Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure: Neodeterministic (NDSHA) Approach Guarantees Prevention Rather Than Cure

By Benedetto DeVivo

Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure: Neodeterministic (NDSHA) Approach Guarantees Prevention Rather Than Cure communicates in one comprehensive volume the state-of-the-art scientific knowledge on earthquakes and related risks. Earthquakes occur in a seemingly random way and, in some cases, it is possible to trace seismicity back to the concept of deterministic chaos. Therefore, seismicity can be explained by a deterministic mechanism that arises as a result of various convection movements in the Earth’s mantle, expressed in the modern movement of lithospheric plates fueled by tidal forces. Consequently, to move from a perspective focused on the response to emergencies to a new perspective based on prevention and sustainability, it is necessary to follow this neodeterministic approach (NDSHA) to guarantee prevention, saving lives and infrastructure.

This book describes in a complete and consistent way an effective explanation to complex structures, systems, and components, and prescribes solutions to practical challenges. It reflects the scientific novelty and promises a feasible, workable, theoretical and applicative attitude.

Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure serves a “commentary role for developers and designers of critical infrastructure and unique installations. Commentary-like roles follow standard, where there is no standard.

Mega-installations embody/potentiate risks; nonetheless, lack a comprehensive classic standard. Every compound is unique, one of its kind, and differs from others even of similar function. There is no justification to elaborate a common standard for unique entities. On the other hand, these specific installations, for example, NPPs, Naval Ports, Suez Canal, HazMat production sites, and nuclear waste deposits, impose security and safety challenges to people and the environment. The book offers a benchmark for entrepreneurs, designers, constructors, and operators on how to compile diverse relevant information on site-effects and integrate it into the best-educated guess to keep safe and secure, people and environment.

The authors are eager to convey the entire information and explanations to our readers, without missing either accurate information or explanations. That is achieved by “miniaturization, as much is possible, not minimization.

So far, the neodeterministic method has been successfully applied in numerous metropolitan areas and regions such as Delhi (India), Beijing (China), Naples (Italy), Algiers (Algeria), Cairo (Egypt), Santiago de Cuba (Cuba), Thessaloniki (Greece), South-East Asia (2004), Tohoku, Japan (2011), Albania (2019), Bangladesh, Iran, Sumatra, Ecuador, and elsewhere. Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure includes case studies from these areas, as well as suggested applications to other seismically active areas around the globe. NDSHA approaches confirm/validate that science is looming to warn. Concurrently, leaders and practitioners have to learn to use rectified science in favor of peoples' safety. State-of-the-art science does have the know-how to reduce casualties and structural damage from potential catastrophes to a bearable incident.

• The only book to cover earthquake prediction and preparation from a neo-deterministic (NDSHA) approach
• Includes case studies from metropolitan areas where the neo-deterministic method has been successfully applied
• Editors and authors include top experts in academia, disaster prevention, and preparedness management

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: May 21, 2021
• ISBN: 9780128235416

Book preview

Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure

Neodeterministic (NDSHA) Approach Guarantees Prevention Rather Than Cure

Editors

Giuliano F. Panza

Vladimir G. Kossobokov

Efraim Laor

Benedetto De Vivo

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Dedication

Contributors

About the editors

Preface

Chapter 1. Hazard, risks, and prediction

1. Introduction

2. The core seed of disaster

3. What do we know about earthquakes?

4. Seismic hazard and associated risks

5. Prediction

6. Discussion and conclusions

Chapter 2. Seismic hazard assessment from the perspective of disaster prevention

Part I: Requirements and state of the art

Part II: Procedure and practical example

Chapter 3. The view of a structural engineer about reliable seismic hazard assessment

1. Introduction

2. A set of inconsistent myths

3. Weaknesses in current seismic design philosophy

4. Reliable seismic hazard

5. Conclusions

Chapter 4. Disaster prediction and civil preparedness

1. Introduction

2. Effective prediction time

3. An unbridgeable gap between response capabilities and scale of losses

4. Increase cooperation with the international emergency response system

5. Given days

6. Given seconds—minutes—hours

7. Given years one cannot

8. Conclusion

Chapter 5. The integration between seismology and geodesy for intermediate-term narrow-range earthquake prediction according to NDSHA

1. Introduction

2. Time independent narrow-range signatures for earthquake prediction: a geodetic GNSS-based approach

3. Intermediate-term narrow-range earthquake prediction: the benefit of geodesy and seismology synergy

4. Conclusions and future perspectives

Chapter 6. Modeling the block-and-fault structure dynamics with application to studying seismicity and geodynamics

1. Introduction

2. Brief description of the BAFD model

3. Summary of the results obtained by means of the BAFD model

4. Discussion and conclusion

Chapter 7. Morphostructural zoning for identifying earthquake-prone areas

1. Introduction

2. Morphostructural zoning: basic definitions and an application for the Italian region

3. Nodes and earthquakes

4. Identification of seismogenic nodes by pattern recognition

5. Validity of the methodology

6. Conclusions

Chapter 8. Earthquake forecasting and time-dependent neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment in Italy and surroundings

1. Introduction

2. Intermediate-term middle-range earthquake predictions based on precursory seismicity patterns

3. Earthquake forecasting by CN and M8S algorithms in Italy

4. Neo-deterministic time-dependent seismic hazard scenarios for the Italian territory

5. Discussion and conclusions

Chapter 9. Spreading NDSHA application from Italy to other areas

1. Introduction

2. Rome

3. Valparaìso

4. Trieste

5. Discussion

Chapter 10. S-wave velocity profiling for site response evaluation in urban areas

1. Introduction

2. Methodologies

3. Noise cross-correlation experiments for the definition of VS models

4. VS models

5. Site effects

6. Conclusions

Chapter 11. A user-friendly approach to NDSHA computations

1. Introduction

2. Once upon a (CPU) time…

3. Back to the future

4. Toward user friendliness

5. XeRiS

6. Conclusions

Chapter 12. Recent applications of NDSHA: seismic input for high rise buildings in Egypt’s New Administrative Capital

1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Input data for hazard computation

4. Ground shaking scenarios

5. Conclusions

Chapter 13. Neodeterministic method to assess the seismic performance of water distribution networks

1. Introduction

2. Resilience of water distribution network

3. Case study

4. Conclusion

Chapter 14. Seismic hazard analysis in a historical context: experience at caltrans and elsewhere

1. Introduction

2. Deterministic approach used in California from early 1970s to date

3. Oppositions to the MCE-based seismic hazards

4. A remarkable negative experience

5. Other experience

6. Two favorite recollections

7. Concluding remarks, questions, and suggestions

8. Questions

9. Suggestions

Abbreviations

Chapter 15. Where there is no science – probabilistic hazard assessment in volcanological and nuclear waste settings: facts, needs, and challenges in Italy

1. Introduction

2. Hazard and volcanic risk to Somma-Vesuvius and Campi Flegrei

3. Radioactive waste storage in salt formations at Scanzano Jonico site (southern Italy)

4. Conclusions

Chapter 16. Seismic hazard and earthquake engineering for engineering community

1. Consequences of earthquakes

2. Seismic hazard

3. Earthquake mitigation measures and modern earthquake engineering

4. Motivations of offshore earthquake engineering

5. Closing remarks

Chapter 17. Scenario-based seismic hazard analysis and its applications in the central United States

