Improving USGS Input Into HAZUS & Other Loss Estimation Tools

Improving USGS Input into HAZUS
& Other Loss Estimation Tools
Nicolas Luco – Research Structural Engineer

Erdem Karaca – Mendenhall Postdoctoral Researcher
USGS Geologic Hazards Team, Golden, CO
U.S. Department of the Interior USGS/MAEC Workshop in Memphis, TN

U.S. Geological Survey October 11, 2006
Presentation Topics
1) Improving USGS Input into HAZUS
a) USGS-FEMA Plan on Future Opportunities
b) Probabilistic Building Damage & Risk Maps
2) Cost-Benefit Analysis of Earthquake
Provisions in Building Codes
3) Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquake
for Response (PAGER) – D. Wald & P. Earle
4) An Interactive Web Tool for Quantitative
Seismic Risk Assessment of Woodframe
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
5) Open-Source Risk Modeling Software
("OpenRisk") – K. Porter & C. Scawthorn
 Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology
 Earthquake, flood, wind
 Default databases
 Building inventory, bridge inventory, …
 Possible ground motion inputs

 Scenario earthquakes, USGS hazard curves, ShakeMaps
 Losses
 Repair costs, casualties, direct & indirect economic losses
 HAZUS - Pros
 Integrated earthquake loss estimation methodology
 Default databases
 Losses for a scenario earthquakes or ground-shaking maps
 Various loss measures (repair costs, number of casualties, …)
 HAZUS - Cons
 Not fully probabilistic (expected scenario/annual losses only)
 Computational efficiency (GIS overhead)
 Flexibility (not open-source)
Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
 FY06 & FY07 OMB Recommendation:
Improve earthquake risk estimates by integrating the
USGS Geologic Hazards Program seismic monitoring
with FEMA hazard loss estimation capabilities.
 FY06 Milestones (USGS Response):

 Establish USGS-FEMA workgroup to develop joint plan for
collaboration
 Combine USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps with HAZUS

methodology to generate probabilistic loss estimates
 Produce prototype HAZUS-formatted ShakeMaps for

destructive earthquake scenarios to facilitate generating
loss estimates for the scenarios
 USGS-FEMA Plan on Future Opportunities:
 Integration of USGS Seismic Monitoring with
HAZUS for Earthquake Response
 USGS Ground Motion “Plug-In” for HAZUS
 Coordination of USGS/FEMA Earthquake Damage
Research (“HAZUS-R”)
 Joint Earthquake Risk Publications, Maps, and
Associated Products
 Example: Regional probabilistic loss

distributions (i.e., beyond expected losses)
Regional Probabilistic Loss Distributions: Goal
 Exceedance probability curves for total losses to a portfolio/region.
-1
San Francisco Bay Region
10
Annual Exceedance Frequency
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
-6
10 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10
Loss / Total Value
 Combination of ground motion hazard, building exposure, and

building fragilities.
Probabilistic Seismic Loss Analysis (PSLA)
 PSHA-analogous methodology described in Wesson, Perkins,

and Luco (2006): "Direct Calculation of the Probability
Distribution for Earthquake Losses to a Portfolio"
 Applications to date:
 San Francisco Bay Area Residential Woodframe Losses

(Luco et al for 2006 AGU Fall Meeting, manuscript in
preparation)
 Shelby County & Memphis Metro Bridges (Karaca & Luco for
5th National Seismic Conference on Bridges & Highways)
 Next applications will couple USGS hazard information with

