Geotechnical hazard representation for seismic risk analysis


  • Sonia Giovinazzi University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand



Seismic risk analysis, either deterministic or probabilistic, along with the use of a GIS environment to represent the results, are helpful tools to support decision making for planning and prioritizing seismic risk management strategies. This paper focuses on the importance of an appropriate geotechnical hazard representation within a seismic risk analysis process.

An overview of alternative methods for geotechnical zonation available in literature is provided, with a level of refinement appropriate to the information available. It is worth noting that in such methods, the definition of the site effect amplifications does not account for the characteristics of the built environment affecting the soil-structure interaction. Alternative methods able to account for both the soil conditions and the characteristics of the built environment have been recently proposed and are herein discussed.

Within a framework for seismic risk analysis, different formulations would thus derive depending on both the intensity measure and the vulnerability approach adopted. In conclusion, an immediate visualization of the importance of the geotechnical hazard evaluation within a seismic risk analysis is provided in terms of the variation of the expected damage and consequence distribution with reference to a case-study.


Giovinazzi, S. and Lagomarsino, S. (2004). “A Macroseismic Model for the vulnerability assessment of buildings”. Proc. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, paper 896.

TC4-ISSMGE (1993; revised 1999) Manual for Zonation on seismic Geotechnical Hazards. Technical Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering.

Medvedev, J. (1962). Engineering Seismology. Academia Nauk Press, Moscow.

Everdnden, J., Thomson, J.M. (1985). “Predicting Seismic Intensities”. U.S. Geol. Survey. Paper 1360.

Midorikawa, S. (1987). “Prediction of Isoseismal map in the Kanto Plain due to hypothetical Earthquake”. Journal of Structural Engineering. 33B. (in Japanese).

Faccioli, E. and Pessina, V. (2003). “WP2-Basis of an handbook of earthquake ground motion scenarios”. Risk-UE Project An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications.

RISK-EU (2004). “The European Risk-Ue Project: An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios”. (2001-2004)

Bard, (1998). “SERINA: Seismic Risk and Integrated Seismological, Geotechnical and Structural Approaches”. ITSAK, European Commission, Directorate General for Science and Development.

CEN (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee For Standardisation (CEN), Brussels.

Paolucci, R. and Rimordi, A., (2002). “Seismic amplification for 3D steep topography irregularities”. Proc. of 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London.

Faccioli, E., Vanini, M., Frassine, L. (2002). “Complex” site effects in earthquake round motion, including topography. Proc. of 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London.

Siyahi, B.G. and Ansal, A. (1993) in TC4-ISSMGE (1993; revised 1999) Manual for Zonation on seismic Geotechnical Hazards. Technical Committee for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 68-70.

Bird, J.F., Bommer, J.J, Crowley, H., Pinho, R. (2006). “Modelling liquefaction –induced building damage in earthquake loss estimation”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 26(1). 15-30. DOI:

Giovinazzi, S. and Cubrinovski, M. (2007). “Liquefaction Hazards for Seismic Risk Analysis”. Proc. of 2007 NZSEE, Conference of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering.

NIBS (1999). HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology: User’s Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC. 1, 2, 3.

Giovinazzi, S. (2005). “The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis”. Ph.D Thesis of the doctoral course “Risk Management on the built environment” jointly organized by University of Florence (I) and TU-Braunschweig (D).

Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K. (1999). “Capacity-Demand-Diagram methods based on inelastic spectrum”. Earthquake Spectra. 15(4). 637-656. DOI:

Ambraseys, N.N., Simpson, K.A., Bommer, J.J. (1996). “Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 25. 371-400. DOI:<371::AID-EQE550>3.0.CO;2-A

Grunthal, G. (1998). European Macroseismic Scale. Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Luxembourg. Vol. 15.

Boore, D.M. (2004). “Can site response be predicted”. J. Earthquake Engineering. 8. no. S1, 1-41. DOI:

Isella, L., Giovinazzi, S., Spallarossa, D., Eva, C., (2004). “Site-Specific Microzonation Study in Northwestern Liguria”. 29th General Assembly of ESC, Potsdam, Germany. (Abstract).

Nakamura, Y. (1989). “A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface”. QR of R.T.R.. 30(1). 25-33.

Pelli, F., Mangini, M., Bazzurro, P., Eva, C., Spallarossa, D., Barani, S. (2006). “PSHA in northen Italy accounting for non-linear soil amplification effects and epistemic uncertainty”. Proc. of 1st ECEES European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland. N:1464.

ISTAT (1991). 13th General Census of the Population 1991. Data on the structural characteristics, of the population and housing. Rome.

Bramerini, F., Di Pasquale, G., Orsini, A., Pugliese, A., Romeo, R., Sabetta, F., (1995). Seismic Risk in the Italian territory. Technical Report from Servizio Sismico Nazionale SSN/RT/95/01. Roma. (In Italian).

Lagomarsino, S. and Giovinazzi, S. (2006). “Macroseismic and Mechanical Models for the Vulnerability assessment of current buildings”. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Special Issue “Risk-Ue Project”. 4(4). DOI:




How to Cite

Giovinazzi, S. (2009). Geotechnical hazard representation for seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 42(3), 221–234.