Convenzione INGV-DPC 2012-2013 Progetti Sismologici Progetto S_2-2012 Titolo Validazione della pericolosità sismica mediante dati osservati Constraining OBservations into Seismic hazard (COBAS) Coordinatore Laura Peruzza Prima Ricercatrice, Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale OGS Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c - 34010 Sgonico (TS) tel: +39 040 2140244 cell: +39 329 2607306 fax: +39 0402140319 fax: +39 040327307 email: [email protected] Laureata in Scienze Geologiche ha collaborato con l’Università di Padova e con l’Observatoire Cantonal de Neuchatel (CH) su progetti di ricerca di geofisica applicata (Bacino Termale euganeo – finalizzato allo sfruttamento della risorsa termale; European Geotraverse e CROP Alpi - esplorazione geofisica crostale). Dalla fine del 1990 lavora presso OGS di Trieste, dapprima nell’ambito delle attività svolte dal GNDT (CNR, poi INGV) e dal 2001 ricercatrice in ruolo. Si occupa di analisi di pericolosità sismica, prevalentemente di approccio probabilistico, alla scala regionale e nazionale, con contributi che spaziano dalla individuazione e caratterizzazione delle sorgenti sismogeniche, fino alla realizzazione di prodotti finalizzati all’ingegneria sismica e alla valutazione del rischio. Collabora in progetti CARG, indagini di risposta sismica locale, analisi microsismiche con rete temporanee, analisi di sismicità indotta da bacini artificiali. Ha partecipato ad analisi transnazionali nell’ambito delle attività promosse dall’Unesco (ADRIA-GSHAP), a progetti di scambio scientifico finanziate dal Ministero Esteri (Grecia) e ICTP (Cuba), a progetti di valutazione del rischio sismico regionale e locale finanziati dalla PC del Friuli-Venezia Giulia, e iniziative internazionali di testing dell’earthquake forecast (CSEP-EU). Ha coordinato progetti nazionali promossi dal GNDT (MISHA - 1999; EDURISK – 2002, 2007-2009), e coordinato tasks e unità di ricerca in progetti delle successive convenzioni DPC-INGV. Dal 2002 al 2006 è stato membro della Commissione nazionale per la prevenzione e previsione dei Grandi Rischi – Settore Rischio Sismico. Da dicembre 2010 è membro del Working Group on Hazard Model Integration del Technical Advisory Pool di GEM; da luglio 2011 nel “Gruppo di Lavoro Microzonazione” del DPC. Autrice di oltre cinquanta pubblicazioni su riviste internazionali e nazionali, di altrettanti articoli su atti di convegni, e di circa 150 presentazioni a convegni, ha curato monografie e special issues sul tema della pericolosità sismica, nonchè materiali per campagne educativo-divulgative destinate alla scuola e agli adulti in genere. Peruzza L., B. Pace, F. Visini, P. Boncio; 2011: Fault-Based Earthquake Rupture Forecast in Central Italy: Remarks after the L’Aquila Mw 6.3 Event. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 101, 404-412, DOI: 10.1785/0120090276 Pace B., D. Albarello, P. Boncio, M. Dolce, P. Galli, P. Messina, L. Peruzza, F. Sabetta, T. Sanò, F. Visini; 2010: Predicted ground motion after the L’Aquila 2009 earthquake (Italy, Mw 6.3): input spectra for seismic microzoning. Bull Earthquake Eng, DOI 10.1007/s10518-010-9238-y

1

Peruzza, L., Perkins D.; 2010: Foreword. In: Earthquake Probabilities for Italy – Special Issue (Peruzza L., Perkins D. Eds) Journal of Seismology, 14/1, 1-7, DOI 10.1007/s10950-009-9184-9, online Ed. 1573157X, 2009 Pace, B., L. Peruzza, G. Lavecchia, and P. Boncio; 2006: Layered Seismogenic Source Model and Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses in Central Italy. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 96, 107-132. Peruzza, L., Rebez A., Slejko D.; 2001: Seismic Hazard Mapping for Administrative Purposes. Natural Hazards, 23, 431-442

Riassunto – Lo scopo principale del progetto è di predisporre una catena di raccolta, conversione e validazione di prodotti di pericolosità sismica, che integri una risposta locale semplificata, e approfondisca aspetti conoscitivi relativi alla liquefazione e input sismico in zone esposte ad un deficit di protezione sismica e impianti speciali. Il progetto mira a fornire strumenti decisionali per la progettazione e il retrofitting, che affiancheranno quelli già disponibili con la normativa, non a produrre una revisione “ufficiale” della stima della pericolosità del territorio italiano, o una nuova mappa di hazard di riferimento. In linea con le tendenze internazionali, e in continuità con le precedenti tornate progettuali, S2 considera importante la validazione dei risultati di pericolosità sismica, e concentra risorse nella raccolta di osservativi finalizzati al confronto modello-realtà, e nella predisposizione di elaborati site-specific. Sempre in linea con esperienze estere, vengono accolte istanze di nuovi elaborati di pericolosità fault e time-dependent, la cui realizzazione però è spazialmente e concettualmente condizionata alle informazioni disponibili. Per questo motivo si prevede essa non potrà essere attuata con criteri analoghi in entrambe le aree individuate come prioritarie nella prima fase di attività dell’Accordo Quadro Decennale DPC-INGV 2012-2021. La prosecuzione del progetto S2 oltre Giugno 2013, quindi su un respiro bi o triennale come usuale in passato, consentirà di ottimizzare le funzionalità previste per il “SHA results repository” e applicare anche ai nuovi risultati di pericolosità le procedure di “conversione” e “validazione” che il progetto qui proposto realizzerà in un anno solo sugli elaborati disponibili ad oggi, limitatamente alle aree prioritarie o a parti di esse. Il progetto beneficia di importanti e concreti collegamenti con iniziative in corso, come riportato nelle schede progettuali delle UR. Fra queste spiccano le azioni intraprese a seguito della sequenza emiliana del maggio 2012. Tali sinergie permettono di ottimizzare le risorse disponibili nella attuale difficile situazione economica, ma soprattutto cercano di favorire l’omogeneizzazione e il coordinamento pluridisciplinare finalizzato alla riduzione del rischio, obiettivo per il quale è stato accettato nel progetto anche un contributo di stampo sociologico. Il progetto S2 ha condiviso con i progetti S1 e S3 tempi drammaticamente inadeguati per il recepimento delle proposte, per un feedback efficace da parte della comunità scientifica, per la stesura organica di un progetto e la sua revisione condivisa. Il pragmatismo ha prevalso sulle difficoltà nella determinazione a perseguire la progettazione; ciò necessariamente sarà andato a scapito della proposta, del dettaglio operativo e della chiarezza espositiva. Me ne scuso con le UR che sono risultate ammesse al finanziamento, con quelle escluse e con tutti i potenziali fruitori del progetto stesso.