1. Introduction

2. Scenario seismic hazard analysis

3. Scenario ground motions and hazard maps for Kentucky

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Chapter 18. NDSHA achievements in Central and South-eastern Europe

1. Introduction—reliable seismic hazard assessment—a prerequisite for building disaster-resilient and environmentally friendly society

2. The NDSHA multiaspect power

3. Conclusive remarks

Chapter 19. Application of NDSHA to historical urban areas

1. Introduction

2. Case study of Poggio Picenze (Abruzzo region, central Italy)

3. Case study of Napoli (Campania region, southern Italy)

4. Conclusions

Chapter 20. Insights from neo-deterministic seismic hazard analyses in Romania

1. Introduction

2. Seismicity and earthquake source zones in Romania

3. Seismic hazard at national scale

4. Seismic hazard at local scale

5. Discussion and conclusion

Chapter 21. NDSHA in Bulgaria

1. Introduction

2. NDSHA applications in Bulgaria

3. Sofia NDSHA case study

4. Russe NDSHA case study

5. Conclusive remarks

Chapter 22. NDSHA-based vulnerability evaluation of precode buildings in Republic of North Macedonia: novel experiences

1. Introduction

2. Experiences and motivation—a chronological overview

3. Seismowall research project

4. Case study

5. Conclusions

Chapter 23. Seismic characterization of Tirana–Durrës–Lezha region (northwestern Albania) and analysis effort through NSHDA method

1. Introduction

2. Geological and tectonic background of the study area

3. Definition of the structural model

4. Seismic zonation

5. Method and results

6. Discussions

Chapter 24. Regional application of the NDSHA approach for continental seismogenic sources in the Iberian Peninsula

1. Introduction

2. NDSHA application at regional scale

3. Seismicity in the Iberian Peninsula

4. Application of NDSHA in the Iberian Peninsula

5. NDSHA results

6. Conclusions

Chapter 25. NDSHA applied to China

1. Continental earthquakes and disaster risk: challenges and scientific problems

2. Earthquake forecast/prediction in China: scientific practices and products

3. NDSHA applied to China

4. Discussion and future perspectives

Chapter 26. Application of neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment to India

1. Introduction

2. NDSHA application at national scale

3. NDSHA application at regional scale

4. NDSHA application at local scale (seismic microzonation)

5. Conclusion

Chapter 27. Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment for Pakistan

1. Introduction

2. Input data

3. Methodology

4. Results

5. Comparison between NDSHA and PSHA maps

6. Conclusion

Chapter 28. Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment studies for Bangladesh

1. Introduction

2. Seismic zoning map

3. NDSHA studies at national scale

4. NDSHA studies for scenario earthquakes

5. NDSHA studies for scenario earthquakes using maximum credible seismic input method

6. Conclusions

Chapter 29. Application of NDSHA at regional and local scale in Iran

1. Introduction

2. NDSHA for Alborz region

3. Local NDSHA validation in Tehran city

4. Conclusion

Chapter 30. Application of neodeterministic seismic hazard analysis to Sumatra

1. Introduction

2. Regional scale NDSHA for Sumatra

3. Local scale NDSHA—application to Banda Aceh city

4. Discussion and conclusions

Author Index

Subject Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-823503-4

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisitions Editor: Amy Shapiro

Editorial Project Manager: Aleksandra Packowska

Production Project Manager: Debasish Ghosh

Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Dedication

In memory and to the centenary of Vladimir I. Keilis-Borok

Vladimir Isaakovich Keilis-Borok (31.07.1921–19.10.2013)

Contributors

Tahmeed M. Al-Hussaini,     Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Giorgio Altin,     Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Trieste, Trieste, Italy

Bogdan Felix Apostol,     National Institute for Earth Physics, Ilfov, Romania

N. Seth Carpenter,     Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States

Sudipta Chakraborty,     Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Ishika N. Chowdhury,     BUET-JIDPUS, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Gian Paolo Cimellaro,     Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy

Carmen Ortanza Cioflan,     National Institute for Earth Physics, Ilfov, Romania

Maria Rosaria Costanzo,     Department of Earth Science, Environment and Georesources (DiSTAR), University Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy

Mattia Crespi,     Geodesy and Geomatics Division, DICEA, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Melissa De Iuliis,     Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy

Benedetto De Vivo

Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States

Pegaso On-line University, Napoli, Italy

Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Hubei Polytechnic University, Huangshi, Hubei, China

Zhifeng Ding

Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Key Laboratory of Earthquake Source Physics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Elena Dumova-Jovanoska,     Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia

Mohamed N. Elgabry,     National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG), Helwan, Cairo, Egypt

Lihua Fang

Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Key Laboratory of Earthquake Source Physics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Hasan al Faysal,     Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Shanghua Gao,     Institute of Earthquake Forecasting, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Mariano García-Fernández,     CSIC – Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain

Alexander Gorshkov,     Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Hany M. Hassan,     National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG), Helwan, Cairo, Egypt

Hesham Hussein,     National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics (NRIAG), Helwan, Cairo, Egypt

Maurizio Indirli,     ENEA, Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy

Irwandi Irwandi

Department of Physics, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

STEM Research Center (STEM.id), Universitas Syiah Kuala

Junbo Jia,     Aker Solutions, Sandslimarka, Sandsli, Norway

Changsheng Jiang,     Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

María-José Jiménez,     CSIC – Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain

Jens-Uwe Klügel

International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSO, Arsita, Italy

NPP Goesgen, Goesgen, Switzerland

Vladimir Kossobokov

Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSO, Arsita, Italy

Mihaela Kouteva-Guentcheva,     National Earthquake Engineering Center – University of Architecture, Civil Engineering and Geodesy (NEEC-UACEG), Sofia, Bulgaria

Efraim Laor,     National Research Institute for Disaster Reduction, Holon Institute of Technology, HIT, Holon, Israel

Andrea Magrin,     National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics – OGS, Trieste, Italy

Elena Florinela Manea,     National Institute for Earth Physics, Ilfov, Romania

Sebastiano Marasco,     Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy

Sokol Marku,     Marine Geology, Albanian Geological Survey, Tirana, Albania

Kristina Milkova,     Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia

Lalliana Mualchin

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Placerville, CA, United States

International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSO, Arsita, Italy

Concettina Nunziata,     Department of Earth Science, Environment and Georesources (DiSTAR), University Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy

Rapo Ormeni,     Department of Seismology, Institute of Geosciences, Waters and Environment, Tirana, Albania

Giuliano F. Panza

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, Italy

Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL, Rome, Italy

International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSO, Arsita, Italy

Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing, China

Imtiyaz A. Parvez,     CSIR Fourth Paradigm Institute (formerly CSIR C-MMACS), NAL Belur Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Ivanka Paskaleva,     EPU, Pernik, Bulgaria

Antonella Peresan

International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSO, Arsita, Italy

National Institute of Oceanography and Experimental Geophysics, OGS, Seismological Research Center, Udine, Italy

Habib Rahimi,     Department of Seismology, Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Mehdi Rastgoo,     Department of Seismology, Institute of Geophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Giuseppe Rolandi,     University Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy

Fabio Romanelli

Department of Mathematics and Geosciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

