of the art

Like objective 1, objective 2 is of "logistic" nature, in the sense that no real breakthrough
is expected from the corresponding activity, but that it is of absolute necessity to achieve
it in order to provide a common working basis of reference "solids" in a group dealing
with a number of different structural intervention techniques. Concerning infrastructures,
a similar selection of case study elsewhere is not known.
Advances
A new set of reference structures will be defined using discussions within the Sub-Project
and considering in particular the context of the Portuguese and Spanish context.
The following structures will be selected:
one real case situation of underground station in soft soils, with all geometrical data
and plans will be selected, together with data on soils and materials of the structure
(IST)
one real case bridge with low ductility pier (NECSO, CIMNE)
one real case section of a pipe line (NECSO)
Impact
The set of reference structures defined have a chance to become standard basis for
demonstrations on technological development in the future, because they will allow a
correct comparison between various interventions applied to few well-agreed cases. In
the Sub-Project, those structures will be used as reference buildings available for design
examples in Objectives 5 (bridge and pipeline) and 8 (underground structure).
Task 2.2b.2: Evaluation and mitigation of vulnerability at urban scale level

Sub-task 2.2b.2.1: Vulnerability evaluation by rapid screening
The third objective in Sub-Project 2.2b is to develop rapid screening methods adapted to
the context of the Turkish building stock. These are methods which allow a quick
estimation of the vulnerability of buildings so that priorities can be decided for the
buildings which require a reduction of their seismic vulnerability. Indeed, many urban
areas have huge building stock that was built either before the enforcement of modern
seismic design codes or which are likely to be judged as seismically inadequate because of
a revision in the zone seismicity. To locate buildings which require upgrade interventions
and then to assess efficiency of some typical intervention, screening methods are
necessary. It is planned to develop them at several levels of accuracy and manpower

intensiveness. The reference structures defined at objectives 1 and 2 will serve in the
calibration of the rapid screening methods.
State of the art

Quantification of Vulnerability is an issue which at present can be solved in one of the
following ways summarized in progressive order of complexity. An explicit calculation of
every single building behaviour dynamic non linear, considering the real material
properties, nonlinear material behavior, the interaction between axial forces, shear and
bending (Mx, My ,N, V) and the real sections; that process is long, costly and only
applicable to important buildings through a description which categorize the building;
such a description can only be simple and global (an unreinforced masonry house); this
for instance what is available with the European Macroseismic Scale EMS.
Simple, little descriptive, method (an unreinforced masonry house, with good mortar,
great openings, at ground level, concrete slabs). This is what is done in the PSI
methodology. A description and the calculation of an index based on structural
characteristics; in that case, the method can be more or less refined. For instance, the
GNDT method which is very detailed and requires a lot of data processing at office
considering the 100 parameters characterizing the structure. That method requires one
inquiry sheet / building type (masonry, RC, etc), considers a high number of parameters
(100 / building). The drawbacks are a long and complex procedure which in the end
often lead to prefer a characterization of blocks of buildings rather than single buildings.
For this reason, more direct methods have been developed, for instance in the Catania
Project, or the ULIEGE 1 method, which consider between 25 and 50 parameters; but
such methods still require a lot of office calculation. So refinements have been developed
more recently, like the ULIEGE 2 method, which is very direct and allows the direct
computation on site of an index considering between 10 and 20 parameters. A numerical
value of "modificator" is defined for each typical structural characteristic which influence
the vulnerability index, so that the street inquirers are able to compute directly the index
of one building by summing up the basic value of the index and the relevant
modifications.
Advances
In spite of the important problem of safety of structures against earthquakes, the Turkish
building stock has not yet been the subject of development of rapid screening methods.
Based on the important post earthquake data set, screening methods will be calibrated. It
will considers typical types of structures which can be found in the study area of Istanbul:
masonry houses with wooden floors, masonry houses with concrete floors, multi-storey
concrete-masonry buildings. It is in particular envisaged to work on the basis of the
GNDT basic and derived methods mentioned in the state of the art, taking advantage of
similar extrapolation work done recently by different researchers, including the Sub-
Project 2.2b coordinator. The guidelines will refer not only to structural features but also
to building location, seismic hazard and site conditions.
Impact
The Turkish building stock is wide and deeply concerned by the problems of seismic
resistance. The envisaged development of the applicability of rapid screening method in
that context has an enormous societal potential in a country where the life and property
of many citizens is endangered by earthquakes.
Sub-task 2.2b.2.2: Evaluation of real buildings response from strong motion arrays
METU operates two strong motions arrays in western Turkey and is in the process of
establishing a third in the south. Objective 9 is to take advantage of any fresh data which
would be recorded if an earthquake of sufficiently large magnitude should trigger any of
these systems in order to make the evaluation of the motion data in particular in
buildings.
State of the art

Seismic vulnerability and risk mitigation rely on knowledge of strong ground motion.
Arrays and building response recording systems are the sources for this type of
information. Knowledge of intricacies of earthquake ground motions and response of
actual building structures are essential, but at present relatively rare.
Advances
Currently, METU operates two strong motions arrays in western Turkey (BYTNet and
DATNet), and is in the process of establishing a third in the south (MATNet). The total
number of sensors in these three arrays is 40. METU will also procure shortly five
building dynamic response systems comprising 12 sensor channels each for monitoring
retrofitted building response in high hazard areas. If an earthquake of sufficiently large
magnitude should trigger any of these systems, the set of data provided by these up to
date measuring equipment will be of the highest interest. Evaluation of the recorded
information would constitute an invaluable source for verification of building responses
in real site conditions.
Impact
Reduction of vulnerability requires better understanding of ground motions. Many
networks and arrays are in operation ready for recording these whenever an earthquake
will hit. When (or if) additional information becomes available from national networks of
building monitoring systems during the course of the project this will be utilized fully.
The impact of these data will be a better understanding of the problems of vulnerability
of buildings, of their real weak points, in particular the hammering problem which
presents difficulties in the modeling of a group of buildings in urban area.
Sub-task 2.2b.2.3: Development of urban rehabilitation methods

The objective 4.3 is to develop vulnerability reduction in a concept of urban rehabilitation
involving a coordinated effort of engineers with city planners, sociologists, economists
and non-governmental organizations.
State of the art

Vulnerability reduction is generally thought as the application of a given technique to one
particular structure. However, a large scale study completed in Istanbul in 2003 has
shown that urban rehabilitation is not only engineering, but that the acceptability of
solutions requires a coordinated effort of engineers with city planners, sociologists,
economists and non governmental organizations.
Advances
The urban renewal methods have been a strong practical development put into practice in
Istanbul. This development wish has been pushed in the back by the felt urgency of
seismic problems in the Istanbul area following the earthquakes of 1999 and a dramatic
re-evaluation of the seismicity of the zone is of the highest interest for other regions of
Europe. Every region or city possessing different features in the various aspects of
structural content of building stock, city plans, organization of the city, etc..., it is
intended to try to take advantage of the experience of Istanbul and apply it to selected
pilot urban regions in Europe (see Sub-Project 2.4b).
Impact
Urban renewal method as an integrated activity between engineers, city planners,
sociologists, economists and non-governmental organizations is a new concept. Its
practical application still raises difficulties. Confronting it to other "test" situation than
Istanbul will make its efficiency progress, for the good sake of a more generalized
application in the future.
Task 2.2b.3: Reduction of the vulnerability of structures by existing techniques.

Technology and design improvements
Sub-task 2.2b.3.1: Low disturbance upgrading methods fopr buildings using new
members
The objective 4.1 is to define global upgrading methods that cause minimum disturbance
in the building in service, but still are satisfying the specified minimum performance
objectives.
State of the art

Adding new structural members to upgrade a structure offers a classical and sound
engineering solution for the reduction of seismic risk. Commonly adopted solutions such
as adding infill walls to reinforced concrete frames, etc., have usually been applied to
damaged buildings evacuated after an earthquake. Risk reduction implies interventions
before an expected earthquake. In this case, a major difficulty arises with the
implementation of retrofitting in buildings that are in service. Among the many possible
type of interventions using new members, there are upgrading techniques that are more
acceptable than others to keep the activity going in buildings.
Advances
The research will bear on the optimised upgrading of structures by existing techniques
and methods that cause minimum disturbance in the building in service. This imply the
definition of the less intrusive techniques and the determination of the minimum
acceptable performance levels expected after a probable earthquake; this a new concept
and the procedure to determine the least added capacity to achieve the performance
targets will be established. Practical design recommendations will describe techniques
using new added members satisfying the specified minimum performance objectives and
field implementation techniques offering acceptable solutions for buildings in use.
Relative costs of different intervention techniques will be established, based on the wide
recent experience in Turkey.
Impact
Pre and post earthquake interventions on structures are case-by-case problems in which
engineers and technicians face difficult problems. Documents with technical indications
on adequate retrofitting measures well adapted to the continuity of life and, in particular
of the use of buildings, are a real societal need in countries with fast growing populations
where an interruption of activity of one building is an enormous difficulty. The project
will provide these informative documents.
Sub-task 2.2b.3.2: Mitigation of hammering and joints problems between

buildings
The objective 4.2 is to establish mitigation solutions for typical problems that take place
under earthquake between two adjacent structures: "hammering" (when two structures hit
one another) and loss of beam support (when beams of one structure are supported on
corbels of the other structure).
State of the art

All seismic design codes contain requirements to prevent "hammering" between
structures. "Hammering" results from the fact they 2 neighbour structures shaken by an
earthquake may hit one another. Such event may contribute to the destruction of
structural elements, generally columns, which are then unable to carry the gravity loads.
This results in partial collapse of the structure on the side hit by the neighbour building;
eventually, the collapse can be total.
Other types of structural event between 2 neighbour structures can sometimes happen: it
is the case if the 2 structures belong to the same building and are separated by a so called
"expansion joint" aiming at the reduction of thermal stresses and cracks; it is in fact a
voluntary crack. If the columns are not duplicated, beams and slabs belonging to one
structure are supported on corbels of the other structure. The earthquake motion of the
2 structures may deprive those beams of support; they then collapse.
The requirement in codes against hammering imposes that a gap of given dimensions,
chosen to avoid the phenomenon, is realised. Many existing structures do not fulfil this
criterion and will hit one another in earthquakes. The 2nd type of situation described
above, expansion joint without duplication of column, is dealt with by requiring a length
of the support surface large enough to avoid the falling down of beams.
Unfortunately there exist in our cities in Europe and Turkey a large number of buildings
non-seismically designed or designed to comply to old codes or designed to comply to
codes which underestimated the zone seismicity. All these building do not comply with
what is nowadays agreed as being the rule, so that they are in very serious danger of
collapse in case of an earthquake. Upgrading solutions have to be found for these widely
distributed problems.
Advances
To develop practical retrofitting for joints, ULiege group intends to generalise concepts
that it has used recently to mitigate problems of narrow joints in a real case existing
structure in high seismicity region (0,4g). The basic idea is that a tuned reconnection of
blocks can represent a good option. The tuned reconnection is envisaged in the following
way:
when neighbour structures tend to separate, this relative move should be slowed down
using adequate tension "springs" attached to the structure in an adequate way.
the adequate character requires a correct fastening to the existing structure and a
correct design of the "springs". A correct fastening to the existing structure required
to move away from the joint so the spring is the weak point in the connection.
Looking at the complete structure, the adequacy of reconnection is a matter of sizing
of all the connectors over the height and of deciding how many degrees of freedom
this reconnection should envisage.
when neighbour structures tend to hit each other, this relative move can be acceptable
or unacceptable, depending on the relative position of the neighbour structures, for
instance whether the storeys at same level or not or whether the joints are wide or not,
and of the type of tension reconnection envisaged.
In some case, installing dampers or damping material in the joint may contribute to a
solution. Having solved a real case issue in a 14 storey building, the ULiege group intends
to generalise in the present research the application of the concepts by analysing several
other typical real case situations and developing adapted solutions. To our knowledge,
such a study has not been developed before.
Impact
The main outcome of this research work will be guidance for engineers in charge of
solving that type of structural problem. This guidance intends to cover a wide number of
possibilities. The use of such a guide may have a large impact on public safety, because
the problems with expansion joints and with joints between buildings problems are
widely present in our cities. At a later stage, the guidance developed in the research will
find its place in the Eurocode 8 section on repair and strengthening of buildings (EN
1998-3). Given the innovative character of the subject, it could also be a starting point for
specific technological developments about calibrated "reconnections springs" and
damping material to be injected in joints.
Task 2.2b.4: Vulnerability Reduction by new technology: Fibre Reinforced

Polymers
Sub-task 2.2b.4.1: Design resistance of reinforced concrete elements jacketed with
FRP
Like the next six ones, objective 5.1 concerns improvements about one aspect of
retrofitting existing structural members using FRP's jacketing. The objective 5.1 is to
provide a method to calculate the resistance of FRP jacketed elements considering the
combined confinement effect of existing transverse (steel) reinforcement and external
FRP jacketing.
State of the art

The efficiency of retrofitting with FRP's is qualitatively demonstrated, but many aspects
in design and application procedures require research. When reinforced concrete
elements are retrofitted using FRP jacketing, these elements have 2 different types of
transverse reinforcements: the classical steel stirrups and the FRP jacketing. These
different are of very different nature and their cooperation in a column element is
unclear, because the stress-strain properties of materials and the dimensions and positions
of the sections are different The objective of Task 5.1 is to provide a method to calculate
the resistance of FRP jacketed elements considering the combined confinement effect of
existing transverse (steel) reinforcement and external FRP jacketing.
Advances
The research steps will be:
experimental
analytical developments
They will consider both:

damaged RC elements retrofitted with FRP
undamaged RC elements retrofitted with FRP
Impact
The design method for elements retrofitted with FRP which will be established is needed
to enable designers to define the required sections of FRP necessary to achieve given
elements properties in terms of both resistance and ductility.
Sub-task 2.2.b.4.2: Models for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures

retrofitted with FRP
Objective 5.2 is to develop models to study reinforced concrete structures (buildings and
bridges) repaired by external bonding/wrapping with fibre-reinforced polymers (FRP)
composites.
State of the art

Strengthening or retrofitting of existing concrete structures to assure higher design loads,
to repair damage, or increase ductility has traditionally been accomplished using
conventional materials and construction techniques. Composite materials made of fibers
in a polymeric resin, also known as fiber reinforced polymers (FRP), have emerged as an
alternative to traditional materials and techniques. FRP materials are lightweight, no
corrosive, and exhibit high tensile strength. Additionally, they are readily available in
several forms ranging from factory-made laminates to dry fiber sheets that can be
wrapped to conform to the geometry of a structure before adding the polymer resin.
Although the fibers and resins used in FRP systems are relatively expensive compared
with traditional strengthening materials like concrete and steel, labor and equipment costs
are often lower. FRP systems can also be used in areas with limited access where
traditional techniques would be difficult to implement.
Advances
The most innovative aspects of the study are: development of a formulation for the basic
substances of composite materials using the mixing theory and a non-linear formulation
of the homogenization theory, as well as a general formulation for the treatment of the
anisotropy for composite materials. Sophisticated constitutive models will combine
effects of stiffness degradation with plasticity and viscosity, allowing interpreting the
results in terms of damage and/or fracture. The behavior of anchorages and unions
between the new material and the concrete, which often restricts the use of FRP will be
studied. These models will allow performing numerical studies on the reliability of FRP
retrofitted structures.
Impact
This research will provides guidance for the selection and design of FRP systems for
externally strengthened concrete structures using numerical approaches (constitutive
models together with finite element technique). The study can be used to select an FRP
system for increasing the strength, stiffness or ductility of reinforced concrete structures.
The sophisticated constitutive models for reinforced concrete elements repaired by
external bonding/wrapping of fiber-reinforced polymer composites, considering the
behavior of anchorages and unions between FRP and concrete, allow interpreting the
results in terms of damage and/or fracture. The study on the reliability of FRP retrofitted
structures is one of the most relevant aspects which can be solved by means of the
proposed model.
Sub-task 2.2b.4.3: Models for the analysis of masonry structures retrofitted with
FRP
Objective 5.3 consists in developing models to account for FRP reinforcement of infill
panels. In the case of masonry infills, simplified analytical models can produce
probabilistic estimates of vulnerability. UBRIS will develop these simplified analytical
models and calibrate them by experimental studies.
State of the art

Non-structural masonry infill panels are common in all forms of reinforced concrete and
steel frame construction. If they are not properly detailed to accommodate seismic loads,
infill panels represent a significant hazard if they collapse. This is particularly the case for
non-seismically designed buildings or those designed to very early codes of practice.
Although infill panels may be subjected to in-plane shearing forces arising from the lateral
sway of the structural frame, provided there is adequate contact between the infill and
frame, the primary form of loading that induces collapse is out-of-plane inertia loading
acting on the panel itself. Research conducted recently at UBRIS, on behalf of the UK
nuclear industry, showed through full-scale shaking table tests that unreinforced masonry
infill panels could generate substantial out-of-plane strength if membrane arching action
could develop. Such arching action can arise if adequate contact exists between the top
edge of the panel and the soffit of the beam above it. When subjected to out-of-plane
inertia loads, a panel will bend elastically in the first instance, but very soon the flexural
strength at critical bed joints is exceeded, and the panel cracks. The crack patterns
observed in the previous UBRIS shaking table tests followed classical yield-line failure
patterns, which were dependent on the fixity of the panel edges. In most panels, vertical
arching was by far the dominant action and, if adequately sustained, enabled panels to
survive out-of-plane frame accelerations in excess of 2g.
The previous UBRIS study showed that there is considerable potential for reducing the
risk of out-of-plane collapse of infill panels if adequate arching action can be created. A
particular problem, however, is the cyclic degradation (crushing) of the mortar joints (and
in some cases the masonry units themselves), which can destroy the arching paths. This
degradation may be exacerbated by in-plane shearing of the panel caused by the sway of
the surrounding frame. There is a need, therefore, for forms of retrofitting that bind the
cracked panel together so that cyclic degradation is minimized and arching action is
sustained. Layers of FRP bonded onto one or both faces of the infill panel are an
obvious potential solution.
A further aspect of the previous UBRIS study was the development of a simplified,
single-degree-of-freedom dynamic model of a cracked infill panel. This model adapted
the strip form of analysis that is commonly used for static flexural analysis of panels and
slabs. The panel is modeled as a series of vertical and horizontal cracked strips, each of
which forms a three- or four-pinned arch between its supports. The total flexural
strength of the panel is the summation of the flexural strengths of the individual strips.
The UBRIS dynamic model considered only a single vertical strip cracked at mid-height,
as this was shown to be an adequate lower bound assumption for the panels considered
in that study. The model reduces to a single-degree-of-freedom since the deflected
geometry of the panel can be related to its central lateral displacement. The UBRIS
model accounts for the inertia of the panel, crushing of the panel joints, the non-linear
arching force, support stiffness and sliding of the panel at the supports.
Monte Carlo studies of panel responses when subjected to a large number of different
out-of-plane acceleration time histories showed that a Gumbel Type III extreme value
probability function could be used to estimate the minimum support acceleration needed
to cause collapse. This acceleration could then be compared with the corresponding
predicted acceleration to which the panel is likely to be exposed, allowing the risk of
panel collapse to be estimated.
The UBRIS dynamic model is currently limited to modeling the vertical arching action in
a plain panel (i.e. without openings). However, it is relatively straightforward to extend it
to include the effects of horizontal arching and openings, which would significantly
extend the models value.
Advances
The UBRIS dynamic model will be reformulated to cater for combined horizontal and
vertical arching, with openings, subjected to out-of-plane seismic loads. This will be
implemented in a new, PC-based, software tool that will include basic statistical post-
processing. Any strengthening effects from the application of FRP sheets to the faces of
a panel will be simulated by suitable adjustment of the joint strengths of the dynamic
model. The new software tool will enable rapid assessment of the risk of out-of-plane
collapse of the most common types and configurations of infill panels.
The efficacy of the new dynamic model will be evaluated against a set of full-scale shaking
table tests to be conducted on the 15t capacity, 6 d.o.f. shaking table at UBRIS. These
tests will use existing infill-panel test rigs (accommodating 2m high by 3m wide panels),
which will be adapted to suit the needs of the new research. The set of tests will cover
two representative kinds of masonry units, one made from a dense material (e.g. solid
fired clay bricks or solid concrete bricks) and one made from a lightweight material such
as hollow clay bricks or lightweight concrete blockwork. A total of eight specimens will
be tested using simulated Eurocode 8 compatible input accelerations (with building
amplification effects), as indicated provisionally below.
Dense masonry Lightweight masonry

Plain, unreinforced panel Plain, unreinforced panel
Solid panel with FRP reinforcement on both faces Solid panel with FRP reinforcement on both faces
Solid panel with FRP reinforcement on one face Solid panel with FRP reinforcement on one face
Panel with opening and FRP reinforcement Panel with opening and FRP reinforcement
The tests will enable an evaluation of FRP application methods and details, as well as of
the efficacy of this method of masonry reinforcement for typical types of infills. As well
as being a proof of concept, the experimental program will give a clear indication of the
structural mechanisms underpinning the FRP reinforcing scheme, as well as the
magnitude of strengthening achieved. The resulting experimental database will be
compared with numerical simulations derived from the new dynamic model software.
Impact
The research will clarify the mechanics of the out-of-plane behavior of masonry infill
panels when unreinforced and when reinforced with FRP sheets on their faces. The
research will also result in clear guidance on how existing infill panels may be
strengthened using FRP and associated boundary condition enhancements, and the scale
of enhanced performance that may be achieved.
The software tool will enable rapid and relatively simple risk assessments to be made of
the out-of-plane collapse potential of infill panels when subjected to seismic loads. For
example, engineers would be able to construct relevant design charts from the output
data from the software tool. In due course, the findings will be incorporated into the
repair and strengthening of buildings section of Eurocode 8.
In summary, the research will offer a much enhanced understanding of infill panel
behavior, as well as providing a straightforward analytical tool, and guidance on how
panels may be strengthened using a readily useable technology. Given the vast numbers
of inadequately designed infill panels across Europe and worldwide, the research could
have a significant impact on mitigating the risk of collapse of such panels and the
consequent potential for loss of life and damage to property.
Sub-task 2.2b.4.4: Technology of application of Fibre Reinforced Polymers

There are uncertainties about the best way to apply fibre reinforced polymer on concrete.
Objective 5.4 is to reduce these uncertainties by experimental evaluations considering the
following parameters for as well fibre glass and carbon fibre: lay up, impregnation, cure
problems on site, selection of temperature and use of vacuum, value of applied pressure,
fibre pre-stressing. Different process of reinforcement will be defined depending on the
environmental conditions. Guidelines for design and application of the proposed
solutions, defining standard methodologies/ technologies and a design tool as a decision
support system to assist construction managers in evaluating the reinforcement solutions,
will be prepared.
State of the art

Nowadays there are many structures which have been reinforced by composites materials,
but of the majority of these reinforcements the application process is not clear and in
many cases even wrong.
In the application of FRPs little use is made of systems that are know in their application
in other sectors.
There are few studies about the reinforcement of confined rectangular columns. Due to
the usual application process it is not possible to obtain this confinement. For the
majority of rectangular columns it is necessary to develop a new technology to make
these reinforcements.
The use of the composites materials is not optimised due to doubts on the behaviour of
them. For many Engineers the FRP-reinforcements are not accessible. It is necessary to
develop a system that reduces the uncertainties and facilitates a suitable tool for the
design and application process.
Advances
Through comparison of the performance of the application processes, the knowledge on
these processes will increase significantly. With this increased knowledge a suitable
optimisation of the application processes is possible, within the boundary conditions. The
reinforcements with FRPs will be significantly improved and optimised through the
development of new application procedures, using new techniques with vacuum bags,
heating, pre-stressed fibres. New technologies on the reinforcement of e.g. confined
rectangular columns will be developed through a study on new systems and technologies
of reinforcement of these structures.
Through the development of guidelines on the FRP-reinforcements and design tool for
these reinforcements, the use of these kind of reinforcements will be accessible to a far
bigger number of Engineers.
Impact
The main outcome of this research will be the creation of guidelines on the FRP-
reinforcements and a design tool for these reinforcements. Through these to tools the
FRP-reinforcements can be used in far more structures than it is nowadays. These tools
are made possible first by the development of new application processes for FRP-
reinforcements (e.g. confined rectangular columns) and the optimisation of existing
processes (through the use of new techniques). Also the decrease of the uncertainties that
exist in the design and the application composites materials will contribute significantly to
the development of guidelines and design tool. Further the optimisation of the type
application process to obtain a better result according to the boundaries conditions
(temperature, moisture, vacuum, pollution...) will be an important part of the guidelines
and design tool.
Sub-task 2.2b.4.5: Durability and fatigue resistance of FRP

There are uncertainties about the durability and fatigue resistance of FRP retrofitting.
Objective 5.5 is to reduce these uncertainties by experimental evaluations. Tests will be
made on joints (of e.g. reinforced concrete pipelines) and structural elements (e.g. a
reinforced concrete pier of a bridge) to study the durability and fatigue resistance of FRP
retrofitting. Tests to determine the dynamics of the joints and elements in the linear
regime and tests up to failure will be performed. The elements and joints will be tested on
compression and bending.
State of the art

The reinforcement of FRP always is superficial because this application process is easier
then others. Because of this the reinforcement suffers the elements (wind, sun, rain, etc.)
and aggressive environments and probably has to be protected against them. To be sure
about the protection of the reinforcement, it is necessary to study the durability of the
materials used in them. With the knowledge about the durability, the engineer will be able
to design a suitable coating to protect the reinforcement. Nowadays inadequate coatings
which have been developed in other fields are used to protect the reinforcements.
The composite materials have a very good behaviour on fatigue, known examples are
their use in blades of wind turbines, aeroplanes, towers of wind turbines, etc. In the
reinforcement with composite materials however, it is very different because there are
two materials (the material of the structure to be reinforced and the FRP) and other
materials that have to be jointed together. The fatigue behaviour of the systems that are
created by joining these materials is unknown in the majority of the cases.
Advances
Through tests that will be done on the durability of reinforcements (and reinforced
elements) that are subject to different environmental conditions, fundamental knowledge
on the durability of the reinforcements will be gained. The tests will include one test on a
reinforced joint of a concrete pipeline and one test on a concrete pier of a bridge as
structural element.
With the gained knowledge on durability, requirements on fibres, application processes

and protective coatings can be formulated. Through fatigue tests on specimens which are
made by composites materials and concrete, the real behaviour of the joined specimens
(composite and concrete) will be known. A joint of a concrete pipeline and a concrete
pier of a bridge will be tested on bending and compression.
Impact
The main outcome of this research will be the fundamental knowledge on durability and
fatigue of FRP reinforcements, gained through real tests. With the gained knowledge on
durability, FRP reinforcements can be better designed on requirements of this aspect. A
better combination of fibres, application processes and protective coatings can be
formulated, so durability of the reinforcement will be improved. With the gained
knowledge on fatigue, the joints between composite materials and other material
(concrete) can be better designed. This also will be achieved through a better
combination of fibres and application processes.
Sub-task 2.2b.4.6: Examples of application of FRP retrofitting

The objective 5.6 is to provide practitioners examples of application of FRP in
retrofitting, so that they are better aware of the problems and their solutions. Case studies
of buildings, bridge and pipelines will present examples of application of the FRP's, their
use and performance, considering both the elements behavior and the global response of
the structure. NECSO will be in charge of bridge and pipelines applications whilst
ULIEGE in tackle application to buildings.
State of the art

Although it is known that FRP retrofitting is used in civil engineering, examples are very
often not registered as such. If registered, these examples are mostly used for internal use,
not making public the gained experience.
Advances
Case studies on the use of composites materials in the retrofitting of bridges and pipelines
will be performed, registered and be made public to practitioners. Hereby the knowledge
(e.g. advantages and disadvantages) on FRP retrofitting among practitioners and the
public will increase significantly.
Impact
The main outcome of this research will be two complete case studies on FRP retrofitting
of:
a concrete pipeline
a railway bridge
These studies will include an analysis of the structure to be reinforced, the causes of the
need to reinforce the structure, a number of solutions to reinforce the structure (among
which traditional solutions and FRP retrofitting) and a comparison between the solutions.
Task 2.2b.5: Protection of structures by base isolation

Sub-task 2.2b.5.1: Displacement-based design for base isolation of historical
structures
Seismic base isolation uses a flexible system implemented between the foundation and the
superstructure in order to increase the natural period of the structure and the damping
capacity. Objective 6.1. is the definition of a design methods and the conditions of
application of passive base isolation to historical structures. Analytical studies will be
made in order to adapt the methodology of displacement based design to base isolated
buildings, with special consideration to low ductility structures. Vulnerability functions
for base isolated structures will then be developed, based on an integrated solution
considering both the structure and the isolation system. Simple design rules and
guidelines will be established. IST.
State of the art