2

Convenzione INGV-DPC 2012-2013 Seismological Projects Project S_2-2012 Title Constraining OBservations into Seismic hazard (COBAS) 1. Coordinator Laura Peruzza First Researcher, Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale OGS Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/c - 34010 Sgonico (TS) tel: +39 040 2140244 cell: +39 329 2607306 fax: +39 0402140319 fax: +39 040327307 email: [email protected] List of participants (Research Units) These RUs partecipate to the project: RU1 OGS Ist. Naz. Oceanografia e Geofisica Sperim. RU2 UNISI University of Siena RU3 UNIUD University of Udine RU4 UNIURB University of Urbino RU5 POLIMI Fondazione Politecnico of Milan RU6 INGVRM Ist. Naz. Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma RU7 INGVMI Ist. Naz. Geofisica e Vulcanologia, MI-PV RU8 UNIGE University of Genova

Leader: M. Mucciarelli Leader: D. Albarello Leader: S. Grimaz Leader: R. Romeo Leader: E. Faccioli Leader: A. Akinci Leader: F. Pacor Leader: S. Barani

2. Objectives The main objective of the project is to develop a post-processing chain of seismic hazard assessments (SHA) able to: - combine the expected shakings at bedrock with site-specific information gathered at the regional scale; - convert different kinds of observations (instrumental and not) into proxies of expected shakings and viceversa; - validate the hazard maps with observations, in order to detect areas of potential underestimation of the forecasted shakings, and - compare and rank different hazard models, according to shared and well-established validation rules, in order to select the best “local” model. The detection of potential underestimation of the expected shakings with respect to the observations represents therefore a sanity check on the lower bound of hazard alone; the project does not care of potential overestimations, as upper bounds are even less “testable” against observations then lower thresholds, and anyway they address a society toward safer conditions. The SH descriptors are quite often multi-parameter outputs, as they cover different enduser demands; therefore we will focus our attention on specific targets and perspectives. The targets addressed by the project are ordinary buildings in deficit of seismic design 3

(both for late entrance of the municipality in the seismic zonation, or as their age exceed the lifetime hypothesized by the regulation – 50 years -), and some special plants returned on the stage after the recent quit of Italy from the nuclear power plants program. The perspective is to define some prompt seismic risk reduction actions. Therefore, the project promotes time-dependent approaches to hazard, and contributes exploring the detection of impeding strong earthquakes. The two areas identified as priority areas in the first phase of the activities by the 20122021 Agreement DPC-INGV, namely the Po Plain and the Southern Apennines from Molise-Lazio to Basilicata-Calabria borders, require different strategies for having “the best seismic hazard”. The first region is characterized by poorly known, buried faults in a moderate seismicity region: shakings are strongly controlled by local site conditions, as the recent Emilia earthquakes have demonstrated. Similar problems on how to characterize the seismic potential affect Southern Italy too, but in a context of strongest events for which some constraints based on active faulting data are available. These differences suggest focusing the attention on site-specific hazard maps, in Northern Italy, and on fault and time-dependent hazard maps in Southern Apennines. By establishing some rock-to-site-specific conversions and validation procedures of the existing SH maps on observations, we do expect to enlighten areas for which additional, and more accurate, predicted ground motion inputs should be provided to local authorities, planners and engineers. A first effort has been done to involve regional institutions collecting data on their own: this is the case for example of Regione Lombardia, adhering to the project by the availability of their geological databases; we do expect positive cascade effects on adjacent regions, once it will be demonstrated the usefulness of such a sharing of information and competences. Last but not the least, the perception of the natural risk of a territory is the first step for effective risk mitigation; I included in the project a sociological proposal on this subject. The aim is to promote some rethinks about the seismic zones, as simple “classes”, expecially if linked to a concept of building vulnerability, are much more comprehensible objects than probabilistic PGA values to the public, and then more capable in communicating the hazard.

3. State of the art The project is the logical extension in time of a long list of projects, promoted by DPC funding after the initiative of the Italian reclassification in 1998 [1]. Namely they are: - 1999-2000 DPC-CNR GNDT agreement: projects devoted to the collection of new, homogeneous data about instrumental earthquakes, active faulting, innovative methods for SH assessment [2-6]; - 2000-2002 DPC-ING agreement: seismological projects implementing database and methods, developing seismic hazard maps for regulation, increasing the regional knowledge of causative sources and local response [7-10]; - 2004-2006 DPC-INGV agreement: seismological projects for refinements on seismic hazard regulation (http://esse1.mi.ingv.it/index.html; http://progettos5.stru.polimi.it/), and methodological evolution to a 4th generation map [11-14] - 2007-2009 DPC-INGV agreement: seismological projects for determining earthquake potential (http://legacy.ingv.it/normeeprogrammazione/indice.html) and for the development of a dynamic model of seismic hazard assessment at the national scale (http://nuovoprogettoesse2.stru.polimi.it/); the second one produced maps and computational tools of utmost relevance to the work planned herein.

4

In the General Agreement DPC-INGV for the period 2012-2021, the S2 Project has a main goal, i.e. “lo sviluppo e il confronto di differenti modelli per il calcolo della pericolosità sismica a lungo e medio termine …. e di metodologie per la loro validazione, fino al conseguimento di modelli finali di consenso”, and has to be applied in the first annual phase in priority areas such as the Po Plain and Southern Apennines (from borders of Lazio and Abruzzo to borders of Basilicata and Calabria regions). This choice puts some limits to innovative applications of seismic hazard assessment [15-23]. Conversely, the international community, especially after the devastating events of March 2011 in Japan, is facing some challenges in seismic hazard assessment. France and Canada, in particular, are dealing with problems of handling rare events, obtaining reliable seismic potential in moderate seismicity regions, introducing time-dependency and local site conditions; New Zealand and the USA are moving toward validated seismic hazard models, clustering events and inexpensive, partial mitigation for areas with certain but infrequent events (kind pers. comm. by Scotti, Adams, Stirling, Perkins). During its lifetime, the S2 project will deal with the release of new seismic hazard results given for Europe (http://www.share-eu.org/); they will be a benchmark for the goals of the project itself.