Institute of Earthquake Forecasting, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Leontina Romashkova,     Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation

Paolo Rugarli,     Castalia Srl, Milan, Italy

Farhana Sarwar,     Federal Government Girls Degree College Quetta Cantt, FGEI(C/G), Rawalpindi, Balochistan, Pakistan

Alexander Soloviev,     Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation

Franco Vaccari,     Department of Mathematics and Geosciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

Zhenming Wang,     Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States

Edward W. Woolery,     Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, United States

Zhongliang Wu,     Institute of Earthquake Forecasting, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

Yan Zhang,     Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration, Beijing, China

About the editors

Giuliano F. Panza is former Full Professor of Geophysics, Trieste University, Head SAND Group Abdus Salam ICTP Trieste, co-funded with Academician Vladimir Keilis-Borok; Dr.H.C. Bucharest University; Emeritus Honorary Professor at IGG-CEA, and Honorary Professor at BUCEA, China. Mr. Zhao Ming, Deputy Director CEA of Department International Cooperation welcomed him as Marco Polo in Seismology. He is a member of Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Accademia Nazionale delle Scienze detta dei XL, Academia Europaea, Russian Academy of Sciences, TWAS Academy, and a recipient of the EGU Beno Gutenberg medal, AGU International award, Premio Linceo ANL, Central European Initiative Medal of Honour, Commemorative Medal VAST, Medal of Honor NRIAG Egypt; fifth Class/Knight-OMRI for very high scientific merits, and is widely recognized for his links to fundamental results in geophysics with implications of great interest for the community. In 2009, he delivered the Lectio Magistralis opening Trieste University Academic year, attended by Chamber of Deputies President. His research interests include earthquake prediction and hazards, and geodynamics, and he has an h-index (Scopus, 2021) of 47.

Vladimir Kossobokov is Past Vice President of the IUGG Commission of Geophysical Risk and Sustainability with an MS in Mathematics, Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University gained in 1975. Months before graduation he joined Vladimir Keilis-Borok (at that time Professor at Institute of Physics of the Earth, USSR Academy of Sciences) to work on pattern recognition of earthquake-prone areas. Their fruitful collaboration lasted for decades. Professor Kossobokov has played a pioneering role in design and testing reproducible methods for earthquake prediction, hazards, and risks assessment based on global and regional geophysical databases through exploratory data analysis, pattern recognition, and applied mathematical statistics. His fundamental contributions have led to formulation of the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes, to the launch in 1992 of the on-going real-time intermediate-term earthquake prediction experiment that eventually confirmed (with a statistical confidence above 99%) the predictability of the world's largest earthquakes, as well as to better understanding of climates in Europe and solar–terrestrial interactions.

Efraim Laor has a PhD in Policy, Strategy and Administration of Large Scale Emergency Situations, (Disaster Management) from King's College London.

His work has encompassed short- and long-term strategic, operative, and tactical planning, as a member of think-tank teams, which have formulated conceptions for the Emergencies and Battlefield of the Future.

He has a great deal of operational experience, including as CO of the seventh Armored Brigade, IDF.

He has been involved in numerous search and rescue, relief and reconstruction missions in Israel and abroad, including responses to and recovery from earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, typhoons, cyclones, fires, NaTech, HoTech, pandemics, nuclear disasters, and civil strife.

He has been an invited lecturer and keynote speaker at numerous conferences, seminars, and training events.

He is also the Head and a Lecturer at the Geography of Disaster Areas, Masters and PhD Program, University of Haifa, and the Chief Scientist at AFRAN—National Research Institute for Disaster Reduction, HIT.

He is the Former Chairman, GoI National Steering Committee for Disaster Reduction, CEO of the Fast Israeli Rescue and Search Team [F.I.R.S.T.], (12 units; 7600 SAR call-outs), and a team member of the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC).

Benedetto De Vivo is currently Full Professor of Exploration and Environmental Geochemistry at Pegaso Online University, Napoli, Italy; Adjunct Professor at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA (since 2006); Nanjing University, Nanjing, China (since 2016); Hubei Polytechnic University, Huangshi, China (since 2019); and retired from University Napoli Federico II. He has an h-index of 50 (Google Scholar) and 44 (Elsevier Scopus/Mendeley). He is also the recipient of the 2019 Gold Medal Award of the Association of Applied Geochemists for outstanding scientific contributions/achievements in applied geochemistry; Fellow of the Mineralogical Society of America and Assoc Appl. Geochemists. He has been Chairman of the Working Group Inclusions in Minerals of the International Mineralogical Association; Chief Editor (2007–16) of J. Geoch. Explor. (Elsevier) and Geochemistry-Expl-Env-Analysis (2017–18). His research interests include fluid and melt inclusion studies, volcanology, exploration and environmental geochemistry, and health. He has published 350 papers, 15 thematic books (Elsevier and EOLSS/UNESCO), 33 monographs, and seven textbooks (in Italian).

Preface

If you are right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind even if you are a minority of one. The truth is still the truth.

Mohandas Gandhi

The book "Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure: Neo-Deterministic (NDSHA) Approach Guarantees Prevention Rather Than Cure aims to communicate in one volume the state-of-the-art scientific knowledge on earthquakes and related seismic risks. Earthquakes occur in a seemingly random way and in some cases it is possible to trace seismicity back to the concept of deterministic chaos. Therefore, seismicity, apparently, can be explained by a deterministic mechanism that arises as a result of various convection movements in the Earth's mantle, expressed in the modern movement of lithospheric plates fueled by tidal forces. The polarized plate tectonics and the complex nature of seismic phenomena highlight the need to avoid the use of overly simplistic models, particularly for the assessment of the risks associated with earthquakes. In a perspective of prevention, coherent and compatible with the most advanced theories, it is essential that at least the infrastructure installations and public structures are designed so as to resist (or sustain) future strong earthquakes and continue to operate in their original capacity. An earthquake compatible with the seismogenic characteristics of a certain area, even if sporadic and therefore labeled as unlikely," can occur at any time.

When an earthquake occurs with a given magnitude M, the same generates a seismic motion of the soil that certainly does not depend on its sporadicity in the study area. In this perspective, the anti-seismic design parameters must take into account the magnitude values defined according to the seismic history and seismotectonics, as required by the Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA) approach, rather than being reduced or increased depending on the greater or lesser earthquake sporadicity, as foreseen by some people, adopting the probabilistic approach (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment [PSHA]).

Consequently, to move from a perspective focused on response to emergencies to a new perspective based on prevention and sustainability, it is necessary to follow the neo-deterministic approach (NDSHA) to guarantee prevention and hence saving human lives.

NDSHA dates back to the turn of millennium. It is the second millennium scenario- and physics-based multidisciplinary approach for the evaluation of seismic hazard, proven reliable by 20   years of experiments in many countries worldwide. Scenario-based Seismic Hazard Analysis (SSHA) and Maximum Credible Seismic Input (MCSI) are well-established methods, which are part of NDSHA evaluation.

It should be emphasized the importance of the validity of one of the basic principles of geology first suggested by James Hutton in Theory of the Earth published in 1795. The principle dictates that the geological or physical phenomena that operate now have always acted with the same intensity in the past geological times, and what happened in the past may happen in the present and will happen in the future, with a caveat toward the concept of return period. In other words, what happened in the past can happen, but from time to time in the present and in the future.