Objective 6.1 is about the application of base isolation to historical structures, meaning
here masonry structures with more than one century of age, like old towers, churches or
other monuments. Those are structures with structural systems essentially different from
the kind of structures that are used today. These structures are non-ductile structures and
most of them are not able to resist the level of earthquake that is proposed in the new
Portuguese code. For that reason they must be reinforced to guarantee a minimum
resistance level compatible with the new codes. Sometimes it is difficult to reach this
resistance level without major interventions that could interfere with the architecture of
the monument. In those cases, it is important to understand how far can the
rehabilitation be taken without interfering with the characteristics of the structure. For
that, it is important to evaluate the vulnerability function of the structure in order to
estimate the required safety associated to the level of intervention.
There is only a very restricted number of studies concerning the use of base isolation in
old masonry structures and they dont include the development of vulnerability functions
for the quantification of the probability of collapse.
Advances
In this research program is intended to study the seismic behaviour of 2 old masonry
towers and one church. For the analysis will be used 3D non-linear models. Is also
programmed the study of one of the towers with a computer program for the analysis of
block structures.
The models will be developed as fixed structures (without base isolation) to be calibrated
with the dynamic characteristics measured in the real structures. For each model will be
used the following methodology of analysis:
Definition of the dynamic characteristics of the real structure (modes of vibration and
frequencies) with a measurement campaign;
Calibration of the 3D model with the measured dynamic characteristics;
Analysis of the structure with increasing level of the seismic action to determine the
damage evolution in the structure.
Definition of a base isolation solution for the structure.
Analysis of the base isolated structure with increasing level of the seismic action for
the study of the damage evolution in the new situation.
For each structure will be tested several base isolation solutions. The analysis of the
evolution of the damage with the increase of the seismic action level will allow the
definition of the vulnerability functions for each case.
Impact
The use of base isolation to reduce the vulnerability of old masonry structures is still very
limited in number of applications and they do not include the development of
vulnerability functions for the quantification of the probability of collapse.
Thus, the user manual that will be delivered at the end of the research is needed to help
designers in applications of base isolation to old masonry structures and to quantify the
probability of collapse before and after intervention.
Sub-task 2.2b.5.2. Optimum Auto-Adaptive Base Isolation Systems

The use of base isolation systems raise problems related to the type of structure which is
isolated and to the type of response which is given by the isolators. Objective 6.2 is to
improve the response of isolators in order to protect at best the isolated structure.
State of the art

The trend now is toward large isolators incorporating viscous dampers, which reduce
base isolator displacements but can have the undesirable effect of increasing inter-storey
displacements and accelerations in the superstructure for high levels of damping. This is
against the primary goal of isolation systems: to protect the sensitive internal equipment
and non-structural elements.
Auto-adaptive control systems can be used as an alternative in seismic isolation; they do

not increase the response of the superstructure; they are based on controllable passive
control systems in which the adjustment of the mechanical properties (i.e., stiffness and
damping) and the corresponding dynamic characteristics of the structure can be achieved
with almost no external power, so that they are attractive for seismic applications.
One challenge is to develop implementable non-linear control algorithms for these

devices. Non-linear oscillations theory does not give solutions to most practical non-
linear control problems while classical optimal control theory has answered most of the
problems posed for linear systems with a quadratic cost functional.
Advances
In this study, causal implementable control algorithms will be developed for auto-
adaptive seismic isolation systems and compared to optimal controller derived from the
solution to the Euler-Lagrange equations when the structure is excited by different
earthquakes. Numerical solution to the two-point boundary value problem resulting from
optimal control theory is performed using a gradient approach in which the state and
costate equations are solved exactly based on the iterations made on the control function.
The evaluation of the exact optimal solutions is important for basically three reasons.
Firstly, the ideal best performance achievable by an intrinsically non-linear auto-adaptive
device can be obtained only by the exact optimal solution of the corresponding non-
linear structure. Secondly, the exact optimal solutions are evaluated in order to check the
real optimality of the proposed causal sub-optimal control schemes. Lastly, a careful
analysis of the optimal response and control trajectories may help to improve the
proposed algorithms or to develop better non-linear control rules.
Impact
Standard base isolation may be not applicable for sensitive historical structures. Adaptive
base isolation can then be the solution to achieve protection.
Task 2.2b.6 Improvement of structural response by means of energy dissipative

devices and connections
Sub-task 2.2b.6.1: Upgrading precast concrete structures by energy dissipative
devices
The objective of 7.2 is to study of the improvement of the seismic behaviour of
reinforced concrete precast structures using energy dissipation devices.
State of the art

The seismic behavior of precast framed reinforced concrete structures is highly
influenced by the connections among their linear elements which are weak and lead to
structural systems with low redundancy. At the same time, in the case of industrial halls,
the absence of intermediate columns increases the horizontal displacements during
earthquakes. Thus, the presence of weak joints, leading to flexible structures with low
damping and a limited capacity of energy dissipation require special seismic design
measures in high seismicity areas. Nevertheless the modern industry needs effective tools
to control the dynamic behaviour of big precast framed industrial structures, whose linear
elements are connected in nodes with low stiffness. The use of energy dissipation devices
in the new structural designs and in retrofitting existing precast structures allows the
appropriate control of the seismic vibrations and of the associated damage in this
structural typology.
The use of energy dissipation devices is an advanced technique for vibration control and
it has reached a great development in many countries but not in the field of precast
framed concrete structures. Energy dissipation devices absorb, reduce and localise the
damage produced by the dynamic loads, reducing thus the action on the structural
members. It operates in the same way as a fuse that protects the structure in case of an
overload and can be replaced after its damage during a strong earthquake. In spite of
these advantages, the incorporation of energy dissipating devices into prefabricated
structures has not been studied extensively. Therefore, this research aims to establish the
characteristics of energy dissipation devices able to improve the behaviour of framed
precast concrete structures in seismic areas.
Advances
A complete numerical study of the possibility of using energy dissipation systems in the
design of framed precast concrete structures will be performed. The most important and
innovative aspects of this study are:
The development of an energy dissipation device and the numerical characterisation
of its mechanical properties and of its dynamic behaviour. An analysis will be
performed to select the energy dissipation type; a mixed dissipation device is
envisaged, which combines two different mechanisms of energy dissipation: yielding
of metals and visco-elastic behaviour.
The seismic design of the framed precast concrete structures using energy dissipation
devices, overcoming the disadvantages of these structures of being too flexible and
with a limited capacity of energy dissipation.
The possibility of upgrading existing structures using energy dissipation devices is
another important aspect which will be studied.
It has to be pointed out that one of the innovative features of this research is the type of
mixed energy dissipation device which will be proposed, composed of metal (assuring
plastification) and elastomers (assuring viscoelastic behaviour). This device has to types of
dissipation mechanisms, being able to adapt to the level of structural vibration: for low
vibrations it has viscoelastic behaviour and for severe actions it plastifies, modifying
drastically the structural response. The energy dissipation device which will be proposed
will reduce the effects derived from the large lateral displacements of the structure and
will increase the total damping capacity of the structures.
Impact
The study will clarify the problem of using energy dissipation systems in the design of
framed precast concrete structures and will propose design solutions. The traditional way
to rehabilitate industrial halls to include earthquake resistant design requires major
structural changes and, sometimes, it can have an effect on the production process. The
use of energy dissipation systems, which drastically improves the seismic structural
behaviour, does not require modifications of the production process of the enterprise.
Once the proposed solution tested adequately in a future, it could be proposed its
inclusion in National and European codes. Another achievement of this study is the
development of fragility curves, for framed precast concrete structures with and without
energy dissipative devices. Such curves are largely used in safety assessment and in
seismic risk assessment problems.
Sub-task 2.2b.6.2: Upgrading of precast concrete structures by energy dissipative

connections
The objective 7.2 is to develop practical guidance for conceptual design of precast
concrete with dissipative connections.
State of the art

Precast concrete structures generally belong to 2 main categories which have different
behaviour and problems in earthquake condition:
structures made of precast wall panels and slabs, working as wall structures or as
boxes
structure made of linear elements, beams and columns, working as portal frames.
Structures made of precast walls and slabs have long interconnection lines along which
connection forces are distributed and, consequently, relatively low stresses. However due
to the small cross section of the interconnection difficulties of achieving the adequate
bond for ductile behaviour may arise.
Structures made of linear elements have concentrated connection zones, which are the
weak points in the structure. Furthermore, for this type of structure, the earthquake
effects applied to the structure may include relative rotation between different pilars at
the foundation level generating significant tension forces in beams and, if not well
accounted for, the falling down of those beams. This effect has been a commonly
observed effect of earthquakes on precast concrete structures, in particular on industrial
halls and bridges.
The research activity developed at ULiege will bear on precast concrete structures made
of linear elements and will aim at the definition of adequate connections between those
elements. Due to the nature of earthquake action, such connections work cyclically in the
plastic field and are thus energy dissipative elements. The principle to use such energy
dissipative connections is agreed by the 2003 version of Eurocode 8 - Seismic Design,
provided that -see Part 1, section 5.11.2.1.3 of Eurocode 8- local ductility criteria are
realised and demonstrated by tests.
Advances
In the present research, it is intended to make a complete feasibility study about the use
of such connections which can significantly increase the level of safety of precast
concrete structures. Such use raises 3 general problems, plus another problem in case of
upgrading an existing structure. The 3 general problems are:
the connections have to be designed such that they possess a correct deformation
capacity, adapted to the rotation required by the regional earthquake, without
significant loss of strength; this raises the problem of the lay out of the connection
the connection design strength must be adapted to the required capacity of the
structure; this raises the problem of the dimension of the connections ;
the distribution of connection strength through out the elevation of the structure
should be defined to maximise the plastic redistribution and, accordingly, the total
energy absorbed by the structure; this raises the problem of giving different size to the
connections over the height of the structure.
In addition to these standard problems, one additional problem for existing precast R.C.
structures, is the definition of dissipative connections which can be added to the
structures, meaning an effective design of the connection with respect to the properties
of the existing elements and a versatile way to attach from outside these connections to
the existing concrete elements.
The innovation in this work is the development of realistic design of energy dissipative
connections for precast concrete structure made of linear elements (beams, columns).
Though the concept exists and its application is allowed, the process of defining a set of
adequate and allowable design for such dissipative connections applied to precast
concrete structures is an innovation, either for new design or for upgrading existing
structures. Also the definition of the best design using such connections in multi storey
buildings is an innovation.
Impact
The deliverables of the work will be of different natures. A design recommendation will
be established, which will provide awareness of the problems and propose design
solution, with engineers explanations. Some standard connection design will be
established. Though some experimental tests would be needed to complement the
numerical tests developed in the research, it is considered that the proposed connections
will have been studied with enough detail to be proposed as standard design to be
included in the National Annexes to Eurocode 8, in a first stage, and in a prescriptive
Annex of Eurocode 8 at its 5 years revision in 2008.
The deliverables mentioned above will enable engineers to deal with problems of
upgrading reinforced concrete moment frame structures in general and those made of
precast elements in particular. As mentioned before, there are numerous post earthquake
survey examples of precast R.C. structures totally dismantled. This is a sad outcome, in
particular if one considers that implementing dissipative connections in such structures
can be a low cost operation which prevents casualties and interruption of economic
activity.
It is expected that once the research results are obtained which means once realistic
achievable design can be made on a justified basis the implementation of upgrading
solutions to existing precast structures will be promoted. In parallel, such design will be
substituted to typical existing solutions of brittle nature (eg single pin connection) in new
design as well.
Sub-task 2.2b.6.3: Upgrading of steel truss braces by energy dissipative

connections
For steel braces, different typologies of braces (X, V, inverted V's) will be considered and
the research will focus on the design of the structure, in terms of the optimum
distribution of strength of dissipative connections throughout the structure.
State of the art

Steel structures generally behave rather well under earthquake, but this is not a rule: for
instance, moment frames connections behaved badly during the Northridge 1994 and
Kobe 1995 earthquakes and this lead to a huge research effort on those connections.
Another type of steel structure which demonstrated problems in past earthquake are truss
braced frames. This results from different factors:
in structures designed for non seismic zones or following old design codes, the
overstrength design of connections and the ductility condition for sections in which
holes are drilled were not the rule ; the result has been connections or bar failures ;
more recent codes do impose overstrength design of connections ; however the

material overstrength of bars has in some cases been such that connection failures
were observed ;
recent design codes like Eurocode 8, EN1998-1, year 2003, do care about both
connections overstrength design and material overstrength. However, truss bracing
design remain a tricky activity because of the uncertainties related to buckling loads of
diagonals, all the more since these are different at the first buckling stage from what
they become in cyclic buckling. This problem is dealt with by considering in design
that only the tension diagonal is present and that it yields, this approach drawback is
that the design model ignores the real stiffness and strength of the structure, so that it
may be unsafe in the pre buckling state and is quite approximate in the post buckling
stage.
For all the cited reasons, it would be much more effective convenient to design and build
up truss braces using connections possessing a calibrated resistance which is less than the
buckling resistance and the nominal yielding resistance of the bars. In that way:
the control on buckling loads is achieved. There is no diagonal buckling;
brittle failure of connections is avoided since they are designed to behave plastically ;
no overloading of columns must be feared ; effective ductility of existing braces can
be achieved by substituting badly designed connections by calibrated dissipative
connections.
Advances
The practical implementation of energy dissipative connections in truss braced requires
that some conditions are fulfilled:
1) dissipative connections design must be developed. An on going research effort
initiated the ULIEGE (CECA Contract 7210 PR 316) has been used to develop
successfully such design. These might be patented in the context of the mentioned
contract.
2) Guidance for the conceptual design of truss braced structures using dissipative
connections must be developed.
This second step is the subject of the research activity to be developed. The objective is
to provide to the designers the ability to define the dimensions of some dedicated types
of dissipative connections, so that the connections possess the adequate strength,
stiffness and elongation capacity to meet the local ductility requirements corresponding to
the intended global plastic mechanism of the structure. The mentioned developments will
cover:
3 typologies of truss braced frames: X, V, inverted V;
typical existing design to upgrade;
new design, which will in fact be upgrades of present standard design for new
structure.
Impact
The developments on dissipative connections for truss bracings will classically contribute
to a more comprehensive Eurocode for its 5 years revision in 2008. It will have its most
striking impact by allowing a breakthrough of a European developed technology. Like in
the case of the "dogbone" or "Reduced Beam Section", another ULIEGE development
which has contributed to expand the market shares of the EU steel producer ARBED in
the U.S., it is intended to use the technological development made is CECA 7210-PR 316
contract and the design developments made in the present project to push up European
industry in worldwide projects.
The developments on dissipative connections for truss bracings will have another striking
impact in providing one well defined up grade solution for all steel structures, which
would happen to be underdesigned to present requirements, due to old standards or to
rise of regional seismicity level.
Task 2.2b.7: Development of a design methodology for underground structures in

soft soils
Objective 8 is to develop design and assessment methodologies applicable to large
reinforced concrete underground structures in soft soils. In that way, design criteria for
new structures will be established as well as methods of identification of weak points in
existing structures. This will allow the definition of the most adequate intervention
strategies for the vulnerability reduction of existing underground structures not designed
to withstand earthquake effects.
State of the art

Until very recently most underground structures were not design to withstand earthquake
effects. This derives essentially from two factors: the fact that underground structures
usually survive strong earthquakes, many times without damage, and the idea that
earthquakes impose almost rigid body movements to underground structures and
therefore internal forces are null or very small. However the idea that underground
structures are not sensitive to earthquakes was shaken by the collapse of the Dakai tube
station during Kobe earthquake.
Since underground structures are surrounded by soil, earthquake effects depend strongly
on the geotechnical environment. In very stiff soils, structures tend to move as rigid
bodies and earthquake effects are not relevant. However in soft soils, deformations may
be large and the structure may have to withstand large relative displacements, depending
on the relative soil-structure stiffness. In these situations the most common type of
analysis to evaluate earthquake effects on underground structures comprises a model that
includes both the structure and the surrounding soil. It is obvious that the behaviour of
the structure is very strongly conditioned by the surrounding soil.
This is a qualitative difference with structures above the ground like buildings and
bridges. Those structures are generally modelled considering their elastic properties, their
non-linear behaviour being considered by the division of the computed internal forces by
means of the respective behaviour factor q. In the analysis of these structures the soil is
often considered by its influence on the design response spectra and it is modelled by
means of springs. It is generally not necessary to simulate it explicitly as a volume, as it is
generally the case of underground structures.
Another difference is due to the fact that the most important modes of vibration of
underground systems (= structures + soil) may only depend slightly on the dynamic
characteristics of the structures, as the mass of soil is much larger than the mass of the
structure itself. This means that more precision is necessary in the characterisation of the
dynamic characteristics of the soil. That is why the stiffness and damping characteristics
of the soil are usually evaluated by means of a non-linear analysis considering the
expected amplitude of deformation of the soil under the design seismic action. Thus the
structural displacements and deformations are essentially impose by an external source
(the surrounding soil) and are not a function of a coefficient, as the q-factor, chosen by
the designer. Therefore a new design approach, that leads to better conception and
evaluation of the ductility demand on the structure is necessary.
However in practice, the methodology generally used in the seismic design of

underground structures is an extension of the methodology embodied in most codes of
practice (including EC8) for the design of buildings, bridges and other structures that
develop essentially above ground.
Advances
In the work,
it will be shown that the standard design methodology is inadequate for the seismic
design of large underground structures in soft soils and that it may lead to the
construction of unsafe structures
methodologies for the seismic design of large underground structures in soft soils and
for the assessment of such structures will be developed.
this will also allow the identification of weak points in existing structures and
therefore the definition of the most adequate intervention strategies for vulnerability
reduction of existing underground structures not designed to withstand earthquake
effects.
The work thus concerns essentially the problem of analysis of underground structure.
Reference is made to soil properties when necessary, in particular to define the problem
and its range of application as a function of soil and structure properties. In order to
achieve the proposed objectives it will be necessary to develop theoretical concepts and
to perform the analysis of several example structures. This will be done according to
current code methodology and according to the methodology to be developed. As a

starting point to these activities the IST team will take advantage of studies integrated in
the design of real underground structures in which members of the team have been
involved. It will also be necessary to develop a programme for the physical and
geometrical non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete plane frames under sets of forces
and/or imposed displacements fields. The program must also allow for any definition of
material properties in order to account for the effects of strain hardening of steel and
confinement of concrete.
Impact
This research should show to the scientific community and the European authorities the
need and the advantages of creating a part of EC8 specifically dedicated to the seismic
design of underground structures. It is hoped that the deliverables of this project can be
used as a background documents for the development of such a part of EC8.
As there are limits to the ductility that is possible to provide to a structure there are also
limits to the deformations it may withstand. If these limits are below the ones imposed by
the seismic action, the design of safe underground structures may imply the need for soil
treatment to reduce the deformations imposed on the structure. Since there are usually
strong restrictions to this type of work in urban areas, this practical information may be
important for the planning of urban underground networks.
Sub-Project 2.3a Displacement-based design methodologies

Sub-Project 2.3a is divided in two parts. The first part is devoted to Displacement-Based
Design (DBD) of buildings, falls under Research Area 2 Urban Areas and includes
three Tasks. The second one refers to Displacement-Based Design (DBD) of bridges and
equipment in industrial facilities, falls under Research Area 3 Infrastructures and
includes 5 Tasks. The Sub-project is coordinated by UPAT, featuring also the
participation of CEA, DENCO, INPG, INSAL, JRC and UPAV, whose involvement in the
different tasks of the Sub-project is summarised in the Table given overleaf:
Displacement-Based Design of buildings (Tasks 2.3a.1 to 2.3a.3)

The concepts for displacement-based seismic design of new buildings have matured to
the point that their implementation in the intermediate term within codified seismic
design seems feasible. Certain gaps need to be filled, though, before such an
implementation. A major gap refers to the acceptance criteria in terms of deformations,
rather than in terms of forces. Moreover, there is the need for extension, elaboration and
calibration of the DBD methodologies to buildings irregular in plan, which need to be
analysed in 3D and their columns designed and detailed for strongly bi-directional
deformation demands. As a matter of fact, lack of symmetry and uniformity in the plan
layout of structural elements (plan irregularity) is quite common in the seismic regions
of Europe, even in new buildings.
UPAT CEA DENCO INPG INSAL JRC UPAV

Task 2.3a.1
Sub-Task 2.3a.1-1 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.1-2 9
Task 2.3a.2
Sub-Task 2.3a.2-1 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.2-2 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.2-3 9
Task 2.3a.3
Sub-Task 2.3a.3-1 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.3-2 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.3-2 9
Task 2.3a.4
Sub-Task 2.3a.4-1 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.4-2 9
Task 2.3a.5
Sub-Task 2.3a.5-1 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.5-2 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.5-3 9
Task 2.3a.6
Sub-Task 2.3a.6-1 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.6-2 9
Sub-Task 2.3a.6-3 9
Task 2.3a.7 9
Task 2.3a.8 9
Current seismic design codes for new buildings, including the prEN (2003) version of
Eurocode 8 do not treat the problem of irregularity and torsional response sufficiently.
The relevant clauses are based on elastic considerations of simple models or are totally
empirical. Moreover, some codes, especially the American ones (IBC, NEHRP 2000,
SEAOC Blue book), confuse the problem of torsional response of irregular structures by
assuming independence between strength and stiffness of structural elements and by
using member displacement ductility factors as the underlying criterion for member
design. A DBD approach can, in principle, take realistically into account the coupling
between member strength and stiffness (by using a yield deformation that depends on
dimensions of the member and not its strength) and places the emphasis on absolute
member deformations as the criterion. So, it is intrinsically better suited than forced-
based approaches to tackle the problem of torsion of irregular structures. The primary
question to be resolved, then, is the calculation of member inelastic displacement
demands in 3D in the presence of torsion, in the framework of DBD (meaning that such
calculation may have to take place before members are dimensioned and detailed,
rendering the use of nonlinear models difficult).
Nonlinear-static procedures of analysis (Pushover analysis methods) go hand-in-hand

with DBD, 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 the prEN (2003) version of Eurocode 8 as a means for
design of new buildings without recourse to a global behaviour factor, q. In such an
approach members will be dimensioned/checked on the basis of acceptance criteria in
terms of deformations. Nonetheless, elaboration of such criteria is left to 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 there 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 building has been fully
designed. It seems, therefore, that although Eurocode 8 has opened the door for the use
of nonlinear analysis, static or dynamic, for the direct seismic design of buildings, it has
failed so far to provide to designers the tools they need to use this option. The reason of
this failure is simply the lack of tools of this kind (member acceptance criteria in terms of
deformations, simple and validated nonlinear member models, etc.) widely accepted
within the international scientific and technical community.
DBD has to go beyond the methods that assume a single-degree-of-freedom

representation of the structure. Such an assumption results in a severe restriction of the
reliability of the estimated demands. At some risk of sacrificing simplicity, it is important
to obtain a good estimate of the local displacement demands within the structure and to
have an idea of how deformations are distributed. Therefore it is important to take
higher-mode effects into consideration and to account for the sequence of element
damage. Nonlinear static pushover analysis and nonlinear inelastic time history analysis
provides a more reliable basis for prediction of these demands.
Task 2.3a.1: Development of member acceptance and design criteria in terms of

deformations (including the effect of bi-directionality) at different
performance levels
There is a large amount of experimental information on the cyclic deformation capacity
of R/C members under (unidirectional) loading. This information will be utilised to
develop proposals for acceptable deformations at the different performance levels of
interest in seismic design of buildings (Operational/Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety,
Collapse Prevention), along with values of the associated safety elements (overall partial
safety factors on member deformation capacity), which are consistent with the
uncertainty (scatter) of deformation capacity and take into account the target reliability
level for that performance level.
Unlike the abundance of unidirectional cyclic test results, the available experimental
information on member deformation capacity under bi-directional seismic demands is
very limited. This information will be gathered and processed in conjunction with the
unidirectional data, in order to extend the deformation-based acceptance and design
criteria from the case of unidirectional to that of bi-directional loading. This task will be
organised in two subtasks:
Sub-task 2.3a.1-1: Proposals for acceptable deformations of RC members at

different performance levels and for overall partial safety factors
on member deformation capacity, under unidirectional loading
Use of existing large database of uni-axial cyclic test results on RC members, to develop
proposals for acceptable deformations at different performance levels
(Operational/Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, Collapse Prevention) and for overall
partial safety factors on member deformation capacity under uni-directional loading.
Sub-task 2.3a.1-2: Acceptable deformations of RC members at different

performance levels under bi-directional loading
Collection of experimental data on deformation capacity of RC members under biaxial
loading and use for development of acceptable deformations at different performance
levels in two directions.
Task 2.3a.2: Calculation of member inelastic deformation demands in buildings

irregular in plan within a DBD framework
Sub-task 2.3a.2-1: Comparison of results of nonlinear dynamic and linear analyses
- static or modal - for a representative sample of irregular in
plan buildings
The problem of torsional response due to irregularity of multi-storey reinforced concrete
buildings will be analytically/numerically treated for typical structural configurations of
the seismic-prone South of Europe. Non-linear dynamic analysis tools will be employed,
taking into account the coupling between member stiffness and strength interaction,
which is, in general, ignored today. The magnitude of absolute member deformations will
be employed as a response criterion, instead of the normally used local ductility factor.
Attention will focus on the question of applicability of the Equal Displacement rule at
the level of member deformations. (In those cases that this rule is applicable, member
deformations may be estimated without recourse to pushover analysis to establish the
correspondence between the global displacement demand t and local deformation
demands (plastic hinge or chord rotations). This will be achieved through extensive
comparisons of results of nonlinear dynamic and linear analyses - static or modal
(dynamic) - for a representative sample of irregular buildings.
Sub-task 2.3a.2-2: Simple rules for estimation of effective elastic stiffness of RC

members for use in linear analyses emulating nonlinear ones
This subtask aims at development of simple rules and procedures for the estimation of
the effective elastic stiffness of RC members (for use in a linear analysis emulating a
nonlinear one, as well as for the estimation of global displacement demands), before their
full dimensioning and detailing.
Sub-task 2.3a.2-3 Development of ductility-dependent equivalent damping

equations for DBD
An extensive parametric study, whereby hundreds of SDOF structures, with periods of
vibration ranging within commonly observed values (of equivalent structures) and
featuring different hysteretic response types, will be subjected to equally diverse input
motions, with the objective of deriving realistic ductility-dependent damping equations
for application in DBD of structures.
Task 2.3a.3: Advancement of nonlinear analysis, static (Pushover) or dynamic, as

a means for direct design of new buildings
The tendency in Eurocode 8 is for nonlinear analysis, static (Pushover) or dynamic, to
become the reference method for the direct design of new buildings. In the long run
nonlinear dynamic analysis, with its many advantages over static (Pushover) analysis, will
become the reference method for such direct design of new buildings, in the way that
linear dynamic (modal) analysis is currently in Eurocode 8 the reference method for
buildings over linear static analysis, and the nonlinear dynamic analysis is the reference
procedure for base-isolated buildings. The primary obstacle to such a development,
namely the lack of detailed specifications and guidelines for member (nonlinear) models,
will be removed in this part of the Sub-Project 2.3a work, through parametric non-linear
analyses.
Sub-task 2.3a.3-1: Comparison of experimental results to those of nonlinear

analyses with various modelling approaches and degrees of
sophistication. Main model parameters affecting reliability of
predictions of nonlinear analysis for member deformations
This Subtask will include comparative evaluation/validation of models of various levels
of sophistication, using cyclic test results of members, subassemblies, or full structures (at
full- or reduced scale) as the benchmark. In order to represent realistically the structural
behaviour under multiaxial and cyclic loading conditions, in-house developed constitutive
modelling of varying degree of sophistication will be used. 2-D and 3-D representations
of the structural behaviour, as well as different theory approaches (plasticity, coupling
between damage and plasticity theory) will be investigated. Comparisons between
numerical and experimental results will be carried out, to provide a set of design tools,
which will enable the fine-tuning of member response characteristics in accordance with
displacement-based design philosophy. The main model parameters affecting the
reliability of the predictions of nonlinear analysis for local (member) deformations will be
identified (at first sight the primary ones seem to be the effective elastic member stiffness
up to yielding and the member deformation capacity, to be quantified under Sub-tasks
2.3a.1-1, 2.3a.1-2 and 2.3.a.2-2, followed by member strength and energy dissipation
through hysteresis).
Sub-task 2.3a.3-2: Advancement of simplified modelling strategies for 3D

phenomena and/or boundaries conditions for base-isolated
buildings or specific soil-structure interactions
Engineering tools will be developed, based on simplified finite element techniques, for
3D representation of the structural behaviour, such as multi-fibre beam elements
including pertinent material models (damage and plastic theories), with attention to the
description of specific boundary conditions (for based isolated buildings or related to soil-
structures interaction). Dynamic analysis results will be compared with available
experimental results and used to calibrate static analysis techniques (pushover),
particularly for irregular in plan buildings. Interaction is planned with Sub-tasks 2.3a.2-1
and 2.3a.2-2.
Sub-task 2.3a.3-3: Development and verification of displacement-based adaptive

pushover methods for irregular buildings
Whilst current conventional (i.e. non-adaptive) pushover methods seem to constitute a
reasonably reliable analytical tool for design verification of regular buildings, the same
certainly does not hold when the object of design are irregular structures, both in plan
and elevation. For such cases, the employment of nonlinear dynamic analysis is a valid
alternative, albeit at a cost of increased modelling and computational effort, not always
justified for ordinary applications. Hence, it results opportune to verify the feasibility of
developing displacement-based adaptive pushover methods, which are capable of
adjusting the horizontal load vector, comprised by a set of displacement, or better storey
drift, values in a way that is fully congruent to the vibration characteristics of the irregular
buildings at any given deformation level.
Displacement-Based Design of Bridges and other Infrastructures (Tasks 2.3a.4 to