4. Project description 4.1 Organization and Management (Tasks and RU contribution) The project is organized in 8 Tasks and its work force consists of the following 8 RUs: RU1 OGS Ist. Naz. Oceanografia e Geofisica Sperim. Leader: M. Mucciarelli RU2 UNISI University of Siena Leader: D. Albarello RU3 UNIUD University of Udine Leader: S. Grimaz RU4 UNIURB University of Urbino Leader: R. Romeo RU5 POLIMI Fondazione Politecnico of Milan Leader: E. Faccioli RU6 INGVRM Ist. Naz. Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Roma Leader: A. Akinci RU7 INGVMI Ist. Naz. Geofisica e Vulcanologia, MI-PV Leader: F. Pacor RU8 UNIGE University of Genova Leader: S. Barani. Provided below is a general description of the Tasks and of their main objectives. The activities proposed by a RU are sometimes split on more than one task, as illustrated in Table 1: note that RU1 and RU6 include respectively 4 and 6 proposals of activities, for which the key person responsible of activities is given in Table 1. Bold border shows the leading role given to a RU for each task. Connections among the Tasks and their mutual interaction in order to achieve the main objectives of the project are described in the next section. - Task 1: Development and repository of Seismic Hazard Assessment (SHA) It aims at archiving the results of the existing models and of the new PSHA models developed inside the project, both with homogeneous format with respect to MPS04 [8] products. RU5 POLIMI, RU6 INGVRM (81), RU8 UNIGE, RU2 UNISI and RU1 OGS (18) participate to this task. The leader is RU5 POLIMI, with eventual technical support by RU1 OGS. 1

The number in brackets refers to the numbered list of initial proposals, available at: http://cabernet.ogs.trieste.it/scambio/download_form.php?code1=87e7f471ec67dba9&cod e2=8231c6038ccd7a48 till 11 July 2012 5

Table 1: Proposals and responsibles, tasks and RUs. Arrows indicate RU’s number when the proponent team is merged into a different RU. Cells in bold show the leading RU for each task.

- Task 2: Expanding the observations The task collects original data of different nature (instrumental and not), and optimizes the existing ones to widen the capabilities of confronting seismic hazard results with observations. As the conversion of standard maps referred to rock conditions into sitespecific maps is the core of the validation process, the RU6 INGVRM (27) is given a leading position among different data gatherers (see Table 1); the director will assist and facilitate data exchange with other tasks. - Task 3: Conversion of instrumental data vs observables This task will provide state-of-the-art and solutions to convert instrumental observations (mainly from waveforms) into non-instrumental parameters (mainly macroseismic data). The leader is RU7 INGVMI. - Task 4: Site-Specific seismic hazard assessment This Task will formulate and make available (if necessary with additional software resources) the “translation” of hazard results referred on standard rock conditions with the site-specific information available at the beginning and at the end of the project. RU8 UNIGE will lead the task in strong interaction with RU1 OGS (18), RU6 INGRM (27), RU2 UNISI and RU5 POLIMI. - Task 5: Methodological hints 6

This task collects original methodologies for seismic hazard assessment, data gathering and processing. RU6 INGRM (8) is given a leading position among 3 research units (see Table 1); the director will assist and facilitate methodological exchange within the task and with other tasks. - Task 6: Model validation The task aims at ranking SHA results with respect to the observed data available. The activity benefits of the experience done during the previous S2 2007-09 project, and it is leaded by RU2 UNISI. All the RUs should be involved in the procedural scheme of validation. A final ranking of the models in the repository (Task 1) is expected. - Task 7: Special plants The task will gather literature and regulations, in order to provide minimum requirements in terms of seismic hazard assessment and monitoring controls for natural gas storage deposits. The task is leaded by RU1 OGS (22). - Task 8: Liquefaction The task is solicited by the recent Emilia events, with the astonishing amount of occurrences and new data. The task will gather field and laboratory data, and literature to a retrospective evaluation of similar effects. The task is performed by RU4 UNIURB. 4.2 Methodology The conceptual flowcharts of Figure 1 show how tasks interact: the full list of deliverables (Dx codes in bold) is given in section 6. A number of the foregoing activities linked to SHA will be pursued using tools developed in the previous S2 project, or more consolidated software and approaches: basically the CRISIS code, in its most recent version of 2012, SASHA and SHAKE91 codes [24-26]. CRISIS will also allow handling the probabilistic treatment, at specific sites, of sets of externally generated ground motion scenarios for fault models. Once the scientific community has released a ranked list of hazard representations, given by the existing models integrated with the available site conditions, joint sessions of work with DPC personnel should check if they are tenable in terms of emergency plans, or suitable to be promoted as additional seismic input for planners and engineers. This part of the project still needs to be planned in synergy with DPC. A strong directorial determination is to pursue interactions of RUs and collaborative works within a km-zero strategy. Skype sessions, teleconferences and web-distributed information and resources will try to keep cohesion among the participants, and transparency for the whole scientific community. After a round about with RUs during the summer for better focusing the work-plan and the expected results, two plenary meetings only are planned (mid-term and final). 4.3 Activity Here a brief list of activities pertaining to each task, and who does what. Task 1- Development and repository of Seismic Hazard Assessment (SHA) it aims at archiving the results of the existing models and of newly developed PSHA models, with homogeneous format with respect to MPS04 products.

7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1: Flowcharts of Tasks and expected deliverables (see section 6).