Noting the fluctuation in specified design values that occurs from code edition to code edition, structural engineers have expressed disbelief in the validity of the science upon which the maps are based and dissatisfaction with the ever-changing design requirements for buildings. Furthermore, as the definition of the maps has become more complex, designers have lost an understanding of the intent of the maps and what they represent. Importantly, the maps portray precision in the design values that is inappropriate, given the substantial uncertainty in the values portrayed. The legislation hence should be based on NDSHA approach, able to overcome most of, if not all, the obvious limitations and serious misconceptions of other prevailing approaches.

In the following, we supply a series of papers that reviews and updates the NDSHA research and the results obtained so far in Africa, America, Asia, and Europe, a collection of evidences that hopefully will induce responsible people and authorities to consider more reliable procedures for SHA evaluation.

In Chapter 1, Vladimir Kossobokov (Hazard, Risks, and Prediction) introduces the state-of-the art approaches aimed at reduction of disaster risks demonstrating that although science cannot remove, yet, people's ignorance and favor for illusion regarding reality, it can deliver reliable operational recommendations on the level of natural risks for decision-making in regard to engineering design, insurance, and emergency management. The source of widespread scientific crisis lies in misuse of science, like in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses evidently misleading to unacceptable levels of disaster. On the contrary, the neo-deterministic approach appears to set an innovative standard for Reliable Seismic Hazard Assessment.

In Chapter 2, Jens-Uwe Klugel (Seismic hazard assessment from the perspective of disaster prevention – Part I: requirements and state of the art; Part II: procedure and practical example) concludes, after analyzing the key characteristics, possible strengths and limitations of deterministic and probabilistic approaches, including the latest developments of both methodologies, NDSHA and PSHA, that only the deterministic methodology provides a robust and flexible enough basis for the development of a disaster resilient design for critical infrastructures (Part I) and outlines the procedure for seismic hazard assessment (SHA) for the development of disaster resilient design of critical infrastructures and lifelines (Part II). The key element of this methodology is development of a damage-consistent seismic hazard using (i) site intensity as the leading seismic hazard parameter and (ii) NDSHA approach to seismic hazard analysis to achieve the required disaster resilience. The procedure includes the incorporation of a safety factor which is based on the prediction of an upper bound of the energy content of the next record strong earthquake to develop the ensemble of cascading time histories. The hazard results can be applied in a graded, performance-based approach for the design of critical infrastructures. The application of the methodology for reassessment of the seismic design basis of a nuclear power plant is presented.

In Chapter 3, Paolo Rugarli (The View of a Structural Engineer about Reliable Seismic Hazard Assessment) shows that the policy to seismic design of the last 40   years needs upgrading: civil engineers must be aware that the use of PSHA may result in the design of unsafe buildings. This key issue for structural engineers involved in the development of reliable structural analysis software, trying to avoid the spreading of misleading results, requires a great change in seismic hazard evaluation. All the important results in seismic hazard assessment reached in the last 30   years or so, NDSHA evaluation, must be considered in the next versions of the standards and explicitly taken as reference approach.

In Chapter 4, Efraim Laor and Benedetto De Vivo (Disaster Prediction and Civil Preparedness) discuss the potential role of NDSHA in the preparedness, mitigation, and management of earthquake disasters. The authors highlight the importance of NDSHA approach in the paradigm shift from disaster reduction to reduction of disaster risk, which should change the community mainstream understanding of sustainable infrastructure.

In Chapter 5, Mattia Crespi, Vladimir Kossobokov, Antonella Peresan, and Giuliano F. Panza (The Integration between Seismology and Geodesy for Intermediate-Term Narrow-Range Earthquake Prediction according to NDSHA) argument that earthquakes cannot be predicted with ultimate precision, so that the progressive reduction of the prediction uncertainty in space and time is an evergreen task, both from the scientific point of view for the intrinsic complexity of seismic phenomenon and for its high societal relevance. To this aim, well-tested algorithms exist (CN, M8, and M8S) for intermediate-term middle-range prediction. The authors review the fundamental ideas of an integrated approach based on the synergy of high-density geodetic observations (GNSS and SAR) and seismological information, able to achieve the intermediate-term narrow-range earthquake prediction.

In Chapter 6, Alexander Soloviev (Modelling the block-and-fault structure dynamics with application to studying seismicity and geodynamics) overviews modeling of the lithosphere block structure dynamics. The seismic region in the mechanical model is considered to be a structure of perfectly rigid blocks, separated by infinitely thin flat faults, where deformations and stresses arise, causing earthquakes. The results obtained by numerically simulating the dynamics of various block structures, including those that approximate the Earth specific seismic regions, show that the model is a useful tool for studying the effect of fault geometry and block movements on seismicity properties.

In Chapter 7, Alexander Gorshkov and Alexander Soloviev (Morphostructural zoning for identifying earthquake-prone areas) examine information on potential earthquake sources as a key starting issue for seismic hazard assessment. They present a phenomenological approach for identifying possible locations of strong earthquakes and its application for the Italian region. The methodology hypothesizes the nucleation of strong earthquakes at morphostructural nodes formed at the intersections of lineaments detected by formalized morphostructural zoning. Pattern recognition techniques pinpoint earthquake-prone nodes based on a wide set of geophysical and geological data characterizing nodes.

In Chapter 8, Antonella Peresan and Leontina Romashkova (Earthquake forecasting and time-dependent Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment in Italy and surroundings) prescribe an operational procedure for time-dependent seismic hazard assessment that has been developed and integrates intermediate-term middle-range earthquake forecasts from pattern recognition analysis (by CN and M8S algorithms) with the scenario-based NDSHA. The authors provide a review of the results from rigorous prospective testing of the integrated procedure, which is ongoing for the Italian territory since 2006. The results obtained so far, including analysis of the statistical significance of issued forecasts, support reliability of the time-dependent scenarios associated with CN predictions.

In Chapter 9, Fabio Romanelli, Giorgio Altin, and Maurizio Indirli (Spreading NDSHA Application from Italy to other Areas) provide an in-depth discussion of the NDSHA application to the cities of Rome, Valparaiso, and Trieste illustrating the existing possibilities for a local scale analysis of earthquake hazard and associated risks.

In Chapter 10, Maria Rosaria Costanzo and Concettina Nunziata (S-wave velocity profiling for site response evaluation in urban area) discuss average one-dimensional shear wave velocity models obtained in the densely urbanized city of Napoli (Italy), through frequency-time analysis and non-linear inversion methods applied to cross-correlation of synchronous ambient noise recordings at two sites. The comparison of the spectral amplifications computed along a section in the historical center, for the 1980 earthquake (MW 6.8), with ellipticity and H/V spectral ratios, at specific sites, evidences the key role of sound seismo-stratigraphies.

In Chapter 11, Franco Vaccari and Andrea Magrin (A User-friendly Approach to NDSHA Computations) describe the web-based software XeRiS that allows to generate a comprehensive suite of realistic ground motion parameters for a scenario earthquake modeling with different level of detail. XeRiS is a powerful tool useful for both geophysical and earthquake engineering community.

