Effects of Epistemic Uncertainty in Seismic Hazard Estimates on Building Portfolio Losses

In catastrophe risk modeling, a defensible estimation of impact severity and its likelihood of occurrence to a portfolio of assets can only be made through a rigorous treatment of uncertainty and the consideration of multiple alternative models. This approach, however, requires repeating lengthy calculations multiple times. To limit the demand on computational time and resources, a frequent practice in the industry is to estimate the distribution of earthquake-induced portfolio losses using a simulated catalog of events from a single representative mean ground motion hazard model for the region. This simplified approach is faster but may provide biased estimates of the likelihood of occurrence of the large and infrequent losses that drive many risk mitigation decisions. Investigation through case studies of different portfolios of assets located in the San Francisco Bay Region shows the potential for both a bias in the mean loss estimates and an underestimation of their central 70% interpercentile. We propose a simplified and computationally practical approach that reduces the bias in the mean portfolio loss estimates. This approach does not improve the estimate of the inter-percentile range, however, a quantity of no direct practical use.

[1]  Susan Weiss,et al.  Documentation in the , 1994 .

[2]  Keith Porter Cracking an Open Safe: Uncertainty in HAZUS-Based Seismic Vulnerability Functions , 2010 .

[3]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s , 2008 .

[4]  J. Baker,et al.  Correlation model for spatially distributed ground‐motion intensities , 2009 .

[5]  Thomas C. Hanks,et al.  A Bilinear Source-Scaling Model for M-log A Observations of Continental Earthquakes , 2002 .

[6]  Charles S. Mueller,et al.  Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps , 2008 .

[7]  G. Weatherill,et al.  OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model , 2014 .

[8]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The Use and Misuse of Logic Trees in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2008 .

[9]  Rui Pinho,et al.  Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment , 2014, Natural Hazards.

[10]  BrianS-J. Chiou,et al.  An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra , 2008 .

[11]  Paolo Bazzurro,et al.  Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion Intensity Measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation , 2007 .

[12]  Hope A. Seligson,et al.  When the Big One Strikes Again—Estimated Losses due to a Repeat of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake , 2006 .

[13]  Timothy E. Dawson,et al.  Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) , 2009 .

[14]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  The Case for Using Mean Seismic Hazard , 2005 .

[15]  Mario Ordaz,et al.  On Uncertainties in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2016 .