Namely they are: i) existing rock-based hazard results such as the ones obtained by the gridded occurrence probability maps produced in the previous S2 2007-09 project, in a ready-to-be-used format compatible with the CRISIS code; they will be reviewed and/or updated by authors

8

participating in this project. RU5 will supervise results transfer and updating of hazard models developed in S2 2007-09; ii) newly developed rock-based hazard assessments in the priority areas of the Po Plain by RU5 and Southern Apennines by RU6 (8); they will combine different models, including fault-based and time-dependent realizations; iii) existing site-based hazard results such as the ones obtained at the national or local scale using macroseismic site intensity approach or at the regional scale by means of site-specific attenuation relationships; RU2 and RU1 (18) will deliver these results in the most homogeneous format as possible with MPS04. iv) newly developed site-based hazard assessment at the regional and local scale, performed by RU8 and RU1 (18). In this annual project, the repository of SHA is conceived as a simple archive of probabilistic results only, with access restricted to the project’s participants and DPC; each set of results is given an ID code that links a formatted table of SH descriptors, with an auxiliary README-file description. By the end of the project, a part of SHA results will be added by a ranking code, and a validation form, released by joint efforts of Task 3, 4 and 6. Web-gis capabilities, scenario-based branches of the repository or interactive queries of the repository are expected in following (if any) annual phases of S2 project. The repository itself is the deliverable D1.1, the Task is coordinated by Faccioli (RU5), with possible technical assistance of RU1. Task 2: Expanding the observations The task collects original data of different nature, and optimizes the existing ones to widen the capabilities of confronting seismic hazard results with observations. RU3 plans to acquire and analyze, during the first semester, photos and videos of the seismic damages caused by the earthquakes in Emilia (Italy, 2012). These data will be used in order to evaluate the relationship between seismic action and damage, both after the main shock and after the aftershocks. This will allow establishing the effects of the damage accumulation (caused by main shock and aftershocks) on the macroseismic intensity (Task 3). The need of studying in detail the observed ground motions, to provide new insights on their upper-bounds and variability, especially for moderate-to-large events in areas characterized by low seismicity, is enlightened by RU7: it will perform a revision of the current empirical models for ground motion prediction, based on updated and qualified strong motion dataset loaded in ITACA database, and described in more detail in Task 3. RU1 (21) will gather seismological data too, for earthquakes and seismic noise in the Po Plain by means of temporary stations. Waveforms and widely used shaking parameters (e.g. PGA, PGV, Housner and Arias Intensities) will be available; amplification factors and response spectra will be available too, for the station sites, contributing to Task 3 and 4 as well. RU6 (37) will work on risk perception before and after a natural disaster as one of the most important predictor of social behavior. Several studies in fact state that the perception of risk has a significant effect both on independent variables (e.g., sex, age, race), and on the dependent variable (e.g., the action to be taken to reduce exposure to risk), decreasing the effect of all of them. Starting from literature data and instruments used in similar studies on risk perception, a questionnaire or test will be designed that can be adapted to the culture of the area to be studied. This activity will be conducted through a pre-test in a sample zone. Subsequently, the calibrated and validated questionnaire or test will be administered to all the target municipalities. The qualitative and quantitative data collected will be processed; the relationship between the perception of seismic risk versus seismic hazard assessment (zones, PGA values stated by law, or site-specific results developed inside 9

this project) will be studied to formulate suggestions or proposal for more efficient ways of communicating the risk. In this sense, the data gathering proposed by RU6 (37) will contribute to the validation ranking planned in Task 6. RU6 (7) plans an investigation oriented to: i) map the intensity residual of the Po Plain, obtained through the statistical analysis of macroseismic intensities collected for all municipalities; ii) obtain a detailed maps of intensity residuals of a large town. Intensity data of magnitude larger than 4 earthquakes, for every municipality, will be statistically analyzed to enlighten and separate the random component and source effect from site response. Successively they will select a large town, considering the number of data available, among Milano, Bologna and Modena, in order to carry on a detailed local intensity residual analysis in relation to local geology. This data collection and analysis is functional to Task 3 as well. The development of empirical correlations between geological formations and predominant lithotypes, with the same seismic response based on compositional characteristics and granulometry, age, depositional environment and any other attributes, is the focus of RU6 (27), pursued by data collection, and calibration on selected sites. The activities will be concentrated in test areas of the Po Valley and the southern Apennines, selected in agreement with the other research units. They include: i) the reconnaissance of the available databases and digitized maps; ii) the collection of surface geological maps, in a vector form and at 1:50.000 scale or higher, and of subsoil (i.e., Lombardia Region agreement n. 56, merged into RU6 form), or other maps useful for the objectives of the activity; iii) a subsurface data collection (stratigraphic and Vs profiles), including information from the ISPRA database on the census of water wells in accordance with 464/84 Law; iv) the development of a data processing methodology that takes into account the different scales of representation of the available geological data; v) some data processing using a GIS platform, aimed at assessing of local seismic hazard, based on surface geology and stratigraphic profiles (Task 4). As the conversion of standard maps referred to rock conditions into site-specific maps is the core of the validation process, Di Capua RU6 (27) is given a leading position among different data gatherers (see Table 1); the director will assist and facilitate data exchange with other tasks. Six deliverables (D2.1-2.6) are expected from this task. Task 3 - Conversion of instrumental data vs observables The conversion of instrumental data into long-lasting observables (the prince among them is the macroseismic intensity) is by far not a trivial issue. Very recent observations on damaged buildings, carried on after the last Italian seismic events, highlight the fact that the macroseismic intensity data need to be referred to a sequence of earthquakes rather than to a single action. Therefore, the correlation between intensity and ground acceleration has to take into account both the site effects and the cumulative effects of a sequence of seismic events, as a building damaged by an earthquake is more vulnerable to the following seismic actions. Regarding the site effects on intensity data, RU7 proposes a bibliographic synthesis of studies able to quantify or neglect site effects in macroseismic intensity fields. These results will be cross-checked with the analyses planned by RU6 (7), as previously described in Task 2, and by site mapping given by RU6 (27). Concerning the conversion between macroseismic intensity and a single ground motion parameter, RU3 plans to compare the damage predictions based on seismic hazard maps with the observed seismic damages.

