Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

j r holliday j b rundle university of california davis n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data

play fullscreen
1 / 115
Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data
198 Views
Download Presentation
laurie
Download Presentation

Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. J.R. Holliday* J.B. Rundle University of California, Davis Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data Tuesday Oct 29

  2. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible • HAZUS-MH (FEMA) • ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population

  3. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible • HAZUS-MH (FEMA) • ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population

  4. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible • HAZUS-MH (FEMA) • ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population

  5. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible • HAZUS-MH (FEMA) • ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population

  6. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible • HAZUS-MH (FEMA) • ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population

  7. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible • HAZUS-MH (FEMA) • ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population

  8. Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation

  9. Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts • USA: USGS • Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) • “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” • 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping • http://www.openhazards.com/ • World: CSEP • Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) • Beyond RELM • http://www.openhazards.com/

  10. Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts • USA: USGS • Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) • “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” • 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping • http://www.openhazards.com/ • World: CSEP • Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) • Beyond RELM • http://www.openhazards.com/

  11. Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts • USA: USGS • Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) • “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” • 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping • http://www.openhazards.com/ • World: CSEP • Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) • Beyond RELM • http://www.openhazards.com/

  12. Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts • USA: USGS • Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) • “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” • 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping • http://www.openhazards.com/ • World: CSEP • Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) • Beyond RELM • http://www.openhazards.com/

  13. Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts • USA: USGS • Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) • “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” • 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping • http://www.openhazards.com/ • World: CSEP • Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) • Beyond RELM • http://www.openhazards.com/

  14. Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking • Full propagation methods • OpenSHA • CyberShake • Simple propagation approximations

  15. Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking • Full propagation methods • OpenSHA • CyberShake • Simple propagation approximations

  16. Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking • Full propagation methods • OpenSHA • CyberShake • Simple propagation approximations

  17. Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking • Full propagation methods • OpenSHA • CyberShake • Simple propagation approximations

  18. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking • What’s necessary? • Source location • Target location • Magnitude • Possible enhancements • Soil classification • Basin effects

  19. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking • What’s necessary? • Source location • Target location • Magnitude • Possible enhancements • Soil classification • Basin effects

  20. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking • What’s necessary? • Source location • Target location • Magnitude • Possible enhancements • Soil classification • Basin effects

  21. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking • What’s necessary? • Source location • Target location • Magnitude • Possible enhancements • Soil classification • Basin effects

  22. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking • What’s necessary? • Source location • Target location • Magnitude • Possible enhancements • Soil classification • Basin effects

  23. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  24. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  25. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  26. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with 4th order polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  27. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  28. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with 4th order polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  29. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  30. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  31. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  32. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  33. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  34. Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) • Focus on PGA only • Following Cua (2005) • Parameterize PGA(r) with log polynomial • Fit historic data (using shakemap.org) • Estimate variance/uncertainty • Test against global data • Results are surprisingly good!

  35. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response • Given PGA, how much damage will occur? • How do we describe the building? Building frame Wall type Floor plan Square footage Number of levels Chimney Attached garage Wall anchors Foundation type Year of construction • Which of these are necessary?

  36. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response • Given PGA, how much damage will occur? • How do we describe the building? Building frame Wall type Floor plan Square footage Number of levels Chimney Attached garage Wall anchors Foundation type Year of construction • Which of these are necessary?

  37. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response • Given PGA, how much damage will occur? • How do we describe the building? Building frame Wall type Floor plan Square footage Number of levels Chimney Attached garage Wall anchors Foundation type Year of construction • Which of these are necessary?

  38. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response • Given PGA, how much damage will occur? • How do we describe the building? Building frame Wall type Floor plan Square footage Number of levels Chimney Attached garage Wall anchors Foundation type Year of construction • Which of these are necessary?

  39. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response • Given PGA, how much damage will occur? • How do we describe the building? Building frame Wall type Floor plan Square footage Number of levels Chimney Attached garage Wall anchors Foundation type Year of construction • Which of these are necessary?

  40. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response • Given PGA, how much damage will occur? • How do we describe the building? Building frame Wall type Floor plan Square footage Number of levels Chimney Attached garage Wall anchors Foundation type Year of construction • Which of these are necessary?

  41. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  42. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  43. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  44. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  45. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  46. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  47. Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response (cont) • Simple Method • Graf and Lee (Earthquake Spectra, 2009) • Inputs • PGA • Construction Framing • Output • Fraction of building damaged • Easy to “enhance”

  48. Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together • Create an earthquake forecast • Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources • Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations • Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations.

  49. Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together • Create an earthquake forecast • Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources • Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations • Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations.

  50. Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together • Create an earthquake forecast • Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources • Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations • Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations.