A theoretical comparison among macroseismic scales used in Italy

In a recent work, we evidenced some empirical discrepancies between the macroseismic intensity estimates in Italy in the last decade with respect to those made previously. A possible reason might be the progressive adoption by Italian researchers of the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) in place of the Mercalli Cancani Sieberg (MCS) scale mostly used up to 2009. In theory, in modern settlements where reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are increasingly replacing those in masonry, EMS should overestimate MCS because the former accounts for the lower vulnerability of RC whereas the latter does not because RC buildings were not considered at all by the MCS scale since they were almost absent at the time (1912–1932) when it was compiled by Sieberg. However, such theoretical inference is contradicted by the empirical evidence that, on average, MCS intensities really estimated in Italy over the past decade slightly overestimate EMS and not vice versa as it should be. A possible explanation is that the EMS scale had not been well calibrated to reproduce the MCS, as its authors intended to do. Another possible reason for the discrepancies between the last decade and the previous ones might be that the MCS scale applied today is not the same as that defined by Sieberg at the beginning of the twentieth century. In order to better understand the possible causes of such discrepancies, we present here a formal comparison between the definitions of the different degrees of such macroseismic scales. After such analysis, we might argue that another possible reason for the observed discrepancy may come from the inaccurate assessment of building vulnerability when assessing the EMS intensity.