10

Concerning Ground Motion (GM) parameters and GMPE, RU7 develops activities at national scale such as: i) the update of the ITA10 GMPEs with the recently acquired data (Po plain events, which significantly increment the number of thrust events with M > 4.5 and EC8 soil class D samples); ii) the evaluation of GMPEs for additional GM parameters (Arias intensity, Housner intensity, vertical components, displacements spectral ordinate up to 10s); iii) the adoption of different distance metrics in order to reduce the epistemic uncertainty in the derived GMPEs (i.e. hypocentral distance, distance to the rupture area); iv) the analysis of ground motion variability. At the regional scale they will: v) calibrate regional GMPEs for both shallow and deep events, using the strong motion data set acquired in northern Italy, also including data from the 2012 seismic sequence of Modena – Ferrara; vi) introduce new explanatory variables, aimed at reducing the epistemic uncertainty in the case of deep sedimentary basins. RU5 intends to contribute to this task by updating successful correlation, published some years ago, between macroseismic intensities and instrumentally based engineering parameters. The Task is coordinated by Pacor (RU3), with two deliverables expected. Task 4: Site-Specific seismic hazard assessment The aim of this task is to assess the ground-motion hazard for test sites or areas incorporating site effects into calculations. Past experiences in site-specific probabilistic and deterministic hazard showed a high variability of seismic accelerations as a function of morphological, geological and geotechnical information available, and from the way of modeling bedrock to free surface response (simplified versus full modeling, 1D versus 2D). The choice of the study site is strictly conditioned by the availability of geological and geotechnical data (e.g., down-hole profiles, boreholes, results from field or laboratory tests on specific soil specimens). Case-studies will be used as benchmark to quantify differences with previous hazard estimates neglecting site effects (MPS04) or based on the application of simplified approaches; results will be compared with real recorded data (Task 6). RU8 will perform a two-phases activity: i) evaluation of site response through numerical soil modeling: it includes the collection of geological and geotechnical data needed to define a numerical soil model for the site under study (e.g., down-hole profiles, boreholes, field or laboratory tests), the definition of the numerical soil model, the selection of a set of seismograms (seismic input) to be applied at the base of the numerical model, and the numerical ground response analysis using Shake 91 [26]; ii) site-specific seismic hazard assessment by the definition of one or more soil response functions via regression analysis, the implementation of a computer program that convolves the rock hazard curve (e.g., extracted from the MPS04 database) with the soil response function, and the final site-specific hazard assessment. RU1 (18) will compute the free field expected shaking in sample areas (e.g. the VenetoFriuli plain), using geological, geophysical and geotechnical available data (scale 1:50.000 or lower) and also using the results of seismic microzonation. The local amplifications will be calculated based on the specifications contained in the national seismic code (with a comparison with foreign ones) and using 1D modeling (mostly) and in cases of specific morphological complexity 2D. The obtained amplification factors will be associated with

11

homogeneous distribution areas mainly based on the above cited information and will be applied to the bedrock values of the national map. RU5 will make use of: i) spectral amplification factors based on GMPEs, selected and validated with sets of observations at accelerometer stations at sites with good soil profile metadata; ii) observed spectral amplification functions from well instrumented and documented reference soil profiles, mainly the Japanese Kik-net data bank, with correction factors from buried to outcropping rock. These data will be extrapolated to simplified geological outlines based on sediments thickness and/or geological age. Last but not the least, RU2 will apply the “site” approach to the most recent macroseismic catalogues, and reference macroseismic hazard maps will be developed to be used as benchmark for hazard evaluations provided in the frame of the project (Task 6). These results are intrinsically site-specific. This Task requires optimization of efforts among site qualification and databases, accomplished by RU6 (27) and seismic hazard modellers. It is coordinated by Barani (RU8), assisted by the director: one comprehensive deliverable is expected. Task 5: Methodological hints In the last decade, in Italy, there has been an increasing interest in assessing earthquake probabilities and seismic hazard incorporating detailed knowledge of active faulting and tectonic rates in earthquake recurrence models; the modeling of time-dependent characteristic sources has become important too. Nevertheless, the application of different models as those studied in the last S2 2007-09 project led to very different results in terms of seismic hazard estimates, but apparently insignificant differences as far as earthquakes occurrence concerns. These considerations open the door to two key-actions to be performed: the development of strict procedures for the validation of the results (Task 6) and the utilization of seismic hazard approaches where uncertainty estimates are an inseparable part of the studies. This task collects original methodologies for seismic hazard assessment, data gathering and processing, focussing on the second key-action. RU1 (34) plans to develop, test and optimize a Matlab software to calculate the average recurrence time and coefficient of variations using as input data the mean values and uncertainties of the shear modulus, long-term slip rate, maximum expected magnitude, length along the direction and length along the dip of the fault. They will also test predictive performances of various probability functions, which are commonly used to build seismic hazard maps in Italy for the definition of the probability of occurrence of strong earthquakes in the Po Plain and in the southern Apennines. RU6 (8) promotes a methodology for the seismic hazard calculation using all the available seismotectonic information (in terms of fault geometry, historical and instrumental seismicity, earthquake-structure association and slip rates etc.) and the different earthquake occurrence models, exploring new alternative methods for the seismic hazard assessment (fault-based, time-independent and time-dependent) in Southern Apennines. The seismic hazard estimates will be developed using the following steps: i) calculation of the potential seismic activity due to the background using a method based on a spatial smoothing of the historical seismicity; ii) definition of the magnitude and time of recurrence according to the characteristic earthquake model for faults related to the events of the maximum magnitude. In the case in which the characteristic pattern can not be taken into consideration, the “floating fault” or “cascading” model can be used for those structures; iii) modeling of the temporal distribution of events generated by a specific structure in two models: a time-independent (poissonian) and a time-dependent type of renewal (the

