5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014 Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice 24-28 August 2014 in Davos, Switzerland

1. Please add your
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial
Plants: A Case Study from the Emilia
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
2012 Earthquake Sequence
Marcello Forte, Davide Spanò, Fabio Petruzzelli,
AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
logo here

2. Motivation of the study
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
• Recent seismic events affecting industrialized countries (Japan, 2011; Emilia, 2012) readily showed the
importance of having an efficient, transparent and proactive management of the seismic risk.
• Traditional seismic risk assessment heavily rely on qualitative risk estimates, based on macroseismic
intensity and/or expert judgment. However, an essential step of an aware risk management and decision
making process is a sound quantitative risk assessment. This requires specific, rapid and user-friendly
tools, able to capture the peculiarities of the structure under investigation and the differences
between available models for modelling risk.
• Development of instruments for a rapid and user-friendly
probabilistic seismic risk assessment:
“FRAME@Risk” – Fragility-based rapid seismic Risk
Assessment Method” v.1.0 software
• Test the procedures on real cases

3. 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
Under human control
Exposure
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
From a qualitative to a quantitative (probabilistic)
seismic risk assessment
Quantitative approaches to seismic risk encompass individual quantification of the three component of seismic risk,
namely the seismic hazard (seismicity of the site); the vulnerability (building structural response); and the exposure
(building occupancy and contents).
Risk = H x V x E
Hazard
Vulnerability

4. Seismic risk is defined as the the probability or likelihood of exceeding a pre-defined level of loss due to earthquakes to a
given element at risk, over a specified period of time.
Failure Probability
Fragility Curves
(probability of exceeding some damage state)
Structural Engineering
Consequence function
(or damage-to-loss function)
stakeholders
Moderate
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
Hazard Curve
Seismologists
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
Expected loss
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Seismic Risk Assessment
Exceedance probability
Intensity Measure (IM)
Hazard
Exceedance probability
Intensity Measure (IM)
Fragility
Expected Loss given a
damage state (“failure”)
Exposure
퐸 퐿 = 퐸 퐿|푓 ∙ 푃푓
퐸 퐿|푓
Slight
Collapse
Hazard
Curve
Fragility
Curve Pf = failure probability
(proportional to the
overlapping area)

5. Comparison&conversion tool Loss module
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
The FRAME@Risk software
the ensemble of FRAME@Risk
modules:
(i) allows performing a rapid,
user-friendly and worldwide
applicable evaluation of
structure-specific seismic
losses;
(ii) provides an inventory of
existing fragility functions
that can be managed and
expanded (to date, about
600 fragility functions);
(iii) allows the comparison and
homogenization of fragility
curves;
(iv) provides instruments for the
identification of the most
suitable fragility curves,
among those available, to
describe the seismic
performance of a structure.
The FRAME@Risk software tool
FRAME main module
Manager tool
MAIN FUNCTIONS:
• define a new fragility curve;
according to taxonomy;
• collapse and expand taxonomy;
• open/modify existing curves.
MAIN FUNCTIONS:
• compare fragility curves;
• convert IMs;
•manipulate limit states;
• compute statistics.
MAIN FUNCTIONS:
• choose damage-to-loss
functions;
• compute losses due to PD
and BI.
Fragility filter tool
MAIN FUNCTION:
• filter fragilities according to
the selected taxonomy.
• Allows the input of the data
required for the assessment:
− site-specific hazard,
− fragility curves suitable for
the case under
consideration,
− damage-to-loss function)
• Provides the output:
− failure probabilities
− expected losses

6. • The affected area is characterized by an high cultural and historical heritage and it is one of the most densely
industrialized Italian centers (the 2% of the Italian GDP is produced by activities in the stricken area)
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
The Emilia 2012 earthquake sequence
• M 5.9 earthquake on 20th May 2012 - 4:03 am UTC. Epicenter: close to Finale Emilia; depth: 6.3 Km.
• M 5.8 earthquake on 29th May - 9:00 am UTC. Epicenter: Medolla (18 km S-W far from the 1st event); depth: 10 Km.
The seismic sequence covered a large area extending in the E-W
direction for a length of nearly 40 km, between the localities of
Mirandola and Ferrara [INGV, 2012]
• Consequences:
− 27 casualties
− about 400 injured and 15,000 homeless
− 13.2 billion Euros of property damage and BI (Italian
Department for Civil Protection);
− 1.3 billion Euros of Insured Losses
(10% of Total Losses; in L’Aquila 2009 about the 2%)
• Causes:
− enforcement of seismic provisions in the affected
area only in 2009 (2003 for strategic buildings).
− Soft alluvial subsoil in the area caused significant
ground shaking amplification and, in some cases,
soil liquefaction.