2.3a.8)
Task 2.3a.4: Secant-to-yield stiffness and ultimate deformations of piers

(including prestressed ones), as controlled by flexure and/or shear
In non-isolated bridges, seismic energy dissipation takes place in the piers. As the cross-
sectional shape of piers is commonly circular or hollow, instead of the rectangular or
square one of building columns, the abundant test results on the cyclic behaviour of
columns with rectangular or square section cannot be directly used to for the
development of rules for the seismic design of bridge piers. Moreover, in the absence of
multiple tie legs, the seismic behaviour of circular or hollow piers, especially of squat
ones, may be affected more often, or even controlled, by shear. It is noteworthy that
cyclic test results on piers are limited and relatively recent (especially on piers with large
cross section, for which the effect of shear may be important). Therefore, the
international scientific community of Earthquake Engineering has not profited from

them sufficiently yet. It is noteworthy that the quantitative expressions adopted for some
of these pier properties by current codes for the seismic design of bridges (including
EC8-Part 2, as well as the 1999 Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria), have been based on
limited early data and do not seem to be in agreement with the majority of recent test
results.
Part of this Task will be devoted to post-tensioned piers. Conventional wisdom in seismic
design of bridges is against prestressing piers that are expected to develop plastic hinging.
Recent tests in Japan have demonstrated the beneficial effect of prestress on the cyclic
behavior of piers. Ultimate deformation increases and residual displacements decrease
with prestressing. As a result prestressing of bridge piers have received considerable
attention in the April 2002 Japanese code drafts for seismic design of prestressed
concrete structures. It is, therefore, worthwhile reconsidering the present European
attitude against prestressed bridge piers.
Sub-task 2.3a.4-1: Tools for estimation of secant-to-yield stiffness, of ultimate

deformation and of shear force capacity of RC piers (including
prestressed ones), on the basis of test results
The available test results on circular or hollow piers will be collected and utilised to
develop relatively simple, yet reliable and accurate engineering models for properties of
piers for use in DBD, namely: a) the characteristic deformations e.g. chord rotation,
curvature, etc. at yielding, and therefore for the effective stiffness of the pier; b) the pier
shear strength, as this is affected by the magnitude of inelastic cyclic deformations; and c)
the ultimate value of the pier characteristic deformations chord rotations, curvatures,
etc.
Sub-task 2.3a.4-2: Simplified models/procedures for estimation of secant-to-

yielding stiffness, equivalent damping, ultimate deformations
and shear capacity of bridge piers on the basis of the results of
numerical analysis calibrated against tests
Analytical models will be first calibrated against results of tests performed on bridge piers
at the ELSA laboratory and in other laboratories in the world, and parametric analysis will
be performed varying the parameters that govern the main structural properties of the
section. They will be used then to evaluate expressions for computing the effective
stiffness and the corresponding strength and energy dissipated at yield at a global level in
terms of the requirements of the DBD methodologies. The parameters that will be
studied comprise axial load and steel reinforcement ratios. The effect of post-tensioning
on the deformation capacity and residual deformation of piers will also be studied. The
reliability of the expressions to be developed in the framework of response spectrum
analysis will be validated against nonlinear time history analysis for a set of spectrum-
compatible earthquake events. The influence of the flexibility of the foundation on the
displacement response of bridge structures will also be studied and a methodology will be
proposed to account for it in the framework of DBD methodologies for bridges.
Task 2.3a.5: Development and elaboration of DBD methodologies for bridges

The 1999 Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), which embraced DBD as the basis for
the design of new bridges, opted for the Equal Displacement rule (appropriately
modified for short periods) and a 5%-damped elastic displacement spectrum for the
estimation of global displacement demands. Pushover analysis is used then, to check that
plastic hinge rotation capacity is not exceeded anywhere in the system. Member
displacement ductility demands at the global displacement demands are limited to values
between 4 or 5. The main problem with the Caltrans 1999 SDC is that design has been
turned into a sequence of trial-and-error evaluations via Pushover analysis, which is
neither standardized yet, nor familiar to the average designer. This will be achieved
through extensive comparisons of results of nonlinear dynamic and linear analyses for a
representative sample of bridge configurations.
Sub-task 2.3a.5-1: Procedures for estimation of pier inelastic deformation

demands, developed through nonlinear analyses (static or
dynamic) of typical bridges
A set of of typical bridge configurations will be selected, designed on the basis of
conventional linear analysis employing the q-factor approach, and extensive nonlinear
analyses will be used (static-pushover and time-history dynamic), for the development of
simple procedures of estimation of pier inelastic deformation demands.
Sub-task 2.3a.5-2: Procedures for design of bridge piers for the non-collapse
performance level directly on the basis of displacement and
deformation demands, without undue iterations between
analysis and verifications
The development of simple procedures will be pursued for the estimation of pier inelastic
deformation demands (chord or plastic hinge rotations), through linear analysis, static or
modal (dynamic), extending therefore the applicability of the Equal Displacement
rule to the level of member deformations, without recourse to pushover analysis for the
correspondence between the global displacement demand the local deformation demands
(plastic hinge or chord rotations). On the basis of this, the development of procedures
will be pursued, to facilitate direct design of piers on the basis of displacements and
deformations, without an unduly large number of iterations between analysis and member
verifications.
Sub-task 2.3a.5-3: Evaluation of iterative DBD procedures for bridges

Iterative DBD procedures for the design of bridges, based on secant-to-peak equivalent
stiffness and damping, will be evaluated and compared with non-iterative procedures. For
the purposes of this subtask, a set of typical bridge configurations will be defined,
including regular and irregular configurations, and multi-span continuous and simply
supported deck.
Task 2.3a.6: Effect on the design of uncertainties regarding displacement capacity

of isolators and the associated overstrength
Design of bridges with base isolation is still force-based. Despite progress seen in the late
90s on methodological aspects of DBD of base-isolated bridges, full implementation of
DBD approaches to such bridges requires resolution of few practical, yet important,
issues:
The influence of uncertainties regarding the displacement capacity of isolators and the
overstrength associated with it, on the design of the isolated bridge.
The displacement re-centering) capability of seismic isolation systems.
Regarding the first issue, which will be investigated in this Task, it is noted that isolator
units normally fail by exceedance of their displacement capacity. In comparison to other
earthquake-resistant structural elements designed to present seismic codes, isolators are
considered to have substantially lower overstrength margins. This lower overstrength is
counterbalanced by the requirement of the codes for enhanced reliability for the design of
the isolators (for bridges in the order of 150%). However isolators have (or may be
designed to have) a certain degree of overstrength beyond their design displacement
capacity, which depends on the failure mode of each kind of isolator. Namely:
Shear stiffness of elastomeric bearings may increase rapidly, until ultimate failure by
loss of stability or rollout is reached.
Sliding devices may exhibit a steep increase in stiffness, due to the resistance of an
outer ring, followed by increased friction and ultimate loss of support.
Elastoplastic devices exhibit various possible behaviour paths beyond their design
displacement capacity.
Sub-task 2.3a.6-1: 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
Isolator types common in current bridge design practice will be selected, and the
possibilities and effects of exceedance of their conventional displacement capacity will be
investigated. Experience and opinions of manufacturers and experience from the field
behaviour of isolators beyond their displacement capacity will be taken into account. The
definition of displacement capacity of these isolators will be evaluated. Means will be
sought for accounting in the design of the bridge system for the effects of uncertainties in
the behaviour of isolators, once they exceed their design displacement capacity. The
possibility of benefiting from the overstrength of each isolator type close to its
displacement capacity will be investigated.
Sub-task 2.3a.6-2: Proposals for redefinition of displacement capacity of common

isolator types and for construction measures to enhance seismic
behaviour of the bridge at large displacements
Where a new definition of the capacity displacement of the isolators appears feasible on
the basis of Subtask 2.3a.6-1, the effect of its application will be investigated through
parametric analysis of appropriate typical bridges, defined in terms of characterising
parameters (e.g. bridge type, radius of curvature, in plan regularity, relative stiffness and
strength of piers and deck, aspect ratio of the deck, etc.). Construction measures that may
enhance the behaviour of the isolators beyond their design displacement capacity will be
investigated and proposed.
Sub-task 2.3a.6-3: Effects of axial force variation in the seismic response of

bridges isolated with friction pendulum systems
An extensive parametric study aiming at assessing the effect that axial force variation (due
to either vertical seismic action or deck-pier response interaction) has on the behaviour of
Friction Pendulum Isolating Systems will be carried out, since it is expected that the
effectiveness and reliability of this recently favoured isolating system may be significantly
affected, and jeopardised, by this factor.
Task 2.3a.7: Displacement re-centering capacity of bridge isolation systems

The displacement re-centering capacity of seismic isolation systems and the relevant
acceptance criteria, are a strongly debated question. Both the AASHTO Guide
Specifications for seismic isolators and the 1994 version of Eurocode 8 have (similar)
requirements for a minimum restoring capability of isolation systems for bridges. EC8
Part2 stipulates that re-centering capability is ensured when the isolation system produces
a restoring force such that its increase between 50% and 100% of the design
displacement demand is at least 2.5% of the total gravity load. AASHTO Guide
Specifications require in addition, that the seismic isolation system should be able to
produce a restoring force such that the period corresponding to its tangent stiffness
based on the restoring force alone at any displacement up to the design displacement is
less than 6 sec.
For buildings the IBC (International Building Code) and NEHRP 2000 have the same
requirement as Eurocode 8 for bridges, but exempt from the requirement to produce a
restoring force those isolations system which are capable of remaining stable under full
vertical load while accommodating a specified value of the total maximum displacement.
All these requirements aim mainly at controlling residual displacements that may be
induced by non-symmetric seismic input (especially for near-fault seismic actions), in
combination with deviation from horizontality of the sliding bearings, due to placement
inaccuracies or tilting of supports. The cumulative effects of a sequence of seismic events,
typically following the main earthquake, are also an important factor. Nonetheless, there
is no published theoretical or experimental justification of these code requirements.
The evaluation of code requirements for the displacement re-centering capacity of seismic
isolation systems will be carried out through parametric nonlinear dynamic analyses for
the isolation systems commonly used in Europe. The nonlinear dynamic analyses will be
performed for seismic actions which include or not near-fault effects as well as follow-up
seismic events (aftershocks) From this evaluation, proposals will be developed for code
revisions, with the aim of relaxing current code requirements where these are found to be
over-conservative, or make them more stringent where they do not provide sufficient
safety.
Task 2.3a.8: Development of displacement-based tools for seismic design of

equipment (piping, tanks, pumps, storage racks, etc.) in industrial
facilities
Current seismic design codes do not include satisfactory rules for the seismic design of
equipment (piping, tanks, pumps, storage racks, etc.) in industrial facilities. The rules for
the seismic design of non-structural appendages in buildings are normally applied for this
purpose. Even in the most modern of these codes (2003 version of Past 1 of Eurocode 8,
IBC2000 or NEHRP 2000 in the USA, etc.), the rules for the seismic design of
appendages in buildings have an ill-defined semi-empirical origin. They are based on field
measurements of peak floor accelerations in buildings, which show that these
accelerations may reach three or four times the ground acceleration and do not consider
reduction of floor accelerations due to nonlinearity in the supporting structure. To fill this
gap, theoretically-based, yet simple, rules will be sought and developed for the
construction of displacement floor spectra in industrial facilities, as a function of
elevation in the supporting structure. Floor spectra to be developed will take into account
nonlinearity in the equipment itself and/or in the supporting structure.
Sub-Project 2.3b Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications

Development of methods for seismic fragility analysis of structures has been recently
gaining ground as a primordial field of activity when assessing risk associated to exposed
building stock and infrastructures. This comes as a recognition of the fact that all
components of demand and supply are permeated by significant, though different and
generally unknown, levels of uncertainty. An appropriate treatment of uncertainties and
the evaluation and enhancement of the ensuing level of confidence is thus necessary in
the context of risk assessment exercises.
In this Sub-Project, the present need for further research in the field of probabilistic risk
assessment of structures is addressed, through a number of highly focused research tasks.
The activity is subdivided into four Tasks. The first three tasks concern individual
components of larger infrastructural systems of a urban industrial region. The fourth
Task aims at a synthesis of the previous results finalised at a risk analysis of the whole
region, taking into account the interactions among the components in each infrastructure.
The Sub-Project is coordinated by UROMA, featuring also the participation of FEUP,

UBRIS, ULJ, UNAP, UPM and USUR, whose involvement in the different tasks of the
Sub-project is summarised in the following Table:
UROMA FEUP UBRIS ULJ UNAP UPM USUR

Task 2.3b.1 9 9 9 9 9 9
Task 2.3b.2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Task 2.3b.3 9 9 9
Task 2.3b.4 9 9 9
Task 2.3b.1: Development of methods for the determination of structure-specific

fragility curves
The methods developed will account for uncertainty in seismic motion, mechanical
parameters, capacity models, and for multiple correlated modes of failure. The activities
will focus on further development of the state-of-the-art methodologies such as the
Response surface method (RSM), the SAC-FEMA method and the Effective fragility
analysis method (EFA) with the objectives of (i) introducing additional theoretical
features, as for example the capability to treat complex component arrangements (other
than series systems), (ii) better defining their respective optimal fields of application
through extensive use for different types of structures (ranging from building structures
with largely different functions and specific characteristics such as hospitals, schools,
residential buildings, to components of road and railway networks, i.e. bridges,
embankments, etc.), (iii) simplifying them to the maximum possible extent so as to make
them practically affordable for a large number of operators.
The participants involved in this task are UROMA, USUR, ULJ, UNAP, UPM and
FEUP. All the partners have a past record of involvement in the subject though with
differences in the approaches and the applications. It is the purpose of the Task to foster
exchange and achieve a synthesis allowing an harmonised theoretical framework for
probabilistic risk assessment to be established.
Task 2.3b.2: Application of the probabilistic methods to real structures

(buildings, bridges) to assess their validity and practicability
The main objective is that of assessing how current methodologies fare when applied to
real structures. In particular, the effect of the presence of infill panels in RC frames needs
to be adequately incorporated in current probabilistic assessment methodologies for
existing building structures. The feasibility of the assessment methods, especially when
applied to such real type of structures, needs also to be adequately verified. The
participants involved in this task are UROMA, USUR, ULJ, UNAP, UPM, FEUP and
UBRIS. A set of benchmark structures will be set up to test and compare the different
fragility and risk assessment methods that constitute the product of Task 2.3b.1, as a
means to achieve the harmonisation that is the goal of the former task.
Task 2.3b.3: Validation of current codified deterministic procedures for seismic

safety assessment
The probabilistic methods developed and verified through the activities of the current
Sub-Project will then employed in a validation exercise of the deterministic procedures
currently presently specified in European regulations (Eurocode 8). The participants
involved in this task are UROMA, ULJ and UNAP. They are all involved already in
providing support for the preparation of norms for the seismic assessment of existing
structures. Similarly to Task 2.3b.2, a set of common existing structures will be used for
the testing and calibration of the deterministic procedures versus the higher-level
probabilistic methods developed and applied in Tasks 2.3b.1 and 2.3b.2.
Task 2.3b.4: Development of methods for seismic risk analysis of infrastructures

of regional extension
The goal of this Task is the development of an integrated framework for assessing the
seismic risk on major infrastructures. There is a currently a real need for the earthquake
engineering community to develop and integrated framework for performance based
engineering which can readily be used by industry to minimise the seismic risk on large
infrastructures such as dams, bridges, water supply systems etc. Previous work carried out
for the probabilistic assessment of hazard on large infrastructures will be expanded and
improved upon. The participants involved in this task are UROMA, UBRIS and UNAP.
In particular a well-established risk assessment methodology developed by UBRIS for
other, non seismic, types of hazards will be extended for use in seismic regions and
applied with reference to water-supply systems. The activity of UROMA will focus on
transport infrastructures while that of UNAP on the complex interactions occurring in
large industrial facilities and on the relevant consequences of failure.
Sub-Project 2.4a Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling

for urban areas
The aim of this Sub-Project is to create a tool, based on state-of-the-art loss modelling
software, to provide strong, quantified statements about the benefits and costs of a range
of possible mitigation actions, to support decision-making by city and regional authorities
for seismic risk mitigation strategies; and beyond this, to contribute to a seismic risk
mitigation policy for future implementation at European level. Examples of the questions
to which answers are required to support such decision-making are:
What are the benefits of improving standards of building control for new buildings?
How many human casualties can be expected given alternative scenario earthquakes,
and what types of injuries can be expected and how reduced?
What are the costs and benefits of strengthening existing buildings by a range of
alternative techniques, both at an individual building level and through urban-scale
programmes?
What are the benefits of requiring standards of earthquake-resistance above the level
specified in the existing code: what requirements would be optimal?
How far would future seismic risk be affected by removal of vulnerable populations
form high-risk locations and building complexes, and redeveloping them at a higher
standard?
What are the benefits of restricting future development in zones of ground motion
amplification?
These aims will be accomplished by building on existing methods and GIS-based

software for urban loss estimation and applying the software in a three urban case study
areas - Istanbul, Lisbon and Thessaloniki - in regions of moderate and high seismic risk;
involving their city authorities in identifying likely mitigation actions for consideration;
and presenting and reviewing quantified assessment of the implications of the alternative
mitigation strategies considered.
The Sub-Project is coordinated by UCAM, featuring also the participation of AUTH,

INGV, KOERI, LNEC, MUNICHRE and USUR, whose involvement in the different
tasks of the Sub-project is summarised in the following Table:
UCAM AUTH INGV KOERI LNEC MUNICHRE USUR

Task 2.4a.1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Task 2.4a.2 9 9
Task 2.4a.3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Task 2.4a.4 9 9
Task 2.4a.5 9 9
Task 2.4a.6 9
Task 2.4a.7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Task 2.4a.8 9 9 9 9
Task 2.4a.1: Selection of case study locations and evaluation/mitigation options

The three case study cities selected, Istanbul, Lisbon and Thessaloniki, have differing
levels of seismicity, but in each:
some earthquake history, seismotectonic and subsoil data are available
there is a wide and representative range of building types and uses
some building inventory data is available
the urban authorities are actively developing mitigation plans
A list of possible mitigation actions for each city to be evaluated will be drawn up in
conjunction with the city authorities in each case. Four different types of action will be
considered:
Modification of existing buildings, using standard techniques and some innovative
techniques developed in Sub-Project 2.2b
Demolition and redevelopment in high-risk zones

Enhanced building control and construction standards in all future construction
Restriction of future development in high-risk zones
Enhancement of emergency treatment facilities
Each mitigation action will be defined as a specific programme in a particular location

within the city. Thus defining the mitigation action defines the task of building inventory
and vulnerability assessment as well as the earthquake scenario definition.
Task 2.4a.2: Develop scenario earthquakes

For each case study location, ground motion scenarios will be developed, based on a
most-probable 50-year and 500-year event defined by location, magnitude and other
parameters. The nature of the definition of the scenario will depend on the location and
the requirements of the loss-modelling methodology to be used. For instance in Lisbon a
finite-fault seismological model will be used to simulate bedrock ground-motion input, to
allow a more realistic simulation of a large magnitude earthquake like that of 1755.
To allow for local site effects, microzonation studies will be performed to characterize the
local site amplification. Where available, effects will be correlated with damage observed
during moderate to large magnitude earthquakes. Where appropriate scenarios will be
developed from combined theoretical analysis combined with available ground motion
recording, allowing for the influence of topography and basin effects
Task 2.4a.3: Develop building inventories

To provide the bulk of the inventory data needed use will be made of building stock data
already available for the case study locations. Building classifications will be made
according to the definitions to be proposed in the work of Sub-Project 2.1. Building
inventories will include the range building uses residential, commercial and industrial-
appropriate to the case study locations. Innovative techniques based on sample surveys
will be developed for providing more detailed data for structural assessment than is
available from basic inventories.
Task 2.4a.4: Develop vulnerability data

A range of building performance data will be needed to be consistent with the loss-
modelling software to be used, including capacity curves, fragility curves in terms of
spectral values of ground motion. Development of this data has been the subject of
previous EU-funded projects (Risk-UE, SEISMOCARE); further development of
vulnerability data will be part of the work of this project (Sub-Project 2.3) and use will be
made of this data with adaptations where needed for the specific building types found.
LNECLoss will implement a displacement-based approach using an equivalent non-linear

stochastic methodology to estimate building response; the newly developed algorithms
will enable modelling of aspects of building behaviour such as time-dependent strength

degrading, often ignored in conventional seismic risk analysis.
Task 2.4a.5: Adapt and develop loss modelling software

Loss modelling will be carried out using one of two existing GIS-based software packages
which have been developed for this kind of urban analysis, KOERIloss, and LNECloss;
each will be developed in specific ways to make it suitable for the specific outcomes
envisaged in this project; on at least one of the test sites, both packages will be used to
study the consistency of output, and as a measure of uncertainty. A range of model runs
will be used for each earthquake scenario, to examine the sensitivity of the results to the
key inputs.
KOERILoss is an existing software tool which has been developed to generate an

estimate of the losses under probabilistic earthquake hazard or exposure to a scenario
earthquake. Innovations in KOERIloss in Sub-Project 2.4a will consist of its extension to
the range of earthquake scenario definitions appropriate to the case study areas chosen,
its application to estimate expected casualties and financial losses associated with building
collapse, and the introduction of a range of new vulnerability data developed in Task
2.4a.4.
LNECloss is a GIS-based seismic loss estimate methodology currently under

development; it uses a high-level programming environment, composed of several
modules to perform seismic risk analysis and compiled in DLL. The work to be
performed in Sub-Project 2.4a is innovative in several important respects:
Bedrock Seismic Input - Given a seismic scenario (magnitude and focus location) it will
compute the Power Spectral Density Function (PSDF) of the strong ground motions
at bedrock level of any site at a given epicentral distance. It can use either empirical
relations or seismological models for computing the spectral characteristics of those
motions.
Local Soil Effects - Given a stratified soil profile it will compute the new PSDF for any
location at the surface level, taking into account the nonlinear behaviour of the
stratified geotechnical site conditions.
Vulnerability Analysis - Given the PSDF at surface level, it will compute the response of
building typologies following a displacement-based methodology based on the
capacities curves. Maximum displacements and drifts will be computed using non-
linear non-stationary random Gaussian analyses.
Fragility Analysis - For a particular site, taking into account damage observed in each
typology, the number of existing buildings in each typology (inventory) and respective
occupancy, it will compute number of building in each damage state (fragility analysis).
Human Losses - Taking into account damages in each typology and the occupancy per
typology it will compute human casualties and homeless.
Economic Losses - For the number of building in each damage state and human casualties
it will perform a cost analysis.
Task 2.4a.6: Examination of uncertainty

A review will be made of the available methods for introducing uncertainties into
decision support tools and software; these will be linked to the separate steps in the loss
analysis, with emphasis on:
Input uncertainties in seismic scenarios
Modelling and response uncertainties in capacity (from Sub-Project 2.3b)
Uncertainty in inventory data
Uncertainty in casualty and economic consequences evaluation
Both statistical and probabilistic approaches will be used and combined.
Task 2.4a.7: Definition and evaluation of mitigation actions, and dissemination

For each of the mitigation options selected in Task 2.4a.1, the costs and other disbenefits
associated will be approximately assessed; details of changed inventories, vulnerabilities
and ground-shaking scenarios will be developed for the modified future city, and revised
loss estimates for building damage, casualties and economic losses will be calculated using
the loss estimation software, thus leading to a measure of the costs and benefits and other
consequences of each specific mitigation action.
Based on these outcomes, a set of quantified statements about the benefits of each
possible mitigation action, and its expected costs, will be developed for each city. Each
will be presented with an assessment of the uncertainty involved.
Task 2.4a.8: Dissemination

These conclusions will be presented to the city authorities and related professionals in a
workshop in each city, and responses will be recorded. Training will be provided for the
city authorities and chosen professionals in use of the software for further studies. Model
proposals for developing promising options will be provided to assist the authorities in
developing these actions further.
Sub-Project 2.4b Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling

for infrastructures
The goal of this Sub-Project is to create a set of tools, based on state-of-the-art modelling
software for earthquake loss scenarios, capable of:
a) Efficiently generating maps that quantify strong earthquake ground shaking at
urban/regional scale, suitable for lifeline systems (not including road and
transportation systems, covered in a different WP), as well as earthquake-induced
permanent ground deformations (landsliding, liquefaction)
b) Constructing in a GIS environment earthquake-induced damage and loss scenarios for
selected lifeline systems, providing a basis for estimating indirect costs and
incorporating uncertainties involved in the analysis
c) Identifying and testing possible mitigation actions, to support decision-making by city

and regional authorities for seismic risk mitigation actions
d) Performing GIS-based post-earthquake operational analysis, e. g. updating of ground
shaking and expected damage maps as real time data flow in
The previous tools are to be applied and tested in two/three case study areas in regions
of moderate and high seismic risk. Examples of the questions to which answers are
required to support such decision-making are:
What are the benefits of improving standards of safety for lifeline systems, such as gas
distribution networks, whose failure may have high detrimental effects on the
immediate post-event emergency?
What are the benefits of restricting future urban development in particular zones of
higher than average expected ground motion, or prone to significant, earthquake-
induced permanent ground deformations?
Can significant benefits be expected through implementation of real-time, post-
earthquake operational analysis?
The application of project results to reference cities in which significant experience and
data have already been collected in previous projects is expected to calibrate the answers
to the previous questions.
The Sub-project is coordinated by SGI-MI, featuring also the participation of AUTH,

INGV, KOERI and MUNICHRE, whose involvement in the different tasks of the Sub-
project is summarised in the following Table:
SGI-MI INGV KOERI MUNICHRE AUTH

Task 2.4b.1 9 9 9
Task 2.4b.2 9 9 9
Task 2.4b.3 9 9
Task 2.4b.4 9 9 9
Task 2.4b.1: Earthquake shaking scenarios

Unlike for above-ground structures, earthquake-generated inertia forces are not the main
cause of damage to underground structures such as tunnels or pipelines. Rather, damage
is closely related to ground motion. Therefore, loss modelling for underground
infrastructures requires the use of predictive tools to map at urban/regional scale the
most relevant ground motion parameters related to damage of lifelines. For this purpose,
the seismic ground response can be roughly subdivided into two broad classes:
so-called induced deformation effects, such as ground failure due to fault ruptures,
slope instability, liquefaction;
ground shaking, associated to dynamic longitudinal or shear strains in the structure.
Given the spatial extension of the area covered by a lifeline network, the objective of this
task is to calibrate simple methods for predicting the areal variation of both types of
earthquake ground response, to be implemented in a GIS environment. Thus, the main
steps of this task are outlined as follows:
Ground failure
identification of areas of potential soil instability and/or fault rupture
use of existing relationships relating permanent ground deformation (PGD) to
magnitude and distance
close connection with Sub-projects 1.3 and 1.4 to quantify PGDs due to earthquake
induced landsliding
production of hazard maps in terms of PGDs.
Ground shaking
development of a hybrid deterministic/stochastic approach to predict ground shaking
from known earthquake sources in a wide frequency range
experimental and numerical analysis of effects of soil heterogeneity on the spatial
variability of ground motion, with emphasis on parameters such as peak ground
velocity and displacement, maximum axial and shear strains, duration, that closely
control the seismic response of lifeline systems
development of empirical formulas, based on the previous results, relating peak ground
strains to a few parameters representative of subsoil conditions (e.g. soil stiffness, local
slope of the bedrock, depth of the bedrock, lateral impedance) and peak ground
velocity or displacement; the subsoil configuration parameters may be estimated also
by combining different geophysical methods such as refraction and gravimetric surveys
generation of hazard maps in terms of peak ground deformations
application to few selected urban areas (e.g. Catania, Thessaloniki, Istanbul)
Task 2.4b.2: Improved vulnerability functions