12

Brownian Passage Time). The second model assumes a hazard function variable with the time elapsed since the last event; iv) assessment of the probabilistic seismic hazard for different values of seismic ground motion in terms of PGA and spectral ordinates of response spectra with 5% damping; v) deaggregation analysis following the methodology described by [27]; vi) quantification of the uncertainties in the seismic hazard maps using a Monte Carlo approach as described by [28-29], and [30]. Akinci RU6 (8) is given a leading position among the three research units developing new methods. The director will assist and facilitate methodological exchange within the task and with other tasks. Seismic hazard maps for priority areas with new methods will be released as deliverables of Task 5, and they will feed the repository in Task 1 at the end of the project. Task 6: Model validation The task aims at ranking SHA results with respect to the observed data available. The activities proposed by RU2 aim at evaluating likelihood of hazard maps provided in the frame of the S2 project on the basis of a comparison with a set of relevant macroseismic and accelerometric evaluations. These likelihood estimates will be considered to develop a “consensus” hazard map from the Bayesian combination of validated procedures. Activity will develop in two phases: i) during the first phase, observables to be used for empirical validation will be gathered. In particular, accelerometric databases will be analyzed in details to identify stations operated for longer time spans. These stations will be characterized at best with respect to soil conditions and a number of possible parametric observations of possible interest (PGA, PGV, PSA; Housner, etc.) will be gathered. In the same phase, as described before in Task 4, by the application of the “site” approach to most recent macroseismic catalogues, reference macroseismic hazard maps will be developed to be used a benchmark for hazard evaluations provided in the frame of the project; ii) in the second phase “probability scoring” procedures will be applied to the hazard maps provided in the frame of the project. To each hazard evaluation a likelihood value will be attributed on the basis of empirical comparisons. These values will be used to develop a “consensus” hazard map by a bayesian combination of hazard values provided by validated approaches. RU5 will greatly benefit from the past experience of its leader as coordinator of the 20072009 S2 project, which developed many of the hazard models collected in the repository of Task 1. The UR will carry out hazard calculations for a number of selected sites to provide a basis for the application of the ranking procedures. RU1 (18) will perform seismic protection deficit evaluation in relation to the different buildings and changes of seismic regulations. In some test sites (urban), the value of acceleration (rock soil) amplified according to the technical regulations will be compared with the one derived from specific calculation described in Task 4. It will thus be possible to identify the lack of seismic protection, calculated with reference to the bedrock conditions and to the free field conditions. This activity is done in collaboration with RU3. The activities benefit of the experience done during the previous S2 2007-09 project, and they are coordinated by Albarello of RU2. All the RUs should be involved in the procedural scheme of validation. A final ranking of some models in the repository (Task 1), i.e. the existing one at the beginning of the project, is expected. Task 7: Special plants

13

The task will gather literature and regulations, in order to provide minimum requirements in terms of procedures and standards for evaluating the seismic hazard and the surveillance of natural gas storing activity within underground natural reservoirs. In the year of this project, RU1 (22) plan to summarize the state of art, to recognize and to evaluate the following topics, primarily in Po Plain and Veneto plain, or in other regions where storage plants do exist or are planned: i) inventory of existing regulations and authorities, including the state of art for both national regulations for high risk plants and international regulations for gas storage sites, CO2 sequestration, enhanced geothermal systems; ii) collection of the existing and developing storages, concessions, and involved companies; iii) survey of plant types and adopted technologies aimed at seismic hazard reduction; iv) recognition of geological and structural features in the general geodynamic settings, with specific attention for structures where storages are located; v) selection of procedures and method aimed at estimating seismic input for storage plants, with attention to different GMPE in relation to induced seismicity, given its shallow nature; vi) analysis of existing infrastructures, data elaboration procedures and parameters employed for seismic, geodetic and geochemical monitoring; vii) suggestion in terms of advertising about hazard and monitoring studies, and actions for improving the correct education and awareness of population. RU3 will also make a bibliographic research on facilities that can be affected by serious accidents (in particular gas storages). The research will be supported also by systematic observations acquired during the Emilia seismic sequence, with special attention to plant typologies present in the territory. RU5 will focus its contribution on the definition of procedures for SH evaluation, and concentrate on the task of reducing the influence of GMPEs dispersion on SH evaluations at long return periods (e.g 5000 – 10000 years), crucial for special facilities. Extensive use will be made of the non-ergodic or site-corrected sigma; care will be paid to eventually handling sigma as an aleatory variable. In a subsequent phase SH results will be validated against deterministic evaluations, calibrated on the seismotectonic knowledge, presumably reviewed and updated in particularly for the Po Plain area, after the May 2012 events. The deliverable D7.1, a sort of guidebook for best practices in monitoring and seismic hazard assessment of underground natural gas storages, is co-coordinated by Mucciarelli and Priolo RU1 (22) with contributes by the other mentioned RUs. Task 8: Liquefaction The task is solicited by the recent Emilia events, with their astonishing amount of liquefaction occurrences and new data. The research aims at finalizing the study of historically documented liquefaction cases and of the experimentally investigated ones, to the definition of seismic shaking thresholds, above which the reported effects have occurred. The activities will be performed by RU4, a multidisciplinary group of researchers belonging to several institutions: they will be divided into: i) the identification and parameterization of the seismic shaking thresholds for historically documented liquefaction phenomena; ii) the experimental analyses in sample test areas (including the River Po Plain and selected areas of the Southern Apennines) of lithology susceptible to liquefaction. For the historical events thresholds of seismic shaking will be defined as a function of the magnitude and distance from the earthquake source; for the most recent and investigated events, a comprehensive approach to the definition of the soil resistance to liquefaction will provide a better constrain to the values of the earthquake shaking that match the pattern of 14

