Earthquake Loss Estimation | EssayIvy.com

Earthquake Loss Estimation

Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 1
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report
Name of Student
Institutional Affiliation
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 2
Abstract
The long waited program with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) allowed form the development
of the FEMA P-58 methodology. The paper describes the state of art concerning calculating the concerns related to
the reaction of a building to earthquake shaking. The approaches described in this report include performance-based
seismic engineering, the methodology, which has expanded its applications in the assessment of new buildings given
that it offers engineers the prospect of evaluating the concerns of individual building reaction to imminent
earthquakes. The paper provides a robust description of building damage assessment in relation to earthquake loss
estimation methodology. The use of nonlinear dynamic analyses provided mean maximization process, including
inter-story drift ratio, roof displacement, and base shear coefficient.
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 3
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
History of the Project ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Natural Risk Assessment and Risk Management .......................................................................................................... 4
Input Data ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Building Information ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Earthquake Hazard .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Damage States and Analysis Method ....................................................................................................... 5
Output ............................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Casualties and Injuries .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Repair Cost and Time ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Repair Time ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
Earthquake Loss Estimation: Methodologies & Tools .................................................................................................. 7
Comparison between Some Methods ............................................................................................................................ 8
QLARM .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
SELENA ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
DBELA ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8
FEMA P-58 ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
Reason for Choosing FEMA P-58 ................................................................................................................................. 8
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8
References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 4
Earthquake Loss Estimation
Introduction
Partly impelled by the escalating commercial costs of natural catastrophes, the world has experienced a dramatic
increase in processes focusing on estimating the primary and secondary losses resulting from earthquakes. A good
example references the 1997 journal Earthquake Spectra that devoted a special concern to loss estimation,
particularly focusing on the cost benefit analysis of the structural rehabilitation approaches. As illustrated by
previous reports, earthquakes striking thickly populated regions, such as urban areas lead to potential economic and
social losses even in nations with vast risk mitigation of earthquake (D’Ayala et al., 1997). Given that past examples
have demonstrated poor emergency responses and the possibility of high death toll, the field of earthquake loss
estimation (ELE) continue to mushroom with increased body of research presently undertaken by significant
methodological aspects. In addition to that, the burgeoning scope coupled with the all-inclusiveness of modern loss
estimation approaches presents that the field continues to become interdisciplinary, drawing majorly from every
discipline related to earthquake. To that effect, this report provides a robust discussion of the ELE with a keen focus
on FEMA P-58 in a bid to provide decision-makers and planners in response to the coordination of emergency
response at an international level.
History of the Project
Earthquake loss estimation (ELE) started during the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) in 1972
for the study of San Francisco followed by major studies within the region. Comprehensibly, none of the studies
have provided concrete results for national application given that the methodologies, approaches and assumptions
differed. However, in 1989, FEMA issued a publication of the National Academy of Sciences research that provided
a list of procedures for loss works along with the foundation for structure of loss system (Guney, 2015). In 1992,
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) formed a cooperative agreement with NIBS to develop a
standardized and generally pertinent methodology for assessing latent earthquake fatalities on a local foundation. A
significant level of efforts used projects that offered technical to provide user friendly input and objectives for
methodology.
Project Objectives
The adoption of the earthquake loss estimation methodology factors a number of general objectives as outlined in
the FEMA and National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) task plan. The main objective of this research focuses
on computing the values related with the response of a building to earthquake shaking (Ahmad, Ali, Crowley &
Pinho, 2014). The study provides updates of the estimated earthquake losses at a regional level and includes the
updates to the USGS national seismic hazard map. To that end, the project objectives focuses on a number of
methodologies as outlined below:
To address essential components of seismic risk, including probability of ground motion and the
consequences of ground motion in relation to physical damage as well as economic loss of building to
earthquake shaking
To accommodate different needs of building users by analyzing the different levels of seismic loses of the
ground motions in earthquake shaking
To a adopt state-of art model in the methodology of earthquake loss estimation associated with damage and
ground shaking hazards in individual buildings
The project incorporate both probabilistic and deterministic descriptions of spectral earthquake disaster