7. 11 7 8
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
Building characteristics
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
4 5
6
9
10 12
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
The Case Study Plant
1
2
3
• fragility functions specifically
computed for Italian precast
buildings with different details in
terms of joint, reinforcement,
structural regularities, and
cladding characteristics.
• The consequence function was
chosen on the basis of the
content vulnerability class
• Plant dedicated to the production of medical devices;
• Total property value = about 100 million Euros (buildings = 27 mln; machineries=47 mil; stock=28 mln);
• 12 buildings, built from 1966 to 2011;
• Maximum horizontal acceleration (PGA) registered at the site = 0.3 g [INGV, 2012]
• After the earthquakes the plant suffered about 5.5 million euros o PD and about 2 months of downtime
• AXA MATRIX knowledge forms for industrial buildings
• Design documents
o geometrical characteristics (e.g. number of floors, height,
plan and elevation dimensions)
o mechanical characteristics (e.g. material, load resisting
system, detailing, irregularities, etc.)
o detailed description of the observed damage
Building characteristics
Building and content/equipment vulnerability
(from FRAME@Risk inventory)
Building exposed value
[% of the total plant value]
name material
design
year
fragility curve
vulnera-bility
class
Building
Machineries
&Equipment
Stock
Bld.1-Offices Cast in pl. r.c. 1990 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-MR-NC Medium 7,58% 0,6% 0,00%
Bld.2-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type4//ND-IRR Fragile 12,6% 45,5% 2,9%
Bld.3-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Robust 5,3% 19,3% 1,2%
Bld.4-Production Precast r.c. 1990 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Medium 5,0% 17,9% 1,1%
Bld.5-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2011 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type4//D-REG Robust 12,7% 0,6% 8,7%
Bld.6-Production Precast r.c. 1977 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-IRR Fragile 15,1% 5,2% 7,2%
Bld.7-Production Precast r.c. 2002 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type1//D-IRR Fragile 9,7% 3,3% 3,5%
Bld.8-Warehouse Precast r.c. 1982 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 6,7% 0,3% 9,5%
Bld.9-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2003 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type3//D-REG Robust 15,3% 0,7% 42,1%
Bld.10-Warehs. Precast r.c. 1993 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type2//D-REG Robust 3,3% 0,7% 18,5%
Bld.11-Product. Cast in pl. r.c. 1966 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-LR-NC Medium 2,6% 5,7% 0,9%
Bld.12-Warehs. Precast r.c.
1972-
1981
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 4,2% 0,2% 4,5%
Building and content/equipment vulnerability
(from FRAME@Risk inventory)
Building exposed value
[% of the total plant value]
fragility curve
vulnera-bility
class
Building
Machineries
&Equipment
Stock
AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-MR-NC Medium 7,58% 0,6% 0,00%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type4//ND-IRR Fragile 12,6% 45,5% 2,9%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Robust 5,3% 19,3% 1,2%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Medium 5,0% 17,9% 1,1%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type4//D-REG Robust 12,7% 0,6% 8,7%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-IRR Fragile 15,1% 5,2% 7,2%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type1//D-IRR Fragile 9,7% 3,3% 3,5%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 6,7% 0,3% 9,5%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type3//D-REG Robust 15,3% 0,7% 42,1%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type2//D-REG Robust 3,3% 0,7% 18,5%
AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-LR-NC Medium 2,6% 5,7% 0,9%
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 4,2% 0,2% 4,5%
Building and content/equipment vulnerability
(from FRAME@Risk inventory)
Building exposed value
[% of the total plant value]
name material
design
year
fragility curve
vulnera-bility
class
Building
Machineries
&Equipment
Stock
Bld.1-Offices Cast in pl. r.c. 1990 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-MR-NC Medium 7,58% 0,6% 0,00%
Bld.2-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type4//ND-IRR Fragile 12,6% 45,5% 2,9%
Bld.3-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Robust 5,3% 19,3% 1,2%
Bld.4-Production Precast r.c. 1990 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Medium 5,0% 17,9% 1,1%
Bld.5-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2011 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type4//D-REG Robust 12,7% 0,6% 8,7%
Bld.6-Production Precast r.c. 1977 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-IRR Fragile 15,1% 5,2% 7,2%
Bld.7-Production Precast r.c. 2002 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type1//D-IRR Fragile 9,7% 3,3% 3,5%
Bld.8-Warehouse Precast r.c. 1982 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 6,7% 0,3% 9,5%
Bld.9-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2003 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type3//D-REG Robust 15,3% 0,7% 42,1%
Bld.10-Warehs. Precast r.c. 1993 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type2//D-REG Robust 3,3% 0,7% 18,5%
Bld.11-Product. Cast in pl. r.c. 1966 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-LR-NC Medium 2,6% 5,7% 0,9%
Bld.12-Warehs. Precast r.c.
1972-
1981
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 4,2% 0,2% 4,5%

