国家液化损失数据库和事件级脆弱性函数

IF 3.1 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Alexander Chansky, Laurie Gaskins Baise, Babak Moaveni
{"title":"国家液化损失数据库和事件级脆弱性函数","authors":"Alexander Chansky, Laurie Gaskins Baise, Babak Moaveni","doi":"10.1177/87552930231194550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Liquefaction can be a significant contributor to loss due to earthquakes as observed during the Canterbury earthquake sequence or the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Geospatial liquefaction models can be used to estimate liquefaction extent after an earthquake but do not estimate liquefaction damage or impact. This article presents a liquefaction loss database for the United States and event-level fragility functions (EFFs) using aggregate liquefaction hazard measures (LHMs) derived from geospatial liquefaction models. The liquefaction loss database for the United States is developed by sampling earthquakes with Magnitude > 5.0 between the years of 1964 and 2019 in the continental United States and Alaska. Within this sample of 42 earthquakes, 11 resulted in liquefaction loss. Estimates were characterized by the type of infrastructure (e.g. transportation, utilities, and buildings) and the subcategory (e.g. for buildings: residential, commercial, and public), and then loss was estimated using the 2018-equivalent US dollar amount. When possible, loss estimates were obtained directly from the literature. Within this sample of 42 earthquakes, 6 events resulted in estimated monetary losses from liquefaction damage greater than 1% of the total event loss, including one with liquefaction damage greater than 10%. Using estimates for aggregate liquefaction hazard and population exposure derived from geospatial liquefaction models as LHMs, EFFs are presented using cost-based damage state (DS) thresholds in the United States. The fragility functions also include confidence intervals representing the uncertainty in probabilities of exceeding DS thresholds. Aggregate liquefaction hazard was found to be a preferred LHM for liquefaction loss, especially when evaluating transportation and building loss. Aggregate population exposure was found to be a better LHM for utilities. In addition, a second set of EFFs is presented using an expanded international dataset and DSs which are assigned relative to overall earthquake damage rather than cost-based DSs.","PeriodicalId":11392,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Spectra","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"National liquefaction loss database and event-level fragility functions\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Chansky, Laurie Gaskins Baise, Babak Moaveni\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/87552930231194550\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Liquefaction can be a significant contributor to loss due to earthquakes as observed during the Canterbury earthquake sequence or the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Geospatial liquefaction models can be used to estimate liquefaction extent after an earthquake but do not estimate liquefaction damage or impact. This article presents a liquefaction loss database for the United States and event-level fragility functions (EFFs) using aggregate liquefaction hazard measures (LHMs) derived from geospatial liquefaction models. The liquefaction loss database for the United States is developed by sampling earthquakes with Magnitude > 5.0 between the years of 1964 and 2019 in the continental United States and Alaska. Within this sample of 42 earthquakes, 11 resulted in liquefaction loss. Estimates were characterized by the type of infrastructure (e.g. transportation, utilities, and buildings) and the subcategory (e.g. for buildings: residential, commercial, and public), and then loss was estimated using the 2018-equivalent US dollar amount. When possible, loss estimates were obtained directly from the literature. Within this sample of 42 earthquakes, 6 events resulted in estimated monetary losses from liquefaction damage greater than 1% of the total event loss, including one with liquefaction damage greater than 10%. Using estimates for aggregate liquefaction hazard and population exposure derived from geospatial liquefaction models as LHMs, EFFs are presented using cost-based damage state (DS) thresholds in the United States. The fragility functions also include confidence intervals representing the uncertainty in probabilities of exceeding DS thresholds. Aggregate liquefaction hazard was found to be a preferred