apru – 2013tuesday oct 29 multi-hazard loss estimations using socioeconomic data j.r....

Tuesday Oct 29APRU – 2013

Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data

J.R. Holliday* J.B. Rundle

University of California, Davis

1 / 115


MotivationSeismic hazard “understood”

Seismic risk analysis possible– HAZUS-MH (FEMA)

– ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc)

But not for the general population

2 / 78






3 / 78






4 / 78






5 / 78






6 / 78






7 / 78


Motivation

8 / 78


Earthquake Forecasts

• USA: USGS

– Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF)

– “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map”

– 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping

– http://www.openhazards.com/

• World: CSEP

– Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM)

– Beyond RELM


9 / 78



• USA: USGS





• World: CSEP


– Beyond RELM


10 / 78



• USA: USGS





• World: CSEP


– Beyond RELM


11 / 78



• USA: USGS





• World: CSEP


– Beyond RELM


12 / 78



• USA: USGS





• World: CSEP


– Beyond RELM


13 / 78


Ground Shaking

• Full propagation methods

– OpenSHA

– CyberShake

• Simple propagation approximations

14 / 78


Ground Shaking


– OpenSHA

– CyberShake


15 / 78


Ground Shaking


– OpenSHA

– CyberShake


16 / 78


Ground Shaking


– OpenSHA

– CyberShake


17 / 78


Simple Ground Shaking

• What’s necessary?

– Source location

– Target location

– Magnitude

• Possible enhancements

– Soil classification

– Basin effects

18 / 78




– Source location

– Target location

– Magnitude



– Basin effects

19 / 78




– Source location

– Target location

– Magnitude



– Basin effects

20 / 78




– Source location

– Target location

– Magnitude



– Basin effects

21 / 78




– Source location

– Target location

– Magnitude



– Basin effects

22 / 78


Simple Ground Shaking (cont)

• Focus on PGA only

• Following Cua (2005)

– Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial

– Fit historic data (using shakemap.org)

– Estimate variance/uncertainty

– Test against global data

• Results are surprisingly good!

23 / 78










24 / 78










25 / 78





– Parameterize PGA(r) with 4th order polynomial





26 / 78










27 / 78





– Parameterize PGA(r) with 4th order polynomial





28 / 78










29 / 78










30 / 78










31 / 78










32 / 78










33 / 78










34 / 78


Building Response

• Given PGA, how much damage will occur?

• How do we describe the building?

Building frame Wall type

Floor plan Square footage

Number of levels Chimney

Attached garage Wall anchors

Foundation type Year of construction

• Which of these are necessary?

35 / 78


Building Response









36 / 78


Building Response









37 / 78


Building Response









38 / 78


Building Response









39 / 78


Building Response









40 / 78


Building Response (cont)

• Simple Method

– Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009)

– Inputs

• PGA

• Construction Framing

– Output

• Fraction of building damaged

– Easy to “enhance”

41 / 78



• Simple Method


– Inputs

• PGA


– Output



42 / 78



• Simple Method


– Inputs

• PGA


– Output



43 / 78



• Simple Method


– Inputs

• PGA


– Output



44 / 78



• Simple Method


– Inputs

• PGA


– Output



45 / 78



• Simple Method


– Inputs

• PGA


– Output



46 / 78



• Simple Method


– Inputs

• PGA


– Output



47 / 78


Putting It All Together

1. Create an earthquake forecast

2. Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources

3. Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations

4. Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations.

48 / 78







49 / 78







50 / 78







51 / 78







52 / 78


Putting It All Together (cont)

53 / 78



54 / 78



55 / 78



56 / 78



57 / 78



58 / 78



59 / 78



60 / 78



61 / 78


Quick Summary

• This procedure is fast

• Necessary data is available

• Science/theory exists for all steps

• Results are personalized and useful

62 / 78


Quick Summary





63 / 78


Quick Summary





64 / 78


Quick Summary





65 / 78


Quick Summary





66 / 78


Enhancing the Damage Model

• Model works well in United States

• How can we go global?

