Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Loss Assessment

  • Nilesh ShomeEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_257

Synonyms

Damage; Insurance; Loss; Nonstructural component; Risk; Structural component; Vulnerability

Introduction

It is observed that earthquakes, particularly those of large magnitudes, can cause significant damage to structures over a large region surrounding the rupture zone of earthquakes. The top three costliest earthquakes in the world during 1980–2012 are the Mw 9.0 Tohoku-Oki earthquake (2011), Mw 6.8 Kobe earthquake (1995), and Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake (1994) causing overall economic losses when occurred about $210B, $100B, and $44B respectively (III 2013). The structures those are damaged due to earthquakes are not only buildings, bridges, etc., but also utilities like water, gas and sewer lines, and lifelines like train tracks and roads. The earthquakes also cause landslides due to movement of grounds or liquefaction due to loss of strength of the soil underneath the structures. In addition, earthquakes can cause fire and tsunami leading to significant damage to...

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

References

  1. ATC-13 (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  2. ATC-58 (2011) Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings (75 % draft). Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability, statistics and decisions for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonowitz D, Maison BF (2003) Northridge welded steel moment-frame damage data and its use for rapid loss estimation. Earthquake Spectra 19(2):335–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, Atik LA et al (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra. doi:10.1193/072113EQS209MGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2), http://peer.berkeley.edu/news/2000spring/
  7. CUREE (2001) Improving loss estimation for woodframe buildings: CUREE-Caltech woodframe project. In: Porter KA, Beck JL, Seligson HA, et al (eds) Element 4, economic aspects. Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA 355F (2000) State of the art report on performance prediction and evaluation of steel moment-frame buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Haselton CB (ed) (2009) Evaluation of ground motion selection and modification methods: predicting median interstory drift response of buildings, PEER report 2009/01. PEER GMSM, Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  10. HAZUS-MH MR3 (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. III (2013) Earthquakes: risk and insurance issues. Insurance Information Institute. http://www.iii.org/issue_updates/eathquakes-risk-and-insuance-issues.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2013
  12. Jaiswal KS, Wald DJ, Perkins D et al (2013) Estimating structural collapse fragility of generic building typologies using expert judgment. In: 11th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Jayaram N, Shome N, Rahnama M (2012) Development of earthquake damage functions for tall buildings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 41(11):1495–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. PEER-2011/05 (2011) Case studies of the seismic performance of tall buildings designed by alternative means. In: Moehle J, Bozorgnia Y, Jayaram N et al (eds) Task 12 report for the tall buildings initiative. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Porter KA, Kiremidjian AS, LeGrue JS (2001) Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthquake Spectra 17(2):291–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramirez CM, Miranda E (2009) Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering, report no 171. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Shome N, Bazzurro P (2009) Comparison of vulnerability of a new high-rise concrete moment frame structure using HAZUS and nonlinear dynamic analysis. In: 10th international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR), OsakaGoogle Scholar
  18. Shome N, Cornell CA (2000) Structural seismic demand analysis: consideration of collapses. In: 8th ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural reliability, St LuisGoogle Scholar
  19. Shome N, Jayaram N, Rahnama M (2012) Uncertainty and spatial correlation models for earthquake losses. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering (WCEE), LisbonGoogle Scholar
  20. Shome N, Jayaram N, Krawinkler H et al (2014) Loss estimation of tall buildings designed for the PEER tall building initiative project. Earthquake Spectra (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  21. Steinbrugge KV (1982) Earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – an anatomy of hazards. Skandia America Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Wesson RL, Perkins DM, Leyendecker EV et al (2004) Losses to single-family housing from ground motions in the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 20:1021–1045Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Model DevelopmentRisk Management SolutionsNewarkUSA