Desarrollo de base de datos de vulnerabilidad

1. Development of a Global
Vulnerability Database
Vitor Silva, Seismic Risk Coordinator
On behalf of the risk team
April 2017 – Pavia, Italy

2. Estimation of earthquake losses
Using the characteristics of past seismic events
18° E
18° E
16° E
16° E
14° E
14° E
12° E
12° E
10° E
10° E
8° E
8° E
46° N 46° N
44° N 44° N
42° N 42° N
40° N 40° N
38° N 38° N
36° N 36° N
Residential value (EUR)
2.0e+009 - 6.5e+009
6.6e+009 - 8.4e+009
8.5e+009 - 9.3e+009
9.4e+009 - 1.1e+010
1.2e+010 - 1.6e+010
1.7e+010 - 2.6e+010
2.7e+010 - 4.9e+010
5.0e+010 - 1.0e+011
Ground shaking Exposure

3. Estimation of earthquake losses - Masonry
No damage
Seismic Intensity
Extensive damage
Slight damage Collapse

4. Estimation of earthquake losses - RC
No damage
Seismic Intensity
Extensive damage
Slight damage Collapse

5. Estimation of earthquake losses - Wooden
No damage
Seismic Intensity
Extensive damage
Slight damage Collapse

6. Estimation of earthquake losses
Seismic Intensity
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Probabilityofexceedance
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Collapse

7. Estimation of earthquake losses
Using the characteristics of past seismic events
18° E
18° E
16° E
16° E
14° E
14° E
12° E
12° E
10° E
10° E
8° E
8° E
46° N 46° N
44° N 44° N
42° N 42° N
40° N 40° N
38° N 38° N
36° N 36° N
Residential value (EUR)
2.0e+009 - 6.5e+009
6.6e+009 - 8.4e+009
8.5e+009 - 9.3e+009
9.4e+009 - 1.1e+010
1.2e+010 - 1.6e+010
1.7e+010 - 2.6e+010
2.7e+010 - 4.9e+010
5.0e+010 - 1.0e+011
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Probabilityofexceedance
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Collapse
Ground shaking Exposure

8. Estimation of earthquake losses
Using the characteristics of past seismic events
18° E
18° E
16° E
16° E
14° E
14° E
12° E
12° E
10° E
10° E
8° E
8° E
46° N 46° N
44° N 44° N
42° N 42° N
40° N 40° N
38° N 38° N
36° N 36° N
Residential value (EUR)
2.0e+009 - 6.5e+009
6.6e+009 - 8.4e+009
8.5e+009 - 9.3e+009
9.4e+009 - 1.1e+010
1.2e+010 - 1.6e+010
1.7e+010 - 2.6e+010
2.7e+010 - 4.9e+010
5.0e+010 - 1.0e+011
Ground shaking Exposure
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Probabilityofexceedance
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Collapse
LossesDamage

9. Lack of vulnerability models globally

10. Challenges in regional fragility assessment
1. Large number of building classes.
2. Variety of failure mechanisms and hysteresis behavior.
3. Select ground motion records compatible with the tectonic
environment
4. Need to maintain consistency in the damage criterion.
5. Need to propagate the three main sources of uncertainty:
1. Record-to-record variability
2. Building-to-building variability
3. Damage definition uncertainty

11. Collection of building data

12. Building classification for Greece
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
RC (4-6 floors)
Mod duc?lity
RC (4-6 floors)
High duc?lity
RC (7-12 floors)
Mod duc?lity
RC (7-12 floors)
High duc?lity
Masonry (<3
floors) Concrete
block
Masonry (<3
floors) Field
stone
RC (<3 floors)
Mod duc?lity
RC (<3 floors)
Mod duc?lity
RC (<3 floors)
High duc?lity
RC (4-6 floors)
Non duc?le
Urban Rural

13. Chile
USA
Mexico
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Portugal Italy TurkeyGreece Iran
Japan
Selection of ground motion records
Indonesia
Colombia

14. Selection of ground motion records
Collection of records for the region according to the tectonic environment
Period of vibration (sec)
10
-1
10
0
Spectralacceleration(g)
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
10
1
median spectrum
+1/-1 sigma spectrum
individual spectrum

15. Derivation methodology
Nonlinear dynamic analyses on
2D/3D MDOF systems
Nonlinear static procedures (e.g. N2, CSM) or
direct fragility methodologies (e.g. SPO2IDA)
Accuracyandreliability
Computationaleffort

16. Derivation methodology
Nonlinear dynamic analyses on
2D/3D MDOF systems
Nonlinear static procedures (e.g. N2, CSM) or
direct fragility methodologies (e.g. SPO2IDA)
Accuracyandreliability
Computationaleffort
Nonlinear dynamic analyses on
SDOF systems