the observed phenomena. Wherever possible the identification of seismic shaking thresholds producing permanent ground deformations will make possible, too, to identify potential anomalies in the pattern of ground motion due to the occurrence of site amplifications or to identify overestimations of the local site intensities. The joint use of magnitude-distance correlations to define the thresholds of seismic shaking explaining the observed liquefaction phenomena, and some back-analyses on stress values (which may justify, given the strength of the soil, the earthquake shaking necessary to trigger liquefaction) should enable the group to export the selected casestudies to other areas (e.g. in Southern Apennines). Romeo (RU4) coordinates people of various institutions within the task, with potential interaction with other interested RUs too. 5. Main references 1] Gruppo di Lavoro (1999). Proposta di riclassificazione sismica del territorio nazionale. Ingegneria Sismica 14(1): 5-14. [2] CSTI GdL, P. Augliera, et al. (2001). Catalogo strumentale dei terremoti "italiani" dal 1981 al 1996, versione 1.0. CD-Rom. [3] Barchi, M., G. Lavecchia, et al., Eds. (2000). Sintesi delle conoscenze sulle faglie attive in Italia Centrale: parametrizzazione ai fini della caratterizzazione della pericolosità sismica. Roma, Esagrafica Srl. [4] Galadini, F., C. Meletti, et al. (2000). Le ricerche del GNDT nel campo della pericolosità sismica (1996-1999). Roma, CNR-Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti. [5] Galadini, F. and P. Galli (2000). Active tectonics in the Central Apennines (Italy): input data for seismic hazard assessment. Natural Hazards 22: 225-270. [6] Peruzza, L., Ed. (1999). Progetto MISHA. Metodi Innovativi per la Stima dell'HAzard Applicazione all'Italia Centrale. Trieste, Studio Gamma. [7] Amato, A. and G. Selvaggi (2004). Terremoti probabili in Italia tra l'anno 2000 e il 2030: elementi per la definizione di priorità degli interventi di riduzione del rischio sismico. Scientific Reports - 3rd year of activities. GNDT. Roma [8] MPS Working Group (2004). Redazione della Mappa di Pericolosità Sismica prevista dall'Ordinanza PCM 3274 del 20 Marzo 2003. Milano-Roma, Italia, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia: 65, 5 Appendici. [9] Riuscetti, M., L. Sirovich, et al. (2001). Scenari di danno nell'area veneto-friulana. Udine, Italia, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti (GNDT): 42. [10] Slejko, D. and A. Rebez (2002). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and deterministic ground shaking scenarios for Vittorio Veneto (N.E. Italy). Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 43: 263-280. [11] Stucchi, M., C. Meletti, et al. (2011). Seismic Hazard Assessment (2003-2009) for the Italian Building Code. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(4): 1885-1911. [12] Slejko, D. and G. Valensise. (2007). Progetto S2 - Valutazione del potenziale sismogenetico e probabilità dei forti terremoti in Italia. http://legacy.ingv.it/progettiSV/Progetti/Sismologici/S2/. [13] Peruzza, L., Perkins, D. (2010). Earthquake Probabilities for Italy. Journal of Seismology (Special Issue): DOI 10.1007/s10950 [14] Faccioli E., Villani M. (2009). Seismic hazard mapping for Italy in terms of broadband Displacement Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra, 25 (3): 515-539. [15] Akinci, A., D. Perkins, A.M. Lombardi and R. Basili, (2010). Uncertainties in the estimation of the probability of occurrence of strong earthquakes from individual seismological sources in the Apennines, Italy. Journal of Seismology, 14: 95-117. [16] Akinci; A., F. Galadini, D. Pantosti, M. Petersen, L. Malagnini and D. Perkins, (2009). Effect of time dependance on probabilistic seismic hazard maps and deaggregation for the central Apennines, Italy, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am, 99: 585-610. [17] WGCEP (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities) (2008). The uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2). U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437 and California Geol. Survey Special Report 203.

15

[18] Pace B, Peruzza L, Lavecchia G, Boncio P (2006). Layered seismogenic source model and probabilistic seismic hazard analyses in Central Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:107–132. doi:10.1785/0120040231. [19] Petersen, M., Frankel, A., Harmsen, S., Mueller, C., Haller, K., Wheeler, R., Wesson, R., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O., Perkins, D., Luco, N., Field, E., Wills, C., and Rukstales, K., (2008). Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128, 61 pp. [20] Petersen MD, Cao T, Campbell KW, Frankel AD (2007). Time-independent and timedependent seismic hazard assessment for the State of California: uniform California earthquake rupture forecast model 1.0. Seismol. Res. Lett. 78(1): 99–109. doi:10.1785/gssrl.78.1.99. [21] Peruzza L., B. Pace, and F. Visini (2011). Fault-Based Earthquake Rupture Forecast in Central Italy: Remarks after the L’Aquila Mw 6.3 Event. Bull. of the Seism. Soc. of Am. (Short Note), 101: 404-412. [22] Romeo R (2005). Earthquake hazard in Italy, 2001–2030. Nat Hazards 36:383–405. doi:10.1007/s11069-005-1939-1. [23] Marzocchi, W., A. Amato, A. Akinci, C. Chiarabba, A.M. Lombardi, D. Pantosti, and E. Boschi, (2012). A ten-years earthquake occurrence model for Italy, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am, 102(3):11951213; doi:10.1785/0120110164. [24] Ordaz, M. (2010). S2 project (http://nuovoprogettoesse2.stru.polimi.it/), D1.1: Open source code for SHA. Technical report. [25] D’Amico V., Albarello D., (2008). SASHA: a computer program to assess seismic hazard from intensity data. Seism. Res. Lett., 79, 5: 663-671 [26] Idriss, I. M. and Sun J. I. (1993). User’s manual for Shake91: A computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposit. Center for geotechnical modeling, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis [27] Harmsen, S., D. Perkins, and A. Frankel (1999). Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 89: 1–13. [28] Cramer, C.H., M.D. Petersen and M.S. Reichle (1996). A Monte Carlo approach in estimating uncertainty for a seismic hazard assessment of Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange Counties, California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 86 (6): 1681-1691. [29] Cramer, C.H., R.L. Wheeler and C.S. Mueller (2002). Uncertainty analysis for seismic hazard in the Southern Illinois Basin, Seismol. Res. Lett., 73 (5): 792-805. [30] Lombardi AM, Akinci A, Malagnini L, Mueller CH (2005). Uncertainty analysis for seismic hazard in Northern and Central Italy. Ann. Geophys. 48:853–865.

6. Deliverables (Description of each deliverable and definition of relevance for DPC) ID

Deliverables

Task

D1.1

PSHA results repository in format as much as possible compatible with MPS04. DPC is given a set of results easy to be compared and quoted. Lithoseismic maps (digital format) at scale 1:50,000 or less, for priority areas Amplification factor map (digital format) for sample areas inside priority areas Strong motion parameters of selected events (update the national database ITACA, and from OASIS archive); revised GMPE Set of observations of cumulative damage on Emilia buildings Amplification/deamplification maps from macroseismic questionnaires Report on risk perception State-of-the-art of shaking parameters conversion Applet for shaking parameter conversion

1 (6)

D2.1 D2.2 D2.3 D2.4 D2.5 D2.6 D3.1 D3.2

16

2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (3) 2 (3) 2 (3) 2 3 3 (2)

D4.1 D5.1 D5.2 D6.1 D6.2 D7.1 D8.1

Site-specific hazard maps in priority areas Numerical simulation of earthquake recurrence time for selected faults Seismic hazard maps from new models in priority areas Report on model validation procedures Ranked site-specific seismic input from results existing at the beginning of the project Guidebook for best practices in monitoring and seismic hazard assessment of underground natural gas storages Report on liquefaction phenomena and shaking causative levels

4 (2) 5 5 6 6 (1) 7 8

7. Workplanning Phase

1

2

Supervision and transfer of hazard models developed in S2 2007-09

X

X

Earthquakes recording, bibliographic data acquisition

X

Semester

RU5 T1 RU1 T2

I anno

RU1 T2

Construction of the database of seismic data, computation of strong motion parameters and site response, comparison with the normative

RU3 T2

Acquisition and analysis of photos and videos of the seismic damages caused by the earthquakes in Emilia (Italy, 2012).

