Natural Hazards

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 177–192 | Cite as

Application of the FEMA-P58 methodology for regional earthquake loss prediction

  • Xiang Zeng
  • Xinzheng Lu
  • T. Y. Yang
  • Zhen Xu
Original Paper


Earthquake-induced building collapses and casualties have been effectively controlled in the last two decades. However, earthquake-induced economic losses have continued to rise. Following the objective and procedure of next-generation performance-based seismic design, the economic loss prediction method proposed by FEMA-P58 is extended to regional earthquake loss prediction in this study. The engineering demand parameters for a large number of buildings within a region are efficiently obtained through nonlinear time history analysis using multi-story concentrated-mass shear models. The building data, including structural and nonstructural components, are obtained through field investigation, structural and architectural drawings, and default database published in the FEMA-P58 document. A case study of Tsinghua University campus in Beijing is performed to demonstrate the implementation and advantage using proposed FEMA-P58 method for regional earthquake loss prediction. The results show the advancement in loss simulation for a region, and in identifying the influence of the different ground motion characteristics (e.g., velocity pulse) on the regional loss.


Earthquake engineering FEMA-P58 Earthquake economic loss Regional seismic damage simulation Next-generation performance-based seismic design 



The authors are grateful for the help from Runhua Gong, Qiuhan Huang, Huiping Li, Jian Liu, Shixuan Liu, Yizhe Meng, Yao Ming, Jian Yang, and Zhebiao Yang in the investigation and collection of basic building data, building design drawings, and property distribution, which forms the data basis of this work. The authors are also grateful for the financial support received from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51578320, 51378299), the National Key Technology R&D Program (No. 2015BAK14B02), and the National Non-profit Institute Research Grant of IGP-CEA (Grant No: DQJB14C01).


  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (ATC-40). Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  3. China Ministry of Construction (CMC) (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings, GB50011-2010. China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  4. Coin News (2015) US Inflation Calculator.
  5. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–3Google Scholar
  6. D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Vamvatsikos D, Porter K, Rossetto T, Crowley H, Silva V (2015) Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of low/mid-rise buildings, GEM technical report 2015-08 V1.0.0Google Scholar
  7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology—Hazus99, Technical Manual, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2006) Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines program plan for new and existing buildings. Technical report FEMA-445, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Technical report FEMA-P695, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012a) Multi-Hazard loss estimation methodology Hazus-MH 2.1 Advanced Engineering Building Module (AEBM) Technical and User’s Manual. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012b) Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 1—methodology, Technical report FEMA-P58, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2012c) Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 2—implementation guide, Technical report FEMA-P58, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2013) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake model, Hazus-MH 2.1, Technical Manual, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Guha-Sapir D, Vos F, Below R, Ponserre S (2011) Annual disaster statistical review 2010: the numbers and trends. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006) Hazus earthquake loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK (1998) Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Eng Struct 20(4):452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lu X, Ye LP, Lu XZ, Li MK, Ma XW (2013) An improved ground motion intensity measure for super high-rise buildings. Sci China Technol Sci 56(6):1525–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu XZ, Han B, Hori M, Xiong C, Xu Z (2014) A coarse-grained parallel approach for seismic damage simulations of urban areas based on refined models and GPU/CPU cooperative computing. Adv Eng Softw 70:90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luco N, Mori Y, Funahashi Y, Cornell CA, Nakashima M (2003) Evaluation of predictors of non-linear seismic demands using ‘fishbone’ models of SMRF buildings. Earthq Eng Struct D 32(14):2267–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luo KH, Wang YY (2012) Researches about the conversion relationships among the parameters of ground motions in the seismic design codes of China, America and Europe. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  21. Meslem A, D’Ayala D (2012) Toward worldwide guidelines for the development of analytical vulnerability functions and fragility curves at regional level. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  22. Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE Center) (2010) The Maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27, 2010: consequence assessment and case studies. Report No. 10-04, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  23. Moehle J, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework methodology for performance-based earthquake engineering, paper no. 679. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakashima M, Ogawa K, Inoue K (2002) Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake responses of steel moment frames. Earthq Eng Struct D 31(3):671–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peterson J, Small MJ (2012) Methodology for benefit-cost analysis of seismic codes. Nat Hazards 63:1039–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ponserre S, Guha-Sapir D, Vos F, Below R (2012) Annual disaster statistical review 2011: the numbers and trends. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Remo JW, Pinter N (2012) Hazus-MH earthquake modeling in the central USA. Nat Hazards 63:1055–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shi W, Lu XZ, Guan H, Ye LP (2014) Development of seismic collapse capacity spectra and parametric study. Adv Struct Eng 17(9):1241–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shome N, Jayaram N, Krawinkler H, Rahnama M (2015) Loss estimation of tall buildings designed for the peer tall building initiative project. Earthq Spectra 31(3):1309–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shoraka MB, Yang TY, Elwood KJ (2013) Seismic loss estimation of non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Eng Struct D 42(2):297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smyrou E, Tasiopoulou P, Bal HE, Gazetas G (2011) Ground motions versus geotechnical and structural damage in the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 82(6):882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sobhaninejad G, Hori M, Kabeyasawa T (2011) Enhancing integrated earthquake simulation with high performance computing. Adv Eng Softw 42(5SI):286–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xiong C, Lu XZ, Guan H, Xu Z (2016) A nonlinear computational model for regional seismic simulation of tall buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 14(4):1047–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xu Z, Lu XZ, Guan H, Han B, Ren AZ (2014) Seismic damage simulation in urban areas based on a high-fidelity structural model and a physics engine. Nat Hazards 71(3):1679–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu Z, Lu XZ, Guan H, Tian Y, Ren AZ (2016) Simulation of earthquake-induced hazards of falling exterior non-structural components and its application to emergency shelter design. Nat Hazards 80(2):935–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang TY, Murphy M (2015)  Performance evaluation of seismic force resisting systems for low-rise steel buildings in Canada. Earthq Spectra 31(4):1969–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang TY, Moehle JP, Stojadinovic B, Der Kiureghian A (2009) Seismic performance evaluation of facilities: methodology and implementation. J Struct Eng-ASCE 135(10):1146–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang TY, Moehle JP, Bozorgnia Y, Zareian F, Wallace JW (2012) Performance assessment of tall concrete core-wall building designed using two alternative approaches. Earthq Eng Struct D 41(11):1515–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang TY, Atkinson JC, Tobber L (2014) Detailed seismic performance assessment of high-value contents laboratory facility. Earthq Spectra. doi: 10.1193/092313EQS259M Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.International Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake EngineeringShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  4. 4.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Science and Technology BeijingBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations