introduction to earthquake engineering - universität kassel introduction to earthquake engineering...
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction to Earthquake Engineering
Seismic Risk Assessment
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Uwe E. Dorka
Risk is a function of:
• Hazard • Vulnerability • Loss
2
Definition of risk
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment
• Ground shaking
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 3
M 6.4 2016 Southern Taiwan Earthquake
Seismic hazard sequel NARlabs report Taiwan
• Ground shaking • Land slide
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 4
M 7.0 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake
Seismic hazard sequel
EERI virtual clearing house
• Ground shaking • Land slide • Liquefaction
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 5
M 7.5 1964 Niigata Earthquake
Seismic hazard sequel EERI slide collection
• Ground shaking • Land slides • Liquefaction • Fires
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 6
M 6.9 1995 Kobe Earthquake
Seismic hazard sequel EERI slide collection
• Ground shaking • Land slides • Liquefaction • Fires • Tsunami
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 7
M 9.0 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
Seismic hazard sequel EERI clearing house
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 8
Seismic hazard sequel
Each “risk element” (building, bridge, factory, shopping mal etc.) has an individual seismic hazard sequel, which depends on its location and the tectonic scenario that needs to be considered
This leads to: Damage Loss
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 9
The Osaka Bay seismic hazard scenario
The Osaka Bay scenario considers a rupture of the Nankai Trough generating a M9.1 earthquake and tsunami comparable to the 2011 Tohoku event
From: http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/nankaitrough_info.html
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 10
Intensities will be high, especially in coastal regions (JMA 7 = MM 10 – 11) throughout Japan.
From: http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/nankaitrough_info.html
The Osaka Bay seismic hazard scenario
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 11
For Osaka, Intensities are smaller (JMA 6 = MM 8) but widespread liquefaction must be expected.
From: http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/nankaitrough_info.html
The Osaka Bay seismic hazard scenario
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 12
The expected tsunami is large: It will inundate a large part of Osaka city, requiring evacuation of about half of the population living in the inundated areas necessary within 30 min.
From: http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/nankaitrough_info.html
The Osaka Bay seismic hazard scenario
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 13
Landslides are not a problem for Osaka, but in the surrounding mountains and on the other side of the bay in Kobe. Studies on post-quake fires are not in the reports!
The Osaka Bay seismic hazard scenario
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 14
Vulnerability assessment
• Structures • Transport (roads, rail road, water ways) • Other life lines (fresh water, sewage, electricity, gas, communication) • Industrial facilities (production) • Commercial facilities (malls, banks, warehouses etc.) • Secondary elements (building contents, equipment, goods, etc.)
A number of “risk elements” can cause losses due to their seismic vulnerabilities, among them are:
Vulnerability assessment is the most critical and most complex task in seismic risk assessment!
It is also the least developed because it lacks realistic and validated methods!
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 15
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way: Code conforming calculation: •Düzce and Kocaeli buildings •Düzce event
1999 Düzce damage data base: •484 rc-frame structures, •1-7 storeys
(from Ref 1)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 16
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way: Code conforming calculation: •Düzce and Kocaeli buildings •Düzce event
1999 Düzce damage data base: •484 rc-frame structures, •1-7 storeys
(from Ref 1)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 17
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
• Structural regularity is largely a myth: Soft storeys are everywhere
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way:
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 18
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
• Structural regularity is largely a myth: Soft storeys are everywhere
• Floor levels are not aligned
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way:
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 19
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
• Structural regularity is largely a myth: Soft storeys are everywhere
• Floor levels are not aligned • Corner buildings are pushed out
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way:
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 20
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
• Structural regularity is largely a myth: Soft storeys are everywhere
• Floor levels are not aligned • Corner buildings are pushed out • Workmanship: In most regions the
necessary skills are missing
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way:
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 21
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
• Structural regularity is largely a myth: Soft storeys are everywhere
• Floor levels are not aligned • Corner buildings are pushed out • Workmanship: In most regions the
necessary skills are missing • Quality control requirements are
unrealistic
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way:
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 22
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
Seismic codes are not “codes of practice” as they should be: Buildings are not built that way and don’t behave that way: • Structural regularity is largely a
myth: Soft storeys are everywhere • Floor levels are not aligned • Corner buildings are pushed out • Workmanship: In most regions the
necessary skills are missing • Quality control requirements are
unrealistic • Engineers have to use design
methods that don’t reflect actual limit states
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 23
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
The best possibility for structural vulnerability assessment: A database with buildings that suffered earthquake damage! Düzce damage data base: •1999 Düzce event, Mw = 7.2 •484 rc-frame buildings investigated •1-7 storeys •Typical for 90 % of buildings in Turkey
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 24
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
The next best possibility for structural assessment: A virtual building database! Can be created by the SBP Tool through fuzzy criteria: • Dimensions of ground plan,
windows and doors • Number of storeys • Balcony • soft storey • etc.