A comprehensive compilation will be undertaken on lifeline damage in past European
earthquakes and on the derived vulnerability functions (if any) for estimating both the
physical damage and the time required to restore damaged facilities. Such compilations
should preferably go beyond correlations with intensities. This will require the
consideration of available instrumental data and simulation of ground motion
distributions in favourable circumstances. As an example, for power transmission and
telecommunication systems, almost all the fragility curves are intensity based and
empirical. A compilation of past earthquake damage data on these nodes needs also to be
compared with worldwide data.
Calibration of improved vulnerability functions for lifeline systems will be carried out for
the previous two classes of ground motion, i.e. under permanent or transient ground
deformations. As regards the case of permanent ground deformations, extensive use will
be made of the results of the ongoing European project QUAKER (Fault-Rupture and
Strong Shaking Effects on the Safety of Composite Foundations and Pipeline Systems),
under the Energy, Environmental and Sustainable Development research programme,
of which the co-ordinator of this Sub-project is a partner.
As for transient ground deformations, the following steps are envisaged:

selection of a few (max. 3) well-specified typical pipeline configurations, taken from
the inventory of the previously indicated city case histories
execution of a set of push-over analyses on the previous structures, aimed at the
correlation of earthquake input parameters defined in Task 1 with calculated damage
levels corresponding to well-defined limit states.
execution of well-defined and compatible non-linear dynamic analyses, aimed at the
correlation of earthquake input parameters (particularly inclusive of spatial variability
of ground motion) defined in Task 1 with damage level.
investigation of the influence of the dynamic soil-structure interaction.
derivation of vulnerability functions that are improved in two ways, i. e.:
(i) because the identification of earthquake scenarios is more refined since the yielding
of the pipeline lining or joint is evaluated taking additional account of the
combined effects of (a) local soil conditions, (b) spatial variability/loss of
coherence functions and (c) soil-structure interaction effects.
(ii) the vulnerability functions are not expressed in terms of intensities but of specific
ground motion.
Task 2.4b.3: Calibration of loss models

KOERILoss, a user-friendly software operating through Geo-cells systems, developed by
the Earthquake Engineering Department of Bogazici University, Kandilli Observatory
and Earthquake Research Institute for application to building populations, will be
extended to lifeline systems. The software is capable of estimating losses either under
probabilistic earthquake hazard or under a "scenario earthquake". The basic steps of the
procedure are:
1) Select the region to be studied.
2) Create Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard or specify the scenario earthquake with
potential fault breaks.
3) Collect/compile information for delineating local soil conditions.
4) Collect/compile information of inventory of lifelines.
5) Compute earthquake hazard information in the form of site-specific ground motion.
6) Using vulnerability data embedded in the software (or externally provided) assess
damage to different classes of lifelines and nodes.
KOERILoss will be integrated with the results of the previous tasks, specifically at steps
(5) and (6).
Task 2.4b.4: Post earthquake operational analysis

By combining the information contents of damage scenarios and the GIS capability, a
powerful tool can be easily made available for supporting real time decisions in the post-
event phase. Indeed, damage scenarios represent a virtual framework for identifying
vulnerable portions of lifeline systems and potential damage areas, as well as for planning
emergency response, and testing restoration strategies for system recovery.
By exploiting the GIS ability to process real time information, the previous two goals of
damage scenarios could be strengthened and fast comparisons, implementations and
modifications of initially proposed scenarios could also be performed.
The availability of the dense (100 free-field stations) urban array I-NET (Istanbul
Earthquake Rapid Response and Early Warning System) in the Istanbul urban area
suggests to study the feasibility of developing an early-warning system for the most risky
lifeline networks, on the example of an already existing Japanese network for hazard
monitoring and fast control on the gas distribution system. I-NET is capable of
automatically generating ground motion and damage distribution maps to be
communicated to end-users and SAR agencies.
The sub-project 2.4b activity on this topic could benefit from integration and exchanges
with the Joint Research Activity (JRA7) of the proposed NERIES network, if the project
will be approved in the future, because of the common participation of some partners
(DPC and KOERI) and the common aims of the studies. A form of co-operation
between the two research activities could be envisaged because, on one hand, both are
supposed to collect data on the elements at risk, to organise the data through useful
database architectures, and to provide methods that can be easily shared (within the EC
community). On the other hand, since NERIES aims at producing a tool for quick
assessment and common methods for loss estimation, it could benefit from the use of
new methods and innovative techniques to be developed by the engineering research
within the LESSLOSS IP, as a deepest level of investigation.
2.2 DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES

In LESSLOSS, demonstration actions, which consist of application of LESSLOSS RTD
developments into real case studies, are carried out within the activities framework of a
given number of RTD Sub-Projects, rather than standing up as independents self-
coordinated Project Components. Two premises lead to such decision; (i) optimise
project resources by avoiding the creation of yet another set of Sub-Projects and (ii)
facilitate the full and effective interaction between RTD deliverables and demonstration
activities.
Taking the above into account, it results obvious that the demonstration actions have in
fact been described already, in Section 2.1, where the whole program of activities of the
respective RTD Sub-Projects within which each of these demonstration components fits
in. Herein, a digest of the latter is given.
Pilot landslide inventory map of the Central Italian Alps

Within the scope of the activities of Sub-Project 1.1, a pilot landslide inventory map of
the Central Italian Alps will be produced starting from historical data and aerial photos.
This geodatabase will allow also the preparation of landslide hazard maps, for some
demonstration area (300-600 km2) by applying multivariate statistical techniques. This
activity will be carried out by UNIMIB with full cooperation and interaction with local
competent activities.
In-situ assessment and monitoring of the Europabrcke Austrian steel bridge

Within the scope of the activities of Sub-Project 2.1, in-situ estimation of the seismic
response characteristics of the renowned Europabrcke bridge will be carried out, with
changes due to environmental changes being also monitored. The results of such in-situ
assessment will then be used to estimate the seismic capacity of this important landmark
construction. This work is to be carried by ARS and VCE, in co-operation with a Third
Party, identified in Section A.3 who will bear the main effort and cost of the instrumental
and site operations. Full cooperation and interaction with local authorities will, evidently,
be in place.
Earthquake disaster scenario and loss estimation exercises for Istanbul, Lisbon
and Thessaloniki and Catania
Within the scope of the activities of Sub-Projects 2.4a and 2.4b, disaster scenario
predictions and loss estimation exercises will be carried out in four European cities;
Istanbul, Lisbon and Thessaloniki and Catania. These will address the possible effects of
realistic earthquake events in both the building stock and infrastructure facilities of these
important and large cities. Due to the holistic nature of the exercise, the work will
mobilise in full the relevant Sub-Project teams, described above. Furthermore, full
cooperation and interaction with related authorities, at both local and national levels,
forms also an integral and required part of this demonstration activities.
It is noted that a number of additional demonstration initiatives have been foreseen by

the Co-ordinators of a number of Sub-Projects, as described in Section 2.1, but have not
yet fully finalised their implementation, for which reason no mention is made, in the
current Section, to such cases.
2.3 TRAINING ACTIVITIES

Training activities will comprise two main lines of action; organisation of workshops and
production of training material, as described below.
Workshops
LESSLOSS will organize one major International Workshops addressing Stakeholders
and the relevant scientific/technical User Communities. This event is foreseen at the end
of the project and will constitute a major instrument for training, since it aims at
disseminating the up-to-date and effective guidelines and recommendations for mitigating
landslide and earthquake losses that will be the product of the LESSLOSS project. The
workshop will take place in Italy, and will be organised by JRC, who has vast experience
in organising such type of events with assured participation of relevant local, national and
international institutions and individual professionals.
In addition, a number of complementary and perhaps more locally-focused events are

envisaged to take place during the 2nd and 3rd year of the project. These consist of
dedicated workshops organised by Sub-Project coordinators, who will meet with specific
user groups (e.g. local professional associations, local city council members, etc.) with a
view to describe and provide training guidance to local professionals on the basis of the
results and activities of LESSLOSS. The workshops that have already been scheduled and
agreed upon are listed in the Table below, noting nonetheless that it is highly plausible
that further events will be scheduled as the project progresses.
Topic Country Date Partner

New technologies for landslide monitoring
Italy 3rd quarter of Year 3 UNIMIB
and warning systems
In-situ assessment, monitoring and
Austria 2nd quarter of Year 3 ARS
typification of buildings and infrastructure
Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Portugal, Turkey 1st, 2nd and 3rd
ULIEGE
Buildings and Infrastructures and Spain quarters of Year 3
Probabilistic risk assessment: new methods
Slovenia or Italy 2nd quarter of Year 2 UROMA
and applications to code-calibration
Earthquake disaster scenarios predictions
Portugal, Greece 1st, 2nd and 3rd
and loss modelling for urban areas: UCAM
and Turkey quarters of Year 3
application.
Production of Training Material

Within the scope of the Dissemination and Exploitation plans, described in Section 2.5
below, it is envisaged that material such as leaflets, multimedia CDs, web-based
applications, printed reports, and so on, will be produced. It is foreseen that a number of
these will be produced and edited with an aim of not only serving as a means of results
dissemination but also actually becoming valid and effective training and guidance tools,
to be used by relevant professionals. Perhaps the most elucidative example of which is

the LESSLOSS Report Series, which comprises the following titles.
Landslides: Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilization
European in-situ Assessment Manual for Existing Structures
Innovative Anti-Seismic Systems Users Manual
Guidelines for Seismic Upgrading of Buildings and Infrastructures
Guidelines for Displacement-based Design of Buildings and Bridges
Guidelines for the Application of Probabilistic Methods to Seismic Assessment of
Existing Structures
Disaster Scenarios Predictions and Loss Modelling for Urban Areas
Prediction of Ground Motion and Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems
in European Urban Environments
The production and distribution of these training/guidance technical reports has already
been planned and budgeted within the current project. As mentioned above, other
potentially effective initiatives, taking for instance advantage of the web-based
LESSLOSS facility that will be implemented within the scope of the Dissemination
activities (Section 2.2), will also be considered and activated as the project progresses.
2.4 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

2.4.1 General
The overall project coordination will be under the responsibility of a two-member
management consortium, with UPAV being responsible for scientific coordination whilst
ISMES takes the role of operations and administrative coordinator.
With regards to the operations and administrative coordination, the main tasks will be
overall direction of the project (planning of resources, control of results, control of
expenses), general partnership policies (ownership, confidentiality,
background/foreground compensations), project consortium agreement, arbitration
policies, interface with the management board of the partners, information exchange plan
and dissemination policies, discussion of obtained results and encountered problems,
control of the planning and deliverables, overall technical coordination and management
of the project, preparation of the plenary meetings and of the specialised technical
workshops, coordination of technical exchanges between partners and ensuring a good
information transfer on the project evolution to all its contributors.
With regards, instead, to the scientific coordination, the role of the coordinator will be
that of ensuring that the specific technical and scientific targets of the project will be duly
met. So as to ensure an optimised scientific management activity, a Sub-Projected
management structure, which coincides with the S&T organisation described earlier, has
been adopted, owing to the following:
coordination of sub-projects is more practical and effective
individual partners feel more self confident in their specific topic of excellence
the distribution of tasks and budget was certainly optimised
the deliverables will be better achieved
each sub-project could prepare a separate work-plan and time-schedule.
2.4.2 Key tasks

The main management tasks are:
Planning: The stages involved in the production of this project and which will have to
be reviewed according to the progress throughout the project life cycle involve setting
goals and objectives and establishing time and resource requirements, identifying major
tasks and agreeing a budget, building the project team and appointing key staff.
Schedulling: This will again be continuously reviewed according to progress achieved

and involves drawing up a detailed work program task by task, allocating appropriate
resources (people, equipment, materials etc.) and assigning time and cost budgets.
Activities need to be sequenced according to their inter-dependencies and availability of
resources. Re-scheduling will be likely throughout the project in order to respect goals.
Co-ordination and control: All project activities will have to be monitored in terms of
time, cost and quality against the project plans. A major part of the project management
activity will involve problem-solving by modifying plans. As tasks have been suitably
scheduled this will involve co-ordinating task progress. Whenever a part (task) of the
project wishes to do something differently the implications for the rest of the project
must be considered and negotiated.
Progress reporting: Periodic progress reports will be provided to the EU at intervals to

be agreed upon. These reports will be used first and for most to ensure monitoring of the
project. Sub-Project Leaders and Partners responsible for workpackages will contribute to
its production. The progress report will give workpackage and tasks planned (from
original project plan) start and finish dates against expected (changed expectancy) start
and finish dates. In case of delays explanations will be provided together with corrective
actions being taken or recommended. The same will be done for deliverables. Where the
partner responsible for a workpackage is unable to supply adequate corrective actions,
responsibility is past to the Sub-Project co-ordinator. The report will also compare
expected and actual resource usage and provide explanations on differences.
Reviewing and Assessment: A workpackage dedicated to review and assessment has

been deeply instilled within the project, through the allocation of specific evaluation and
checking duties to various management bodies:
each Sub-Project Leader, as described further below in Section 3 will review the
deliverables of its Sub-Project Team. This is a typically horizontal type of activity that
cuts across all vertically structured research-driven workpackages, and to which
appropriate resources have been allocated (0.2% of budget allocated to each of the
thirteen Sub-Project Leaders), amounting to a total of 2.6% of the total project
resources, additional to Project Management costs
the Advisory Committee, the Executive Committee and the Co-ordination Committee
will provide the final review and assessment function, as further described in Section 3.
2.5 PLAN FOR USING AND DISSEMINATING KNOWLEDGE

Dissemination is undoubtedly a duty of every partner of the consortium. However, in
order to fully guarantee the correct exploitation of results and dissemination of
knowledge beyond the project consortium, it is necessary for a centralised effort to be
implemented. In the LESSLOSS project, such dissemination and exploitation initiative
will be developed and applied within the framework of the EU-MEDIN initiative of the
EC, whereby the use of both traditional media (brochures, newsletters, advertisements,
presentations) and high-tech tools (Internet) is employed so as to warrant the
achievement of maximum coverage.
ALGO will be the responsible partner for the management of the central dissemination
activity of the project. The EU-MEDIN infrastructure that is set up in the context of the
respective initiative of the EC will be used for the dissemination of the project results.
The following objectives of dissemination and exploitation will be considered within
LESSLOSS project:
Ensure a European wide dissemination of the project outcomes to main target group
of civil protection decision-makers and other interested industrial or non-profit parties
Monitor relevant market evolutions and explore exploitation possibilities
Disseminate information about the project, its objectives, the approaches and results
Facilitate collaboration and information exchange between partners (internal
dissemination)
Promote, where applicable, the use of tools, technologies and applications resulting
from the project amongst the target groups: civil protection agencies, the academic and
research community, developers and industry
Create two-way communication channels with stakeholders, academic communities
and industry for disseminating the project deliverables and conclusions
Ensure that the products of the project live on in a commercial context, in the research
community and in the operational context
Enhance project visibility and create awareness within administrations throughout

European Union.
Prepare support products, including the documentation, in a form which could be
accepted by potential users, help in technology transfer, provide necessary advices and
support
Organise Liaison activities
Promote participation of project partners in standardization bodies
Share the technical results of the project with the scientific community interested to
the topics addressed by the project, in order to promote the research and receive useful
inputs from other scientists and International Communities
Improve the knowledge of LESSLOSS results in the industrial community as a basis to
create new opportunities for building quality products and services
Attract potential customers and generate expectation towards the project results, in
order to prepare its exploitation and
Identify additional potential application fields, customers and business opportunities
based on the reactions to the dissemination activity.
All the above objectives will be considered within the EU-MEDIN Knowledge
management platform, which will be developed and managed by ALGO and features the
following tasks:
2.5.1 The LESSLOSS Information Portal

The project web presence will be designed and implemented based on the EU-MEDIN
standardization for R&D project portals. The project website will be a responsibility of
ALGO and it will have a persistent URL. It will be set up during the first three month(s)
of the project, with more content added as the project develops. Such a portal will
provide LESSLOSS with the communication and dissemination infrastructure of a virtual
organization, as a European IP can be considered. This public web site will provide an
access point to information of the work of the project itself (including details of partners,
objectives, work areas, results, interim results and working papers, public deliverables,
etc.) and for related fields of work (links to other projects, services, collaborative efforts
etc., relevant to each part of the project).
The public web site will be one of the main channels for wider public information
dissemination and may contain some of the information also available on the partners'
site, subject to partners' agreement.
The portal will be designed and implemented according to the EU-MEDIN approach
and requirements. It will provide the following four sections: (i) Project Information, (ii)
Intranet, (iii) Data Repository and (iv) EU-MEDIN interface. A presentation of the
partnership presenting the background and the role of the partners will be provided in
the project information section. There will be also other specific areas for downloading
material available to the public (papers, brochures, demos etc), for publishing project
collaboration issues (call for proposals, tenders, job opportunities etc), a calendar with the
public activities of the project etc. The web server of LESSLOSS will provide this
infrastructure to other partners as well in order to host their data and applications (e.g.
Intranet and Document management centre, Training applications, Data Repository etc)
in the context of the project. An electronic newsletter (e-zine), periodically published
(monthly), will be also provided in this section of the portal. The e-zine will include
project news and results and will be sent automatically to all the subscribers of the
LESSLOSS portal every month.
ALGO will be the main partner in charge of the design, development and maintenance of
the LESSLOSS Information Portal.
2.5.2 Collection of metadata of research results

At the individual level of dissemination activity, it is considered that the partners of
LESSLOSS will present the output and results along the life of the project into national
and European scientific workshops and conferences. Publications will be submitted to
reviewed scientific journals magazines as well.
This task will be the main contribution of the academic organizations involved in
LESSLOSS to the project dissemination activity. Such partners have to provide the
material that they have presented to ALGO (responsible partner for the dissemination
work-package) as well as the required metadata in order to keep track of the project
results and the dissemination activity. For this reason the ALGO will perform a monthly
call for the submission of dissemination activity metadata. The metadata can be submitted
on-line through the EU-MEDIN infrastructure through an interface with the EU-
MEDIN Metadata service. The interface will form the way for submitting and publishing
metadata concerning LESSLOSS IP resources to the EU-MEDIN database. Alternatively
ALGO will collect such data provided by the consortium and will create the respective
metadata set supported by JRC. The data corresponding to these metadata will be stored
in the Data Repository of the project that will be organized and hosted by ALGO in the
server of the Project Information Portal.
Thus the collection of information (metadata) of ongoing internal developments, and

intermediate results and preparation of the respective metadata records to keep updated
the EU-MEDIN database with the project results is also foreseen within this task.
Through the EU-MEDIN metadata database the results of LESSLOSS will be accessible,
in an appropriate form for public use, by the various stakeholders in the natural disasters
sector. ALGO will be responsible for the maintenance of the database of metadata of the
project results and for the interfacing of these data with the EU-MEDIN database of
metadata.
2.5.3 The Data Repository of the project

The project is expected to create a large number of knowledge resources including
experimental datasets, codes and guidelines, software, prototypes, models and methods.
All this material should be packed organized and stored in an appropriate Data
Repository in the server of the project information portal. An upload/download
mechanism will be available to the project participants for searching this material. Access
to the data from outside the project will be provided through the EU-MEDIN search
engine. Such access will be limited according to the dissemination policy of the Executive
Committee. ALGO will be responsible for the design, development and maintenance of
the LESSLOSS Data Repository.
2.5.4 The EU-MEDIN Collaboration Framework

Within the LESSLOSS project, a development that will contribute to the EU-MEDIN
initiative is envisaged. This regards to the design and development of a web based R&D
Collaboration Framework. Such collaboration framework will be used to support on line
communication and interaction between partners as well as between the consortium and
other groups of stakeholders, the technical and administrative management of the project,
the decision-making procedures and the increase of the productivity of the working
groups. In case of IP projects, such as LESSLOSS, where the number of partners and the
geographic dispersion bring a lot of complexity, the collaboration framework will provide
the consortium with an efficient tool for interaction and synergy. The R&D Collaboration
Framework will provide LESSLOSS with web based conference facilities in order to
support Same-time/Different-Place, Different-Time/Different- Place collaboration.
The Collaboration Framework that will be developed will be tested in the context of
LESSLOSS and it will be available to support collaborative tasks of other IPs in the field
of Natural Hazards and Disasters. The envisaged framework will be developed using rich-
media conferencing solutions and collaboration technology tools. This technology can be
also used for organizing on line workshops and fora.
2.5.5 Dissemination material and means

The Dissemination and Use Plan (DUP), required by the EC, will be created by UPAV
and ISMES with the cooperation of all other contractors and in particular of DPC, JRC
and ALGO. In this document the strategies and resources that will be employed for the
dissemination of the knowledge that will be gained during the project work will be
described. Specification (to the extent that this can been foreseen at the beginning of the
project) of the LESSLOSS exploitation plan, for the consortium as a whole and for each
partner will be included. A draft of this plan will be prepared by the end of the first year
of the project (Draft Dissemination Plan). The plan will be updated and possibly refined,
during the final project stages (Exploitation Plan). The DUP will include references of
target groups, market opportunities etc.
Standardized printed dissemination material (brochures, newsletter etc) of high quality.

Within LESSLOSS the standardization of the type, format and content of brochures and
newsletter for Earthquakes and Seismic engineering R&D projects will be elaborated,
based on a proposal to be developed by ALGO.
A major objective of the project is to describe current best practice or usual practice in
each area investigated. Thus LESSLOSS intends to produce a series of Technical reports
addressed to specific Users Communities and Stakeholders, such as: Design/assessment
Guidelines and/or User Manuals addressing the technical communities (e.g.: designers,
building assessors), Pre-normative Documents addressing regulatory authorities and
standardization bodies, Mapping/Zonation of Hazards and/or Risks addressing
authorities and public administrations responsible for urban planning and risk mitigation.
The final number (average - one per Sub-Project) and titles will be available at month 12
(M12). The contents of the Reports should be provided at M18 and their production is
foreseen at M36. JRC will be responsible to coordinate the collection of these reports.
Documents created in the project will be made public according to the Dissemination
Policy defined in the Dissemination and Use Plan of LESSLOSS. Alternatively the
Executive Committee can decide concerning the availability and restrictions of the project
outcome.
Reporting on best practice means that the partners will undertake to write up (or where
appropriate encourage others to write up) areas of the technology which seem neglected
or that will be useful to this project or any other project working in this area. Examples
might include writing up the state of the art in the particular area worked in, or creating a
European Seismic Engineering Glossary or storing experimental data in relational
databases of the project repository. ALGO will be responsible to host the applications
that will be developed in the server of the projects portal. With respect to this activity,
the partners will undertake to publish all this information on the data repository of the
project with an assigned, persistent URL that will be used to access this material through
the EU-MEDIN metadata service.
Two multimedia CDs for the presentation of the project results are planned, at the mid
(18M) and final (36M) stage of the project duration. ALGO will be responsible for the
creation of the projects CD ROMs.
Two basic types of printed dissemination material will be produced according to the
defined EU-MEDIN standardization:
a) The project brochure. A brochure according to the EU-MEDIN standardization of

printed dissemination material will be produced. Such standardization shall provide a
consistent sample layout and content for all the IP projects related to Natural Hazards
and respective disasters. This approach will benefit the EC services to have consistent
information and uniform presentation of all the project of FP6 in progress. Three
brochures (start, middle and end of the project) are normally planned. Normally thousand
copies of each brochure are considered for production. ALGO will be in charge of the
design and production of the project brochures. The project can produce more brochures
with specific subject and with customized layout and content if this is considered
necessary by the Executive Committee
b) The project Newsletter. An annual publication of the project newsletter is considered

in order to present and make widely available information about the project progress and
in particular its results and achievements. The project dissemination team (ALGO,
ISMES, JRC, UPAV and DPC) will be responsible to collect information from the other
project partners, to produce and publish the Newsletter. Normally the project Newsletter
will be a high quality printed, coloured, 4-8 A4 pages leaflet. ALGO will be in charge of
producing the Newsletter. Before publishing, the content of the Newsletter must be
approved by the Executive Committee.
2.5.6 Dissemination activity

All partners will contribute throughout Europe to the dissemination information about
the project and its results at conferences and seminars. Example conferences include the
forthcoming 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Canada, 2004) and the
13th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (Switzerland, 2006). Policy-
making targeted dissemination during the European Science Weeks (exhibition in partner
countries) is also foreseen.
User Groups, initially based on the database of the EU-MEDIN stakeholders, will be set-
up. They will be expanded with the collaboration of the participants to the consortium,
both at the national and European level. All participants will undertake to provide a list of
potential users and stakeholders of the expected results of LESSLOSS.
Although the project portal, the contacts of all project participants and the presentation
of technical papers at scientific conferences will reach a large audience of potential users,
specific actions will be carried out to target two strategic user communities. The first
community is comprised of regulatory authorities and standardization bodies. The second
important community is comprised of all EU, National and local authorities concerned
with risk-based urban planning as well as those related with the implementation of
mitigation plans (such as large-scale strengthening projects). JRC-Ispra and all the other
contractors involved in European standardization bodies will address the first
community; the second one will be targeted by the Department of Civil Protection of
Italy with the support of ISMES. Note that DPC has periodic meetings (typically every
six months) with the Civil Protection Authorities of the other European Countries and
this provides the opportunity to disseminate project results as well as to collect lists of
potential users, to be added to the project mailing list or to be contacted for specific
promotion actions. DPC will also participate in the workshops to be organized in several
towns, such as Istanbul, Thessaloniki, Catania and Lisbon. This may provide
opportunities for dissemination meetings with local authorities in charge of mitigation
activities.
LESSLOSS will consider the possibility to make Sub-Project with other EC funded
project in the research areas addressed by the project Technical Annex. Sub-Project
activity includes exchange of project deliverables; participation to each other's plenary
meetings etc. More specifically this task is considered as follows:
a) Interaction and accounting of other national and international activities is envisaged

and planned within the framework of the LESSLOSS project. As described in Section 5,
the assembled consortium includes practically the vast majority, if not the entirety, of
leading academic and research institutions in the field of landslides and earthquake risk
mitigation. Naturally, such leading institutions have been involved, throughout the years,
in a large number of nationally funded or EC-supported projects (e.g.
ENVIRONMENT, PREC8, ICONS, SAFERR, ECOEST, ECOLEADER, and many
others), where they have played roles of coordinators or core participants. The knowledge
acquired in all those projects is to be fully incorporated in the LESSLOSS endeavour,
where exchange of results and information with currently running national EC projects is
also envisaged.
b) With regards to overseas research activities, formal agreements to cooperate, without

financial interest, within the scope of the research programme and activities of
LESSLOSS have already been achieved with a number of highly-reputed and
internationally recognised centres of excellence in the US, Japan and New Zealand; Mid-
America Earthquake Center, University of California at San Diego, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, University of Kyoto and University of Canterbury in New Zealand. The
significance of these cooperation agreements is laudable since it not only gives raise to the
opportunity for valuable exchange of technical information with research centres that are
at the forefront of research in the field, but also because they constitute the recognition
of (i) the competence and prestige, within an international perspective, of the participants
in the LESSLOSS project and (ii) the validity and contemporariness of its technical
programme.
2.5.7 Exploitation
LESSLOSS partners have the experience and the infrastructure to exploit software tools,
knowledge and information that will be developed or created along the projects life. A
joint marketing effort of the European Technology developed in the course of the
project will be coordinated by ISMES, which is the only industry organisation
experienced in all technical aspects covered by LESSLOSS project. By carrying out the
above Dissemination and Use Plan, important information and further contacts will be
gathered and it will be possible to develop a Final Exploitation Plan (FEP) that will
outline the actions to be carried out after project completion. Exploitation will take
advantage of the fact that tools, demonstrators and documents developed within the
project continue to exist beyond the life of the project. The projects Data Repository will
be used for this purpose and could even develop into a tool for e-sales, if so agreed with
the IPR owners of each product. Furthermore the Information Portal of the project will
be an important persistent and continuing resource for developers and commercial
implementers in the European Community and beyond. The relationship between
LESSLOSS and the EU-MEDIN initiative will also contribute to protract and increase
the visibility and accessibility of the project results.
The FEP will consider both public and proprietary results generated by LESSLOSS:
a) Public Results
The exploitation of results published in the technical literature or freely available from the
Data Repository is generally insured by the above planned dissemination activities. The
training and research material that will be produced within the context of LESSLOSS will
be available for use through the LESSLOSS site: it will be used for academic purposes by
many universities, including but not limited to those participating in the project. Results
will also influence all earthquake engineering activities, such as development of building
codes, consulting, testing and design.
Further actions may be needed to facilitate, accelerate or amplify practical use of project
results and will be identified and described in the FEP. Such actions may obviously
include further research, that was not carried out due to time and resource constraints.
Other important actions to be identified depend on entities other than the Contractors, as
for instance is the case of issuing a Building Code. In such case the FEP will provide
indications on the entities responsible for such actions and on the activities that the
Contractors plan to carry out to stimulate the implementation of such actions.
b) Proprietary Results
In this case the responsibility of industrial exploitation resides finally with the Contractor,
which owns the IPR. LESSLOSS activities however are very important to prepare and
facilitate the exploitation. The planned dissemination activities in particular determine a
visibility of all products that could not be achieved independently from the project. The
possibility of creating a joint LESSLOSS trademark should be investigated. Also the
transformation of the Data Repository into an e-sale tool is envisaged. The FEP will
therefore identify the product portfolio resulting from the project ant the corresponding
IPR owners. For each product a top level description of the user base will be developed
on the basis of the experience gained during demonstration, validation and dissemination
activities. The FEP will estimate size, extent and influence of the user base, nature of end-
user organizations, categorisation of their needs and identification of key user segment
profiles. Mailing lists and user groups developed for dissemination purposes will be used
to support active promotion to potential customers. Product specific commercial
agreements or service partnerships will be encouraged and possibly established during
special Exploitation Sessions to be organised in the course of the three project annual
meetings.
Finally, some project deliverables may be exploited in sectors other than earthquake or
landslide engineering. For instance the implementation of the web based R&D
Collaboration Framework, that will be developed and tested in the context of
LESSLOSS, is expected to greatly improve the interactivity among partners and Sub-
Project activities of other technical cooperation projects. Hopefully more IPs in the field
of Natural Hazards can use and exploit the capabilities that this framework will provide.
2.5.8 Gender Action Plan

