Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling Seismic Hazard in Earthquake Loss Models with Spatially Distributed Exposure

  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 11 May 2006

Abstract

The prediction of possible future losses from earthquakes, which in many cases affect structures that are spatially distributed over a wide area, is of importance to national authorities, local governments, and the insurance and reinsurance industries. Generally, it is necessary to estimate the effects of many, or even all, potential earthquake scenarios that could impact upon these urban areas. In such cases, the purpose of the loss calculations is to estimate the annual frequency of exceedance (or the return period) of different levels of loss due to earthquakes: so-called loss exceedance curves. An attractive option for generating loss exceedance curves is to perform independent probabilistic seismic hazard assessment calculations at several locations simultaneously and to combine the losses at each site for each annual frequency of exceedance. An alternative method involves the use of multiple earthquake scenarios to generate ground motions at all sites of interest, defined through Monte–Carlo simulations based on the seismicity model. The latter procedure is conceptually sounder but considerably more time-consuming. Both procedures are applied to a case study loss model and the loss exceedance curves and average annual losses are compared to ascertain the influence of using a more theoretically robust, though computationally intensive, procedure to represent the seismic hazard in loss modelling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bazzurro P., Cornell C.A. (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89, 501–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazzurro, P. and Cornell, C.A. (2002) Vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (VPSHA). Proceedings of the 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, MA, USA.

  • Bazzurro, P. and Luco, N. (2005) Accounting for uncertainty and correlation in earthquake loss estimation. Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR ’05), Rome, Italy.

  • Bird J.F., Bommer J.J., Crowley H., Pinho R. (2006) Modelling liquefaction-induced building damage in earthquake loss estimation. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering 26(1): 15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, J.J. and Crowley, H. (2006) The influence of ground motion variability in earthquake loss modelling. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, this volume.

  • Bommer J.J., Mendis R. (2005) Scaling of spectral displacement ordinates with damping ratios. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(2): 145–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, J.J., Pinho, R. and Crowley, H. (2005) Using displacement-based earthquake loss assessment in the selection of seismic code design levels. Proceeding of ICOSSAR’05 (International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability), Rome, 3567–3574.

  • Bommer J.J., Spence R., Erdik M., Tabuchi S., Aydinoglu N., Booth E., del Re D., Peterken O. (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. Journal of Seismology 6(3): 431–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore D.M., Joyner W.B., Fumal T.E. (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak accelerations from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismological Research Letters 68(1): 128–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, K.W., Thenhaus, P.C., Barnhard, T.P. and Hampson, D.B. (2000a) Seismic hazard model for loss estimation and risk management in the United States. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs, US.

  • Campbell, K.W., Thenhaus, P.C., Barnhard, T.P. and Hampson, D.B. (2000b) Seismic hazard model for loss estimation and risk management in Japan. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs, US.

  • Cao T., Petersen M.D., Cramer C.H., Toppozada T.R., Reichle M.S., Davis J.F. (1999) The calculation of expected loss using probabilistic seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89(4): 867–876

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardona O.M., Yamin L.E. (1997) Seismic microzonation and estimation of earthquake loss scenarios: integrated risk mitigation project of Bogotá, Colombia. Earthquake Spectra 13(4): 795–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2003) Eurocode 8. Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: general rules seismic actions and rules for buildings. Pr. En 1998-1. Final draft, December 2003.

  • Chang S.E., Shinozuka M., Moore J.E. (2000) Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems. Earthquake Spectra 16(3): 557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H., Pinho R., Bommer J.J. (2004) A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2(2): 173–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H., Bommer J.J., Pinho R., Bird J. (2005) The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34(14): 1663–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdik M., Demircioglu M., Sesetyan K., Durukal E., Siyahi B. (2004) Earthquake hazard in Marmara region, Turkey. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 24, 605–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergun M., Ozel E. (1995) Structural relationship between the Sea of Marmara basin and the North Anatolian Fault Zone. Terra Nova 7, 278–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eugster, S., Rüttener, E. and Liechti, D. (1999) The risk premium distribution (annual average loss) with respect to earthquake magnitude. Proceedings of XXIV European Geophysical Society General Assembly, The Hague, The Netherlands, 19–23 April, 1999.

  • Faccioli E., Pessina V., Calvi G.M., Borzi B. (1999) A study on damage scenarios for residential buildings in Catania City. Journal of Seismology 3, 327–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2001) FEMA 366: HAZUS Estimated Earthquake losses for the United States. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC.

  • FEMA (2003) HAZUS-MH Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC.

  • FEMA (2004) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, 2003 Edition, Part 1 – Provisions, Part 2 – Commentary. FEMA 450. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, DC.

  • Leonard G., Steinberg D.M. (2002) Seismic hazard assessment: simultaneous effect of earthquakes at close and distant sites. Earthquake Spectra 18(4): 615–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Pichon, X, Taymaz, T. and Sengör, A.M.C. (1999) The Marmara fault and the future Istanbul earthquake. International Conference on the Kocaeli earthquake, 17th August 1999, Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University Press House, 41–54.

  • Liechti, D., Rüttener, E. and Zbinden, A. (2000) Disaggregation of average annual loss. Presented at XXV European Geophysical Society General Assembly, Nice, France, 25–29 April, 2000.

  • McGuire R.K. (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 85(5): 1275–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • Musson, R.M.W. (1998) On the use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment. Proceedings of 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Seattle, Washington.

  • Musson R.M.W. (1999) Determination of design earthquakes in seismic hazard analysis through Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 3(4): 463–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, N. (1943) Marmara denizi havzasinin sismik jeolojisi ve meteorolojisi. Science Faculty Monographies, A7.

  • Rhoades D.A., McVerry G.H. (2001) Joint hazard of earthquake shaking at two or more locations. Earthquake Spectra 17(4): 697–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risk Engineering Inc. (1998) EZ-FRISKTM Software for earthquake ground motion estimation. Version 4.1.

  • Spence R., Bommer J.J., Del Re D., Bird J., Aydinoglu N., Tabuchi S. (2003) Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: a study of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 1(2): 83–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tantala, M., Dargush, A., Deodatis, G., Jacob, K., Nordenson, G., O’Brien, D. and Swiren, B. (2002) Earthquake loss estimation for the New York City area. Proceedings of the 7th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Boston, MA, USA.

  • Taylor C.E., Werner S.D., Jakubowski S. (2001) Walkthrough method for catastrophe decision making. Natural Hazards Review 2(4): 193–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M., Takada T. (2005) Macrospatial correlation model of seismic ground motions. Earthquake Spectra 21(4): 1137–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells D.J., Coppersmith K.J. (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84, 974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Windeler, D., Morrow, G., Williams, C.R., Rahnama, M., Molas, G., Peña, A. and Bryngelson, J. (2004) Earthquake risk estimates for residential construction in the western United States. Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 1–6, 2004.

  • Zolfaghari, M.R. (2000) Earthquake loss estimation model for southern Europe. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation. Palm Springs, CA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), c/o EUCENTRE, Via Ferrata 1, Pavia, 27100, Italy

    Helen Crowley

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

    Julian J. Bommer

Authors
  1. Helen Crowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian J. Bommer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian J. Bommer.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9011-4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crowley, H., Bommer, J.J. Modelling Seismic Hazard in Earthquake Loss Models with Spatially Distributed Exposure. Bull Earthquake Eng 4, 249–273 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9009-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9009-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation