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

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

0.1

0.3

0.1

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

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Structural

Components

Partitions Interior Finishes Plumbing and HVAC Cldding

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

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

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!"

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!"

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."