HAZUS exposure data and "revamped" HAZUS fragilities
(described later in presentation)
Methodology: Motivation
 For each individual building of the exposure, the output of PSHA
(i.e., a hazard curve for the site) can be coupled with the building
fragility to arrive at its “loss curve”:
 [ L1  l ' ]   P[ L1  l ' | GM  a]  [GM  a]

a
“Loss Curve”
 If the losses Fragility
for individual buildings PSHA Output
were independent, a combined
loss curve could be obtained via a simple convolution, e.g., …
P[ L1  L2  l ]   P[ L1  L2  l | L2  l2 ]  P[ L2  l2 ]
l2
 P[L1P[ Ll1] l Pl[2L]2if L

l ]1 & L2 were indep.
 But the losses for individual buildings are not independent, since
their sites are shaken by the same earthquake events.
 Bottom Line: We can’t simply start from the output of PSHA.
Methodology: Extending PSHA
 Recall that Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)
conditions on and sums over “all” potential earthquake events:
 [GM  a]   P[GM  a | Event  i]  [ Event  i]

i
 For a given "event" (defined below), the losses for individual

buildings can be considered independent, and hence, e.g., …
P[ L1  L2  l | Event]  P[ L1  l | Event]  P[ L2  l | Event]
 Each “event” is defined here by:

(i) M = magnitude of earthquake
(ii) R = location of earthquake & corresponding distances to sites
(iii) einter = measure of average ground motion relative to other
similar earthquake events (i.e., # of sinter’s)
Methodology: PSLA Summary
 In summary, an exceedance curve for the sum of losses to all
buildings in the exposure can be obtained via the following steps:
1) For each potential event, combine the fragility and site hazard for
each building to obtain individual loss curves, i.e., …
P[ Li  l | Event]   P[ Li  l | GM  a]  P[GM  a | Event]

a
Fragility
2) Convolve the individual conditional Hazard
loss curves to obtain a
combined loss curve for each event, e.g., …
P[ L1  L2  l | Event]  P[ L1  l | Event]  P[ L2  l | Event]
3) Sum (with event weights) the loss curves for each event, e.g., …
 [ L1  L2  l ]   P[ L1  L2  l | Event  i]  [ Event  i]
i
1) Input on USGS Role in Risk Field
 FY05 USGS Venture Capital Fund Project
 Proposed “National Seismic Risk Maps”
 M. Petersen and N. Luco met with …
 FM Global
 AIR Worldwide Corporation
 RMS (Risk Management Solutions)
 ABS Consulting (formerly EQE)
 CGS (California Geological Survey)
 CEA (California Earthquake Authority)
 FEMA & NIBS (with D. Applegate)
 Stakeholders encouraged …
 Research into vulnerabilities and risk analysis, in
addition to hazard
 Results that they could compare with and/or utilize
 Transparent risk calculations for sensitivity
studies
 Contribution to exposure data (e.g., by USGS
Geography)
 Evaluations of available vulnerabilities
 Analyses for “public” buildings (e.g., homes)
 Stakeholders discouraged …
 Development of risk modeling software
 Risk results that become de facto standard
(i.e., do be clear about uncertainties/shortcomings
of results)
 Competition
 Stakeholders willing to cooperate, if not

collaborate (similar to response to open-
source risk-modeling software)
Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
Building Risk Maps
 Building risk maps show the mean annual frequencies (MAFs) of
exceeding different structural damage states (or losses) for each
of the 36 building types in HAZUS designed to 4 different code
levels
[ DS  ds]   P[ DS  ds | SA  sa ] | d[ SA  sa ] |
sa
= 
(Memphis, TN)
Building Risk Maps
Fragility Curve Vulnerability Curve
P(DS ≥ ds | Sa) P(Loss ≥ loss | Sa)

P(DS = ds | Sa)
(Loss | DS = ds)
Spectral acceleration, PGA, MMI,

Inelastic spectral displacement,
Inter-story drift ratio, …
Example Building Risk Maps
Low Rise Steel Moment Frame Building, Low Code
Slight Damage
Extensive Damage
Slight Damage
Low-Code
High-Code
Building Damage Maps
 Building damage maps show the probabilities of different

structural damage states (or losses) for each of the 36 building
types in HAZUS designed to 4 different code levels
P[ DS  ds]   P[ DS  ds | SA  sa ] f SA ( sa ) dsa
sa
Fragility Curve Seismic Hazard

Example Building Damage Maps: Northridge Eq.
Low Rise Steel Moment Frame Building, Low Code