In Chapter 12, Mohamed El Gabry, Hani Hassan, and Hesham Hussein (Recent Applications of NDSHA: Seismic Input for High Rise Buildings in Egypt New Capital) make a review and update of the local and regional seismic sources that may affect the Central Business District (CBD) project site. Both local and distant earthquakes have been incorporated to produce NDSHA synthetic seismograms (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) and spectral accelerations to be used by the structural designers. The estimated NDSHA PGA median value (50th percentile) is about 0.16   g, which is comparable to 0.15   g PGA of the Egyptian building code for the zone where the CBD is located, but the 84th and 95th percentile estimated NDSHA PGA reach 0.23 and 0.28   g, respectively.

In Chapter 13, Gian Paolo Cimellaro, Melissa De Iuliis, and Sebastiano Marasco (Neo-deterministic method to assess the seismic performance of water distribution networks) investigate the service failures of water distribution networks (WDNs) due to natural and man-made hazards that may incur consequences to public health, economic security, and social welfare. They propose a resilience index (R) of a WDN as the product of three indices: (1) the number of users temporarily without water, (2) the water level in the tank, and (3) the water quality. To demonstrate the applicability of the methodology, different disruptive scenarios have been implemented in a small town in southern Italy.

In Chapter 14, Lalliana Mualchin (Seismic Hazard Analysis in a Historical Context: Experience at Caltrans and Elsewhere) recalls his vivid personal experience about how probabilistic hazard assessment approach had been started in California and was exported out all over the world and how difficult it was to pass through the oppositions to applying deterministic Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) approach in preparing twice the state seismic hazard map of California.

In Chapter 15, Benedetto De Vivo, Efraim Laor, and Giuseppe Rolandi (Where There's No Science - Probabilistic Hazard Assessment in Volcanological and Nuclear Waste Settings: Facts, Needs and Challenges in Italy) give reasons for poor decisions in hazard assessments for volcanological and nuclear waste settings in Italy as the failure of providing scientifically correct recommendations. Italian scientists often offer recommendations based on probabilistic assessments to meet the political demands rather than oppose those contradicting scientific and ethical grounds. The article discloses this malpractice concerning the largest civil hospital in southern Italy on the slope of Mt. Vesuvius, active volcano, and planning the site of radioactive waste disposal near the town of Scanzano Jonico in Basilicata. The authors suggest expanding the basic principles of NDSHA to reliable estimations of other natural hazards and mitigation of associated risks.

In Chapter 16, Junbo Jia (Seismic Hazard and Earthquake Engineering for Engineering Community) discusses the emerging topic of offshore earthquake engineering. Earthquakes and tsunamis have great potential to cause damage to offshore infrastructures and require the due development of earthquake detection, description, and evaluation technology to obtain earthquake resistant forms and techniques of construction for offshore platforms, offshore bridges, oil and gas exploration projects, and the provision of basic material and theoretical support for further improvement of specifications and standards. NDSHA supplies reliable hazard estimation for engineering applications and implementation in design codes and standard suitable for the protection of offshore infrastructures as well.

In Chapter 17, Zhenming Wang, N. Seth Carpenter, and Edward Woolery (Scenario-based Seismic Hazard Analysis and Its Applications in the Central United States) applied Scenario Seismic Hazard Analysis (SSHA), a part of NDSHA, to derive seismic hazards in the central United States, Kentucky in particular, and faced the challenge caused by the large uncertainties in earthquake locations, magnitudes, occurrence rate, and ground motions, which in turn led to large numerical uncertainty in probabilistic ground motion hazard estimate and makes communicating, understanding, and using the hazard maps for the central United States difficult. The SSHA hazard information has been used for engineering design and evaluation of bridges and highway facilities, as well as other safety considerations in the central United States.

In Chapter 18, Mihaela Kouteva-Guentcheva, Carmen Cioflan, Ivanka Paskaleva, and Giuliano F. Panza (NDSHA Achievements in Central and South-Eastern Europe) provide a summarizing overview of the up-to-date achievements of the multi-aspect power of the NDSHA, supported by numerous applications. The authors point out to the major advantage to involve in the estimates of the site response all factors controlling the ground motion (seismic-mechanical features of the propagating media and the seismic source) and recommend using NDSHA for engineering design, but, when PSHA is required based on national regulations, to compare the results/output of PSHA with that of physics scenario-based analysis of NDSHA.

In Chapter 19, Concettina Nunziata and Maria Rosaria Costanzo (Application of NDSHA to Historical Urban Areas) present the NDSHA simulation of the telluric motion for two urban areas, heavily damaged by recent and historical earthquakes: Poggio Picenze, for the April 6, 2009 (MW 6.3) event, and Napoli, for the 1980 (MW 6.8) and for the strongest historical 1456 and 1688 earthquakes. Consistency exists between computed ground accelerations and intensity data (IMCS) if we attribute MW 6.6 to 1688 and 6.9 to 1456 earthquakes, respectively. If the literature magnitudes are considered, higher values of the telluric motion are expected for earthquakes like the 1688 with magnitude 7 and the 1456 with magnitude 7.3, to be considered conservative scenario earthquakes.

In Chapter 20, Carmen Ortanza Cioflan, Elena Florinela Manea, and Bogdan Felix Apostol (Insights from Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analyses in Romania) provide a review of state-of-the-art studies of seismic hazard with emphasis on the complex physics-based waveform modeling for the territory of Romania. In the context of the Vrancea intermediate-depth seismicity, the innovative NDSHA has proved to be very efficient at national and local scales realistically reproducing the macro-seismic, as well as the local site amplification for the city of Bucharest.

In Chapter 21, Mihaela Kouteva-Guentcheva, Ivanka Paskaleva, and Giuliano F. Panza (NDSHA in Bulgaria) apply NDSHA to the Bulgarian territory, exposed to high seismic risk from local shallow and regional intermediate-depth earthquakes. Structural engineering needs alternative representation of the seismic loading via accelerograms. The available strong motion database is not representative of the real hazard and NDSHA evaluation supplies databases of realistic synthetic seismograms readily applicable for earthquake engineering purposes. The comparison between the results derived from the real databank and the results obtained from the synthetic database compiled using NDSHA is fully satisfactory for displacements and corner periods.

In Chapter 22, Elena Dumova-Jovanoska and Kristina Milkova (NDSHA-based vulnerability evaluation of pre-code buildings in Republic of North Macedonia; novel experiences) provide a methodology for seismic vulnerability evaluation of existing precode structures, using a multidisciplinary approach. As a result, region-specific vulnerability and reliability curves that relate the peak ground acceleration values to the probability of exceedance of a certain damage state have been presented. The results highlight the advantage of using site-specific NDSHA response spectra as seismic input, as the damage reports from earthquakes that struck Ohrid in 2017 have confirmed the merits of the applied approach.

In Chapter 23, Sokol Marku, Rapo Ormeni, and Giuliano F. Panza (Seismic characterization of Tirana - Durrës - Lezha region (northwestern Albania) and analysis effort through NDSHA method) aim to suggest the most advanced and reliable way of assessing regional seismic hazard and risks. The strongest seismic events that struck Albania have occurred into an area extended between Shkumbini River and city of Shkodra. The region is known as one of the most active seismogenic zones in Albania and is located between some of the most important seismogenic lineaments of the country. Comparing PSHA and NDSHA results with 2019 ground motion values proves that NDSHA is a more reliable method.

In Chapter 24, Mariano García-Fernández, Franco Vaccari, María-José Jiménez, Andrea Magrin, Fabio Romanelli, and Giuliano F. Panza (Regional application of the NDSHA approach for continental seismogenic sources in the Iberian Peninsula) apply two combined seismogenic source models: polygonal zones and nodes obtained by morphostructural analysis. Hazard maps of maximum ground displacement, Dmax, and maximum ground velocity, Vmax, up to a maximum frequency of 1 Hz, and design ground acceleration, DGA, are produced. NDSHA results show largest Dmax values in central-western Portugal and similar high Vmax both in the west and in the east of the Iberian Peninsula. DGA reaches its highest values in central-western Portugal and in eastern Spain.

In Chapter 25, Yan Zhang, Lihua Fang, Fabio Romanelli, Zhifeng Ding, Shanghua Gao, Changsheng Jiang, and Zhongliang Wu (NDSHA Applied to China) analyze the activities of Chinese seismologists to reduce damage from earthquakes, in particular, new approaches to earthquake forecast/prediction. The authors describe in detail the application of NDSHA approach to the territory of China and the important role of cooperation with Italian scientists, the founders of the NDSHA approach. The results obtained in about two decades, as well as the prospects for further research are of undoubted interest for specialists in the field of seismic hazard and risk assessment.

In Chapter 26, Imtiyaz Parvez (Application of Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment to India) supplies a comprehensive validation of NDSHA in India and neighboring region at national, regional, and local scales. The pre-disaster mitigation effort based on NDSHA may drive seismic and civil engineers who wish to undertake detailed studies of earthquake hazard, especially in the eastern Himalayan region, eastern and western India, and some big cities such as Delhi and Kolkata. NDSHA evaluation supplies now a preventive tool that can be used, without having to wait for the next great earthquakes to occur, for the safe design of buildings and other infrastructure in the country.

In Chapter 27, Farhana Sarwar, Franco Vaccari, and Andrea Magrin (Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Pakistan) discuss the preliminary regional seismic hazard map for Pakistan and adjoining regions published in 2018. The authors update the seismic hazard assessment for Pakistan by using a new earthquake catalog and the latest computer codes for the NDSHA evaluation. The comparison between probabilistic PSHA and NDSHA maps for Pakistan shows that the currently adopted PSHA maps generally underestimate the level of ground shaking that might be expected for future events.

In Chapter 28, Tahmeed M. Al-Hussaini, Ishika N. Chowdhury, Hasan al Faysal, Sudipta Chakraborty, Franco Vaccari, Fabio Romanelli, and Andrea Magrin (Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment Studies for Bangladesh) investigate the complex regional tectonic environment and limited information on seismic sources and fault zones, under ongoing collaboration between University of Trieste and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology. Various scenario computations, including NDSHA-MCSI, have been performed for Bangladesh. Results indicate higher seismic hazard than the BNBC-2020 code provisions for the major cities of Sylhet and Chittagong, which warrants more extensive source-specific studies of the impact of major earthquakes on known faults, for which NDSHA-MCSI is well suited.

In Chapter 29, Habib Rahimi and Mehdi Rastgoo (Application of NDSHA at Regional and Local Scales in Iran) describe NDSHA for Alborz region in the north of Iran, including the two validation tests at local scale performed for the city of Tehran. The validation tests show that the hybrid technique, which combines modal summation and finite difference methods, can be used for computation of the acceleration response spectra along the two-dimensional sediment structure of the city and different earthquake scenarios with sources on the active faults around Tehran.

In Chapter 30, Irwandi Irwandi (Application of Neo-Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis to Sumatra) analyzes earthquake hazard in Indonesia at two different scales: the regional scale of Sumatra Island and the local scale of Banda Aceh city. The NDSHA regional and microzonation maps based on the available information on the Earth's structure, seismic sources, and the level of seismicity of the investigated area represent a milestone for Reliable Seismic Hazard Assessment throughout Indonesia, a country exposed to extreme earthquake risks.

Evidently, the NDSHA applications outscore the widespread PSHA by taking advantage of a synergy between to-date available Pattern Recognition of Earthquake Prone Areas (PREPA), Intermediate-Term Earthquake Prediction (ITEP) of different spatial accuracy, Scenario-based Seismic Hazard Analysis (SSHA), Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes (USLE) that accounts for fractal distribution of seismic occurrence, and Geodetic Data Analysis (GDA) of GPS, GSSN, and other determinations.

The synergy of PREPA   × USLE   × ITEP   × GDA × MCSI × SSHA applies to a pretty wide spectrum of geophysical observables and allows us to deliver user-specific NDSHA products, which are tested to be reliable, realistic, and useful evaluation and mapping of apparently time-dependent seismic hazard and associated risks. Of course, although each member of the synergy is relevant in seismic hazard assessment (in different terms), it is MCSI   ×   SSHA that provides a quantitative output of seismic input for the structural engineer community at the final stage of NDSHA.

NDSHA evaluation aims at minimizing the effect of possible bad data massaging. Therefore, the general enveloping philosophy developed and applied within NDSHA evaluation should be systematically extended to other types of hazards such as volcanic eruptions, landslides, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and other dangerous happenings, to provide most reliable input for assessing associated risks.

We believe that perhaps a comment on the use of intermediate values in any macroseismic intensity scale is important and probably warranted here, because they have caused several drawbacks when they have been subsequently used to derive quantified estimates of hazard and seismic design parameters. Any intensity scale is defined as A sequence of Natural Ordinal Numbers, i.e., a scale in which each number tells the position of something in a discrete scale of integers, such as I, II, III, IV, V, etc. Within our combined experience, we cannot locate any problem for which the artifact of introducing non-integer intensity values is both a solution and an advantage. The illusion of high precision does little to improve accuracy in the final product resulting from using this pre-instrumental system for recording the sizes of earthquakes as witnessed by their effects. Accuracy, we believe, has more to do with both a knowledge-based consideration and a comprehensive integration of all the other judgments that have to be made.

The declared legacy of the Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) is to establish a common framework to evaluate the seismic hazard over geographical large scales, i.e., countries, regions, continents, and finally the globe. Its main product, the global seismic hazard map, was meant to be a milestone, unique at that time and to serve as the main PSHA reference worldwide. Today, for most of the Earth's seismically active regions in Europe, Northern and Southern America, Central and Southeast Asia, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, the GSHAP hazard map is proven outdated, very often wrong as it has been shown on many occasions: GSHAP was proven wrong after the 2010 Haiti disaster; after the 2011 Tohoku mega-earthquake, it was even shown that the GSHAP maps could have been proved misleading at the time of their official publication in 1999.

The next generation of PSHA models is at the base of the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) products (the most recent one being MPS19 for Italy). The GEM Foundation released, at the end of 2020, several national and regional earthquake hazard and risk models and other global model digital data products in the observance of this year's International Day for Disaster Risk Reduction theme—the role of national and local disaster risk reduction strategies on good disaster risk governance.

