A Next-Generation Open-Source Tool For Earthquake Loss Estimation

A Next-Generation Open-Source Tool For Earthquake Loss Estimation

S. Molina-palacios D. H. Lang A. Meslem C. D. Lindholm N. Agea-medina 

Dpto. Ciencias de la Tierra y del Medio Ambiente, Universidad de Alicante, Spain

NORSAR, Department Earthquake Hazard and Risk, Kjeller, Norway

Page: 
585-596
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SAFE-V7-N4-585-596
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
8 November 2017
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Earthquake loss estimation (ELE), generally also referred to as earthquake risk assessment, is a compa- rably young research discipline which, at first, relied on empirical observations based on a macroseismic intensity scale. Later, with the advent of methodologies and procedures that are based on theoretical simulation in estimating physical damage under earthquake loading, the analytical approach for ELE was formulated. The open-source software SELENA, which is a joint development of NORSAR (Norway) and the University of Alicante (Spain), is undergoing a constant development. One of the more recent features being included is the possibility to address topographic amplification of seismic ground motion. Additionally, SELENA has been adapted by including various methods for the analytical computation of structural damage and loss. SELENA now offers complete flexibility in the use of different types of fragility curves based on various ground motion intensity parameters (e.g. PGA, Sa, Sd), which has been suggested by many recently released guidelines (e.g. FEMA P-58, GEM-ASV, SYNER-G, HAZUS- MH). Besides, under the framework of the ongoing Horizon 2020 LIQUEFACT project, SELENA is extended in order to allow the consideration of liquefaction-induced ground displacements and respective structural damage.

In general, software tools for ELE are particularly useful in two different settings, i.e., for disaster management and (re)insurance purposes. Both sectors pose very different  demands  on  ELE  studies: while the (re)insurance sector is foremost  interested  in the direct  and indirect  economic  losses  caused  by an earthquake to its insured physical assets, those institutions (often governmental and non- governmental organizations) in charge of disaster emergency management and response are more interested in reliable estimates on human losses and the potential short- and long-term social consequences. Being aware about these peculiar differences between software tools for disaster management and  insurance applications, NORSAR/UA thereby offers two in its core similar software tools, i.e., the open- source software SELENA and the proprietary software PML (Probable Maximum Loss) which is actively used by the insurance association in Chile (South America) since 2011.

Keywords: 

Analytical methods, damage and loss, earthquake loss estimation, SELENA

  References

[1] Kircher, C.A., Nassar, A.A., Kustu, O., & Holmes, W.T., Development of building damage functions for earthquake loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra, 13(4), pp. 663–682, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585974

[2] Whitman, R.V., Anagnos, T., Kircher, C.A., Lagorio, H.J., Lawson, R.S. & Schneider, P., Development of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology. Earthquake Spectra, 13(4), pp. 643–661, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585973

[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency-FEMA, HAZUS99-SR1 estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States (FEMA 366), Report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 2001.

[4] Federal Emergency Management Agency-FEMA, HAZUS99-SR2 (Service Release 2). Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Washington, DC, 2002.

[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA, HAZUS-MH. Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Technical manual., Washington DC, USA, 2003.

[6] Molina, S. & Lindholm, C.D., A logic tree extension of the capacity spectrum method developed to estimate seismic risk in Oslo, Norway. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6), pp. 877–897, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460509350570

[7] Lang, D.H., Molina, S. & Lindholm C.D., Towards near-real-time damage estimation using a CSM-based tool for seismic risk assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(2), pp. 199–210, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460802014055

[8] Molina, S., Lang, D.H. & Lindholm, C.D., SELENA – An open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Computers & Geosciences, 36(3), pp. 257–269, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006

[9] Lang, D., Molina-Palacios, S., Lindholm, C. & Balan, S., Deterministic earthquake  damage and loss assessment for the city of Bucharest, Romania. Journal of Seismology, 16(1), pp. 67–88, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-011-9250-y

[10] Erduran, E., Lang, D.H, Lindholm, C., Toma-Danila, D., Balan, S.F., Ionescu, V., Aldea, A., Vacareanu, R. & Neagu, C., Real-Time earthquake damage assessment in the Romanian-Bulgarian border region, Presented at 15th WCEE, Lisboa, pp. 1–10, 2012.

