Estimating the confidence of earthquake damage scenarios: examples from a logic tree approach

Earthquake loss estimation is now becoming an important tool in mitigation planning, where the loss modeling usually is based on a parameterized mathematical representation of the damage problem. In parallel with the development and improvement of such models, the question of sensitivity to parameters that carry uncertainties becomes increasingly important. We have to this end applied the capacity spectrum method (CSM) as described in FEMA HAZUS-MH. Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, Advanced Engineering Building Module. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States (2003), and investigated the effects of selected parameters. The results demonstrate that loss scenarios may easily vary by as much as a factor of two because of simple parameter variations. Of particular importance for the uncertainty is the construction quality of the structure. These results represent a warning against simple acceptance of unbounded damage scenarios and strongly support the development of computational methods in which parameter uncertainties are propagated through the computations to facilitate confidence bounds for the damage scenarios.

[1]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra , 1999 .

[2]  Patricia Grossi.  Quantifying the uncertainty in seismic risk and loss estimation , 2000 .

[3]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model , 2005 .

[4]  J. Bommer,et al.  Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance , 2002 .

[5]  John Douglas,et al.  GROUND-MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR SOUTHERN SPAIN AND SOUTHERN NORWAY OBTAINED USING THE COMPOSITE MODEL PERSPECTIVE , 2006 .

[6]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Criteria for Selecting and Adjusting Ground-Motion Models for Specific Target Regions: Application to Central Europe and Rock Sites , 2006 .

[7]  Charles A. Kircher,et al.  Development of Building Damage Functions for Earthquake Loss Estimation , 1997 .

[8]  Timothy J. Sullivan,et al.  Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Ground Motions and Fault Displacement at Yucca Mountain, Nevada , 2001 .

[9]  J. Bommer,et al.  PREDICTION OF HORIZONTAL RESPONSE SPECTRA IN EUROPE , 1996 .

[10]  James L. Beck,et al.  Sensitivity of Building Loss Estimates to Major Uncertain Variables , 2002 .

[11]  R. Spence,et al.  Earthquake Protection: Coburn/Earthquake Protection, Second Edition , 2006 .

[12]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  On the Use of Logic Trees for Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Seismic-Hazard Analysis , 2005 .

[13]  G. R. Toro,et al.  Model of Strong Ground Motions from Earthquakes in Central and Eastern North America: Best Estimates and Uncertainties , 1997 .

[14]  S. Giovinazzi.  The Vulnerability Assessment and the Damage Scenario in Seismic Risk Analysis , 2005 .

[15]  Charles A. Kircher,et al.  Estimation of Earthquake Losses to Buildings , 1997 .

[16]  Conrad Lindholm,et al.  A LOGIC TREE EXTENSION OF THE CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD DEVELOPED TO ESTIMATE SEISMIC RISK IN OSLO, NORWAY , 2005 .

[17]  W. J. Hall,et al.  Earthquake spectra and design , 1982 .

[18]  Rui Pinho,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION OF A DISPLACEMENT-BASED ADAPTIVE PUSHOVER PROCEDURE , 2004 .

[19]  Guido Magenes,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS , 2006 .

[20]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates? , 2006 .

[21]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Composite Ground-Motion Models and Logic Trees: Methodology, Sensitivities, and Uncertainties , 2005 .

[22]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  A Probabilistic Displacement-based Vulnerability Assessment Procedure for Earthquake Loss Estimation , 2004 .

[23]  Robert J. Budnitz,et al.  Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts , 1997 .