8. Results of the analysis (1/3)
Comparison of the estimated physical damage (FRAME@Risk software) to the observed one
Large part of the production took place in Bld. 2 and Bld.6, that were also those which suffered the major structural
damages
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Building characteristics
Building and content/equipment vulnerability
(from FRAME@Risk inventory)
Building exposed value
[% of the total plant value]
name material
design
year
fragility curve
vulnera-bility
class
Building
Machineries
&Equipment
Stock
Bld.1-Offices Cast in pl. r.c. 1990 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-MR-NC Medium 7,58% 0,6% 0,00%
Bld.2-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type4//ND-IRR Fragile 12,6% 45,5% 2,9%
Bld.3-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Robust 5,3% 19,3% 1,2%
Bld.4-Production Precast r.c. 1990 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Medium 5,0% 17,9% 1,1%
Bld.5-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2011 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type4//D-REG Robust 12,7% 0,6% 8,7%
Bld.6-Production Precast r.c. 1977 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-IRR Fragile 15,1% 5,2% 7,2%
Bld.7-Production Precast r.c. 2002 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type1//D-IRR Fragile 9,7% 3,3% 3,5%
Bld.8-Warehouse Precast r.c. 1982 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 6,7% 0,3% 9,5%
Bld.9-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2003 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type3//D-REG Robust 15,3% 0,7% 42,1%
Bld.10-Warehs. Precast r.c. 1993 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type2//D-REG Robust 3,3% 0,7% 18,5%
Bld.11-Product. Cast in pl. r.c. 1966 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-LR-NC Medium 2,6% 5,7% 0,9%
Bld.12-Warehs. Precast r.c.
1972-
1981
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 4,2% 0,2% 4,5%

9. Results of the analysis (1/3)
Comparison of the estimated physical damage (FRAME@Risk software) to the observed one
Building 9 was subject to slight damage and minor to moderate loss of content
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Building characteristics
Building and content/equipment vulnerability
(from FRAME@Risk inventory)
Building exposed value
[% of the total plant value]
name material
design
year
fragility curve
vulnera-bility
class
Building
Machineries
&Equipment
Stock
Bld.1-Offices Cast in pl. r.c. 1990 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-MR-NC Medium 7,58% 0,6% 0,00%
Bld.2-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type4//ND-IRR Fragile 12,6% 45,5% 2,9%
Bld.3-Production Precast r.c. 1983 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Robust 5,3% 19,3% 1,2%
Bld.4-Production Precast r.c. 1990 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type1//D-IRR Medium 5,0% 17,9% 1,1%
Bld.5-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2011 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type4//D-REG Robust 12,7% 0,6% 8,7%
Bld.6-Production Precast r.c. 1977 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-IRR Fragile 15,1% 5,2% 7,2%
Bld.7-Production Precast r.c. 2002 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type1//D-IRR Fragile 9,7% 3,3% 3,5%
Bld.8-Warehouse Precast r.c. 1982 BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 6,7% 0,3% 9,5%
Bld.9-Warehouse Precast r.c. 2003 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type3//D-REG Robust 15,3% 0,7% 42,1%
Bld.10-Warehs. Precast r.c. 1993 BologniniEtAl2008_FW4_type2//D-REG Robust 3,3% 0,7% 18,5%
Bld.11-Product. Cast in pl. r.c. 1966 AXA_CLASS_RC-MRF-LR-NC Medium 2,6% 5,7% 0,9%
Bld.12-Warehs. Precast r.c.
1972-
1981
BologniniEtAl2008_FW10_type3//ND-REG Robust 4,2% 0,2% 4,5%