• Expand to include International Building Codes

• Generalize for sub-IBC construction

• Need access to building and damage data

• Use social data for modeling parameters

67 / 78









68 / 78









69 / 78









70 / 78









71 / 78









72 / 78









73 / 78


Enhancing the Damage Model (cont)

Damage Factor (DF)

• Function of Construction and Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR)

74 / 78



Damage Factor (DF)


75 / 78



Damage Factor (DF)


76 / 78



Damage Factor (DF)


77 / 78



Damage Factor (DF)


78 / 78



79 / 78



80 / 78



81 / 78



82 / 78



• Values determined from fit against American properties

• Assume these values for all IBC structures

• Fit structure types country by country

• Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R)

83 / 78



Framing System a b c

Wood-Frame -1.07093 2.47522 1.54108

Tilt-up -0.89917 2.14296 1.09176

Bearing Shear Wall -0.95119 2.24974 0.96355

URM Bearing Wall -0.47366 2.08034 0.58674

Moment-Resisting Space Frame -0.81928 2.32500 1.11061

Dual MRSF/Shear Wall -0.81325 2.22125 1.16141

Concentric Braced Frame -1.06169 2.78331 1.35868





84 / 78




Wood-Frame -1.07093 2.47522 1.54108

Tilt-up -0.89917 2.14296 1.09176


URM Bearing Wall -0.47366 2.08034 0.58674








85 / 78




Wood-Frame -1.07093 2.47522 1.54108

Tilt-up -0.89917 2.14296 1.09176


URM Bearing Wall -0.47366 2.08034 0.58674








86 / 78




Wood-Frame -1.07093 2.47522 1.54108

Tilt-up -0.89917 2.14296 1.09176


URM Bearing Wall -0.47366 2.08034 0.58674








87 / 78




Wood-Frame -1.07093 2.47522 1.54108

Tilt-up -0.89917 2.14296 1.09176


URM Bearing Wall -0.47366 2.08034 0.58674








88 / 78




Wood-Frame -1.07093 2.47522 1.54108

Tilt-up -0.89917 2.14296 1.09176


URM Bearing Wall -0.47366 2.08034 0.58674








89 / 78



90 / 78



91 / 78



𝑫𝑪𝑹=𝑺𝒂

𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

Demand to Capacity Ratio

92 / 78




𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾


93 / 78




𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾


94 / 78



Framing System R V/W T

Wood-Frame 2.5 – 6.5 0.05 – 0.4 0 – 1s

Tilt-up 2.5 – 5.5 0.05 – 0.5 0 – 1s

Bearing Shear Wall 2.5 – 5.5 0.03 – 0.5 0 – 2s

URM Bearing Wall 1.5 – 4.0 0.02 – 0.3 0 – 2s

Moment-Resisting Space Frame 2.0 – 8.5 0.03 – 0.5 0 – 2s

Dual MRSF/Shear Wall 3.0 – 8.5 0.03 – 0.5 0 – 2s

Concentric Braced Frame 3.0 – 8.0 0.03 – 0.5 0 – 2s


𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾


95 / 78



96 / 78



97 / 78



• T can be estimated from the footprint and height of the structure

• R decreases with height (number of floors)

• R decreases DCR increases DF increases

• V/W can be constrained by year of construction

• IBC gives good indication of response to load

• Compliance with IBC folded into R


𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

98 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

99 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

100 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

101 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

102 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

103 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

104 / 78










𝑹×𝑽 /𝑾

105 / 78


Examples

106 / 78


Examples

107 / 78


Examples

108 / 78


Examples

109 / 78


Examples

110 / 78


Conclusions





• But… we need data!

111 / 78


Conclusions






112 / 78


Conclusions






113 / 78


Conclusions






114 / 78


Conclusions






Thank You

115 / 78

apru – 2013tuesday oct 29 multi-hazard loss estimations using socioeconomic data j.r....

Documents

earthquake forecasts

relm http

motivation seismic hazard

hour aftershock forecast

general population

multihazard loss estimations

socioeconomic data