response with the application of software structured to assent complete maps of earthquake ground shaking
Natural Risk Assessment and Risk Management
The assessment of earthquake risk necessitates the measuring of the potential damage, costs, and casualties within a
specific geographic region and over described periods. The report begins with property transaction due diligence to
identify, analyze, and prioritize on risk. Risk assessment for property transaction would estimate the damage state of
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 5
the building at every stage. The process of FEMA P-58 also allows a detailed assessment of high value items in the
building (Strasser, Stafford, Bommer & Erdik, 2008). Post-earthquake operability of facilities of production and
structural systems such as location area debondend region and fiber reinforcement grout of the building. Risk
management would entail control of risk associated with earthquake. The process follows management planning,
risk resolution, and risk monitoring after earthquake.
Input Data
Building Information
From a structural point, the eight story building for a commercial complex is located in seismic zone II on the site
consisting a medium soil constructed in 1978. The design is for seismic loads in line with the IS 1893. The building
consist of main block alongside a service block joined by an expansion joint, which makes it structurally separated.
The external walls are 240 mm thick and 12mm plaster on each side. The floor area has slab and the ground beams
pass through the columns. The sizes of upper floor are maintained same, but for columns, sizes increase. The floor
area A is 0.25 m
2
and the
Earthquake Hazard
At present, FEMA P-58 methodology provides limited consideration for the hazards associated with earthquake
shaking. Nonetheless, the methodology could be enlarged to consider other hazards, such as deformation and
liquefaction of ground. The degree of characterization of the shaking hazards depends on assessment type conducted
alongside the analytical method adopted for response simulation. The assessment methodology provides information
related to the scenario, time, and intensity of earthquake.
Definition of Damage States and Analysis Method
The scope and degree of damage increases with the demand since the process occurs as a continuum. Each damage
relates with unique set of consequences, including the potential for unsafe placarding, number of causalities, and any
combination of the above. By description, each state of damage denotes unique set of consequences in line with the
performance measures, such as repair costs and casualties. In consideration with the exterior cladding component,
essential damage state could include air intrusion and cracking of sealant joints. In a long period, this kind of
damage tend to present maintenance concerns of the building and need repair. Nonetheless, it will not have concerns
associated with unsafe placarding, lead times, or causalities (Tantala, Nordenson, Deodatis & Jacob, 2008). The
consequences of this damage state potentially incorporates limited costs of repair and a corresponding short repair
times. Visible cracking of the panels also represent a damage state that is unsightly and will need repair through
replacement of worn-out panels, with no causalities expected. Finally, failure of panel connection alongside loss of
panels from the building envelope will require replacement of damaged and missing panels. This type of damage
would have potential casualties resulting from the falling hazards. The cost and time of repair would be severe in
this situation as well as casualty and unsafe placarding consequences.
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 6
Output
Casualties and Injuries
In safety estimate procedures, the mean causalities at a 45 year earthquake include injuries from falling hazards,
fatalities, and injuries from collapse and fatalities from collapse. The graph below shows the mean causalities at 43
year earthquake.
Repair Cost and Time
The average repair cost of the building include structural components, partitions, cladding, interior finishes,
plumbing and HVAC along other components. The diagram below shows the loss contributions by component type
for the period ground motion.
The average annual losses resulting from the damage also entails the structural and nonstructural components as
shown below
0.3
0
0.1
0
0.3
0.1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Injuriss (Falling
Hazards)
Fatalities (Falling
Hazards)
Injuries
(Collapse)
Fatalities
(Collapse)
Total Injuries Total Fatalities
MEAN CASUALTIES AT A 43 YEAR EARTHQUAKE
Mean Casualties at a 43 Year Earthquake
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Structural
Components
Partitions Interior Finishes Plumbing and HVAC Cldding
Loss Contribution
Loss Contribution
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 7
Repair Time
The average repair times is approximated at 475 year earthquake, which include REDi functional recovery, re-
occupancy, and full recovery. The repairs occur in 3 classes. The first class includes cosmetic structural or
nonstructural damage while the second class mention nonstructural damage that does not threaten safety. The last
class of repair time include structural or nonstructural damage that threatens life safety. After the seismic event,
earthquake inspection follows and then financing of the repair (O’Reilly & Sullivan, 2018). However, post-
earthquake inspection allows for contractor mobilization, which require long time components. The table below
illustrates the average repair times for the building.
Repair Component
Time
REDi Re-Occupancy
10 months
REDi Functional Recovery
11 months
REDi Full Recovery
13 months
Earthquake Loss Estimation: Methodologies & Tools
Chan and colleagues developed the methodology of estimating earthquake loss that utilizes the GDP of a nation as a
macroscopic pointer to depict the overall disclosure rather than the comprehensive building account needed in old-
fashioned ELE methodologies (Kahandawa, Domingo, Park & Uma, 2018). Accordingly, the GDP indicates the
level of newly established wealth that measures the overall products output for final application within the national
region of a nation. Given that the economic loss resulting from earthquake has a close association with the economy
of a country, Chan et al. found that the use of GDP offers a holistic estimation to the economic loss. The method
incorporates seismic hazard, population data, published data on earthquake loss, and GDP. The procedure was
adopted in this report to establish an ELE report for a regional application.
The projected economic loss for a specific area is computed from the equation
???? = ∑????(????) × ????(1, ????????????) × ????????????
Where L= economic loss
P (I) = earthquake intensity probability (I)
F (I, GDP) = Measure of the vulnerability of the area
$9,600
$35,845
$8,438
$4,397
$7,832
3,236
Annual Losses
Structural Components partition Walls Glazing Suspendid Ceiling HVAC System Other
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 8
GDP= Macroeconomic indicator
Comparison between Some Methods
QLARM
EarthQuake Loss Assessment for Response and Mitigation (QLARM) is a second-generation tool for earthquake
loss estimation. The software estimates the total number of injuries and fatalities, causalities based on settlements
and percentage of buildings in five damage levels. The QLARM global database of elements that consists of models
constructed in urban areas by use of soil application factors and building stock.
SELENA
SEimic Loss EstimatioN using a logic tree Approach (SELENA) represents an ELE software presently under
development at NORSAR in association with the University of Alicante. Notably, the software remains under
development and the present advances have allowed calibration in form of ground movements (Anagnos, Kircher,
Lagorio, Lawson, Schneider & Whitman, 1997). The use of the HAZUS vulnerability and capacity curves provide
for overriding with specific data.
DBELA
Displacement-Based Earthquake Loss Assessment (DBELA) represents a software developed by the ROSE School
with runs calibrated to Istanbul data. The approach uses a mechanically derived formulae to define the capacity of
displacement of different building classes and in different limit states. A varied innovation of DBELA relates to its
comprehensive consideration of the uncertainties associated with estimation of both capacity and demand.
FEMA P-58
FEMA P-58 methodology provides opportunity for expressing performance based on statistical distributions of the
potential values of essential impacts of earthquake and in relation to performance function. The procedure is
important for addressing key impact assessment, such as repair costs, serious injuries and repair period (Zeng, Lu,
Yang & Xu, 2016).
Reason for Choosing FEMA P-58
The use of the methodology is important in projecting the probability related to incurring of the unsafe placards
during post-earthquake building inspection. The process would allow for estimating the impacts associated with
carbon dioxide emissions, utilization of energy, and landfill generation (Papadopoulos, Vamvatsikos & Kazantzi,
2017). Furthermore, the methodology provides room for conducting three different performance assessments,
especially based on intensity of shaking that allow development functions. The methodology also allows scenario-
based evaluation to provide performance functions conditioned on the occurrence of a specific earthquake
happening as defined by distance and event magnitude.
Conclusion
The FEMA P-58 assessment methodology has proved important application with the primary purpose of assessing
the existing buildings. The assessment based on performance design processes serve as an opportunity to serve
owners along with the tenants in making ownership and occupancy decisions. The use of FEMA P-58 references the
initial step in a number of responsibilities of the next generation performance in seismic design criteria.
Earthquake Loss Estimation Report 9
References
Ahmad, N., Ali, Q., Crowley, H., & Pinho, R. (2014). Earthquake loss estimation of residential buildings in
Pakistan. Natural Hazards : Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of
Natural Hazards, 73, 3, 1889-1955.
Anagnos, T., Kircher, C. A., Lagorio, H. J., Lawson, R. S., Schneider, P. J., & Whitman, R. V. (1997). Development
of a national earthquake loss estimation methodology. Earthquake Spectra.
FEMA. (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Volume 1 Methodology
Guney, D. (2015). Seismic Vulnerability of Historic and Monumental Structures and Centers.
Kahandawa, K. A. R. V. D., Domingo, N. D., Park, K. S., & Uma, S. R. (2018). Earthquake damage estimation
systems: Literature review. Procedia Engineering, 212, 622-628.
O’Reilly, G. J., & Sullivan, T. J. (2018). Probabilistic seismic assessment and retrofit considerations for Italian RC
frame buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16, 3, 1447-1485.
Papadopoulos, A. N., D Vamvatsikos, D. N, & Kazantzi, A. (2017). Development of FEMA P-58 compatible story
loss functions: Steel office buildings in high seismicity regions. Conference, DOI:
10.7712/120117.5532.17839
Strasser, F.O, Stafford P, J., Bommer, J.J, & Erdik M. (2008). State-of-the-art of European earthquake Loss
Estimation software. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China
Tantala, M. W., Nordenson, G. J. P., Deodatis, G., & Jacob, K. (2008). Earthquake loss estimation for the New York
City Metropolitan Region. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28, 10, 812-835.
Zeng, X., Lu, X., Yang, T. Y., & Xu, Z. (2016). Application of the FEMA-P58 methodology for regional earthquake
loss prediction. Natural Hazards : Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of
Natural Hazards, 83, 1, 177-192.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

-+
550 words

Our customers say

Customer Avatar
Jeff Curtis
USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Customer Avatar
Ian McGregor
UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Customer Avatar
Shannon Williams
Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

  • 5-paragraph Essay
  • Admission Essay
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Article Review
  • Assignment
  • Biography
  • Book/Movie Review
  • Business Plan
  • Case Study
  • Cause and Effect Essay
  • Classification Essay
  • Comparison Essay
  • Coursework
  • Creative Writing
  • Critical Thinking/Review
  • Deductive Essay
  • Definition Essay
  • Essay (Any Type)
  • Exploratory Essay
  • Expository Essay
  • Informal Essay
  • Literature Essay
  • Multiple Choice Question
  • Narrative Essay
  • Personal Essay
  • Persuasive Essay
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Reflective Writing
  • Research Essay
  • Response Essay
  • Scholarship Essay
  • Term Paper
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. By using this website you are accepting the use of cookies mentioned in our Privacy Policy.