In the assembled consortium, there are a large number of European Higher Education
institutions, an environment where, by tradition, equal opportunities, independently of
gender, have always been provided to researchers and scholars. It is thus the objective of
the LESSLOSS project to further stimulate the presence of women within its programme
of research activities, which feature no type of gender-biased characteristics.
2.5.9 Raising public participation and awareness

Within the scope of engaging with an audience that goes beyond the research community
(i.e. the public as whole, mass-media, governmental agencies, etc.), LESSLOSS will seek
to carry out additional dissemination activities, by employing the resources available in
the Commission for media and information activities, if these can be made available to
the project.
As an example, it is envisaged that a digital video product (+/- 20 min) describing

LESSLOSS activities and objectives, could be produced and freely distributed world-wide
to mass-media and public service agencies with a view to help spread awareness of the
general public to earthquake/landslide risk and to the efforts of European countries,
under the steering support of the European Commission, to mitigate such risk and thus
benefit the society. The video could also be distributed amongst Schools, at various
levels, to stimulate youth interest in research work and activities, with a view to tackle the
growing shortage of young researchers in this area.
Alternatively, or complementarily, such digital media tool could be produced in such a

way so as to place emphasis on the results achieved, methodologies developed and
partnerships employed within the project, and then distributed to a more specific, but still
non-specialised, target audience (scientific, industrial and commercial institutions), aiming
at promoting the exploitation of LESSLOSS research results.
Other activities, such as participation in the annual European Science Week, will be
planned and scheduled as information on the media/information resources made
available by the Commission to the project are know. It is also noted that, in carrying out
activities aimed at raising the participation and awareness of the wide public, the
Consortium will take advantage of the large experience gained by DPC on these type of
activities.
2.6 MAJOR MILESTONES OVER FULL PROJECT DURATION

An unequivocal and crystal-clear list of full-project RTD major milestones consists of the
LESSLOSS reports. Indeed, in the latter it will be possible to find not only the final
results of the project, but also clear description of the means and procedures required to
arrive at such results as well as guidelines for application. Hence, it can be stated that
there are eight major Milestones, listed below, all of which will take be achieved and
delivered in its full entirety at the end of the project, hence Month 36:
Guidelines for Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilising Landslide-Prone Slopes

European Manual for in-situ Assessment of Existing Structures
Users Manual of Innovative Anti-Seismic Systems
Guidelines for the Application of Probabilistic Methods to Seismic Assessment of
Existing Structures
Earthquake Disaster Scenarios Predictions and Loss Modelling for Urban Areas
Earthquake Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European Urban
Environments
The list of major milestones given above, can be further subdivided into a series of
operational milestones, that follows more closely the progress of the project, providing
also direct connection to the achievements and deliverables of each of the RTD Sub-
Projects, described in detail in Section 2.1, and which in turn feature themselves an
explicitly connection (see Section 2) to the overall objectives of LESSLOSS, defined in
Section 1.2.
Guidelines for Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilising Landslide-Prone

Slopes
- Month 12
Procedures for rainfall and displacement threshold definition
Collection of documented case histories
Survey of existing deterministic and probabilistic models
Survey of existing ground reinforcement techniques to prevent landslides
- Month 24
Calibration of advanced numerical modelling against well-documented cases of
landslides
Development and validation of proposed theoretical and experimental model(s)
Calculation model for evaluation of performance of stiff inclusions as slope
stabilisation measure
Engineering method(s) for computing sliding triggering and ensuing deformations
Validation of numerical estimation against existing well-documented recordings of
landslides
Completion of numerical simulations of the case histories using various modelling
techniques
- Month 36
Low cost high accuracy GPS station
LIDAR application for landslide hazard zonation
Application of models of landslide hazard zonation to focus regions in Europe

- Month 12
Typification of buildings and infrastructure at European level
- Month 24
Assessment of existing structures and models
Up-date of vulnerability estimates via monitoring and respective integration in a GIS
Environment
- Month 36
Layout for a European code on the in-situ assessment of earthquake resistance of
existing structures
Demonstration of assessment, i.e., application to a number of case studies

- Month 12
Manufacturing of new-concept circular and circular LSI prototypes
Manufacturing of SHS prototype
Manufacturing of full-scale FP prototype
- Month 24
Manufacturing of new-concept small size DECS prototype
Design, execution and reporting of the shaking table test for SHS devices
Design, execution and reporting of the shaking table test for LSI devices
Design, execution and reporting of the shaking table test for FP devices
- Month 36
Design, execution and reporting of the shaking table test for DEC devices

- Month 12
Definition of a set of case-study buildings and infrastructures
Simple guidelines for rapid screening of buildings
- Month 24
Analytical verification of FRP application to case-studies
Analytical verification of base-isolation application to case-studies
Analytical verification of energy dissipation devices application to case-studies
Analytical verification of construction-joint connecting devices application to case-
studies
Analytical verification of energy dissipative connections application to case studies
- Month 36
Pilot example of urban rehabilitation plan for a European city

- Month 12
Acceptable values and safety factors for uniaxial deformation of members
Effective stiffness of RC members for use in linear analyses emulating nonlinear
ones
Secant-to-yield stiffness, ultimate deformation and shear capacity of piers from test
results.
Definition of isolator design displacement capacity and of global effects of its
exceedance
- Month 24
Analysis of irregular in plan buildings, on the basis of comparisons of nonlinear and
linear analyses
Advancement of nonlinear analysis methods for the direct design of new buildings
Evaluation of iterative DBD procedures for bridges
- Month 36
Advancement of displacement-based procedures and nonlinear analysis for building
seismic design
Development of displacement-based procedures for the seismic design of bridges
Guidelines for Application of Probabilistic Methods to Seismic Assessment of

Existing Structures
- Month 12
Extension of N2 method to probabilistic assessment of 3D structures
Critical review and advancement of the probabilistic methods for seismic safety
assessment.
- Month 24
Extension of N2 method to probabilistic assessment of RC structures with infills
SoA of the probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment
Application of probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment to selected case

studies
Critical review and advancement of the methods for probabilistic seismic risk
assessment of road networks
assessment of water supply systems
assessment of industrial plants
- Month 36
Development of novel methods suitable for use in practice
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of a pilot road network
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of a pilot water supply system
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment of a pilot industrial plant
Guidelines for application of probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment of
buildings
Guidelines for application of probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment of
bridge
- Month 12
Selection of Case Study locations and loss estimation methodology to be used for
each
Completion of inventories, scenario earthquake definition and vulnerability data for
each city
- Month 24
Completion of first loss estimates with and without mitigation actions
- Month 36
Disaster scenario and loss estimation exercises for three European cities
Earthquake Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European

Urban Environments
- Month 12
Lifelines inventory of at least two reference cities
- Month 24
Technical report on the hybrid/stochastic numerical approach
Technical report on the non-linear analyses of selected pipeline configurations
User manual of KOERILoss software
- Month 36
GIS software for post-earthquake lifeline operational analysis
Calibration of improved vulnerability functions for lifeline systems
Lifeline damage maps for city case histories
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The proposed management structure, schematically and succinctly depicted in Fig. 5,

comprises three main decision-empowered committees (Co-ordination Committee,
Executive Committee and Contractors Assembly) linked together through the EU-
MEDIN web-based collaboration framework, which effectively constitutes the
connection tissue omnipresent on all aspects of the LESSLOSS project.
European
Commission
Project Output Access
Project
Monitoring
EU-MEDIN
Document
Exchange Scientific
Platform Co-ordinator
Project Data Management
Manager
Co-ordination Committee
Executive
Committee
Contractors Endorsement
requests
Assembly Project Steering
Major Decisions &

Approval
Advisory
Sub-Project Committee
Participant No. 1
No. 1
Technical
Focus
Participant
Team leaders
No. 2
Sub-Project Sub-Project
No. 2 Leaders
Participant
No. 3
Participant
No. 4
Sub-Project
No. 13
Project
Participant Communication
No. 46 Instrument
Fig. 5 LESSLOSS management structure

In the LESSLOSS Consortium Agreement, to which all participants to this project, or

Contractors, are bound to, the management and decision-making mechanisms featured in
this project are described in great detail, so as to meet the requirements of the legal-
administrative framework within which the project must obviously fit in. This
Consortium Agreement, therefore specifies the organisation of the work between the
Contractors, the management of the Project, the respective rights and obligations of the
Contractors, including, but not limited to their liability and indemnification, supplements
the provisions of the EC CONTRACT concerning Access Rights and sets out rights and
obligations of the Contractors supplementing but not conflicting with those of the EC
CONTRACT. In what follows, a summary of the most relevant aspects of such legal
document is given:
As mentioned above, a hierarchical management structure has been devised so as to

enable a successful project management and to secure the achievement of the results
envisaged by the project. This management structure is subdivided into three different
levels; (i) Strategic Level (Co-ordination Committee, Contractors Assembly), (ii)
Executive Level (Executive Committee) and (iii) Operational Level (Sub-Project Teams).
In addition, an Advisory Committee will support the Executive Committee in the long-
term focus of the Project.
3.1 STRATEGIC LEVEL

3.1.1 Co-ordination Committee
The Co-ordination Committee shall consist of the Scientific Co-ordinator and of the
Project Manager. The Scientific Co-ordinator is in effect the Co-ordinator of the overall
Project, thus responsible for all interaction with the Commission, ensuring that the
specific technical and scientific targets of the Project are duly met. The position of Co-
ordinator, or Scientific Co-ordinator, is entrusted to Participant No. 1 Universit degli
Studi di Pavia (UPAV) headed by Prof. Gian Michele Calvi.
Additional tasks under the direct responsibility of the Scientific Co-ordinator are (i)
administration and chairmanship of the Contractors Assembly and the Executive
Committee, (ii) managing contacts with national projects and connections with
international organisations and Other Integrated Projects or Networks of Excellence, (iii)
managing contacts with Codes and Standards Organisms involved in the subjects of the
Project. A specific Contractors Committee may be introduced to support the Scientific
Co-ordinator in such functions.
The second member of the Co-ordination Committee, the Project Manager, is the
responsible for the operation and administrative co-ordination of the overall Project, a
Project Management 123
role entrusted to Participant No. 2 ENEL.NewHydro Srl (ISMES) represented by Dr.

Alberto Peano. The main tasks of the Project Manager are:
- organisation of meetings of Contractors Assembly and Executive Committee;
- assistance of Contractors Assembly and Executive Committee in the overall follow-up
of their decisions;
- follow-up of the performances of the Sub-Projects and activities and deliverables to be
provided by the Contractors under the CONTRACT as well as information of any-non
performance;
- transmission of any documents and information of relevance for the overall
management of the Project to and between the Sub-Project Leaders and the
Contractors concerned;
- redistributing advanced payments and transferring sums allocated among the
Contractors as per the budget agreed in Contractors Assembly and according to the
required Bank guarantees;
- performing in due diligence its tasks in the proper administration of any funds and
maintaining financial accounts.
3.1.2 Contractors Assembly

The Contractors Assembly, or Assembly of LESSLOSS Participants, comprises one
representative of each Participant and will be in charge of the overall direction and major
decisions with regards to the Project, such as (i) deciding upon major changes in work,
particularly termination, creation, or reallocation of Sub-Projects, (ii) agreeing on actions
to be taken against possible under-performing Participants, (iii) agreeing on procedures
and policies for the management of the Knowledge, etc.
The Contractors Assembly will take place on a yearly basis, unless extraordinary
circumstances require otherwise, under the chairmanship of the Project Co-ordinator, and
might also feature the presence of representatives from the Commission, who will be
invited to attend such meetings.
3.2 EXECUTIVE LEVEL

3.2.1 Executive Committee
The Executive Committee shall consist of the Co-ordinator, the Project Manager, the
three Research Areas Supervisors and the Sub-Project Leaders, chaired by the Co-
ordinator. Two meetings a year are envisaged, although extraordinary circumstances may
raise the need for an alternative arrangement. The Executive Committee will be
effectively in charge of managing the Project, being as such responsible for:
- deciding on technical roadmaps for the Project
- supervising the project progress, reviewing and assessing all deliverables and initiate
corrective actions if needed
- co-ordinating the activities among the Sub-Projects, with the support of the Advisory
Committee
- supporting the Co-ordination Committee in preparing meetings with the Commission
and related data and deliverables.
- reviewing the Project Plan and deciding upon changes in Sub-Project leadership or in
Advisory Committee membership
- making proposal to the Contractors Assembly for the review and/or amendment of
Project Plan, if required
- making proposal to the Contractors Assembly to suspend all or part of the Project or to
terminate all or part of the CONTRACT, or to request the Commission to terminate
the participation of one or more Contractors
- reviewing and deciding in case of defaulting/under-performing Participants, and
preparing proposal to the Contractors Assembly with regard actions to be taken
3.2.2 Advisory Committee

The Advisory Committee plays the main role in coordinating the Review and Assessment
function. It also supports the Executive Committee and the Scientific Co-ordinator in the
long-term vision of the Project, in policy issues, harmonisation and standardisation issues
and research integration matters. The Advisory Committee is composed by three high
level experts with specific competence in one of the three main Research Areas of the
Project plus two external reviewers entrusted for it by the Commission.
In particular, the three experts will be the Supervisors of the three Areas of the Project
(environment, urban areas and infrastructures), respectively Prof. Kyriazis Pitilakis, Prof.
Polat Gulkan and Dr. Eduardo C. Carvalho. The Advisory Committee shall meet at least
twice a year in coincidence with the Executive Committee meetings, under the
chairmanship of the Project Co-ordinator.
3.3 OPERATIONAL LEVEL

3.3.1 Sub-Projects
As described in Section 2, in order to implement in an efficient and productive manner
the Project, its envisaged activities are split into Sub-Projects, considered as research
components interconnected among themselves to form an integrated and coherent
Project. These Sub-Projects are in essence co-ordinated projects, with independent Work
Plans, coordinated by a Sub-Project Leader, and grouped in three main expertise Areas;
environment, urban areas and infrastructures. In addition to the eleven research-driven
Sub-Projects, two other Sub-Projects have been created to deal explicitly with the
important aspects of Dissemination and Training.
In summary, the following Sub-Projects have been established:

- Sub-Project 1: Landslides monitoring and warning system
- Sub-Project 2: Landslides zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessment
- Sub-Project 3: Innovative approaches for landslides assessment
- Sub-Project 4: Landslide disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling
- Sub-Project 5: In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification
- Sub-Project 6: Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and
seismic isolators
- Sub-Project 7: Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction
- Sub-Project 8: Displacement-based design methodologies
- Sub-Project 9: Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications
- Sub-Project 10: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban
areas
- Sub-Project 11: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for
infrastructures
- Sub-Project 12: Dissemination
- Sub-Project 13: Training
3.3.2 Sub-Project Leaders

The Sub-Project Leader shall have the following functions:
- co-ordinating on a day-to-day basis the progress of the technical work under the Sub-
Project
- organisation and chairing the meetings of the Sub-Project Team and follow-up of its
decisions
- transmission of the Sub-Project deliverables to the Project Manager
- reviewing interim and final deliverables as well as portions thereof at each agreed step
under the Work Plan for the Sub-Project concerned and advise the Project Manager of
any delay in delivery or any major discrepancy
The Sub-Project Leaders within LESSLOSS are:

Sub-Project Leader 1 - Prof. G.B. Crosta from UNIMIB (Participant No. 41)
Sub-Project Leader 2 - Dr. A.M. Kaynia from NGI (Participant No. 28)
Sub-Project Leader 3 - Prof. A. Pecker from GDS (Participant No. 15)
Sub-Project Leader 4 - Dr. H. Modaressi from BRGM (Participant No. 7)
Sub-Project Leader 5 - Prof. R. Flesch from ARS (Participant No. 5)

Sub-Project Leader 6 - Dr. M. Forni from ENEA (Participant No. 13)
Sub-Project Leader 7 - Prof. A. Plumier from ULIEGE (Participant No. 37)
Sub-Project Leader 8 - Prof. M. Fardis from UPAT (Participant No. 42)
Sub-Project Leader 9 - Prof.P.Pinto from UROMA (Participant No. 44)
Sub-Project Leader 10 - Prof. R. Spence from UCAM (Participant No. 36)
Sub-Project Leader 11 - Prof. E. Faccioli from SGI-MI (Participant No. 32)
Sub-Project Leader 12 - Dr. G. Eftichidis from ALGO (Participant No. 4)
Sub-Project Leader 13 - Dr. A. Pinto from JRC (Participant No. 21)
3.3.3 Sub-Project Team

The Sub-Project Team shall consist of one representative of each Participant co-involved
in the activities of a given Sub-Project. The Sub-Project Leader shall chair all meetings of
the Sub-Project Team, which should be responsible for:
- reviewing the Work Plan of the Sub-Project at the end of each yearly period and
deciding upon the allocation of the Sub-Projects budget in accordance with the budget
allocation approved in the Contractors Assembly
- alerting the Executive Committee and the Project Manager in case of delay in the
performance of the Sub-Project or in case of default of any Participant in the Sub-
Project
- analysing and documenting default of a Participant and prepare a proposal for action
plan to the Executive Committee and for final endorsement of the Contractors
Assembly
- deciding upon the exchange of Work Packages between the Participants in the Sub-
Project, in the event that this exchange has an impact which does not go beyond the
scope of the Sub-Project and has no impact on the budget and Project Plan
3.4 WEB-BASED PROJECT COLLABORATION FRAMEWORK

As mentioned above, the whole management of such a complex project will be made
possible through the EU-MEDIN Collaboration Framework, that will be further
customised and developed so at to fit the specific management needs of the project. A
document management centre will be created where all the project documents will be
stored for internal use. The Intranet section will support controlled access of various
groups of partners (e.g. Co-ordination Committee, Sub-Project Teams and Leaders, EC
Services etc.) to particular information and material of the project. For instance only Co-
ordinators or EC officials will be granted access to the Cost statements files while all the
partners will have access to the project deliverables assigned with availability restricted to
PP (Project Partners), and so on.
This communication platform will also implement automatic electronic meeting

convocations or submission reminders, together with a online project Time Plan that will
be updated in real-time, as progress material/report info is fed in. A project Address
Book and respective mailing lists will be created and updated in order to provide ease and
efficient communication between the project actors (partners, working groups,
management and technical boards, etc.).
In addition, means of providing web-based conferencing framework to support on line

communication and interaction between partners as well as between the consortium and
other groups of stakeholders will also be implemented.
3.5 MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND IPR

The LESSLOSS Consortium Agreement features a number of clauses that explicitly
address issues of Intellectual Property Rights and Management of Knowledge within an
adequate legal-administrative framework that follows closely the guidelines set by the
Commission on the matter, with adaptations where necessary.
4. DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FIRST 18
MONTHS
4.1 INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND MILESTONES

In Section 2, the research structure of the LESSLOSS IP has been presented and
described, with its sub-projecting organisation being introduced and justified, and
demonstrating how the envisaged work plan will allow for the objectives of the project to
be achieved. Further, the minor risks that may create difficulties to the completion of the
project have been identified and contingency plans presented. Since all of the above are
duration-independent, the reader is referred to the aforementioned Section for details on
any of these matters.
With regards to milestones, reference is made to Section 2.6 above, where the milestones
for the entire duration of the project are given. Herein, an 18-month selection of the
latter is listed, following the format adopted, and justified, in Section 2.6. It is noted,
however, that a much more detailed list can be obtained in Section 4.6, where the
description of each Sub-Project is provided.
Guidelines for Mapping, Monitoring, Modelling and Stabilising Landslide-Prone

Slopes
- Month 12
Procedures for rainfall and displacement threshold definition
Collection of documented case histories
Survey of existing deterministic and probabilistic models
Survey of existing ground reinforcement techniques to prevent landslides
- Month 18
Calibration of advanced numerical modelling against well-documented cases of
landslides
Development and validation of proposed theoretical and experimental model(s)
Calculation model for evaluation of performance of stiff inclusions as slope
stabilisation measure

- Month 12
Typification of buildings and infrastructure at European level
- Month 18
Assessment of existing structures and models

- Month 12
Manufacturing of new-concept circular and circular LSI prototypes
Manufacturing of SHS prototype
Manufacturing of full-scale FP prototype
- Month 18
Design, execution and reporting of the shaking table test for SHS devices
Design, execution and reporting of the shaking table test for LSI devices

- Month 12
Definition of a set of case-study buildings and infrastructures
Simple guidelines for rapid screening of buildings
- Month 18
Analytical verification of energy dissipation devices application to case-studies
Analytical verification of construction-joint connecting devices application to case-
studies

- Month 12
Acceptable values and safety factors for uniaxial deformation of members
Effective stiffness of RC members for use in linear analyses emulating nonlinear
ones
Secant-to-yield stiffness, ultimate deformation and shear capacity of piers from test
results.
Definition of isolator design displacement capacity and of global effects of its
exceedance
- Month 18
Analysis of irregular in plan buildings, on the basis of comparisons of nonlinear and
linear analyses
Advancement of nonlinear analysis methods for the direct design of new buildings
Evaluation of iterative DBD procedures for bridges
Guidelines for Application of Probabilistic Methods to Seismic Assessment of

Existing Structures
- Month 12
Draft of State-of-the-art Report featuring theoretical approaches and trial
applications
Detailed implementation plan First 18 months 131
- Month 18
Extension of N2 method
Pilot infrastructure study
- Month 12
Selection of Case Study locations and loss estimation methodology to be used for
each
Completion of inventories, scenario earthquake definition and vulnerability data for
each city
- Month 18
Completion of first loss estimates with and without mitigation actions
Earthquake Loss Scenarios for Selected Infrastructure Systems in European

Urban Environments
- Month 12
Lifelines inventory of at least two reference cities
- Month 18
Technical report on the hybrid/stochastic numerical approach
Technical report on the non-linear analyses of selected pipeline configurations
4.2 PLANNING AND TIMETABLE

In what follows, a graphical representation of the work planning in each Sub-Project is
given. Although only the first 18 months needed to be considered, some Sub-Projects
feature already the schedule for the whole duration of the project, which can obviously
still be used to assess the half-project planning.
Sub-Project 1.1 Landslide monitoring and warning systems (18 months)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
1.1.1 In situ and remote monitoring techniques X X X X X X
1.1.2 GIS Geodatabases and analyses X X X X X X
1.1.3 Alert thresholds through GIS data analysis X X X X
Sub-Project 1.2: Landslide zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessment (18 months)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
1.2.1 Mapping inventory for landslide hazard X X X X X X
1.2.2 Probabilistic landslide hazard zonation techniques X X X X X X
1.2.3 Mitigation methods and policies X X
Sub-Project 1.3: New approaches for landslides assessment (18 months)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
1.3.1 Documentation of selected landslides X X
1.3.2 Constitutive relationships to predict landslide movements X X X X X X
1.3.3 Landslide mechanisms and triggering forces X X X X X
1.3.4 Deterministic tools to predict landslide displacements X X
1.3.5 Validation of developed constitutive relationships... X X
1.3.6 Evaluation of consequences of landslides
Sub-Project 1.4: Landslide disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling (18 months)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
1.4.1 Landslide risk assessment and disaster scenarios prediction X X X X X X
1.4.2 Unified global hazard and risk assessment for landslides... X X X X X X
1.4.3 Loss estimation models X X X X X
1.4.4 Early warning systems to calibrate loss models and evaluate losses X X
Sub-Project 2.1: In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification (36 months)

TASK 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Task 2.1.1: Rules, Guidelines and development of tools (R&D)

a) pre-earthquake assessment
D
b) structural inspection after earthquakes:
industrial structures D
c) permanent monitoring: feasibility studies
D
d) databases and GIS implementation
D
e) structural inspection after earthquake:
development of software D
Task 2.1.2: Assessment of existing structures and models (R&D)
a) buildings
D
b) concrete bridges
D D
c) steel bridge: Europabrcke
D
d) hospitals
D
e) test of ident. softw./ models damaged at LNEC
shaking table D
Task 2.1.3: Typification of buildings and infrastructure (R&D)
a) Typification
D
Task 2.1.4: Update of vulnerability estimates via monitoring (R&D)
a) level II vulnerability assessment
D
b) level III vulnerability assessment
D
Task 2.1.5: Layout of European assessment code (R&D)
a) layout
D
Task 2.1.6: Demonstration of assessment (Demonstration)
a) demonstration
D
Sub-Project 2.2a: Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and

seismic isolators (36 months)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Task 1: Development, manufacturing and
qualification of low stiffness isolators and electro-
inductive devices
1.1: Development, manufacturing and
qualification of LSIs
1.2: Optimisation, qualification and
industrialisation of DECS
Task 2: Performance assessment of SI systems based
on sliding isolators through a comprehensive
experimental investigation
2.1: Evaluation of benefits and limits of IS based
on SHS
2.2: Evaluation of claimed characteristics of IS
based on FP
Task 3: Implementation and validation of numerical
tools
3.1: Definition of the seismic input
3.2: Numerical models of LSIs
3.3: Numerical models of SHS
3.4: Numerical models of FP
3.5: Numerical models of DECS
Task 4: Shaking table tests
4.1: Design and manufacturing of the mock-up
4.2 Design, execution and reporting of tests on
LSI
SHS
FP
DECS
Task 5: User Manual
Sub-Project 2.2b: Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction (18 months)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Task 2.2b.1
Task 2.2b.2
Task 2.2b.3
Task 2.2b.4.1
Task 2.2b.4.2
Task 2.2b.4.3
Task 2.2b.5.1
Task 2.2b.5.2
Task 2.2b.5.3
Task 2.2b.5.4
Task 2.2b.5.5
Task 2.2b.5.6
Task 2.2b.6.1
Task 2.2b.6.2
Task 2.2b.7.1
Task 2.2b.7.2
Task 2.2b.7.3
Task 2.2b.8
Task 2.2b.9
Sub-Project 2.3a Displacement-based design methodologies (18 months)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Task 2.3a.1
Sub-Task 2.3a.1-1
Sub-Task 2.3a.1-2
Task 2.3a.2
Sub-Task 2.3a.2-1
Sub-Task 2.3a.2-2
Sub-Task 2.3a.2-3
Task 2.3a.3
Sub-Task 2.3a.3-1
Sub-Task 2.3a.3-2
Sub-Task 2.3a.3-3
Task 2.3a.4
Sub-Task 2.3a.4-1
Sub-Task 2.3a.4-2
Task 2.3a.5
Sub-Task 2.3a.5-1
Sub-Task 2.3a.5-2
Sub-Task 2.3a.5-3
Task 2.3a.6
Sub-Task 2.3a.6-1
Sub-Task 2.3a.6-2
Sub-Task 2.3a.6-3
Task 2.3a.7
Task 2.3a.8
Sub-Project 2.3b: Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications (18 months)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Task 2.3b.1
Task 2.3b.2
Task 2.3b.3
Task 2.3b.4
Sub-Project 2.4a: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for urban
areas (18 months)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Task 2.4a.1
Task 2.4a.2
Task 2.4a.3
Task 2.4a.4
Task 2.4a.5
Task 2.4a.6
Task 2.4a.7
Task 2.4a.8
Sub-Project 2.4b: Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for
infrastructures (18 months)
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Task 2.4b.1
Task 2.4b.2
Task 2.4b.3
Task 2.4b.4
4.3 GRAPHYCAL REPRESENTATION OF WORK PACKAGES

In what follows, a series of flowcharts depicting the structure and interdependencies
between and within the different LESSLOSS Sub-Projects is given.
Sub-Project 2.1
Sub-Project 1.1 In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification
warning system
Sub-Project 2.2a
dissipation devices and seismic isolators
Sub-Project 1.2
Landslide zonation,
Sub-Project 2.2b
hazard and vulnerability
assessment
Sub-Project 2.3a
Sub-Project 1.3
Innovative approaches
for landslide assessment
Sub-Project 2.3b
applications
Sub-Project 1.4
Disaster scenarios Sub-Project 2.4a Sub-Project 2.4b
predictions and loss Disaster scenarios Disaster scenarios
modelling for predictions and loss predictions and loss
landslides modelling for urban areas modelling for
. infrastructures
Fig. 6 Sub-Projects interrelationship
GIS- In situ and remote Alert thresholds

1.1.3
1.1.1
1.1.2
geodatabases monitoring through GIS data

and analysis techniques analysis
LIDAR for Low cost GPS Monitoring

1.1.1.3
1.1.1.1
1.1.1.2
topographic or stations for in shallow slope

bathymetric situ failures
mapping monitoring
Fig. 7 Sub-Project 1.1 - Landslides monitoring and warning system

Mitigation methods
1.2.3
and policies
Probabilistic
1.2.2
1.2.1
Mapping landslide Stability
1.2.3.1
inventory for hazard techniques to
landslide hazard zonation reduce
techniques uncertainties
Hazard zonation
Tool for pre-
1.2.3.2
1.4.1.2 disaster
Vulnerability planning and
assessment mitigation
policies
Fig. 8 Sub-Project 1.2 - Landslides zonation, hazard and vulnerability assessment
Documentation of Constitutive Landslide Deterministic

1.3.4
1.3.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
selected relationships to mechanisms and tools to predict

landslides predict landslide triggering forces landslide
movements displacements
Hydraulic-
1.3.3.1
triggered
Development
1.3.2.1
ground motion
and
mechanisms
improvement
of constitutive
Earthquake-
1.3.3.2
relationships
triggered
ground failure
Laboratory
1.3.2.2
mechanisms
investigation
of the
Advanced
1.3.3.3
mechanical
behaviour of Geomechanic
geomaterials al modelling
Validation of developed Evaluation of

1.3.5
1.3.6
constitutive relationships, consequences of

triggering mechanisms and tools landslides
Fig. 9 Sub-Project 1.3 - Innovative approaches for landslides assessment

Landslide risk
1.4.1
assessment and
disaster scenarios Early warning
1.4.4
prediction systems to
calibrate loss
models and
Development evaluate losses
1.4.1.1
of existing Unified global

1.4.2
large scale hazard and

deterministic risk
modelling assessment
tools for landslides Vulnerability
under static
and seismic
Probabilistic
1.4.1.2
conditions
analysis and
earthquake
shaking
scenarios
Evaluation of Sub-
Sub-Project 2.4a
1.4.1.3
alternative Loss
1.4.3
preventing estimation
measures models
Sub-
Sub-Project 2.4b
Fig. 10 Sub-Project 1.4 - Landslide disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling
Task 2.1.2 Task 2.1.3

Assessment of Typification of
existing structures buildings and
and models infrastructure
Task 2.1.4
Task 2.1.1
Update of
Rules, guidelines and development vulnerability
of tools estimates via
monitoring
Task 2.1.5
Layout of European assessment code
Task 2.1.6
Demonstration of
assessment
Fig. 11 Sub-Project 2.1 - In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification of buildings and
infrastructures
TASK 2.2a_1 TASK 2.2a_2

Development , manufacturing and Performance assessment of seismic isolation
qualification of low stiffness isolators and systems based on sliding isolators through a
electro-inductive devices comprehensive experimental investigation
(ALGA) (MAURER)
TASK 2.2a_3
Implementation and validation of
numerical tools
(ENEA)
TASK 2.2a_4
Shaking table tests
(ENEA)
TASK 2.2a_5
User Manual
(STAP)
Fig. 12 Sub-Project 2.2a - Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices

and seismic isolators
Urban areas ( buildings ) Infrastructures
AT URBAN AT ONE STRUCTURE SCALE

SCALE
( METU, ITU ) Existing techniques New technologies or design method
Technology and design
improvements
( METU, ULIEGE )
Rapid screening Fibre reinforced
Real response Polymers Design methodologies
Urban Reinforced concrete Underground
rehabilitation Low disturbance Masonry
Hammering structure in soft soils
Joints ( CIMNE, ITU ) ( IST )
NECSO, UBRIS )
Resistance
Structural analysis
Technology
Durability Underground
Fatigue stations
Pipe lines
Base isolation
Bridge piers
( IST, ITU )
Case studies Case studies
Historical structures
Design examples Infrastructures
Buildings Auto adaptative
devices design
Energy dissipation
Devices and
Connections
( ULIEGE, CIMNE)
Pre-cast concrete
Steel
Fig. 13 Sub-Project 2.2b - Techniques and methods for vulnerability reduction

Urban Areas Displacement Based

(buildings)
Design Methodologies
Infrastructures (bridges, equipment

RC member acceptance Deformation demands in Advancement of non-linear
& design criteria irregular-in-plan buildings analysis in industrial plants)
UPAT, DENCO UPAT, INSAL, UPAV INPG, INSAL, UPAV
DBD Methodologies for the design of piers Floor spectra for equipment in industrial plants
JRC, UPAT, DENCO CEA
Effective stiffness and Deformation demands of piers

UPAT, JRC
Displacement capacity of isolators & implications for design
DENCO, UPAV
Deformation capacity of RC piers

UPAT, JRC
Zero-residual displacement capability of isolation systems
DENCO
Fig. 14 Sub-Project 2.3a - Displacement-based design methodologies
Task 2.3b 1: Methods development

Regional model UROMA, FEUP
ULJB
Individual buildings USUR
hospitals UNAP
UPM
schools
residential
Road networks Task 2.3b 2: Methods application

UROMA, FEUP
bridges ULJB
retaining walls USUR
UNAP
embankments UPM
UBRIS
Water supply systems

dams
acqueducts Task 2.3b 3: Code calibration
UROMA
ULJB, UNAP
Industrial plants
system logic
tanks Task 2.3b 4
piping Risk analysis over a region
cooling towers UROMA
UNAP
UBRIS
Fig. 15 Sub-Project 2.3b - Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications

Select mitigation options in

three target cities
all
Capacity data: Inventory data

KOERI,LNEC UCAM, all
Scenarios and site effects:

Loss estimation software: INGV, AUTH
LNEC,KOERI
Loss modelling: damage; reconstruction

cost casualties
Uncertainties:
USUR
Effects of mitigation actions
all
Quantified mitigation statements:

UCAM, all
Dissemination to 3 cities
Fig. 16 Sub-Project 2.4a - Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for
urban areas
select city case histories

Earthquake shaking scenarios + Improved vulnerability functions
SGI-MI, INGV, AUTH inventory of tools & data SGI-MI, KOERI, AUTH
+
numerical analyses
Post-earthquake operational analysis Calibration of loss models

SGI-MI, INGV, KOERI KOERI, MUNICHRE
GIS software I-NET Istanbul array network KOERIloss software
Fig. 17 Sub-Project 2.4b - Earthquake disaster scenario predictions and loss modelling for
infrastructures
4.4 WORK PACKAGE LIST (18 MONTHS PERIOD, MONTH 1 - 18)
WP Work package Lead Person- Start End Deliverable

No Title Contractor No months Month Month No
1.1 Landslide monitoring
and warning systems
UNIMIB 28,3 0 36 D1D9
1.2 Landslide zonation,
hazard and vulnerability NGI 48,3 0 36 D10D12
assessment
1.3 New approaches for
landslides assessment
GDS 98 0 36 D13D15
1.4 Landslide disaster
scenario predictions BRGM 34 0 36 D16D18
and loss modelling
2.1 In-situ assessment,
monitoring and ARS 61,3 0 36 D19D25
typification
2.2a Development and
manufacturing of
energy dissipation ENEA 63,9 0 36 D26D42
devices and seismic
isolators
2.2b Techniques and
methods for ULIEGE 169,4 0 36 D43D57
vulnerability reduction
2.3a Displacement-based
design methodologies
UPAT 120,7 0 36 D58D75
2.3b Probabilistic risk
assessment: methods UROMA 153 0 36 D76D81
and applications
2.4a Earthquake disaster
scenario predictions
and loss modelling for
UCAM 83,5 0 36 D82D85
urban areas
2.4b Earthquake disaster
scenario predictions
and loss modelling for
SGI-MI 52 0 36 D86D89
infrastructures
Demonstration - 7 0 36 -
Dissemination ALGO 37 0 36 -
Training JRC 10,4 6 36 -
UPAV
Management
ISMES
18,3 0 36 -
TOTAL 985,7
4.5 DELIVERABLES LIST (18 MONTHS PERIOD, MONTH 1 - 18)
Estimated indicative
Dissemination level
Deliverable name
Delivery Number
Lead participant
person-months
(proj. month)
WP nunmber
Delivery date
Nature
1 Annual report 1.1 UNIMIB 2 R PU 12
2 Historical datasets 1.1 UNIMIB 5 R PU 12
Report on spatially distributed deterministic
3 1.1 UNIMIB 4 R PU 12
models and rainfall thresholds
Report on procedures for the determination
4 of the transition from slow to fast moving 1.1 UNIMIB 4 R PU 12
landslides
5 Mid term Report 1.1 UNIMIB 1 R PU 18
Report on GPS station component
performance and suitability for integration,
6 integration problems and potential problems 1.1 UNEW 4,3 R PU 18
for mass production and performance of
automated processing and analysis.
Zonation and landslide hazard by means of
7 1.1 SGI-SW 3 O RE 18
LS DTM
Slope stability analyses geometry from LS
8 1.1 SGI-SW 3 O RE 18
DTM
Recommendations for planning, surveillance,
inspection with LS DTM. Usefulness of LS
9 1.1 SGI-SW 2 R RE 18
DTM in landslide hazard mapping and slope
management.
10 Reports on methods of slope stabilisation 1.2 GDS 12 R PU 12
Report on numerical modelling of well-
11 1.2 SAA 14,3 R PU 18
documented cases of landslides
Report on methodologies of landslide hazard
12 1.2 NGI 22 R PU 18
zonation vulnerability assessment
Technical report with selected well
13 documented case histories of major seismic 1.3 NTUA 30 R PU 12
landslides
Technical report presenting the development
and validation of soil constitutive models to
14 1.3 UNIMIB 35 R PU 18
predict large slope displacements, especially
for liquefaction induced lateral spreading
Technical reports presenting the effects of
15 1.3 GDS 33 R PU 18
landslides on the built environment.
Dissemination level
Deliverable name
Delivery Number
Lead participant
person-months
(proj. month)
WP nunmber
Delivery date
Nature
Report on improved large scale modelling
16 techniques both deterministic and 1.4 BRGM 10 R PU 18
probabilistic for ground failure evaluation
Report on loss estimation models, analysis of
17 some well-documented landslides and 1.4 NGI 14 R PU 18
remedial methods for landslide mitigation.
Report on application of landslide zonation
18 1.4 SGI-MI 10 R RE 18
on two focus regions in Europe
Rules, Guidelines and Software Tools:
19 2.1 VCE 9 R PU 9
Permanent monitoring: feasibility studies
20 Assessment and models of existing buildings 2.1 ARS 7 R PU 9
21 2.1 ARS 7 R PU 12
Pre-earthquake assessment
22 Structural inspection after earthquakes: 2.1 RWTH 9 R PU 12
industrial structures
23 2.1 ISMES 10 R PU 12
Databases and GIS implementation
24 Typification of buildings and infrastructure 2.1 LNEC 9 R PP 12
Level II vulnerability assessment via
25 2.1 ISMES 10,3 O PP 18
monitoring
26 Seismic input 2.2a ENEA 2,8 O PU 6
27 Shaking table mock-up 2.2a ENEA 2,8 O PU 12
28 Circular LSIs prototypes 2.2a ALGA 4 P CO 12
29 Square LSIs prototypes 2.2a ALGA 6 P CO 12
30 Sliding isolators and SHS 2.2a MAURER 4 P PU 12
31 Characterisation tests of SHS 2.2a MAURER 1 R PU 12
32 Full-scale FP 2.2a MAURER 3 P PU 12
Validation of LSIs analysis method and
33 2.2a ALGA 2 R PU 18
design procedure
34 Small size DECS device 2.2a ALGA 7 P CO 18
35 Large size DECS device 2.2a ALGA 10 P CO 18
36 Analysis of the shaking table tests on SHS 2.2a MAURER 2,8 R PU 18
37 Models of FP 2.2a MAURER 3,5 P PU 18
38 Characterisation tests of FP models 2.2a MAURER 1 R PU 18
39 Numerical analysis of the SHS 2.2a ENEA 3 R PU 18
40 Numerical analysis of the LSIs 2.2a ENEA 3 R PU 18
Dissemination level
Deliverable name
Delivery Number
Lead participant
person-months
(proj. month)
WP nunmber
Delivery date
Nature
41 Shaking table test report for SHS 2.2a ENEA 4 R PU 18
42 Shaking table test report for LSIs 2.2a ENEA 4 R PU 18
Nonlinear method for control of auto-
43 2.2b ITU 14 O PU 12
adaptative semi active base isolators
Rapid screening method of vulnerability of
44 2.2b ITU 21 R PU 12
building stock in Istanbul
Design guide of low disturbance upgrading
45 2.2b ITU 18 R PU 18
methods
46 Analysis of hammering problems 2.2b ULIEGE 7 R PU 18
47 Urban rehabilitation plan for pilot city 2.2b METU 21 R PU 18
Results of experimental tests on FRP.
48 Computation method of resistance 2.2b ITU 16 R PU 18
considering steel and FRP
Integration of knowledge on FRP retrofitted
49 2.2b CIMNE 12 O PU 18
structures
Beta version of software for masonry
50 structures. Experimental database and 2.2b UBRIS 15 O PU 18
software calibration
Guidelines for the application of FRP
51 2.2b NECSO 6,4 R PU 18
retrofitting. Stage 1
Experimental data on durability and fatigue
52 2.2b NECSO 6 R PU 18
resistance. Stage 1
DBD models for base isolated historical
53 2.2b IST 5 R PU 18
buildings. Chosen structure, 3D model
Analysis of 3 energy dissipation devices
54 2.2b CIMNE 12 O PU 18
application to 3RC structures
Analysis of 3 precast RC structures with
55 2.2b ULIEGE 5 R PU 18
dissipative connections
Design method for X truss braces with
56 2.2b ULIEGE 5 R PU 18
dissipative connections
Methodology of analysis for underground
57 2.2b IST 6 R PU 18
structures in soft soils. 1 design
Dissemination level
Deliverable name
Delivery Number
Lead participant
person-months
(proj. month)
WP nunmber
Delivery date
Nature
Proposals for acceptable deformations of RC
members at different performance levels and
58 for overall partial safety factors on member 2.3a UPAT 9 R PU 12
deformation capacity under unidirectional
loading.
Simple rules for estimation of effective elastic
59 stiffness of RC members for use in linear 2.3a UPAT 3 R PU 12
analyses emulating nonlinear ones.
Evaluation of definition of design
displacement capacity of common isolator
60 types within current bridge design practice 2.3a DENCO 3 R PU 12
and investigation of the effects of its
exceedance on bridge seismic response
Effects of axial force variation in the seismic
61 response of bridges isolated with friction 2.3a UPAV 6 R PU 12
pendulum systems
Ductility-dependent equivalent damping
62 2.3a UPAV 8 R PU 12
equations for DBD
A displacement-based adaptive pushover
63 2.3a UPAV 10 R PU 12
methodology for 2D structures
Acceptable deformations of RC members at
64 different performance levels under 2.3a UPAT 3 R PU 18
bidirectional loading.
Comparisons of results of nonlinear dynamic
and linear analyses - static or modal - for a
65 2.3a INSAL 10 R PU 18
representative sample of irregular in plan
buildings.
Comparisons of experimental results to those
of nonlinear analyses with various modelling
approaches and degrees of sophistication.
66 2.3a INSAL 10 R PU 18
Main model parameters affecting reliability of
predictions of nonlinear analysis for member
deformations.
Advancement of simplified modelling
strategies for 3D phenomena and/or
67 2.3a INPG 12 R PU 18
boundary conditions for base-isolated
buildings or specific soil-structure interaction
Dissemination level
Deliverable name
Delivery Number
Lead participant
person-months
(proj. month)
WP nunmber
Delivery date
Nature
Tools for estimation of secant-to-yield
stiffness, of ultimate deformation and of
68 shear force capacity of RC piers, on the basis 2.3a UPAT 6 R PU 18
of test results.
Simplified models/procedures for estimation
of secant-to-yielding stiffness, equivalent
69 damping, ultimate deformations and shear 2.3a JRC 6 R PU 18
capacity of bridge piers on the basis of
numerical analysis.
Procedures for estimation of pier inelastic
deformation demands, developed through
70 2.3a DENCO 5 R PU 18
nonlinear analyses (static or dynamic) of
typical bridges.
Procedures for design of piers for non-
collapse performance directly on the basis of
71 displacement and deformation demands, 2.3a UPAT 6 R PU 18
without iterations between analysis and
verifications.
Evaluation of iterative DBD procedures for
72 2.3a JRC 5 R PU 18
bridges.
Proposals for redefinition of displacement
capacity of common isolator types and for
73 construction measures to enhance seismic 2.3a DENCO 3 R PU 18
behaviour of the bridge at large
displacements
Evaluation of current code requirements for
74 displacement re-centering capacity of seismic 2.3a DENCO 4 R PU 18
isolation systems and proposals for revision.
Rules for construction of displacement floor
spectra in industrial facilities, taking into
75 2.3a CEA 11,7 R PU 18
account nonlinearity in the equipment
and/or in the supporting structure
Extension of N2 method to probabilistic
76 2.3b ULJB 18 R PU 12
assessment of 3D structures
Critical review and advancement of the
77 probabilistic methods for seismic safety 2.3b UROMA 27 R PU 12
assessment
Dissemination level
Deliverable name
Delivery Number
Lead participant
person-months
(proj. month)
WP nunmber
Delivery date
Nature
Application of probabilistic methods for
78 seismic safety assessment to selected case 2.3b UROMA 26 R PU 18
studies
79 methods for probabilistic seismic risk 2.3b UROMA 29 R PU 18
assessment of road networks
80 methods for probabilistic seismic risk 2.3b UBRIS 25 R PU 18
assessment of water supply systems
81 methods for probabilistic seismic risk 2.3b UNAP 28 R PU 18
assessment of industrial plants
Report on mitigation options and actions to
82 2.4a UCAM 3,5 R PU 3
be studied for each of the 3 cities
Report on the selection of 50 year and 500
83 2.4a INGV 24 R PU 12
year scenarios for each location
Report on building stock inventory and
84 2.4a UCAM 25 R PU 12
vulnerability data for each case study
AUTH
Report for each city containing results of
85 2.4a KOERI 31 R PU 18
reference loss estimates
LNEC
Technical report on available tools for
identification of areas prone to permanent
86 2.4b SGI-MI 8 R PU 12
deformations during earthquakes and
prediction of the induced effects.
87 Technical report on the hybrid/stochastic
numerical approach, with examples of 2.4b INGV 15 R PU 18
application to selected city case histories
88 Technical report including a CD, containing
the dataset of the inventory of lifelines in the 2.4b KOERI 13 R PU 18
reference cities
89 Technical report on the non linear analyses
2.4b AUTH 16 R PU 18
of selected pipeline configurations
TOTAL 913
4.6 WORK PACKAGES DESCRIPTIONS (18 MONTHS PERIOD, MONTH 1 - 18)
Work package number 1.1 Start date or starting event: Month 1

Activity Type RTD/Innovation activities
Participant id UNIMIB SGI-SW UNEW VCE
Person-months per participant 3 3,3 10 12
Objectives:
- Implement in-situ and remote monitoring techniques;
- Use GIS for geodatabase and data analysis;
- Define alert thresholds through data analysis.
Description of work:
- In situ and remote monitoring techniques
- LIDAR for topographic or bathymetric mapping
- Low cost GPS stations for in-situ monitoring
- Monitoring shallow slope failures
- inSAR techniques for monitoring small and relatively slow phenomena
- GIS-geodatabases and analysis
- Alert thresholds through GIS data analysis
Deliverables:
- Historical datasets
- Report on spatially distributed deterministic models and rainfall thresholds
- Report on procedures for the determination of the transition from slow to fast moving
landslides
- 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.
- Zonation of landslide hazard by means of LS DTM
- Slope stability analyses geometry from LS DTM
- Recommendations for planning, surveillance, inspection with LS DTM. Usefulness of LS
DTM in landslide hazard mapping and slope management.
Milestones and expected result:

- Procedures for rainfall and displacement threshold definition
- Low cost high accuracy GPS station
- Use of LIDAR for landslide hazard zonation

Activity Type RTD/Innovation Activities
Participant id NGI GDS SAA SGI-SW UNEW UNIMIB
Person-months per participant 2,8 5 18,8 3,8 10 8
Objectives:
- Application of advanced landslide zonation methods to focus areas in selected landslide prone
regions in Europe and development and implementation of new models of landslide mapping.
- Evaluation of the technical and economic efficiency of conventional and innovative
stabilization methods by numerical modelling of well-documented slides
- Development of tools for pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies
- Mapping inventory for landslide hazard (Hazard Zonation)
- Probabilistic landslide hazard zonation techniques and vulnerability assessment
- Mitigation methods and policies
- Stabilization to prevent ground movements and instabilities
- Tool for pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies
Deliverables:
- Report on methods of slope stabilisation as stated above
- Report on numerical modelling of well-documented cases of (non earthquake triggered)
landslides
- Report on methodologies of landslide hazard zonation vulnerability assessment

- Calibration of advanced numerical modelling against well-documented cases of landslide.
- Calculation model for evaluation of performance of stiff inclusions as slope stabilisation
measure preliminary indications of the effectiveness of the method.
- Application of models of landslide hazard zonation to two focus regions in Europe

Participant id GDS AUTH BRGM NTUA SAA UNIMIB
Person-months per participant 24 7 9 14 39 5
Objectives:
- Investigate analytically and experimentally the mechanical behaviour of geomechanics
involved in mass movements
- Improve existing or/and develop new constitutive relationships to predict landslide
movements under static and seismic conditions
- Investigate landslide mechanisms and triggering forces including topographic and site effects
- Develop deterministic tools to predict displacements and to evaluate loses
- Documentation of selected landslides
- Constitutive relationships of soil behaviour to predict landslide movements
- Development and improvement of constitutive relationships
- Laboratory investigation of the mechanical behaviour of geomaterials involved in mass
movements
- Landslide mechanisms and triggering forces
- Hydraulic-triggered ground motion mechanisms
- Earthquake-triggered ground failure mechanisms
- Advanced geomechanical modelling of localised and diffused failure
- Deterministic tools to predict landslide displacements
- Validation of developed constitutive relationships, triggering mechanicsms and tools
- Evaluation of consequences of landslides
Deliverables:
- Technical report with selected well-documented case histories of major seismic landslides (to
include any new landslide that may occur in a seismic event during the life of the project).
- Technical report presenting the development and validation of soil constitutive models to
predict large slope displacements, especially for liquefaction induced lateral spreading. Soil
behaviour linking shear strength with displacements on the shear surface which could be used
in both co-seismic and post-seismic kinematics of sliding mass. Description, analysis and
validation of alternative failure/deformation mechanisms, using displacement and velocity
criteria.
- Technical reports presenting the effects of landslides on the built environment.

- Collection of documented case histories.
- Development and validation of proposed theoretical and experimental model(s) by
comparison with actual case histories. Qualitative assessment of alternative mechanisms.
- Completion of numerical simulations of the case histories using various modelling techniques.
- Engineering method(s) for computing sliding triggering and ensuing deformations in practical
situations.