Example Building Damage Maps
Light Frame Wood Building, Low Code

Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
USGS Mendenhall Postdoctoral Project
 “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Earthquake Provisions in Building Codes”
 In particular, reduction of losses around New Madrid Seismic Zone via

adoption of seismic design maps in International Building Code (IBC)
 Involves update of HAZUS fragilities to reflect IBC, and to depend on

design ground motion
 Also involves revamping of HAZUS fragilities for use in “Probabilistic

Seismic Loss Analysis” (Wesson, Perkins & Luco, 2006)
Approach: SBC => IBC
Hazard
Loss/Risk
Inventory
Reduced Risk?
Cost?
Fragility/Vulnerability
HAZUS Building Fragilities
Capacity
Curve
Capacity
Spectrum Fragility Curve Input:
Method Inelastic Spectral
Displacement
Damage
State
Definition
Revamping HAZUS Fragilities
Capacity
Curve
Fragility Curve Input:

Elastic Spectral
Acceleration
Damage
State
Definition
Time
History
Analysis
 Revamped HAZUS fragilities are:

1) Based on nonlinear dynamic structural analysis rather than Capacity
Spectrum Method.
2) Independent of ground motion variability, which is taken care of in
hazard computation.
3) Fully probabilistic with variability in ground motion and building
response properly accounted for.
 Revamped HAZUS fragilities are (continued):

4) In terms of ground motion parameters for which hazard is typically
computed, e.g., Sa(0.3s).
5) Available for a large number of structures (all HAZUS building types
and code levels).
6) Can be easily combined with seismic hazard information to …
 Evaluate seismic risk, e.g. seismic risk maps.
 Estimate losses from a scenario event, e.g. seismic damage
maps.
 Evaluate building design/mitigation options, e.g. SBC vs IBC
design.
Approach: SBC => IBC (Current/Future Work)
Reduced Risk
Cost
Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
Relevant Other USGS Studies/Products: PAGER
 Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response

 is an automated alarm system being developed to rapidly and accurately
assess the severity of damage caused by an earthquake and to provide
emergency relief organizations, government agencies, and the media with
an estimate of the societal impact from the potential catastrophe.
 will distribute alarms via pager, mobile phone, and e-mail that will include a
concise estimate of the earthquake’s impact.
 will also report the earthquake location, magnitude, and depth, an estimate
of the number of people exposed to varying levels of shaking, a description
of the region’s vulnerability, and a measure of confidence in the system’s
impact assessment.
 information will be available within minutes of the determination of the

earthquakes location and magnitude
Relevant Other USGS Studies/Products: PAGER
 Pager Process
1. Ground
Shaking
Estimate 2. Population
Data
3. Ground Shaking
and Exposure
4. Impact Estimate
Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
4) Plan for Residential Risk Web Tool
 Ultimate goal: An interactive web tool for
quantitative seismic risk assessment of
woodframe houses (“ResRisk–WH”)
 Phase I plan for FY07 (w/ N. Field & K. Porter)
 Java module – Standalone & OpenSHA application
 Input: Zip code
Vulnerability relation (dropdown menu)
 Output: Loss exceedance probability curve
( including probability of exceeding
deductible, expected loss )
Review of IBC Seismic Design Maps
Loss Exceedance Probability Curve
Select Vulnerability Relation
CUREE Small House, Typical Quality

CUREE Small House, Braced Cripple Wall
CUREE Large House, Typical Quality
.
.
.
Wesson et al. Single-Family Home, ShakeMap PGA
Loss Ratio
4) Plan for Residential Risk Web Tool
 “Phase II” Plan for Future Work
 Supplement available vulnerability relations to
adequately represent exposure in Northridge ‘94
 Validate/calibrate vulnerability relations using data
from Northridge ’94 earthquake
 “Phase III” Plan for Future Work