This has been a smart move from the GSHAP advocates. In fact, as reported in this book, some 20   years after its launch, it has been possible to prove that GSHAP is totally unreliable. In fact, several are the evidences of how useless and misleading can be most of its published results. GSHAP is unreliable as witnessed by the more than 700,000 lives lost between 2000 and 2011, when 12 of the world's deadliest earthquakes have occurred where PSHA had predicted much more lower seismic hazard. With the same general philosophy as GSHAP, plus some cosmetics, some 10   years ago GEM was proposed. GEM is on the wrong track, if it continues to base seismic risk estimates on a refined standard method to assess seismic hazard. How long it will be necessary to wait to prove that GEM is as wrong as GSHAP? Should Science Community wait for a decade to find GEM is as wrong as GSHAP?

The purpose of this volume is to promote establishing a new paradigm of Reliable Seismic Hazard Assessment, a synergy of the up-to-date available scientific knowledge that guarantees prevention and reduction of unacceptable losses rather than cure the consequences of disasters.

The book is essential reading for geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, exploration geologists, seismologists, volcanologists, most categories of engineers from civil to mechanical, from chemical to computer, from biomedical to electrical; disaster and emergency managers, officials at governmental and municipality echelons, logistic officers of military services, infrastructure entrepreneurs, financial and insurance industry employees, multidisciplinary students, researchers, and professors.

Many authors who participated in writing this book keep being inspired by the innovative research of Vladimir Isaakovich Keilis-Borok (July 31, 1921–October 19, 2013) and, in particular, by his ability to find simplicity in complexity, active style, scientific intuition, exceptional warmth of soul and humanity. Catastrophic earthquakes and other hazardous events addressed in his studies pose unacceptable threats to people. My main trouble, he says, is feeling of responsibility (Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2012). Keilis-Borok had founded a unique institute where pure mathematicians worked jointly with physicists and geologists in collaboration with the world famous experts from mathematics, physics, economics, social sciences, law enforcement, environment protection, disaster management, and the government (including Mikhail A. Sadovsky, Izrail M. Gelfand, Michele Caputo, Leon Knopoff, Clarence R. Allen, Frank Press, Leonid V. Kantorovich, Vinod K. Gaur, Keiiti Aki, Alberto Giesecke, Allan Lichtman, Raymond Hide, Claude Allègre, Yakov G. Sinai, Giuliano F. Panza, Dmitri V. Rundqvist, Michael Ghil, and many others). Upon invitation from Mohammad Abdus Salam, founder of International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP, Miramare, Trieste, Italy), Keilis-Borok co-organized with Panza, as ICTP consultant, a series of workshops starting with the first one on Pattern Recognition and Analysis of Seismicity (December 5–15, 1983) and ending with Advanced School on Understanding and Prediction of Earthquakes and Other Extreme Events in Complex Systems (September 26–October 8, 2011). In 1991, Keilis-Borok and Panza established Structure and Nonlinear Dynamics of the Earth SAND Group at the Abdus Salam ICTP. Keilis-Borok and his school revolutionized disaster prediction studies as the frontier problem of geosciences. He broke the barriers between high theory, numerical modeling, and data analysis for the purposes of implementation into the practice of investigation the hot, itchy, and often controversial problems. His last publication appeared in the first issue of International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction describing a missed opportunity for disaster preparedness in response to advance prediction of the March 11, 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, focusing on how reasonable, prudent, timely, and cost-effective decisions can be made to reduce the consequences of damaging earthquake.

For his scientific excellence, Vladimir I. Keilis-Borok was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1969), to the US National Academy Sciences (1971), to the Russian Academy of Sciences (1987), to the Royal Astronomical Society (1989), to the Austrian Academy of Sciences (1992), to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1994, Council Member since 1996), and Academia Europaea (1999). In 1995, he received Doctor Honoris Causa from Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris. In 1998, European Geophysical Society awarded Prof. Vladimir I. Keilis-Borok with the first Lewis Fry Richardson Medal for his outstanding contributions to the study of the nonlinear dynamics of the lithosphere, in particular to the development of the concept that the active lithosphere is a hierarchical nonlinear system.

Chapter 1: Hazard, risks, and prediction

Vladimir Kossobokov ¹ , ²       ¹ Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia      ² International Seismic Safety Organization, ISSO, Arsita, Italy

Abstract

Nowadays, in a Big Data World, Science can disclose natural hazards, assess risks, and deliver the state-of-the-art knowledge of looming disasters (in advance catastrophes) along with useful recommendations on the level of risks for decision-making in regard to engineering design, insurance, and emergency management. Science cannot remove, yet, people’s favor for illusion regarding reality, as well as political denial, ignorance, and negligence among decision-makers. The general conclusion is confirmed by application and testing against earthquake reality the innovative methodology of neodeterministic seismic hazard assessment (NDSHA). NDSHA results are based on reliable seismic evidence, pattern recognition of earthquake-prone areas, implications of the unified scaling law for earthquakes, and exhaustive scenario-based modeling of ground shaking.

Keywords

Complex nonlinear system; Control parameter of a dynamical system; Disaster; Hazard; Neodeterministic seismic hazard assessment; Risk; Self-organized criticality; Unified scaling law for earthquakes

Acknowledgments

1. Introduction

2. The core seed of disaster

3. What do we know about earthquakes?

4. Seismic hazard and associated risks

5. Prediction

6. Discussion and conclusions

References

1. Introduction

Science should be able to warn people of looming disaster, Vladimir Keilis-Borok believes.

Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2012.

The UN World Conference on Disaster Reduction was held from January 18–22, 2005 in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, and adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–15: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, days after the December 26, 2004, M W 9.2 Great Asian Mega Earthquake and Tsunami. During the Conference, a Statement (Kossobokov, 2005) at the Special Session on the Indian Ocean Disaster: risk reduction for a safer future was urging on a possibility of a few mega earthquakes of about the same magnitude 9.0 in the next 5–10 years. The prediction has been confirmed by February 27, 2010, M W 8.8 mega-thrust offshore Maule, Chile and the March 11, 2011, M W 9.1 off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku, Japan (Kossobokov, 2011; Ismail-Zadeh and Kossobokov, 2020). An opportunity to reduce the impacts from these earthquakes and tsunami disasters has been missed. Davis et al. (2012) show how the prediction information on expected world’s largest earthquakes provided by the M8 and MSc algorithms (Keilis-Borok and Kossobokov, 1990; Kossobokov et al., 1990), although limited to the intermediate-term span of years and middle-range location of a 1000 km, can be used to reduce future impacts from the largest earthquakes. The primary reasons for not using the prediction for improving preparations in advance of the Tōhoku earthquake include: (1) inadequate links between emergency managers and the earthquake prediction information; and (2) no practicing application of existing methodologies to guide emergency preparations and policy development on how to make decisions based on information provided for an intermediate-term middle-range earthquake prediction having limited but known accuracy. The Tōhoku case study exemplifies how reasonable, prudent, and cost-effective decisions can be made to reduce damaging effects in a region given a reliable time of increased probability for the occurrence of a large earthquake and associated phenomena such as tsunami, landslides, liquefaction, floods, and fires.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–30, a successor of the Hyogo Framework for Action is a set of agreed commitments to act on the prevention of new disasters through the timely implementation of integrated economic, structural, legal, social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political, and institutional measures. Years after the 2005 Hyogo and 2015 Sendai Frameworks for Disaster Risk Reduction countries follow different approaches and mitigation strategies due to the variety of societal systems and hazards. Moreover, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is an itchy example of how public policies based on presumably the best science available and data of high quality appear to be extremely difficult, uneven, and lead to Disaster even in the countries that were supposedly well prepared for such an emergency. In fact, the pandemic with a rapidly growing global less than a year death toll of 1,820,841 and 83,579,767 global cases reported on January 01, 2021 (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html; as of February 13, 2021, the numbers raised to 2,385,203 and 108,289,000, respectively) sheds a sobering shower on the existing myths about disasters.