LHM for liquefaction loss, especially when evaluating transportation and building loss. Aggregate population exposure was found to be a better LHM for utilities. In addition, a second set of EFFs is presented using an expanded international dataset and DSs which are assigned relative to overall earthquake damage rather than cost-based DSs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earthquake Spectra\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earthquake Spectra\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231194550\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Spectra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231194550","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如在坎特伯雷地震序列或1995年神户地震中观察到的那样,液化可能是造成地震损失的一个重要因素。地理空间液化模型可以用来估计地震后的液化程度,但不能估计液化破坏或影响。本文介绍了美国的液化损失数据库和事件级脆弱性函数(EFFs),该函数使用来自地理空间液化模型的聚合液化危害度量(lhm)。美国的液化损失数据库是通过对震级为>1964年至2019年间,美国大陆和阿拉斯加的气温为5.0。在42次地震的样本中,有11次导致了液化损失。估算的特征是基础设施类型(如交通、公用事业和建筑物)和子类别(如建筑物:住宅、商业和公共),然后使用2018年等值的美元金额估算损失。在可能的情况下,直接从文献中获得损失估计。在42次地震的样本中,有6次地震液化造成的损失超过总损失的1%,其中一次液化造成的损失超过10%。在美国,利用地理空间液化模型(lhm)对总液化危害和人口暴露的估计,使用基于成本的损害状态(DS)阈值来表示efs。脆弱性函数还包括置信区间,表示超过DS阈值概率的不确定性。对于液化损失,特别是在评估运输和建筑损失时,发现骨料液化危害是首选的LHM。对于公用事业来说,总体人口暴露是一个更好的LHM。此外,第二组EFFs是使用扩展的国际数据集和相对于总体地震损害而不是基于成本的决策支持指标分配的决策支持指标提出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
National liquefaction loss database and event-level fragility functions
Liquefaction can be a significant contributor to loss due to earthquakes as observed during the Canterbury earthquake sequence or the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Geospatial liquefaction models can be used to estimate liquefaction extent after an earthquake but do not estimate liquefaction damage or impact. This article presents a liquefaction loss database for the United States and event-level fragility functions (EFFs) using aggregate liquefaction hazard measures (LHMs) derived from geospatial liquefaction models. The liquefaction loss database for the United States is developed by sampling earthquakes with Magnitude > 5.0 between the years of 1964 and 2019 in the continental United States and Alaska. Within this sample of 42 earthquakes, 11 resulted in liquefaction loss. Estimates were characterized by the type of infrastructure (e.g. transportation, utilities, and buildings) and the subcategory (e.g. for buildings: residential, commercial, and public), and then loss was estimated using the 2018-equivalent US dollar amount. When possible, loss estimates were obtained directly from the literature. Within this sample of 42 earthquakes, 6 events resulted in estimated monetary losses from liquefaction damage greater than 1% of the total event loss, including one with liquefaction damage greater than 10%. Using estimates for aggregate liquefaction hazard and population exposure derived from geospatial liquefaction models as LHMs, EFFs are presented using cost-based damage state (DS) thresholds in the United States. The fragility functions also include confidence intervals representing the uncertainty in probabilities of exceeding DS thresholds. Aggregate liquefaction hazard was found to be a preferred LHM for liquefaction loss, especially when evaluating transportation and building loss. Aggregate population exposure was found to be a better LHM for utilities. In addition, a second set of EFFs is presented using an expanded international dataset and DSs which are assigned relative to overall earthquake damage rather than cost-based DSs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earthquake Spectra
Earthquake Spectra 工程技术-工程:地质
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Earthquake Spectra, the professional peer-reviewed journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), serves as the publication of record for the development of earthquake engineering practice, earthquake codes and regulations, earthquake public policy, and earthquake investigation reports. The journal is published quarterly in both printed and online editions in February, May, August, and November, with additional special edition issues. EERI established Earthquake Spectra with the purpose of improving the practice of earthquake hazards mitigation, preparedness, and recovery — serving the informational needs of the diverse professionals engaged in earthquake risk reduction: civil, geotechnical, mechanical, and structural engineers; geologists, seismologists, and other earth scientists; architects and city planners; public officials; social scientists; and researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信