10. Comparison of the estimated physical damage (FRAME@Risk software) to the observed one
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Results of the analysis (2/3)
Distribution of estimated losses inside the plant (normalized with respect to the total value of the component at risk)
0%
Building loss / total value [%]
Building
Machineries & Equipment
Stock
The large part of the stock is located in Bld.9 and Bld. 5, the good
structural characteristics of which limit the extent of the loss
Bld.2 and Bld.6 are those for which the largest
damage to building is observed

11. 5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Results of the analysis (3/3)
Comparison of estimated losses with the adjusted ones
• The comparison between FRAME@Risk estimates and the real losses is performed in terms of adjusted losses, rather
than claims. The comparison is done for building component only.
0%
Building loss / building value [%]
Expected Loss (FRAME@Risk estimate)
Adjusted Loss (after claim) Although a comparison of the expected losses obtained through a probabilistic approach with the losses deriving from
a single real event is hardly feasible, as a general result the total loss associated to the buildings is:
Adjusted = 5.5 million Euros 20% of the total building value
Estimated (FRAME@Risk) = 6.5 million Euros 24% of the total building value
- good coherency between estimated and adjusted losses was obtained,
- Losses are overestimated when structures experienced minor to null damage (e.g., Bld. 9)
- Conversely, in case of collapse (e.g. Bld.10 and Bld.2)

12. • Good coherency between the expected losses estimated by the procedure and the real losses was observed, with
a tendency in overestimating the observed loss for a given scenario earthquake was observed, that is almost
intrinsic in a probabilistic approach and more pronounced for structures that have experienced minor damages.
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Conclusions
• A case study from the Emilia Earthquake 2012 has been presented, with the aim of comparing the direct loss
estimations performed throughout the FRAME@Risk software against the loss adjusted after the claim process
• The application of the FRAME@Risk software tool showed the capability of the software in guiding the association
of a specific fragility curve to a given structure, on the basis of the taxonomy collected on field, and in addressing
the major deficiencies among the buildings of the plant.
• In the case study, the most vulnerable buildings were also those most exposed, i.e. those where large part of the
production took place. This is believed to be a fundamental information useful to the stakeholder’s decision making,
allowing to relocate or undertake countermeasures to reduce the impacts of a potential earthquake event.
• Nevertheless, the success of this analysis is related to the knowledge level that has been possible to achieve about
the structures under investigation and the availability of fragility curves suitable for describing the seismic
behaviour of structures.

13. – main references –
5th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2014
‘Integrative Risk Management - The role of science, technology & practice‘ • 24-28 August 2014 • Davos • Switzerland
www.grforum.org
Seismic Risk Assessment of Industrial Plants: a Case Study from the Emilia 2012 Earthquake Sequence
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD, Loss Prevention Engineer – AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
Thanks for your kind attention
Bolognini D., Borzi B., Pinho R. (2008). Simplified Pushover-based Vulnerability Analysis of Traditional Italian RC precast structures.
Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008 Bejing, China.
Cornell C. A. and Krawinkler H. (2000). Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER News, April 3(2), Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, US.
Dowrick D.J. and Rhoades D.A. (1993). Damage costs for commercial and industrial property as a function of intensity in the 1987 Edgecumbe
earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 22, 869-884.
Parisi F., De Luca F., Petruzzelli F., De Risi R., Chioccarelli E., Iervolino I. (2012), Field inspection after the May 20th and 29th 2012 Emilia-
Romagna earthquakes, available at http://www.reluis.it.
Petruzzelli F (2013) Scale-dependent procedures for seismic risk assessment and management of industrial building portfolios Ph.D. Thesis in
Seismic Risk, XXV cycle, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy
Petruzzelli, F. and Iervolino, I. (2014). FRAME v.1.0: a rapid fragility-based seismic risk assessment tool. Proceedings of the 2ECEES, Second
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Aug. 25-29, 2014, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fabio Petruzzelli, PhD
Loss Prevention Engineer
AXA MATRIX Risk Consultants, Milan, Italy
fabio.petruzzelli@axa-matrixrc.com