APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Multi-Hazard Loss Estimations Using Socioeconomic Data J.R. Holliday*J.B. Rundle University of California, Davis 1 / 115

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation Seismic hazard “understood” Seismic risk analysis possible – HAZUS-MH (FEMA) – ST-RISK (Risk Engineering, Inc) But not for the general population 2 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Motivation 8 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts USA: USGS – Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) – “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” – 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping – World: CSEP – Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) – Beyond RELM – 9 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts USA: USGS – Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) – “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” – 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping – World: CSEP – Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) – Beyond RELM – 10 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts USA: USGS – Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) – “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” – 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping – World: CSEP – Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) – Beyond RELM – 11 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts USA: USGS – Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) – “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” – 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping – World: CSEP – Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) – Beyond RELM – 12 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Earthquake Forecasts USA: USGS – Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF) – “24-Hour Aftershock Forecast Map” – 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping – World: CSEP – Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) – Beyond RELM – 13 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking Full propagation methods – OpenSHA – CyberShake Simple propagation approximations 14 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking Full propagation methods – OpenSHA – CyberShake Simple propagation approximations 15 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking Full propagation methods – OpenSHA – CyberShake Simple propagation approximations 16 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Ground Shaking Full propagation methods – OpenSHA – CyberShake Simple propagation approximations 17 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking What’s necessary? – Source location – Target location – Magnitude Possible enhancements – Soil classification – Basin effects 18 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking What’s necessary? – Source location – Target location – Magnitude Possible enhancements – Soil classification – Basin effects 19 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking What’s necessary? – Source location – Target location – Magnitude Possible enhancements – Soil classification – Basin effects 20 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking What’s necessary? – Source location – Target location – Magnitude Possible enhancements – Soil classification – Basin effects 21 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking What’s necessary? – Source location – Target location – Magnitude Possible enhancements – Soil classification – Basin effects 22 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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! 23 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) Focus on PGA only Following Cua (2005) – Parameterize PGA(r) with 4 th order polynomial – Fit historic data (using shakemap.org ) – Estimate variance/uncertainty – Test against global data Results are surprisingly good! 26 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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! 27 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Simple Ground Shaking (cont) Focus on PGA only Following Cua (2005) – Parameterize PGA(r) with 4 th order polynomial – Fit historic data (using shakemap.org ) – Estimate variance/uncertainty – Test against global data Results are surprisingly good! 28 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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! 29 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response Given PGA, how much damage will occur? How do we describe the building? Building frameWall type Floor planSquare footage Number of levelsChimney Attached garageWall anchors Foundation typeYear of construction Which of these are necessary? 35 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response Given PGA, how much damage will occur? How do we describe the building? Building frameWall type Floor planSquare footage Number of levelsChimney Attached garageWall anchors Foundation typeYear of construction Which of these are necessary? 36 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response Given PGA, how much damage will occur? How do we describe the building? Building frameWall type Floor planSquare footage Number of levelsChimney Attached garageWall anchors Foundation typeYear of construction Which of these are necessary? 37 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response Given PGA, how much damage will occur? How do we describe the building? Building frameWall type Floor planSquare footage Number of levelsChimney Attached garageWall anchors Foundation typeYear of construction Which of these are necessary? 38 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response Given PGA, how much damage will occur? How do we describe the building? Building frameWall type Floor planSquare footage Number of levelsChimney Attached garageWall anchors Foundation typeYear of construction Which of these are necessary? 39 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Building Response Given PGA, how much damage will occur? How do we describe the building? Building frameWall type Floor planSquare footage Number of levelsChimney Attached garageWall anchors Foundation typeYear of construction Which of these are necessary? 40 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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” 41 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday 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 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together 1.Create an earthquake forecast 2.Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources 3.Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations 4.Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations. 48 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together 1.Create an earthquake forecast 2.Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources 3.Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations 4.Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations. 49 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together 1.Create an earthquake forecast 2.Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources 3.Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations 4.Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations. 50 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together 1.Create an earthquake forecast 2.Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources 3.Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations 4.Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations. 51 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together 1.Create an earthquake forecast 2.Using the forecast as a density function, convolve a ground-shaking estimation with all possible earthquake sources 3.Create PGA Exceedance curves for all locations 4.Use the exceedance curves as inputs to damage calculations. 52 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont) 53 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont) 54 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont) 55 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont) 56 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont) 57 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont)  58 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont)  59 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont)   60 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Putting It All Together (cont)    61 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Quick Summary This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful 62 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Quick Summary This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful 63 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Quick Summary This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful 64 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Quick Summary This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful 65 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Quick Summary This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful 66 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 67 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 68 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 69 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 70 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 71 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 72 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model Model works well in United States How can we go global? Expand to include International Building Codes Generalize for sub-IBC construction Need access to building and damage data Use social data for modeling parameters 73 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 74 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 75 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 76 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 77 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 78 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 79 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 80 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 81 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 82 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 83 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing Systemabc Wood-Frame Tilt-up Bearing Shear Wall URM Bearing Wall Moment-Resisting Space Frame Dual MRSF/Shear Wall Concentric Braced Frame Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 84 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing Systemabc Wood-Frame Tilt-up Bearing Shear Wall URM Bearing Wall Moment-Resisting Space Frame Dual MRSF/Shear Wall Concentric Braced Frame Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 85 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing Systemabc Wood-Frame Tilt-up Bearing Shear Wall URM Bearing Wall Moment-Resisting Space Frame Dual MRSF/Shear Wall Concentric Braced Frame Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 86 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing Systemabc Wood-Frame Tilt-up Bearing Shear Wall URM Bearing Wall Moment-Resisting Space Frame Dual MRSF/Shear Wall Concentric Braced Frame Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 87 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing Systemabc Wood-Frame Tilt-up Bearing Shear Wall URM Bearing Wall Moment-Resisting Space Frame Dual MRSF/Shear Wall Concentric Braced Frame Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 88 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing Systemabc Wood-Frame Tilt-up Bearing Shear Wall URM Bearing Wall Moment-Resisting Space Frame Dual MRSF/Shear Wall Concentric Braced Frame Values determined from fit against American properties Assume these values for all IBC structures Fit structure types country by country Absorb uncertainty and shift into DCR ratio (into R) 89 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 90 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 91 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Demand to Capacity Ratio 92 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Demand to Capacity Ratio 93 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Demand to Capacity Ratio 94 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) Framing SystemRV/WT Wood-Frame2.5 – – 0.40 – 1s Tilt-up2.5 – – 0.50 – 1s Bearing Shear Wall2.5 – – 0.50 – 2s URM Bearing Wall1.5 – – 0.30 – 2s Moment-Resisting Space Frame2.0 – – 0.50 – 2s Dual MRSF/Shear Wall3.0 – – 0.50 – 2s Concentric Braced Frame3.0 – – 0.50 – 2s Demand to Capacity Ratio 95 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 96 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 97 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 98 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 99 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 100 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 101 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 102 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 103 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 104 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Enhancing the Damage Model (cont) 105 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Examples 106 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Examples 107 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Examples 108 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Examples 109 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Examples 110 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Conclusions This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful But… we need data! 111 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Conclusions This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful But… we need data! 112 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Conclusions This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful But… we need data! 113 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Conclusions This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful But… we need data! 114 / 78

APRU – 2013Tuesday Oct 29 Conclusions This procedure is fast Necessary data is available Science/theory exists for all steps Results are personalized and useful But… we need data! Thank You 115 / 78