 Derive vulnerability relation “on-the-fly” based on
user-inputted floor plans
 Would result in user-assembled database of
vulnerability relations (not tied to an address)
Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
5) "OpenRisk"
 Like HAZUS, multi-hazard & freeware
 Unlike HAZUS, an open-source code base
 R. Murnane (BBSR-RPI) held a workshop in
March of 2005 (www.open-risk.org)
 K. Porter & C. Scawthorn (SPA) have …
 been funded by SCEC to draft initial plan
 obtained programming support from Russia
 A proposal to further "OpenRisk" is pending
with USGS NEHRP External Grants Program
 USGS development of ResRisk-WH is
contributing to OpenRisk code base (Java)
Presentation Topics
Houses (ResRisk-WH)
 HAZUS – Example:
 Expected Annual Loss (EAL) using USGS PSHMs
 Not a true loss exceedance curve
Area under Curve

=
EAL
Example: Earthquake Events & GM’s (Hazard)
 San Francisco Bay Region
 Characteristic and floating

earthquake events from
USGS Working Group 2002
 4 attenuation relations for

ground motions
 sinter based on Lee &

Anderson (BSSA, 2000)
 3 different hazard programs

used to compute median and
dispersion of ground motion
for each earthquake event
and building site pair
Example: Buildings & Sites (Exposure)
 Residential Woodframe Buildings – Inventory from HAZUS
 Aggregated at census tract level
 Within each census tract, one site per NEHRP site classification
Components of Risk/Loss Analysis
 HAZARD
e.g., National Seismic Hazard Maps, ShakeMaps
 EXPOSURE
e.g., HAZUS Inventory Data, USGS Geography
 FRAGILITY (or VULNERABILITY)

e.g., HAZUS Fragilities, Wesson et al (2004)
 RESILIENCY
e.g., Insurance, Cat. Bonds, Emergency Response

Improving USGS Input Into HAZUS & Other Loss Estimation Tools

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving USGS Input Into HAZUS & Other Loss Estimation Tools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improving USGS Input into HAZUS

& Other Loss Estimation Tools

Nicolas Luco – Research Structural Engineer

U.S. Department of the Interior USGS/MAEC Workshop in Memphis, TN

 Possible ground motion inputs

 FY06 Milestones (USGS Response):

 Combine USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps with HAZUS

 Produce prototype HAZUS-formatted ShakeMaps for

 Example: Regional probabilistic loss

 Combination of ground motion hazard, building exposure, and

 PSHA-analogous methodology described in Wesson, Perkins,

 San Francisco Bay Area Residential Woodframe Losses

 Next applications will couple USGS hazard information with

 [ L1  l ' ]   P[ L1  l ' | GM  a]  [GM  a]

 P[L1P[ Ll1] l Pl[2L]2if L

 [GM  a]   P[GM  a | Event  i]  [ Event  i]

 For a given "event" (defined below), the losses for individual

P[ L1  L2  l | Event]  P[ L1  l | Event]  P[ L2  l | Event]

 Each “event” is defined here by:

P[ Li  l | Event]   P[ Li  l | GM  a]  P[GM  a | Event]

P[ L1  L2  l | Event]  P[ L1  l | Event]  P[ L2  l | Event]

 Stakeholders willing to cooperate, if not

Fragility Curve Vulnerability Curve

P(DS ≥ ds | Sa) P(Loss ≥ loss | Sa)

Spectral acceleration, PGA, MMI,

 Building damage maps show the probabilities of different

Fragility Curve Seismic Hazard

Low Rise Steel Moment Frame Building, Low Code

Light Frame Wood Building, Low Code

 “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Earthquake Provisions in Building Codes”

 In particular, reduction of losses around New Madrid Seismic Zone via

 Involves update of HAZUS fragilities to reflect IBC, and to depend on

 Also involves revamping of HAZUS fragilities for use in “Probabilistic

Fragility Curve Input:

 Revamped HAZUS fragilities are:

 Revamped HAZUS fragilities are (continued):

 Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response

 information will be available within minutes of the determination of the

Select Vulnerability Relation

CUREE Small House, Typical Quality

 “Phase III” Plan for Future Work

Area under Curve

 Characteristic and floating

 4 attenuation relations for

 sinter based on Lee &

 3 different hazard programs

 Residential Woodframe Buildings – Inventory from HAZUS

 Aggregated at census tract level

 FRAGILITY (or VULNERABILITY)

You might also like