17. MDOF
Simplification of 3D or 2D structures into a SDOF
he equivalent SDOF system can be either elastic or inelastic de-
ending on the chosen inelastic analysis method (see Section
.1.3).
he computation of the pushover curve and the subsequent deter-
mination of the properties of the equivalent SDOF system are thor-
ughly discussed in Section 7.2.
Global deformations ∆
Detailed
model
Static force
sing monotonically
m*
h*k*
Equivalent SDOF
system
0
1
2
3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Global deformation ∆ [m]
HorizontalforceV[MN]
ushover curve“
linear, inelastic
ormation relationship
ndamentals of Seismic Design”
Substitute SDoF structure
Effective displacement
(design displacement)
Effective mass
Effective height ( ) ( )¦¦
==
∆∆=
n
i
ii
n
i
iiie
mHmH
11
/
( ) ( )¦¦
==
∆∆=∆
n
i
ii
n
i
iid
mm
11
2
/
( ) d
n
i
iie
mm ∆∆= ¦
=
/
1
He
me
He
me ∆d
∆i
∆i-1
∆3
∆2
∆1
He
me
He
me ∆d
∆i
∆i-1
∆3
∆2
∆1
Cours
SDOF
Definition of structural models for vulnerability analysis
−0.25 −0.2 −0.15 −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
−0.5
−0.4
−0.3
−0.2
−0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Sd [m]
Sa[g]
sdof
pinching4
Hysteresis model

18. Definition of structural models for vulnerability analysis
• +100 peer-reviewed publications
• +20 technical reports
• +500 fragility functions and capacity curves
Years
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Cumulativenumberofstudies
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Cumulativenumberofmodels
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Number of studies
Number of models

19. Definition of structural models for vulnerability analysis
Numerical modeling

20. Definition of structural models for vulnerability analysis
Experimental tests

21. Unreinforced masonryReinforced concreteWattle and daub

22. Derivation of Fragility/Vulnerability functions
Ground motion
records
Single degree of
freedom systems
Period of vibration (sec)
10
-1
10
0
Spectralacceleration(g)
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
101
median spectrum
+1/-1 sigma spectrum
individual spectrum
Spectral displacement (m)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Spectralacceleration(g)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
median curve
+1/-1 sigma curve
sampled curve
Risk Modelers
Toolkit
Spectral acceleration at 0.3 s [g]
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Probabilityofexceedance
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Limit state 1
Limit state 2
Limit state 3
Limit state 4

24. Vulnerability Modelling – Costa Rica
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
MCF/DUC/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
MCF/DUC/H:2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
CR+PC/DUC/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
CR+PC/DLO/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
W+WLI/DLO/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
MCF/DLO/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Probability of excedense
UNK
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Probability of Exceedance
MCF/DUC/H:3-6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Probability of Exceedance
MUR+ADO/DNO/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Probability of Exceedance
CR+CIP/DUH/H:6-12
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Probability of Exceedance
CR+CIP/DUH/H:3-6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
ProbabilityofExceedance
CR+CIP/DLO/H:3-6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
ProbabilityofExceedance
CR/LINF+DUH/H:2-6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
ProbabilityofExceedance
CR+CIP/LFM+DLO/H:1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Probability of Exceedance
CR+CIP/LFM+DLO/H:2-6
Slight
Moderate
Extensive
Collpase

25. The need for vulnerability calibration/verification
”Often, all the model ingredients look fine, but their combination makes
no sense. Calibration is key”
Alex Allmann, Heard of GeoRisk at Munich Re
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E
Number of collapses
Thousands
Observed
Estimated collapses for adobe buildings due to the 2007 M8.7 Pisco event

26. Damage assessment in South America
Assessment of damage considering the 1999 M6.2 Armenia earthquake
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Calculated Observed
Numberofcollapses
Ground shaking Collapse map Results

27. Damage assessment in South America
Assessment of damage considering the 2016 M7.8 Muisne earthquake
Ground shaking Collapse map Results
0
5000
10000
15000
Calculated Observed
Numberofcollapses

28. The need for vulnerability calibration/verification
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment for Costa Rica
$43,529
$26,622
$12,293
$5,487
$4,334
$4,181
$3,744
$3,126
$1,621
$464
MCF/DUC/HEX:2
W+WLI/DNO/HEX:1
CR+PC/DLO/HEX:1
MATO/DNO/HEX:1
MCF/DLO/HEX:1
MCF/DUC/HEX:1
W+WLI/DLO/HEX:1
CR+PC/DUC/HEX:1
MR/DLO/HEX:1
MR/DUC/HEX:1
0 50000
Thousands of USD

29. The need for vulnerability calibration/verification
Average annual losses
• This model: 105M USD
• GAR model: 103M USD
Capital stock
• This model: 76B USD
• GAR model: 63M USD
AAL high-residential:
• This model: 60%
• GAR model: 68%
$43,529
$26,622
$12,293
$5,487
$4,334
$4,181
$3,744
$3,126
$1,621
$464
MCF/DUC/HEX:2
W+WLI/DNO/HEX:1
CR+PC/DLO/HEX:1
MATO/DNO/HEX:1
MCF/DLO/HEX:1
MCF/DUC/HEX:1
W+WLI/DLO/HEX:1
CR+PC/DUC/HEX:1
MR/DLO/HEX:1
MR/DUC/HEX:1
0 50000
Thousands of USD
Probabilistic seismic risk assessment for Costa Rica

30. What about the regions with no damage data?
A probabilistic approach can be explored

31. Collection of existing fragility and vulnerability models

32. Availability of vulnerability models in 2016

33. Availability of vulnerability models in 2018

34. Muchas gracias!