(from Ref 5)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 25
Vulnerability assessment: Structures
The next best possibility for structural assessment: A virtual database! A virtual city ward: • Number of buildings: 100 • Number of nodes: 505.347 • Number of finite elements:
304.157 • Number of DOF: 1,676,754 • Duration for running a time
history with 1.500 Time steps (by using OpenHySL): 4,5 hours
(from Ref 5)
Needs realistic local mechanical modelling. This information is still missing!
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 26
Vulnerability assessment: Life lines
• Transport: Roads, rail roads, water ways • Water: Fresh water, sewage systems • Energy: Electricity, oil, gas • Communication: Computer nodes,
satellite links
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 27
Vulnerability assessment: secondary “risk elements”
• Building contents: windows and doors, water-, electrical- and heating systems, furniture, household items, etc.
• Equipment: Vehicles, machines, appliances, computers, etc.
• Stored goods: foods, garments, spare parts, appliances, etc.
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 28
Loss assessment:
There is a distinction between human and economic losses!
Economic losses can be valued. They are separated into: •Direct losses are losses directly related to damage or destruction of “risk elements”, e.g. repair or replacement costs of bridges, dams, buildings, their contents, equipment, stored goods, etc. •Consequential losses are indirect losses, e.g. business interruptions, loss of jobs, increase in health care costs, event cancellations (rock concerts) etc. This is the realm of insurance companies. Their approach requires a loss data base (not just damage data base!)
Human losses (deaths, injuries) need immediate attention. Their assessment is needed for an effective emergency planning and response.
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 29
Economic loss assessment
Insurance concept for earthquake loss estimation of large portfolios
(after Ref 4)
Loss functions
Value distribution
Hazard representation
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 30
Economic loss assessment
Hazard Zonation: Probabilistic seismic hazard maps based on return periods
(from Ref 4)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 31
Economic loss assessment
Or scenarios: Probability of occurrence of extreme events in an area
(from Ref 4)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 32
Economic loss assessment
Exposure Zonation: The CRESTA Format
(from Ref 4)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 33
Economic loss assessment
Loss calculation: • Generation of large sets of synthetic events from hazard representation • Calculation of losses for each event using regional value distribution (CRESTA)
and loss functions (loss data base for risk elements) • Sort results by losses and cumulate event probabilities
Losses vs. hazard probability (PML Chart)
(from Ref 4)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 34
Economic loss assessment
PML Chart to identify the probable maximum loss (PML) and calculate the average annual loss (AAL) for a portfolio.
(NatCat calculation, Munich Re, Ref 4)
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 35
Economic loss assessment
Portfolio vs. single risk: • A portfolio contains a large
number of risk elements distributed over a large area. Single, even extreme events have no significant effect on the expected losses: Probabilistic assessment
preferred. • For a single risk, extreme
events are significant for loss estimation: Scenario based
assessment preferred.
portfolio
single risk
Return period
Loss
in %
of T
SI
(from Ref 4)
• Probabilistic ground motion assessment is well developed • Extreme event studies are now done, but are still in an infant stage • A hazards sequel needs to be considered for any “risk elements”
• Vulnerability assessment is grossly underdeveloped but is key to realistic seismic risk assessment!
• Realistic virtual damage databases are needed for various risk elements (but in particular structures!) to calculate realistic loss data
• This requires a coordinated world effort of large-scale experiments to validate detailed numerical models, especially of structures
• Or we wait until one of our large urban centres is destroyed by an extreme event, which is sure to come!
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 36
Current status of seismic risk assessment
1. Berth (2013). Simulated seismic vulnerability based on nonlinear SDOF building models vs. observed damage for residential buildings in Turkey, Master Thesis, Universität Kassel
2. EERI Slide collections 3. Japan Cabinet Office (2012). Nankai Trough Earthquake Damage
Information. Available from: <http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/nankaitrough_info.html>. [1 October 2013].
4. Hollnack (2010): Earthquake Risk Modelling, Lecture material, Munich Re.
5. Mühlhausen, Dorka (2016). Seismic risk simulation using a virtual data base. Workshop presentation, Universität Kassel
Uwe E. Dorka: Seismic Risk Asessment 37
References