Activity Type RTD/Innovation activties
Participant id BRGM AUTH INPG NGI NTUA SGI-MI
Person-months per participant 6 3 9 3 9 4
Objectives:
- To develop a global methodology for aseismic and seismic landslide risk assessment and
disaster scenarios prediction
- To elaborate landslide loss models in relation with work-packages 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
- To assess risk due to landslides triggered by any kind of mechanism either by performing
disaster scenario predictions (deterministic and probabilistic) or by implementing new
procedures of early warning systems.
- Landslide risk assessment and disaster scenarios prediction
- Development and improvement of existing large scale deterministic modelling tools and
calibrations
- Probabilistic analysis and earthquake shaking scenarios
- Evaluation of alternative preventing measures
- Unified global hazard and risk assessment for landslides under static nad seismic conditions
- Loss estimation models
- Early warning systems to calibrate loss models and evaluate losses
Deliverables:
- Report on improved large scale modelling techniques both deterministic and probabilistic for
ground failure evaluation
- Report on loss estimation models, analysis of some well-documented landslides and remedial
methods for landslide mitigation.
- Report on application of landslide zonation on two focus regions in Europe

- Data collection
- Survey of existing deterministic and probabilistic models
- Survey of existing ground reinforcement techniques to prevent landslides
- Validation of numerical estimation against existing well-documented recordings of landslides

Participant id ARS ISMES LNEC RWTH VCE
Person-months per participant 11 16,3 9 12 13
Objectives:
- Optimised use of high-tech and other tools for pre-earthquake assessment, structural
inspection after earthquakes and installed instrumentation (permanent monitoring).
- Examples of dynamic in-situ assessment. Descriptions of the structures, measured dynamic
properties, up-dated FE models. Elaboration of an easy to understand open access
documentation as a possible basis for interpolation in cases of similar structures (e.g. in EU-
MEDIN database, SAMCO database, etc.). Special interactions with D&I: European
databases& Internet Portal will be necessary.
- Improved vulnerability estimates making use of an installed monitoring system
- Rules and guidelines for the implementation and use of in-situ assessment methods, installed
instrumentation, databases and GIS implementation.
- Elaboration of improved FE-models of several existing masonry buildings, which are already
assessed by dynamic in-situ testing.
- Feasibility studies on application of dynamic in-situ tests, instrumentation, databases and GIS
to important bridges. Study of the expected benefits. Co-operation with Sub-project 2.3a.
- Advanced studies of infrastructure, e.g. the already assessed Austrian hospitals in seismic
zones 3 and 4. Cooperation with Sub-project 2.2b (optimum retrofit methods).
- Building typification at European level. Co-ordination of National Inventory Information.
Interaction with Sub-project 2.3a, 2.3b and 2.4a.
- Concepts for up-dated vulnerability estimates via monitoring. E.g. Case study for the already
assessed Austrian hospitals. Cooperation with Sub-project 2.3a and 2.3b.
- Elaboration of a layout for a European code for the in-situ assessment of the earthquake
resistance of existing structures. Cooperation with Sub-projects 2.3a and 2.3b.
Deliverables:
- Rules, Guidelines and Software Tools: Pre-earthquake assessment, Structural inspection after
earthquakes, Permanent monitoring, Databases and GIS implementation
- Assessment and models of existing buildings
- Typification of buildings and infrastructure
- Level II vulnerability assessment via monitoring

- For important structures/ lifeline structures it should become state of the art, that in-situ
assessment is started with the appropriate dynamic testing.
- Available concepts for innovative tools (up-dated vulnerability estimates via monitoring).
- Free accessible examples (benchmarks) of measured dynamic properties + FE models +
description of structure for the stakeholder groups, end-users and the scientific community.
- Layout for a European code for the in-situ assessment of earthquake resistance of existing
structures.
Work package number 2.2a Start date or starting event: Month 1

Participant id ENEA ALGA MAURER STAP VCGP
Person-months per participant 22 24 17 0,5 0.4
Objectives:
- development, design and manufacturing of innovative low stiffness seismic isolators to be used
in civil applications characterised by light structures (residential houses) or for light industrial
equipment;
- evaluation of the benefits, as well as ascertaining the limitations, of sliders coupled with
hysteretic elements;
- design and manufacturing of friction pendulum isolators;
- design and execution of two experimental campaigns on shaking table.
Prototypes of circular and square low stiffness isolators will be designed, manufactured and
qualified through laboratory tests by ALGA. Prototypes of hysteretic sliders will be designed,
manufactured and qualified through laboratory tests by MAURER. STAP and VCGP will
contribute to this phase as consultants. Main features and mechanical characteristics of the
devices will be provided to ENEA. Mathematical models will be implemented and numerical
analyses will be carried out to help the manufacturers in optimizing the devices and to design the
shaking table tests. A set of significant acceleration time-histories will be developed by ENEA
and used in both numerical analyses and shaking table tests. A suitable mock up will be designed
and manufactured by ENEA and used to test the devices in real (or even higher, if possible)
seismic conditions. In the first half of the project, two experimental campaigns will be carried out
by ENEA on the low stiffness isolators and the hysteretic sliders. The results will be analysed by
ENEA and the manufacturers.
Deliverables:
- Seismic input, Circular LSIs prototypes, Square LSIs prototypes, Mock-up for shaking table
tests, Sliding isolators and steel hysteretic sliders, Characterisation tests of steel hysteretic sliders
- Full-scale Friction Pendulum, Validation of LSIs analysis method and design procedure, Small
size DECS device, Numerical analysis of the steel hysteretic sliders, Shaking table test report for
steel hysteretic sliders, Analysis of the shaking table tests on steel hysteretic devices
- Models of Friction Pendulum, Characterisation tests of Friction Pendulum models, Numerical
analysis of the low stiffness isolators, Shaking table test report for low stiffness isolators
The most significant milestone are the delivery of: seismic input and mock-up for shaking table
(ENEA); low stiffness isolators (ALGA); steel hysteretic sliders and friction pendulum
(MAURER). Characterisation tests will be carried out on the prototypes prior their sending to
ENEA. Two complete experimental campaigns (on low stiffness isolators and steel hysteretic
sliders) will then be carried out. Moreover, most of the preliminary activity related to the
development of devices and design of tests scheduled for the second part of the project, starts
from months 12.
Work package number 2.2b Start date or starting event: Month 1

Activity Type RTD/Innovation Activity
Participant id ULIEGE CIMNE IST ITU METU NECSO UBRIS
Person-months per participant 22 19,3 10,5 53 45 11 9
Objectives:
- Development of rapid screening of vulnerability for Turkish building stock
- Development of urban rehabilitation methods.
- Reduction of buildings vulnerability by low disturbance methods. A design guide.
- Design guide for mitigation of hammering and joints problems between buildings.
- Design guide for vulnerability reduction by Fibers Reinforced Polymers (FRP's).
- Design method for the protection of historical structures by base isolation.
- Development of optimum adaptive base isolation systems.
- A design guide for the improvement of structural response of precast RC and steel structures by energy
dissipative devices and connections.
- Development of design methodologies for underground structures in soft soils.
- Selection of reference structures and infrastructures for case studies.
- Selection of low disturbance upgrading methods and preparation of a design guide.
- Analysis of hammering between structures, with and without reconnections over expansion joints.
- Development of knowledge, design method, models and technology for the use of FRP's in the
reduction of RC and masonry structures vulnerability.
- Development of displacement based design for the base isolation of historical structures.
- Definition of method for control of auto adaptative base isolation devices
- Extended 3D modeling of soft soil and underground structures to settle a design method.
- Analysis of RC and steel structures including energy dissipative devices and connections.
- Case studies using techniques and methods of above subjects in applications to reference structures and
infrastructures
Deliverables & Milestones:
- Rapid screening method of vulnerability of building stock in Istanbul
- Design guide of low disturbance upgrading methods
- Analysis of hammering problems
- Urban rehabilitation plan for pilot city
- Results of experimental tests on FRP. Computation method of resistance considering steel and FRP
- Integration of knowledge on FRP retrofitted structures
- Beta version of software for masonry structures. Experimental database and software calibration.
- Guidelines for the application of FRP retrofitting. Stage 1.
- Experimental data on durability and fatigue resistance. Stage 1
- DBD models for base isolated historical buildings. Chosen structure, 3D model.
- Nonlinear method for control of auto-adaptative semi active base isolators.
- Analysis of 3 energy dissipation devices application to 3RC structures
- Analysis of 3 precast RC structures with dissipative connections.
- Design method for X truss braces with dissipative connections.
- Methodology of analysis for underground structures in soft soils. 1 design.
- Selection and drawings of 5 reference buildings: 1 medium rise RC, 1 high rise RC, 1 medium rise
masonry, 3 precast RC, 1 steel truss brace.
- Selection and drawings of 1 reference bridge, 1 pipeline section and 1 underground structure.
- Selection and description of Istanbul area for building survey
- Selection of 8 buildings for analysis of hammering and joints problems and their mitigation

Participant id UPAT CEA DENCO INPG INSAL JRC UPAV
Person-months per participant 23 6,25 15 9 23 20,5 24
Objectives:
- RC member acceptance criteria in terms of deformations at different performance levels for DBD.
- Calculation of member inelastic deformation demands in irregular in plan RC buildings within DBD.
- Advancement of nonlinear analysis for direct design or evaluation of the design of new RC buildings.
- Estimation of secant-to-yield stiffness and energy dissipation in RC or PC piers for analysis in DBD.
- Estimation of deformation capacity and shear resistance for verification of bridge piers in DBD.
- Procedures for calculation of inelastic deformation demands in bridge piers for DBD.
- Redefinition of displacement capacity of common bridge isolator types and construction measures to
enhance seismic behaviour of the isolated bridge at large displacements.
- Evaluation of code rules for displacement re-centering of bridge isolators and proposals for revision.
- Development of displacement floor response spectra for equipment in industrial facilities
- Based on test data on the cyclic deformation capacity of RC members or piers, proposals will be made
for acceptable deformations at different performance levels for seismic design of buildings or bridges.
- The torsional response due to irregularity in plan of RC buildings will be numerically studied, using
member deformations as the criterion, for development of analysis methods appropriate for DBD.
- Different possibilities for evaluation of inelastic deformation demands in bridge piers will be pursued and
their implications for the advancement of DBD in bridges will be established.
- The displacement capacity and re-centering of common isolator types will be investigated along with the
possibility of benefiting from isolator overstrength close to ihis capacity. Construction measures will be
sought to enhance behaviour of the isolators beyond their design displacement capacity, along with means
to account in bridge design for uncertainties in isolator behaviour beyond their design capacity.
Deliverables:
- Acceptable values and safety factors for uniaxial deformation of members at various performance levels
- Acceptable deformations of RC members at different performance levels under bidirectional loading.
- Analysis of irregular in plan buildings, on the basis of comparisons of nonlinear and linear analyses.
- Estimation of effective stiffness of RC members for use in linear analyses emulating nonlinear ones.
- Ductility-dependent equivalent damping equations for DBD
- Advancement of nonlinear analysis methods with various models for the direct design of new buildings
- A displacement-based adaptive pushover methodology for 2D structures
- Advancement of simplified modelling strategies for 3D phenomena or/and specific boundary conditions
- Estimation of secant-to-yield stiffness, ultimate deformation and shear capacity of piers from test results.
- Estimation of secant-to-yield stiffness, ultimate deformations and shear capacity of piers from analysis.
- Rules for simple estimation of pier inelastic deformation demands.
- Procedures for pier DBD from inelastic deformation demands, without analysis-verification iterations.
- Evaluation of iterative DBD procedures for bridges.
- Evaluation of definition of isolator design displacement capacity and of global effects of its exceedance
- Redefinition of isolator displacement capacity; measures to enhance behaviour at large displacements
- Effects of axial force variation in the seismic response of bridges isolated with friction pendulum systems
- Proposals for revision of code requirements for displacement re-centering capacity of isolation systems.
- Displacement floor spectra in industrial facilities, considering equipment or structural nonlinearities.
- Advancement of displacement-based procedures and of nonlinear analysis for building seismic design.
- Development of displacement-based seismic design procedures for bridges with or without isolation

Participant id UROMA FEUP UBRIS ULJ UNAP UPM USUR
Person-months per participant 44 16 9 14 32 20 18
Objectives:
Development of methods for the determination of structure-specific fragility curves (i.e. not fragilities for
classes of structures), accounting for all sources of uncertainty: seismic motion, mechanical parameters,
capacity models, and for multiple correlated modes of failure. Structural analysis tools will include both
state-of-the-art and practice-oriented models.
Application of the above methods to a wide range of structural typologies (buildings, bridges, structural
elements in industrial plants and water supply systems) demonstrating their feasibility for use in practice.
Use of the above methods to validate existing and proposed deterministic procedures for seismic safety
assessment of structures (Eurocode 8).
Development of methods for seismic risk analysis of infrastructures of regional extension consisting of a
road network connecting vulnerable facilities to rescue centres, as a tool for optimal allocation of upgrading
interventions.
The activity within this Sub-Project as it regards individual structures will be two-fold, including theoretical
developments (Task 2.3b.1) and real case applications (Task 2.3b.2). The former will start considering
existing methods for fragility analysis (SAC/FEMA, Response surface, Montecarlo, etc.), which will then be
extended to include the aspects indicated in the objectives. A considerable portion of the activity will be
devoted to assessing the potential for practical application of the methods to actual building and bridge
structures and industrial plants, and then to using the methods to check the consistency of the deterministic
normative approaches across a set of selected structures (Task 2.3b.3).
For what concerns infrastructures, the state-of-the-art is less advanced and existing approaches differ widely
in scope and objectives, ranging from the evaluation of total expected direct losses, up to follow the
evolution in time of social and economic consequences at a regional scale (prolonged interruption and
progressive restoration of production activities). The work in the first 18 months will focus on the
definition of a relatively simplified infrastructural model that allows quantitative evaluation of its post-
earthquake functional capacity and identification of critical components (Task 2.3b.4).
Deliverables:
- Report on Extension of N2 method to probabilistic assessment of 3D structures
- Report on Critical review and advancement of the probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment.
- Report on SoA of the probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment
- Report on Application of probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment to selected case studies
- Report on Critical review and advancement of the methods for probabilistic seismic risk assessment of
road networks
water supply systems
industrial plants
- Delivery of report on Extension of N2 method
- SoA of the probabilistic methods for seismic safety assessment
- Critical review and advancement of the methods for probabilistic seismic risk assessment of road networks
- Critical review and advancement of the methods for probabilistic seismic risk assessment of water supply
systems
- Critical review and advancement of the methods for probabilistic seismic risk assessment of industrial
plants

Participant id UCAM AUTH INGV KOERI LNEC MUNICHRE USUR
Person-months per participant 20 7 24 17 6,5 1 8
Objectives:
To create a tool, based on state-of-the-art loss modelling software, to provide strong, quantified
statements about the benefits and costs of a range of possible mitigation actions, to support
decision-making by city and regional authorities for seismic risk mitigation actions; to apply the
tool to three major European earthquake -risk cities; and to contribute to a seismic risk
mitigation policy for future implementation at European level.
- Selection of case study locations and mitigation options. For each of the three case study cities,
draw up in conjunction with City authorities, a set of mitigation actions for evaluation and
corresponding locations within the city
- Development of appropriate earthquake scenarios for each location. For each case study
location, ground motion scenarios will be developed, based on a 50-year and 500-year event.
Definition of these scenarios will derive from the requirements of the loss modelling software to
use; microzonation studies will be performed to characterize the local site amplification.
- Assembly of inventory data for the principal elements of the building stock at risk. Building
inventories will include residential, commercial and industrial uses, and historic buildings as
appropriate. Sample survey techniques will be developed for providing detailed data for structural
assessment.
- Develop vulnerability data. Develop building performance data consistent with the loss-
modelling software to be used, including capacity curves, fragility curves in terms of spectral
values of ground motion; use will be made of data developed in WP 2.3 with adaptations where
needed.
- Adaptation and application of loss estimation software. Loss modelling will be carried out using
one of two existing GIS-based software packages which have been developed for this kind of
urban analysis, KOERIloss, and LNECloss; each will be developed for the specific outcomes
envisaged in this project; on at least one of the test sites, both packages will be used. A range of
model runs will be used for each earthquake scenario, to examine the sensitivity of the results to
the key inputs.
- Evaluation of mitigation actions. Revised loss estimates will be prepared based on alternative
mitigation actions and estimates of uncertainty
Deliverables:
- Report on mitigation options and actions to be studied for each of the 3 cities
- Report on the selection of 50 year and 500 year scenarios for each location
- Report on building stock inventory and vulnerability data for each case study
- Report for each city containing results of reference loss estimates
- Selection of Case Study locations and loss estimation methodology to be used for each
- Completion of inventories, scenario earthquake definition and vulnerability data for each city
- Completion of first loss estimates with and without mitigation actions

Activity Type RTD/Innovation Activity
Participant id SGI-MI AUTH INGV KOERI MUNICHRE
Person-months per participant 8 8 24 11 1
Objectives:
Improving key tools needed to predict the ground shaking and loss scenarios, as well as to
devise mitigation measures, for infrastructures such as water, gas and oil distributions systems,
and at calibrating them on some representative European cities with moderate-to-high hazard
exposure. The key tools referred to include methods for: (a) Efficiently generating maps for
low-to-intermediate frequency strong earthquake ground motion, and for induced permanent
and transient deformations in urban/regional areas; (b) Collecting/compiling the information
required for generating lifeline inventories; (c) Estimating earthquake-induced damage and
losses to lifeline systems, including indirect costs; (d) Evaluating uncertainties involved in the
analysis; (e) Performing post-earthquake operational analysis. The WP will draw both from the
results of current CE Projects (Risk_UE, ending in 2004, and QUAKER, ending in 2005), and
from the lessons of the 1999 Turkey earthquakes.
Development of new software and application to two/three urban case study areas in regions of
moderate and high seismic risk (Catania, Thessaloniki, Istanbul) for which substantial data is
already available. The most innovative aspects reside in objectives: (a) where combination of
different approaches will be sought (empirical formulas based on numerical analyses, integration
of different geophysical methods such as refraction and gravimetric surveys, attenuation
relations, specific site response analyses); (c) where vulnerability/fragility curves appropriate for
European lifeline systems (for which information is very scarce) are to be constructed and
introduced into an already existing loss estimation methodology, which works on geo-cells; (d)
where parametric studies will be made to quantify uncertainties, and (e) where real-time GIS
acquisition of damage data will allow fast comparison and modification of initial zonation
scenarios.
Deliverables:
- Technical report on available tools for identification of areas prone to permanent
deformations during earthquakes and prediction of the induced effects.
- Technical report on the hybrid/stochastic numerical approach, with examples of application
to selected city case histories
- Technical report including a CD, containing the dataset of the inventory of lifelines in the
reference cities
- Technical report on the non linear analyses of selected pipeline configurations

- Lifelines inventory of at least two reference cities
- Technical report on the hybrid/stochastic numerical approach
- Technical report on the non-linear analyses of selected pipeline configurations
5. CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION
In the LESSLOSS consortium, as many as 14 different European countries are

represented, including EU and non-EU member states. With regards to the activity type
of the participants, it is observed that a high industrial interest has been mobilised by the
LESSLOSS project, with a fourth of its participants comprising industry partners. Equally
noteworthy is the fact that SMEs are the majority amongst these industry type of
participants, again emphasising the way in which the assembled consortium meets the
prerequisites of the FP6 call for proposals, where the involvement of Small Medium
Enterprises is promoted.
Other
Research Inst.
(9%)
(24%) Universities
(45%)
Industry
(22%)
As already described in this proposal, the holistic and multi-disciplinary approach to

earthquake and landslide risk mitigation adopted in LESSLOSS calls for the involvement
of an equally large number of project partners, with expertise in the wide gamut of
earthquake and geotechnical engineering technical fields. Therefore, the LESSLOSS
consortium features the presence and involvement of the vast majority, if not the entirety,
of leading academic and research institutions in these two research areas, as attested by
the Table given below.
Physical environment Urban areas Infrastructures
In-situ assessment, monitoring and typification

Instrumentation

and monitoring
warning systems
ARS, ISMES, LNEC, RWTH, VCE
UNIMIB, SGI-SW, UNEW,
VCE
Vulnerability reduction
Landslide zonation, hazard Development and manufacturing of energy dissipation devices and
and vulnerability assessment seismic isolators
NGI, GDS, SAA, SGI-SW, ENEA, ALGA, MAURER, STAP, VCGP

UNEW, UNIMIB
ULIEGE, CIMNE, IST, ITU, METU, NECSO, UBRIS

design/assessmen
Innovative approaches for Displacement-based design methodologies

landslide assessment
approaches for
UPAT, CEA, DENCO, INPG, INSAL, JRC, UPAV

Innovative
GDS, AUTH, BRGM,

NTUA, SAA, UNIMIB Probabilistic risk assessment: methods and applications
UROMA, FEUP, UBRIS, ULJ, UNAP, UPM, USUR

Disaster scenarios
Landslide disaster scenario Earthquake disaster scenario Earthquake disaster scenario

predictions and
loss modelling
predictions and loss predictions and loss modelling predictions and loss modelling
modelling for urban areas for infrastructures
BRGM, AUTH, INPG, UCAM, AUTH, INGV, SGI-MI, AUTH, INGV,

NGI, NTUA, SGI-MI KOERI, LNEC, MUNICHRE, KOERI, MUNICHRE
USUR
In what follows, a brief summary of the field of competence of all participating

institutions and a short CV of their key personnel that is to be involved in LESSLOSS
activities, is provided.
Consortium Description 163
UPAV Universit degli Studi di Pavia, Italy

The Structural Mechanics Department of UPAV is a the forefront of earthquake
engineering research in Italy, with experimental facilities covering an area of
approximately 2000 m2, with a 6 m tall reaction wall and a small shake table; the
numerical analysis capacity includes one alpha sever linked to 20 workstations. The key
person that will be involved in the co-ordination of the IP is Prof. Gian Michele Calvi,
Professor of Structural Design, Head of the Department of Structural Mechanics and
Director of the Structures Laboratory. He is member of the Scientific Board of the Italian
National Group for Defense against Earthquake (GNDT), member of Commission 7
(Seismic design) and Chairman of WG 2 (Displacement based design) of the fib,
member of the Commission for the complete revision of Italian Codes related to seismic
design and of the CEN Project Team for the transformation of EC8 from ENV to EN
(part 2: Bridges), and Associate Editor of the Journal of Earthquake Engineering.
ISMES ENEL.NewHydro Srl, Italy

ENEL.NewHydro is a company of the ENEL Group, one of the largest utilities
worldwide. The engineering and consulting services of ISMES (now a division of
ENEL.NewHydro), with an annual turnover of 35 million euro, concern environment
and natural resources preservation, structural safety assessments, monitoring system
design and operation as well as prevention and risk-lowering of landslides, floods,
earthquakes and industrial accidents. The key staff within ISMES who will be involved
with this IP are Giorgio Franchioni, Manager of the testing and control area, with broad
experience in structural testing and coordination of EU projects; Rita Pellegrini and
Marina Eusebio, experienced in static and dynamic structural analysis; Enrico Pizzigalli
and Silvio Lozza, experienced in structural dynamic tests and construction quality
controls.
ALGA Applicazione Lavorazione Giunti Appoggi SpA, Italy

ALGA, with more than 60 years of experience in the field of structural engineering and
with a turnover in 2002 of 30 million euro (60% export) is primarily known in the sector
of bridge bearings, expansion joints, post-tensioning and antiseismic devices. The main
staff that will be involved with this IP are Dr. Ing. Agostino Marioni, Manager of ALGA
since 1973 and Chairman since 1985, with more than 35 years of experience in scientific
and industrial research, actively involved in Committee work, in particular as Chairman of
CEN-TC 167, holds several international patents, and has published a book and over 50
technical papers; Dr. Ing. Marco Battaini, involved in passive and active control of
structures in Italy and abroad (Notre Dame University USA, Sussex University UK,
Det Norske Veritas Institute Norway), Head of ALGAs Technical Office since1997, is
author of more than 25 technical publications.
ALGO Algosystems SA, Greece

ALGO is a private firm that has contributed since 1974 to the development of
Information Technology (IT) in Greece with high quality products and services. ALGO
employs 85 staff on a permanent basis, of these, the key persons that will be involved in
the IP project are George Eftichidis, coordinator of the R&D Department, member of
the Steering Committee of the Mediterranean Disaster Information Network of the
European Union (EU-MEDIN); Vassiliki Varela, in charge of the GIS division, for the
integration of digital cartography into environmental management; John Perros, Senior
Applications Developer, experienced in network-based technologies and expert systems
for knowledge management; Angelos Sphyris, mathematician-programmer and computer
systems analyst in GIS applications and Decision Support software tools for forest fire
management.
ARS Arsenal GmbH, Austria

Arsenal GmbH was founded in 1960 by the Ministry for Construction and Technology,
later transferred to the Ministry for Sciences and transformed into a private limited
company in 1977 as part of the Austrian Research Centres. The company counts with 120
employees, of these, 18 are part of a Unit specialised in structural-dynamics in the area of
transportation engineering focusing on acoustics, vibration, shock testing, noise
protection, structural dynamics, earthquake engineering and structural monitoring. The
key person that will be involved in the IP is Prof. Dr. Rainer Flesch, Head of the
Structural Dynamics research area at BVFA Arsenal since 1989 and Head of the
business area since 1996, Univ. Prof. since April 2000 with 69 publications.
AUTH Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

The main research activities of the Laboratory Unit of Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering of AUTH comprise geotechnical and earthquake engineering,
seismology and seismic vulnerability assessment and protection of structures. The
laboratory, with a current value of 2 million euro, covers an area of 500m2, including
laboratories and office space. The key persons that will be involved in this IP are Prof.
Kyriazis Pitilakis, author of more than 120 scientific papers, with a long experience in the
coordination of research projects in the field of seismic risk mitigation (EURO-
SEISTEST, EURO-SEISMOD and EUROSEIS-RISK); Assoc. Prof. Thedora Tika-
Vassilikou, with 15 years of experience in soil dynamics and slope stability and author of
more than 25 papers; Dr. Dimitrios Raptakis, post-doctoral researcher specialised on
geophysical and earthquake engineering and Dr. Anastasios Sextos, experienced in the
field of soil-structure interaction and asynchronous motion.
BRGM Bureau de Recherches Geologiques et Minieres, France

BRGM is a French public institution with a staff of 850, providing research and expertise
support for public policies in the fields of geology and earth sciences. The main persons
that will be involved in the IP are Dr. Hormoz Modaressi, Head of Department, Member
of the Editorial Board of Computers and Geotechnics and of the Scientific Committee of
the French network for research on Geomaterials; Mrs. Evelyne Foerster, experienced in
large landslide processes and mechanics; Mrs. Severine Bernardie, responsible for on-site
assessment of ground surface movements due to underground structures; Dr. Etienne
Bertrand, experienced in local hazard mapping of soil seismic response; Dr. Pierre
Mouroux, Scientific Expert Adviser and Mrs. Carola Mirgon, geophysicist specialized in
computer techniques.
CEA Commissariat lEnergie Atomique, France

CEA is a Governmental Research Organization, with a staff of about 16000 devoted to
research in the Nuclear field. The Seismic Mechanics Study Laboratory (TAMARIS), with
a permanent staff of 20 and part of the Nuclear Energy Direction is located in the Saclay
Center near Paris. Its objectives are model development and validation, calculation
methods development and qualification, codification and seismic qualification of
components and equipment for the industry. It operates a large testing facility with four
shaking tables, among which the largest in Europe, with a 100t payload. The key persons
integrating the IP are Pierre Sollogoub, Head of the Laboratory since 1995; Jean Claude
Queval, in charge of the experimental part of the Laboratory; Daniel Broc, specialized in
seismic modelling of soils-fluid structure interaction and Fan Wang, involved in R&D
programs in the field of Earthquake Engineering.
CIMNE Centre Internacional De Mtodes Numrics en Enginyeria, Spain

CIMNE is a consortium that was founded in 1987 by the Universidad Politcnica de
Catalua (UPC), Generalitat de Catalua and UNESCO to promote research and
technology transfer in a national and international context in the fields of computational
methods for civil and mechanical engineering. The result of the activities of this
institution, employing 65 researchers specialised in software development, is reflected in
the participation in more than 500 R&D projects. Key members of the research group
within the IP are Prof. Alex H. Barbat, specialised in the field of seismic damage
evaluation of structures, active and passive structural control and disaster preparedness;
Prof. Sergio Oller, specialised in the field of new structural materials, parallel computing
and constitutive models and Alex D. Hanganu, senior researcher on numerical damage
assessment of civil engineering structures.
DENCO Development & Engineering Consultants Ltd, Greece

DENCO Ltd was established in 1974 through the merging of two Greek consulting
firms: Frantzeskakis and Associates Ltd (Transportation and Traffic Consultants,
established in 1971) and B. Kolias - C. Tzanos Ltd (Engineering Consultants, established
in 1966). Under its present structure, DENCO is one of the largest consulting firms in
Greece, with 100 staff performing studies, designs and supervision of construction works
at an international level. The key staff involved in the IP proposal are Basil Kolias, Head
of buildings and bridges structural department, with more than 35 years experience in
structural designs of buildings, industrial structures and major bridges; Evangelos
Astrinidis, participating in design teams for the construction of large bridge
transportation structures; elemachos B. Panagiotakos, Senior Engineer at DENCO and
Lecturer at the University of Patras.
DPC Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Italy

The DPC is empowered by the Italian Ministry for the technical coordination of the
rescue operations following emergency situations after natural and technological disasters.
The activities of DPC encompass the prevention and prediction of several types of risks,
including earthquake, landslides, floods and other catastrophic events, starting from the
rescue of affected population to all the necessary measures to overcome the emergency
situation. The main person involved in the present IP is Elvezio Galanti, who has a broad
experience in the management of emergency situations, as demonstrated in the recent
seismic events in the Molise Region
ENEA Ente Nuove Tecnologie, lEnergia e lAmbiente, Italy

ENEA is a large research organisation that has been active for several years on
Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Risks (PREV) through the Technical-Scientific Unit
on Protection and Development of the Environment, Environmental Technologies
(PROT). ENEA owns equipment for testing anti-seismic devices and structural models.
The key researchers that will be involved with the present IP are Alessandro Martelli,
Head of the PROT-PREV Section at ENEA, and Professor of Building in Seismic
Areas at the University of Ferrara, Chairman of GLIS (Italian Working Group on
Seismic Isolation) and ASSISi (Anti-Seismic Systems International Society); Paolo
Clemente, responsible for experimental dynamic analysis and monitoring of structures
and contract professor at the University of Trento; Massimo Forni, responsible for
numerical and experimental analyses on the innovative anti-seismic techniques, Gerardo
De Canio, responsible of the shaking table lab, and Dario Rinaldis, responsible for
seismic microzonation and risk assessment.
FEUP Faculdade De Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal

Founded in 1837 from the Academia Politcnica, FEUP is a leading institution of
international reputation in the field of engineering. The activities of FEUP are supported
by a library providing modern facilities for accessing information, and a computer centre
responsible for up-to-date informatics services. FEUP is currently involved in more than
a hundred research projects, many of these on an international basis and in co-operation
with Industry. The faculty participating in the present IP is integrated by Dr. Raimundo
Delgado, member of the Portuguese Committee for National Application Documents of
EC8; Dr. Anbal Costa, Head of the Structural and Seismic Engineering Laboratory,
focusing on seismic behaviour and rehabilitation/strengthening of civil engineering
structures; Dr. Antnio Arde, experienced in the field of seismic modelling and
strengthening/repair of ancient structures/monuments.
GDS Geodynamique et Structure, France

GDS is an earthquake engineering consulting company with more than 20 years of
experience involved in the seismic design and retrofit of major civil engineering projects
and critical facilities in Europe. Key staff involved in the present IP are: Dr A. Pecker,
with more than 25 years of experience in Earthquake Engineering in professional
practice, teaching and research, is a Member of the National Academy of Technology of
France, Past President of the French Association for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Honorary President of the French Association of Earthquake Engineering
and member of the Executive Committee of the International Association for
Earthquake Engineering; Dr Francoise Ropers, is Project Manager at GDS, with
experience on pile driving, soil liquefaction and laboratory experiments.
INGV Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Italy

INGV is a young institution created in 1999 by merging a number of pre-existing
research institutions: the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica (ING), founded by Guglielmo
Marconi in 1936 and known for its earthquake surveillance service; the Osservatorio
Vesuviano, the world's oldest institution devoted to research on volcanic phenomena; the
Istituto Internazionale di Vulcanologia, founded in 1969 to foster international
cooperation in the investigation of Etna and other active volcanoes; the Istituto per la
Ricerca sul Rischio Sismico (IRRS, Milan) and the Istituto per la Geochimica dei Fluidi
(IGF, Palermo) of Italy's National Research Council, devoted to seismic risk mitigation
and to the investigation of fluids in volcanic and tectonically active areas. Dr. Massimo
Cocco, Director of the Seismology and Tectonics Section of INGV, is the main
responsible involved in the present IP.
INPG Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, France

The Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble enters this project in representation of
the Laboratoire Sols, Solides, Structures, a French Joint Research Unit (Unit Mixte de
Recherche) at Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble (INPG), Universit Joseph
Fourier (UJF) and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). Four year
Contracts signed between each of the universities (INPG and UJF) on one side and the
organism (CNRS) on the other, define the ressources (human, financial, infrastructures)
which are provided by the latter to the former, at their discretion for use by the
laboratory for its research activities in general. Therefore, even if INPG is the only
participant in the contract, the other university and the organism are also involved in the
project, as third parties providing ressources to the INPG participant, at his discretion, on
the basis of a prior agreement existing with or without the involvement of the participant
in the project supported by the Community. Key staff who will be involved in the IP are
Prof. J. Mazars, Director of the Soils Solids Structures Laboratory, specialised in non-
linear dynamics of RC structures; Prof. F. Darve, Director of the European Network
ALERT Geomaterials, specialised on modelling of instabilities in natural media; Prof. L.
Daudeville, Director of the Institute IUP "Civil Engineering", specialised in modelling of
structures under earthquake and impact loading; Prof. F. Donze, specialised on discrete
element methods applied to natural hazards; P.Y. Bard, Chairman of AFPS Scientific
Committee, specialised on seismology and site effects modelling.
INSAL INSA-LYON, France

The research team of INSA-Lyon belongs to the URGC Laboratory (Civil Engineering
Research Group) of the National Institute of Applied Sciences (INSA-Lyon). In the last
ten years the team has provided continuous and intensive research in the field of finite
element modelling of reinforced concrete structures under earthquake loading. The
research effort dates back to the 80s and 90s when the basis of advanced constitutive
concrete materials were settled up The team of researchers participating in the IP is
conformed by Prof. J.M. Reynouard, Director of the Research Department,
internationally recognized in the field of non-linear finite element analysis, with
management expertise as task co-ordinator of WG 5 of the ICONS programme; N. Ile,
Research Engineer in computed aided analysis of concrete structures with field of
expertise in nonlinear modelling and seismic response of concrete structures.
IST Istituto Superior Tcnico, Portugal

The Earthquake Engineering Group of ICIST/IST (Instituto de Engenharia de
Estruturas, Territrio e Construo / Instituto Superior Tcnico) in Lisbon is the largest
engineering school in Portugal, with more than 170 civil engineers graduating per year.
The main research interests are: seismic action characterization; assessment of the seismic
performance and strengthening of existing buildings and monuments, bridges and
lifelines, both at global and component level; Civil Protection emergency planning; non-
linear behaviour of reinforced concrete structures; seismic isolation and energy
dissipation techniques to improve the seismic performance of existing structures; seismic
design of large underground structures. The members of staff that will participate in this
project are: Carlos Sousa Oliveira; Joo Azevedo; Mrio Santos Lopes; Luis Guerreiro;
Rita Bento and Jorge Proena.
ITU Istanbul Technical University, Turkey

The Civil Engineering Department (CED) of Istanbul Technical University (ITU) has
been actively involved in providing higher-level education in the field of earthquake
engineering since establishment of seismology Institute in 1952. In addition, it has been
involved in many rehabilitation projects of damaged buildings due to earthquakes
occurred during the last ten years. Key staff that will be involved in the IP is conformed
by Prof. Dr. M. Hasan Boduroglu; Prof.Dr. Ahmet Saglamer; Prof.Dr. Faruk Karadogan;
Prof. Dr. Zekai Celep; Prof. Dr. Erdogan Uzgider; Prof. Dr. Ertac Erguven; Prof. Dr. M.
Ali Tasdemir; Prof. Dr. Zeki Hasgur; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Derin S. Ural; Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Ayfer Erken; Assoc. Prof. Dr. Engin Orakdoven; Assit. Prof. Dr. Alper Ilki; Assist. Prof.
Dr. Unal Aldemir; Assis.Prof. Dr. Pinar Ozdemir; Assist. Prof. Dr. Konuralp Girgin;
Assist. Prof. Dr. Ozden Caglayan; Dr. Pelin Gundes Bakir and Dr. Berrak Teymur.
JRC Joint Research Centre, EU

The European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) is a facility of the JRC of
the European Commission, based on a 16m high, 21m wide reaction wall. The laboratory
performs static, cyclic and pseudodynamic seismic tests on large structures and
components. Since its opening in 1992, ELSA has concentrated its efforts on large/full-
scale experiments for drafting and improving Eurocode 8. Key staff participating in the
present IP are Dr Artur Pinto, Head of the Construction and Earthquake Engineering
Sector, scientific co-ordinator of the ICONS TMR-Network and JRC representative for
the Eurocodes National Correspondent Group; Dr Paolo Negro, currently coordinating
the activities of the Seismic PErformance Assessment and Rehabilitation (SPEAR)
Project; Ing. Fabio Taucer, co-ordinator for the JRC of the European Consortium of
Large Scale Infrastructures (ECOLEADER) and Dr Armelle Anthoine, expert in
computational methodologies and coordinator for all actions concerning training.
KOERI Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Turkey

The Department of Earthquake Engineering of KOERI conducts graduate level training,
research and implementation in the fields of seismic safety of structures, systems and
environment. Faculty consists of four professors, two associate professors and two
instructors. There are 10 research assistants, 30 MSc and 6 PhD students in the
department. The emphasis of the activities is placed on: earthquake hazard and risk
assessment and development of urban earthquake damage scenarios. The team
participating in the present IP is integrated by Prof. Atilla Ansal, Secretary General of the
European Association for Earthquake Engineering since 1994; Prof. Mustafa Erdik,
Chairman of the Department of Earthquake; Prof. M. Nuray Aydinoglu, Member of the
National Earthquake Council of Turkey and chairman of the Seismic Code Subcommittee
of the Turkish National Committee for Earthquake Engineering.
LNEC Laboratrio Nacional de Engenharia Civil, Portugal

LNEC is a large research institution active in all fields of Civil Engineering, with a
permanent staff of about 900 persons. LNEC has been responsible for the preparation of
the Portuguese seismic design regulations since the late fifties/early sixties and holds the
Secretariat of Subcommittee TC250/SC8, responsible for the preparation of Eurocode 8
for Seismic Design. LNEC is a founding member of the European Association of
Structural Mechanics Laboratories (EASML) and has participated in the HCM network
PREC8 Prenormative Research in Support of Eurocode 8 and in the TMR network
ICONS Innovative Seismic Design Concepts for New and Existing Structures. The
research team of the IP will be composed by Dr. E.C. Carvalho, Head of the Earthquake
Engineering and Applied Dynamics Division; Dr. A. Campos-Costa, Principal Research
Officer and Dr. Ema Coelho, Principal Research Officer. 2051
MAURER Maurer Soehne GmbH & Co. KG, Germany

The Company was founded in 1876. Since then, the Company has developed a long
experience in production engineering of steel framed structures and power stations,
bridge accessories (watertight expansion joints, bridge bearings and seismic devices), steel
chimneys and environmental engineering. In 2001 the sales amounted to 74 million euro
with a staff of 500 permanent employees. The main persons participating in the present
IP are Dr. Ing. Christian Braun, Managing Director, formerly Head of the Testing
Laboratory at the Institute for Structural Steelwork and Timber Construction at the
Technical University of Innsbruck; Dr. Ing. Renzo MEDEOT, with a broad experience
in industry and scientific research, participating in several European RTD projects
(REEDS, HARIS, IND-DAMPERS, ISTECH, SPACE ,VAST-IMAGE).
METU Middle East Technical University, Turkey

METU is active in the principal fields of activity: microzonation for urban earthquake
mitigation, mandatory earthquake insurance, risk profiles and mitigation strategies,
establishment of strong motion arrays, revision of development legislation to mitigate
disaster losses and economic impact of disasters, stanbul Earthquake Master Plan, large
scale urban housing retrofitting, condition assessment for safety, rehabilitation of
damaged buildings, development of rapid retrofit techniques applicable in urban buildings
and innovative solutions to effective structural intervention/verification. The professors
involved in the IP are: Polat Glkan, Haluk Sucuolu, Gney zcebe, M.Semih
Ycemen, Nuray Karanc, Murat Balamir, Raci Bademli, Erhan Karaesmen, Can Balkaya,
Uur Polat, Uurhan Akyz, Ahmet Yakut, Cem Topkaya, Ahmet Trer, Sinan Akkar,
Sadk Bakr, K. nder etin.
MUNICHRE Munich Reinsurance Company, Germany

The GeoRisks Research Group at Munich Re, founded in 1974, acts as an in-house
consultant for all issues related to natural hazards and insurance. At present, 13
geoscientists and 6 technicians work in the group. Their main tasks are the development
of computerized risk models for assessing risk from natural hazards, the calculation of
probable maximum losses and insurance rates all over the world, the development and
maintenance of a database for natural disasters worldwide and outreach to clients and the
public by means of publications, seminars, presentations and media contacts. The most
well known product of the research group is the printed and electronic version World
Map of Natural Hazards. The main person following the IP is Dr. Anselm Smolka,
Head of Geological/Geophysical Risk Research, Department, with a professional
expertise in earthquake risk, natural hazards insurance and risk analysis.
NECSO Necso Entrecanales Cubiertas SA, Spain

NECSO is one of the leading companies in the construction sector in Spain working with
more than 40000 suppliers and sub-contractor all around the world. Its activity includes
all fields of civil engineering building. The actual annual turnover of the company is 3000
million euro, 40% of this is directly related to housing construction. Moreover, NECSO
drives and manages many self-promoted business in real estate. These facts, added to its
growing international presence, which at present reaches into more than 30 countries and
goes beyond the EU, gives it ideal characteristics for the implementation of the
developed systems in the IP outside of the European market. The engineer in charge of
the IP is Juan Mieres, Head of the R&D Department, with a strong experience in the
development of new solutions for buildings techniques, procedures and materials.
NGI Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway

NGI is an international centre for research on geotechnical-related problems, counting
135 employees and 10-15 visitors each year coming from Norway and abroad. NGI has a
well-equipped, internationally recognised laboratory for soil and rock testing, and a
separate division dedicated to instrumentation systems and performance monitoring. The
main researchers involved in the present IP are Suzanne Lacasse, Managing Director,
with experience in risk analysis, in-situ and laboratory testing, foundation design, slope
stability and geotechnical engineering; Farrokh Nadim, Director of the International
Centre for Geohazards, with expertise in seismic hazard and earthquake engineering,
numerical modelling, risk analysis and geohazards; Amir M. Kaynia, Deputy Division
Director, Core member of Geophysics Technical Committees of ISSMGE, with
experience in pile foundations and soil-structure interaction..
NTUA National Technical University of Athens, Greece

The soil dynamics group of the Geotechnical Engineering Department at NTUA
combines expertise in analytical soil dynamics, geotechnical earthquake engineering
(analytical and observational), and experimental soil mechanics. The group team consists
of 4 faculty members, 7 doctoral and 4 post-doctoral researchers. The group has been
actively involved in a variety of research projects, in European education courses, in
national and international committees, and have participated in the drafting of seismic
codes and manuals. The main researcher involved in the IP is George Gazetas, Professor
and Director of the Soil Mechanics/Dynamics Laboratory at NTUA, author of over 200
research publications on geotechnical earthquake engineering, foundation vibrations and
soil-structure interaction, he has been a keynote speaker in International Conferences,
and a member of the drafting boards of EC 8 Part 5.
RWTH Rheinisch-Westflische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Germany

The Institute of Steel Constructions at the Technical University Aachen (RWTH) has
been involved in the development of design rules and European Codes (EC0 and EC1)
for buildings and engineering structures in seismic regions for many years. RWTH has
participated in a number of research projects related to the investigation of seismic
behaviour of structures, focusing on the assessment of the requirements regarding
structural topology, detailing rules and material behaviour. RWTH has prepared a large
number of expertises for buildings, engineering structures and bridges in Europe and
other seismic regions, comprising technical support for new structures as well as
verification and measures concerning the improvement of existing structures. The main
person involved in this IP is Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Sedlacek, with a broad experience in steel
and aluminium design of bridges and composite materials. Since 1992 he is also executive
manager of PSP (Prof. Sedlacek & Partner Consulting Engineers).
SAA Stamatopoulos and Associates Co. Ltd, Greece

SAA is a SME medium-sized firm founded in 1960 specialised in geotechnical and
earthquake engineering testing and consulting. Its Athens general office is equipped with
up-to-date hardware and software computer facilities and modern laboratories that
measure the monotonic and dynamic soil and rock properties. During its 40 years, SAA
has completed the design and supervised the construction of more than 1,500 projects
for 400 clients. In the current project, SAA plans to participate primarily with the
scientists Dr Constantine Stamatopoulos, with extensive research work experience and
numerous publications in the field of earthquake geotechnical engineering and soil
stability; Mr Aris Stamatopoulos, principal-in-charge for more than a thousand
geotechnical engineering projects; Dr Maria Bassanou, with interests in mechanical
behaviour of granular materials-liquefaction phenomena.
SGI-MI Studio Geotecnico Italiano Srl, Italy

SGI is a private engineering consultant with more than 30 years experience in
geotechnical engineering, engineering geology, earthquake engineering and environmental
engineering. The researchers involved in the present IP are Ezio Faccioli, Professor of
Earthquake Engineering at Politecnico di Milano since 1986, with research expertise on
earthquake hazard analysis, seismic microzonation, wave propagation and soil-structure
interaction; Roberto Paolucci, Associate Professor of Structural Mechanics since 2002 at
Politecnico di Milano, author or co-author of about 40 technical papers in the field of
engineering seismology and geotechnical earthquake engineering; Carlo Lai, Project
Manager and co-ordinator of the soil dynamics section and author of an engineering
manual for the design of conventional retaining structures in seismic zones.
SGI-SW Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Sweden

SGI is a centre of excellence dealing with geotechnical research, information and
consulting. The Government has appointed SGI as the body responsible for the
acquisition and distribution of geotechnical knowledge in Sweden. The key researchers
involved in the IP are Leif Viberg, works on R&D of physical planning methodologies,
slope failure risk assessment, soil materials resources, airphoto interpretation techniques,
geological and geotechnical zonation, economical planning of land use, GIS, data bases
and statistical analyses; Karin Rankka, works with R&D regarding stress and strain
relationships in natural slopes and different kinds of remedial measures in slopes, e.g. bio-
engineering measures; Bo Berggren, with a large international experience, works with
general geotechnical engineering, R&D on risk assessment and slope stability assessment.
STAP Reparao, consolidao e modificao de estruturas, SA, Portugal

STAP is a Portuguese SME with a capital of 1.6 million euro, incorporated in 1980 to
provide services within the construction industry, specializing in the fields of
rehabilitation and modification of buildings and structures, activities requiring a high
degree of expertise and involving the use of advanced technology. The company is
certified with ISO 9002, covering the services of repair, strengthening and modification
of structures. Key persons are Vtor Cias e Silva, formerly at LNEC where he became
involved in the design of structures and foundations, established STAP in 1980; Jos
Paulo Costa, joined STAP in 1997, formerly Director of the structural rehabilitation
department of Freyssinet Portugal; Joo Paulo Nascimento, graduate student in Civil
Engineering at the Independent University of Lisbon, works with STAP since 1999.
UBRIS University of Bristol, United Kingdom

The EERC at Bristol is a multidisciplinary group with research interests in earthquake
engineering, soil dynamics, structural dynamics and risk management, where analytical
techniques are combined with laboratory experiments and measurements on real
structures. Comprehensive dynamic testing, data recording and processing facilities have
been built into the laboratory at Bristol. These include a six-axis shaking table, loose
actuators for multi-axial testing of structures, instrumented hammers, and data recording
and processing equipment. The EERC operates a quality assurance system approved to
the highest Ministry of Defence and nuclear industry standards. Key researchers
participating in this IP are Prof Colin Taylor BSc PhD CEng MICE; Dr Adam Crewe
BEng PhD CEng MICE MIStructE; Dr Wendel Sebastian MA PhD; Dr Wendy Daniell
BSc PhD and Dr Nick Alexander BEng PhD.
UCAM University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

The combined experience of Cambridge University and CAR in the field of Earthquake
Engineering extends over 20 years. UCAM has been involved in the use of field data to
develop classifications and structural descriptions of building types found in earthquake
zones in Europe and worldwide; the development of vulnerability relationships for
building damage in relation to expected ground motion; developing techniques for the
estimation of human casualties from earthquakes; loss modelling using predicted
macroseismic intensity and response spectra and probabilistic loss estimates for insurance
and planning. The team has been involved in more than 15 post-earthquake field
missions world-wide over 20 years. The main responsible under the present IP is Robin
Spence, elected President of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering in
September 2002 for a four-year term.
ULIEGE Universite de Liege, Belgium

The Earthquake Engineering Research Group of ULIEGE has been active in Regional
and National projects and has been involved in major European research projects since
1988. The group contributes to solving special problems for industrial clients, by means
of modelling irregular structures, assessment of existing buildings and elastoplastic
"pushover" studies. The Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Institute is formed by 8
permanent staff and is equipped with a 15x20m testing slab and a number of testing
machines. The main researchers involved in the IP are Prof. Andre Plumier, active in
Scientific Committee 13 of the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork since
1983 and Chairman of the Belgian Committee in charge of elaborating the National
Application Documents to EC 8 (1998-2003); Catherine Doneux, Senior Researcher, with
a major background to the newly developed section on composite steel-concrete
structures in Eurocode 8 (2003).
ULJ University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

The Institute of Structural, Construction and Earthquake Engineering and IT (IKPIR) is
active in teaching, research and consulting in earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics. Analytical research in earthquake engineering is focused on linear and non-
linear analyses of building and bridge structures, design of earthquake-resistant RC
structures, energy methods in earthquake engineering, seismic hazard and damage
analysis, development of simplified analysis and design methodologies. Key researchers
involved in the present IP are Peter Fajfar, Prof. of Structural and Earthquake Eng.,
Assoc. editor of the Journal Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Member
of the management committee of EAEE and first president of the Slovenian Association
for Earthquake Eng.; Prof. Matej Fischinger; Assist. Prof. Tatjana Isakovi; Dr. Matja
Dolek; Dr. Damjan Marui and Dr. Iztok Peru.
UNAP University of Naples Federico II, Italy

The Department of Structural Analysis and Design of UNAP holds on teaching and
research activities in several sectors of engineering structures, focusing on material
behaviour and analysis of stress-strain states; seismic engineering; structural damage and
rehabilitation; new construction technologies; structural design; structural assessment;
employment of innovative materials for civil structures. The researchers that will be
involved in the IP are Prof. Edoardo Cosenza, Director of the Department of Structural
Analysis and Design and Chairman of the Course of Civil Engineering in the period
2000-2002; Prof. Gaetano Manfredi,. Professor of Structural Design since 1998,
Coordinator of several scientific projects financed by Ministry of Scientific Research
(MIUR), the National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology (INGV) and the National
Group for Defence against Earthquakes (GNDT).
UNEW University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kyngdom

Following a complete restructuring of the UNEW, the new School of Civil Engineering
and Geosciences (CeG) was created from several former departments concerned with
civil engineering, geomatics and geosciences, providing new opportunities for interaction
between hydrology, geomatics, geotechnology and socio-economics for hazard
mitigation. CeG staff have extensive experience in supervising MSc and PhD students
from all over the world. The main researchers participating in the IP are Dr James C.
Bathurst, with a lengthy background in hydrological and erosion modelling, coordinator
of the DAMOCLES debris flow hazard assessment project and partner in a number of
other EC projects; Mr Stuart Edwards, with over ten years experience in design,
implementation and analysis of high precision GPS survey networks, including low cost,
high precision GPS for hazard mitigation.
UNIMIB Universit degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Italy

The Department is part of the new University of Milano-Bicocca. Its main research
subjects concern the hydrogeological (landslides, floods, groundwater contamination,
etc), seismic, volcanic and environmental risk assessment. The staff is composed of 25
persons with experience in different fields of geology and risk assessment. The
Department is equipped with different technical laboratories for mechanical testing on
soil and rock, numerical simulations and data processing, GIS analyses and aero-
photogrammetric studies. The main researcher participating in this IP is Giovanni B.
Crosta, with a research activity in the field of engineering geology and slope instability.
He is involved in studies regarding rock mass characterization, debris flows, rockfalls,
rockavalanches and deep seated slope deformations.
UPAT University of Patras, Greece

The University of Patras will participate in the project with staff of the Structures
Laboratory of the Civil Engineering Department. The Structures Laboratory is the largest
and best equipped in its kind in Greece. The members of the Structures Laboratory have
an internationally recognized research activity of over 15 years in seismic design of
concrete structures and hold top positions in international and national code-drafting
committees in earthquake-resistant design. They have been active in large European and
national research projects in earthquake engineering. Key reseachers involved in the
present IP are Prof. M. Fardis, Director of the Structures Laboratory, Professor of
Concrete Structures since 1982 and Chairman of the CEN subcommittee for Eurocode 8
Design of structures for earthquake resistance; Stavros A. Anagnostopoulos, Professor
of Structural dynamics and Earthquake engineering since 1986 and Asst. Prof. Stathis
Bousias, Member of fib Task Group 1.1: Design Examples.
UPM Universidad Politcnica de Madrid, Spain

The UPM is active in the fields of vulnerability reduction of urban areas and
infrastructures, disaster scenarios prediction and loss modelling, risk perception and
public awareness and mitigation measures. The research topics include the development
of methodologies for post earthquake damage evaluation of bridges, evaluation
methodologies for structural damage of bridges, probabilistic evaluation of the seismic
vulnerability of structures and bridges, passive and active techniques for earthquake
resistant design and strengthening of new and existing structures and bridges, including
base isolation and/or other energy dissipation systems and numerical simulation of
subsoil-structure interaction for ring-type structures and bridges under the dynamic
effects of high-speed railway. The main responsible for this IP is Prof. Enrique Alarcn
Alvarez.
UROMA Universit di Roma La Sapienza, Italy

The main areas of scientific activity developed over the years and in which the UROMA
can provide significant contributions include the following: modelling of the behaviour
and analysis of the response of RC structures subjected to inelastic cyclic and dynamic
deformations, development of methods for seismic reliability analysis of non linear
structures subjected to time-variant loads, seismic reliability studies on RC building
structures, road-networks including bridges, electric networks, including substations and
development of codes and guidelines for seismic design and assessment of buildings,
bridges, tanks, isolated structures, etc. Key researchers that will be involved in the project
are Professor Paolo Pinto and Dr. Paolo Franchin.
USUR - University of Surrey, United Kingdom

The University of Surrey is a leading academic institution with technological focus,
providing comprehensive research, undergraduate and postgraduate education and
mid/career training. The proposed contribution to this IP will come from the Centre for
Engineering Materials and Structures in the School of Engineering, and is principally
aimed at the following: probabilistic vulnerability assessment, risk evaluation and
uncertainty modelling. The principal investigator will be Professor Marios
Chryssanthopoulos, whose research focuses on Safety and Reliability of Structural
Systems. He is a member of the UK Standing Committee on Structural Safety (SCOSS)
and Reporter of the international Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS), with
responsibility for the development of the Probabilistic Model Code. Key input will also
be provided by Visiting Professor Amr Elnashai, Associate Director of the Mid-America
Earthquake Center and responsible for the European Earthquake Engineering Projects
PREC8, ICONS and SAFERR.
VCE VCE Holding GmbH, Austria

VCE is an independent high-tech oriented consulting firm founded in 1960. The
company has its head office in Vienna, Austria, with branch offices in Gyr, Hungary,
Seoul, Korea and Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C. VCE has three major lines of business the
transportation sector, including bridges, tunnels and railways; the building sector with
general design and management and the development sector with research activities. The
research group focuses on the application of innovative technologies to the design and
maintenance sector by lowering production costs and minimising material consumption.
VCE is among the worlds leading firms in Ambient Vibration Monitoring and
Assessment of Bridges and is determined to extend this technology to other structures.
The main person participating in the present IP is Dr. Helmut Wenzel, with a record of
successfully co-ordinating 6 major R&D Projects of European scale.
VCGP VINCI Construction Grands Projects, France

Vinci Construction Grands Projets is a building Company of VINCI GROUP,
specialized in major Civil Engineering or Building Projects all around the world.
Examples of recent Projects are: Normandie Bridge in France, Stade de France in Paris,
Istanbul Olympic Stadium, Second Tagus Crossing of Lisbon anf the Rion Antirion
Bridge. The key person involved in the present IP is Alain Pecker, Scientific Manager of
the Engineering Department, participating in the following construction projects : Athens
metro, stations and tunnels (Greece), Corrugated steel web bridge at Dole (France), La
Roche Bernard arch bridge (France), Normandy bridge (France), 2nd Tagus bridge: cable
stayed bridge (Portugal), Crozet arch viaduct (France), Rennes Val metro tunnel (France),
Ras Laffan LNG storage tanks (Qatar), Ventabren railway bridge (France), Istanbul
Stadium (Turkey), "Zenith" roofing in Nice (France).

LESSLOSS A European Integrated Project o

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LESSLOSS A European Integrated Project o

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LESSLOSS

A European Integrated Project on

Editors: G.M. Calvi & R. Pinho

University of Pavia, Structural Mechanics Department

This report provides a detailed description of the LESSLOSS project, a research

LESSLOSS is therefore an Integrated Project focusing on Risk Mitigation for Earthquakes

2.5.9 Raising public participation and awareness ................................................................... 117

1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY

In order for the multi-disciplinary S&T ingredients of the project to be tackled in an

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

implementation of an ambitious but feasible technical research programme, to be carried

1- Development and application of improved tools for landslide monitoring

3- Development of innovative displacement-based earthquake-resistant design methods for structures

4- Development of innovative approaches for prediction of landslide triggering

5- Development of innovative probabilistic risk assessment methods of structures

6- Development of innovative methods for stabilisation of landslide-prone areas

7- Development and manufacturing of innovative anti-seismic devices

8- Definition of optimised structural intervention strategies for seismic vulnerability reduction

10- Improvement of pre-disaster planning and mitigation policies

1.3 PARTICIPANT LIST

1.4 RELEVANCE TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE GLOBAL CHANGE AND

As far as scientific and technological advancement is concerned, the development targets

Recent years have witnessed rapid progresses in the development of probabilistic

Notwithstanding the paramount role that assessment of seismic vulnerability of the

and calibration of the methodology to buildings irregular in plan, which need to be

By providing an holistic approach to earthquake and landslide risk mitigation, integrating

1.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT

Landslides, on the other hand, constitute also an increasing threat to European

urban planners, information technologists as well as traditional fields of engineers and

Having managed to secure such a multi-disciplinary research and implementation team

Plans for increasing the competitiveness of the European manufacturing industry by

Dissemination is a duty of every partner of the consortium. It is indeed expected that

With regards to overseas research activities, formal agreements to cooperate, without

1.5.1 Contributions to Standards

1.5.2 Contributions to policy developments

In order for the multi-disciplinary S&T ingredients of the project to be tackled in an

Research area 1 Research area 2 Research area 3

Research activity 1 Research component 1.1 Research component 2.1

Research component 2.2a

Research component 2.3a

Fig. 1 S&T implementation plan

RESEARCH COMPONENT 1.1 - LANDSLIDE

RESEARCH COMPONENT 1.2 - LANDSLIDE

RESEARCH COMPONENT 2.4b EARTHQUAKE OBJECTIVE 10 - IMPROVEMENT OF PRE-DISASTER

Fig. 2 Correlation between S&T objectives and S&T research components

2.1 RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION

A number of inter-disciplinary research tasks, which call for the input/intervention of

Sub-Project 1.4 Sub-Project 2.4a Sub-Project 2.4b

Landslide disaster Earthquake disaster Earthquake disaster

Fig. 3 Research components interrelationship

discussion of this sub-structuring of the projects management structure belongs

Sub-Project 1.1 Landslide monitoring and warning systems

UNIMIB SGI-SW UNEW VCE

Task 1.1.1: In-situ and remote monitoring techniques

LIDAR is used in this project to study landslides in clay slopes. A complete

Sub-task 1.1.1.2: Low cost GPS stations for in-situ monitoring

Sub-task 1.1.1.3: Monitoring shallow slope failures

Task 1.1.2: GIS-geodatabases and analysis

Task 1.1.3: Alert thresholds through GIS data analysis

Disaster planning, preparedness,

Meteo-climatic Displacements, etc.

Methodology for the Definition of Alert Thresholds

Fig. 4 Development of an accurate method to define alert thresholds for warning