Is there any reason for estimating long-term trends inventing the Myth that fewer people are dying in disasters, if a pandemic like COVID-19 or a single deadly event like the December 26, 2004 mega-thrust and tsunami that killed 227,898 people can push up significantly the expected average rate of death tolls? Is Climate Change the biggest cause of disasters, if vulnerable people and infrastructure widespread in the areas exposed to extreme catastrophic events of different kinds? Is it true that nothing can be done to stop the increasing number of disasters, if a country can radically reduce its risk of disasters by appropriate investments, incentives, and political leadership? Unlike 30 years ago, Science does have the know-how to reduce damage from even major hazardous events to the level of incidents rather than Disasters.

Evidently, we do not live in a black-and-white world and our beliefs in initial basic principles may lead us to models that contradict with the real-world observations. We know quite well the famous all models are wrong but some are useful (Box, 1979) but often forget that some models are useless and some are really harmful, especially, when viewed as complete substitutes for the original natural phenomena. Nowadays, in a Big Data World when the global information storage capacity surpassed the level of more than 6 Zettabytes (6 × 10²¹ in optimally compressed bytes) per year, open data and enormous amount of available pretty fast user-friendly software provide unprecedented opportunities for development and enhancing pattern recognition studies, in particular, those applied to the Earth System processes. However, Big Data World opens as well wide avenues for finding deceptive associations in inter- and transdisciplinary data and for inflicted misleading inventions, predictions, and, regretfully, wrong decisions that eventually may lead to different kinds of disasters.

2. The core seed of disaster

Common language vocabulary by itself is sometimes confusing common people understanding the message, although being thought provoking and pretty much instructive. According to the Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/),

• Disaster is something that causes a lot of harm or damage: • floods and other natural disasters or a failure or something that has a very bad result: • His idea was a total disaster or an extremely bad situation: the holiday ended in disaster. The later suggests that sometimes you don’t need any hazard to end up in Disaster.

• Hazard is something that is dangerous and likely to cause damage: • a health/fire hazard. • The busy traffic entrance was a hazard to pedestrians. Hazard, as a verb, means to risk doing something, especially making a guess, suggestion, etc.: • I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess or in a formal language—to risk doing something that might cause harm to someone or something else: • The policy hazarded the islands and put the lives of the inhabitants at risk. My search for natural hazard resulted with no fit but a dozen of suggestions including natural disaster as the only one close to my queries.

• Risk, as a noun, means the possibility of something bad happening: • In this business, the risks and the rewards are high. … • It’s a low/high-risk strategy (= one that is safe/not safe). Risk, as a verb, is to do something although there is a chance of a bad result: • ‘It’s dangerous to cross here.’ I’ll just have to risk it. Searching around the following example from the Cambridge English Corpus caught my eyes: "In the absence of evaluative research to validate self-administered risk assessment questionnaires, the information provided is of uncertain benefit."

• Vulnerability is the quality of being vulnerable (= able to be easily hurt, influenced, or attacked), or something that is vulnerable: •You want a doctor who understands the patient’s vulnerability. • Those who organized the attacks exploited vulnerabilities in the nation’s defences. Yes, indeed, for seismic risk assessment we do need specialists who understand well seismic effects, construction design, and nation’s vulnerability.

• Prediction is the act of saying what you think will happen in the future: • I wouldn’t like to make any predictions about the result of this match. Isn’t it a common way to avoid responsibility?

Thus, there is a lot of flexibility in common language that justifies the following disclaimer note: Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors. Note that many people, including scientists, do not distinguish between unpredictable, random, and haphazard, which distinction is crucial for scientific reasoning and conclusions.

Figure 1.1 A knot that ties together Hazard, Location, Time, Exposure, and Vulnerability all around Risk.

We are living in a risky world. Fig. 1.1 illustrates the essential ties of Risk defined as the chance of injury, damage, or loss. The figure complements with the fifth basic component of time to the four components presented by Boissonnade and Shah (1984), who define Risk as the likelihood of loss. In Insurance Studies the Exposure is defined as the value of structures and contents, business interruption, lives, etc. and Vulnerability as the sensitivity to Hazard(s) at certain Location (i.e., the position of the exposure relative to the hazard). Since Hazard is likely to cause damage and losses sometimes, the origin Time and duration of a hazardous event may become critical in its transformation to Disaster.

Thus, risk estimate at location c and time t, R(c, t), is the result of some convolution of the hazard with the exposed object under consideration along with its vulnerability:

where H(c, t) is a hazard estimate at location c and time t, O(c, t) is the exposure of objects at risk, and V(O(c, t)) is the vulnerability of objects at risk. Mathematically, in specific applications, c could be a point, or a line, or some area on or under the Earth surface, and the distribution of potential hazards, as well as objects of concern and their vulnerability, could be time-dependent lacking any obvious principle of organization.

Evidently, there exist many different risk estimates even if the same object of risk and the same hazard are involved. Specifically, the estimate may result from the different laws of convolution, as well as from different kinds of the vulnerability of an object at risk under specific environments and conditions. Both conceptual issues must be resolved in a multidisciplinary, problem-oriented research performed by specialists in the fields of hazard, objects at risk, and object vulnerability.

What do we know about the five components of a risk? In some cases, like crossing a highway, their evaluation is evident due to data enough for a pedestrian reliable assessment based on recollections of collective attitude and knowledge. In other cases, like COVID-19, there is no such data but heuristic model expectations at the origin, as well as in course of a pandemic; so far, the collective attitude toward making a correct decision shows up both of the extremes at the individual, as well as at the national levels. We also know quite well that hazardous events may cascade; under the circumstances, a primary one may cause the secondary, tertiary, etc. damages, disruptions, and losses. Thus, depending on the particular risky situation and our response, a hazardous event development may cause or not cause a disaster.

When somebody makes decision about an action in response to the prediction of a disaster, the choice is usually based on a comparison of expected black eyes (risks/costs) and feathers in caps (benefits). If the latter exceeds the former it is reasonable to go forward. But each of decision-makers may have rather different opinions on hazards, risks, and outcomes of different decisions and, as it is well known, even two experts (scientists, in particular) may have three or more opinions. Therefore, actual decisions sometimes (if not always) are not optimal, especially when there are alternative ways of gaining personal benefits or avoid personal guilt. In many practical cases, decision-makers do not have ANY OPINION due to ignorance in beyond-design circumstances, denial of hazard, and risk based on misconceptions, and a sense of personal responsibility to an impending disaster when it is too late to take effective countermeasures.

In a theoretical analysis of earthquake, prediction problem from the standpoint of decision-making theory Molchan (1997, 2003) defines the optimal strategy as the