[11] Lang, D.H., Singh, Y. & Prasad, J.S.R., Comparing empirical and analytical estimates of earthquake loss assessment studies for the city of Dehradun, India. Earthquake Spectra, 28(2), pp. 595–619, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000004

[12] Singh, Y., Lang, D.H. & Narasimha, D.S., Seismic risk assessment in hilly areas: case study of two cities in Indian Himalayas. Presented at the SECED 2015 Conference: Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World, Cambridge UK, 2015.

[13] Molina, S., Torres, Y., Benito, B., Navarro, M. & Belizaire, D., Using the damage from 2010 Haiti earthquake for calibrating vulnerability models of typical structures in Port-au- Prince (Haiti). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 12(4), pp. 1459–1478, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9563-z

[14] Torres, Y., Molina, S., Martinez-Cuevas, S., Navarro, M., Martinez-Diaz, J. J., Benito, B., Galiana-Merino, J.J. & Belizaire, D., A first approach to earthquake damage estimation in Haiti: advices to minimize the seismic risk. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(1), pp. 39–58, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9813-3

[15] Jaiswal, K.S. & Wald, D.J., Creating a global building inventory for earthquake loss assessment and risk management. U.S. Geological Survey (Open-File Report 2008– 1160), available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1160/. (accesed February 1, 2017).

[16] Brzev, S., Scawthorn, C., Charleson, A. & Jaiswal, K., GEM basic building taxonomy, Version 1.0, GEM ontology and taxonomy global component project, available at: http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/gemontology-taxonomy/posts/updated-gem- basic-building-taxonomy-v1.0. (accesed February 1, 2017).

[17] Pitilakis, K. Franchin, P., Khazai, B., Wenzel, H. (eds.), SYNER-G: Systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities, Springer-Verlag: Berlin and New York, 2014.

[18] International Code Council-ICC. International Building Code (IBC-2006), United States, 2006.

[19] CEN- European Committee for Standardization, EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Brussels, 1998.

[20] BIS - Bureau of Indian Standards, Indian standard—criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1—general provisions and buildings, Technical report, ICS 91.120.25, 2002.

[21] CNBS - Cuban National Bureau of Standards, Norma Cubana NC 46: 2013, Construc- ciones sismoresistentes – Requisitos básicos para el diseño y construcción, 1. Edición, Officina Nacional de Normalización (NC), Habana, Cuba, 2013.

[22] ICMS- Dipartamento de la Proteccione Civile, Indirizzi e criteri per la microzonacione sísmica, ed. Grupo di lavoro “ICMS”. Conferen-za delle Regioni e delle Province auto- nome - Dipartimento della protezione civile, Roma, 3 vol. e Dvd, 2008.

[23] Molina, S., Lang, D.H., Meslem, A. & Singh, Y., Topographic amplification effects - towards their inclusion in ELE Studies (State-of-the-art report), Report no. 15–001, Alicante–Kjeller–Roorkee, 2015.

[24] Federal Emergency Management Agency- FEMA. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Technical report, Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA), Washington DC, FEMA 356, 2000.

[25] Federal Emergency Management Agency- FEMA. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Technical report, Applied Technology Council, California, USA. FEMA-440, 2005.

[26] Fajfar, P., Structural analysis in earthquake engineering. A breakthrough of simplified nonlinear methods, Presented at the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engi- neering, London, paper 843, 2002.

[27] Dolsek, M. & Fajfar, P., Inelastic spectra for infilled reinforced concrete frames. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 33, pp. 1395–1416, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.410