X

RU6 T2

Extraction of macroseismic data regarding Pianura Padana from database and definition of statistical methods

X

-

Choice of town depending on data availability

X

-

Reconnaissance of databases and digitized maps

X

Collection of geological maps in vector format

X

Collection of subsurface data (stratigraphic and Vs profiles)

X

Literature research and development of a questionnaire / test

X

-

Administration of the questionnaire / test carried out and its validation

X

-

Realization of the field research in the municipalities of the area

-

X

RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU6 T2 RU7 T2 RU7 T2 RU3 T3

X

X

Processing collected data and their relation to the hazard Acquisition of new strong motion data and compilation of the flat-file

X X

Calibration of GMPES at National and regional level Comparison of the damage predictions based on seismic hazard maps with the observed seismic damages

17

X

X

RU3 T3 RU5 T3 RU5 T3 RU6 T3 RU6 T3 RU7 T3 RU7 T3 RU7 T3 RU1 T4 RU1 T4 RU1 T4

Identification of the ground motion parameters mainly involved in the definition of the observed damages

X

X X

Development of a new hazard assessment in Po Plain region using different models Update of correlation between macroseismic intensities and instrumentally based engineering parameters

-

X

Creation of regional scale map by the application of analysis methods

-

X

Data processing in a GIS environment

X

X

Test on the functional forms and explanatory variables

X X

Analysis of ground motion variability Collection of bibliographic material on site effects and macroseismic data

X

Definition and characterization of homogeneous areal

X X

Estimation of shaking at the free field of the sample area

X

X

X

-

X

X

Development of the methodology for data processing

X

X

Evaluation of site response through numerical soil modeling

X

RU1 T5

Development of a Matlab based code to quantify the seismic activity from geometry and slip rates of faults

X

-

RU1 T5

Systematic comparison between the predicted data and the observed data for faults with long paleosismological records

X

-

RU1 T5

Analysis, by means of statistical tests, which of a set of probability functions better approximates the distribution of the observed interevent

X

-

RU2 T4 RU5 T4 RU6 T4 RU8 T4

RU1 T5 RU6 T5 RU6 T5 RU6 T5

protection deficit related to bedrock and free condition Development of probabilistic seismic hazard maps by using the “site” macroseismic approach to be used as a benchmark for scoring hazard maps provided from UR operating in the project Spectral amplification factors based on GMPEs, and on observed spectral amplification functions from well instrumented and documented reference soil profiles

X

Estimation of the probability of occurrence of significant events of known structures Development of an earthquake recurrence model based on a Brownian Passage Time (BPT) behavior applied to the seismogenic Structures in the Southern Apennines

X X

Maps of the Coefficient of the Variation (COV) for each input parameter Time-dependent and –independent Probabilistic Seismic hazard maps for different values of ground motions in terms of PGA and SA in the Southern Apennines

X

Identification of accelerometric observables

X

-

RU2 T6

Likelihood estimates for each hazard map obtained by comparing hazard analyses outcomes and macroseismic and accelerometric observations

-

X

RU2 T6

Development of a “consensus” hazard map by a bayesian combination of validated hazard maps considered with the relevant likelihood estimates

RU2 T6

18

X

RU5 T6

Hazard calculations on selected sites for the application of ranking procedures

-

X

Creation of site effect map

-

X

RU6 T6 RU6 T6

Deaggregation results for the selected sites (magnitude-distance pairs)

X

Critical review of the collected bibliography

X

RU7 T6 RU1 T7

Collection of data and bibliography useful for target 1-8

X

Production of the documents and organization of the expected events

-

Bibliographic research on facilities that can be affected by serious accidents

X

RU5 T7

Definition of procedures for reducing the influence of GMPEs dispersion on SH evaluations at long return periods

X

RU8 T8

Site-specific seismic hazard assessment through the application of the Bazzurro and Cornell method

RU4 T8

Analysis of historically documented liquefaction phenomena: recovering of information and data regarding the location and style of documented effects

RU4 T8

Analysis of historically documented liquefaction phenomena: seismic shaking thresholds and differential local seismic response

RU4 T8

Geotechnical investigation and parameterization of liquefied soils: comparison of different methods for the assessment of the cyclic shear resistance of soil

RU4 T8

Geotechnical investigation and parameterization of liquefied soils: range of seismic shaking values compatible with the liquefaction potential

RU1 T7 RU3 T7

(surname and name)

Institution

X X

(not funded by the project)

I anno 1

Mucciarelli Marco2

OGS

620

2

Albarello Dario

UNISI

240

3

Grimaz Stefano

UNIUD

80

4

Romeo Roberto

UNIURB

480

5

Faccioli Ezio

Fondazione POLIMI

40

6

Akinci Aybige

INGVRM

990

7

Pacor Francesca

INGVMI

260

8

Barani Simone

UNIGE

90

2

Prof. Mucciarelli has been appointed Director of the section Centro Ricerche Sismologiche from July 2012. 19

X

X

Days/Person RU

X

X

8. Personnel

RU responsible

X

X

9. Financial plan (€) Importo previsto (total) Type of expenditure

1) Spese di personale UR 1

20300

2) Altre Spese UR 1

36200

1) Spese di personale UR 2

8000

2) Altre Spese UR 2

12000

1) Spese di personale UR 3

10000

2) Altre Spese UR 3

5000

1) Spese di personale UR 4

0

2) Altre Spese UR 4

21000

1) Spese di personale UR 5

28000

2) Altre Spese UR 5

5000

1) Spese di personale UR 6

35200

2) Altre Spese UR 6

54300

1) Spese di personale UR 7

25000

2) Altre Spese UR 7

15000

1) Spese di personale UR 8

0

2) Altre Spese UR 8

10000

Totale GENERALE

€285,000.00

20