Advertisement

Probabilistic seismic vulnerability and loss assessment of the residential building stock in Costa Rica

  • A. Calderon
  • V. Silva
Original Research
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

This study presents a seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of the residential building stock in Costa Rica. It proposes a new exposure model using housing census data, public construction statistics, and private construction information to quantify and characterize the residential building portfolio. A complete vulnerability catalogue is established by developing fragility functions for the most common building classes and combining them with existing models derived for risk assessment in South America. An existing probabilistic seismic hazard model was implemented within the OpenQuake-engine, and complemented with a simplified site model to account for site effects. Earthquake risk assessment is achieved by means of a probabilistic event-based analysis, which allowed the estimation of several risk metrics. These include average annualized losses at a national scale, disaggregated per building class and administrative regions. The probable maximum losses and exceedance probability curves were generated using a stochastic event set with 100,000 years of events per logic tree branch.

Keywords

Costa Rica Seismic hazard Seismic risk assessment Exposure Structural vulnerability Earthquake losses 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alvarado G, Benito B, Staller A, Climent A, Camacho E, Rojas W, Marroquín G, Molina E, Talavera JE, Martínez-Cuevas S, Lindholm C (2017) The new Central American seismic hazard zonation: mutual consensus based on up to day seismotectonic framework. Tectonophysics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing and Materials (2001) Standard specification for low-alloy steel deformed and plain bars for concrete reinforcement, ASTM-706. Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing and Materials (2015) Standard specification for stress-relieved steel wire for prestressed concrete, ASTM A-421. Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Benito B, Lindholm C, Camacho E, Climent A, Marroquín G, Molina E, Rojas W, Escobar J, Talavera E, Alvarado G, Torres Y (2012) A new evaluation of seismic hazard for the Central America region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(2):504–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brzev S, Scawthorn C, Charleson A, Allen L, Greene M, Jaiswal K, Silva V (2013) GEM building taxonomy. Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardona O, Ordaz M, Reinoso E, Yamín L, Barbat A (2012) CAPRA—comprehensive approach to probabilistic risk assessment: international initiative for risk management effectiveness. http://www.ecapra.org/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  7. Chavez J, Khemici O, Keshishian P (2012) Building codes and relative seismic vulnerability in Latin American countries. In: World conference on earthquake engineering. LisboaGoogle Scholar
  8. Climent A (1994) Spectral strong motion attenuation in Central America. Technical report, NORSAR, pp 1–46Google Scholar
  9. Climent A. (2003) Seismicity and physical vulnerability in the city of Cañas, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. In: Capacity building for natural disaster reduction for the RAPCA program, pp 1–35 (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  10. Climent A, Rojas W, Alvarado A (2008) Evaluation of seismic hazard in Costa Rica. RESIS II report. RSN-CR, University of Costa Rica (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  11. Concrete Products—PC (2015) Precast concrete housing manual. http://www.productosdeconcretocr.com/files/products/21_cat_esp_prefacat.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  12. Cornell C (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  13. Costa Rican Chamber of Construction (2015) Economic report of the construction sector. San José, Costa Rica. http://www.construccion.co.cr. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  14. Crisafulli F (2002) Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. Individual study. University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  15. Crowley H, Bommer J (2006) Modelling seismic hazard in earthquake loss models with spatially distributed exposure. Bull Earthq Eng 4(3):249–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Ayala D, Meslem A, Porter K, Rosseto T (2014) Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of low/mid-rise buildings. Global Earthquake Model Foundation, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  17. ERN-CAPRA (2009). Perfil de riesgo catastrófico por terremoto y huracán: Costa Rica. Metodología de modelación probabilista de riesgos naturales. Tomo I. Informe técnico ERN-CAPRA-T2-6Google Scholar
  18. Federate Board of Architects and Engineers of Costa Rica - CFIA (2010) Costa Rica seismic code, 2010th edn. Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica, San JoséGoogle Scholar
  19. Federate Board of Architects and Engineers of Costa Rica—CFIA (2014) Construction prototypes for the Costa Rican Central Bank. July 2014. http://www.bccr.fi.cr/estadisticas_macro_2012/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  20. Federate Board of Architects and Engineers of Costa Rica—CFIA (2015) Index of construction costs of the federate board of architects and engineers. San José, Costa Rica (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  21. Fernandez E (2011) Policy report: regularization of informal settlements in Latin America. Lincoln Institute of Land and Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  22. Jalayer F, Cornell C (2002) Alternative nonlinear demand estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 38:951–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jayaram N, Baker J (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics. 38:1687–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kotha SR, Bazzurro P, Pagani M (2018) Effects of epistemic uncertainty in seismic hazard estimates on building portfolio losses. Earthq Spectra 34(1):217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamadrid G (2002) Seismic hazard and vulnerability assessment in Turrialba. International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemoine A, Douglas J, Cotton F (2012) Testing the applicability of correlation between topographic slope and VS30 for Europe. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America. 102:2585–2599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loaiza C, Blondet M, Ottazi G (2002) Housing report: adobe house. World house encyclopedia. Report 52Google Scholar
  28. Mander J, Priestley N, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy of Costa Rica (2010) The economic impact of extreme natural events in Costa Rica, 1988–2009. San José, Costa Rica (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Treasury of Costa Rica (2015) Manual of real state assets. San José, Costa Rica (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  31. Montoya A (2002) Urban disaster management: a case study of earthquake risk assessment in Cartago, Costa Rica. ITC 96:1–235Google Scholar
  32. Morgat C, Zsutty C, Shah H, Lubetkin L (1977) A study of seismic risk for Costa Rica. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  33. Municipality of Alajuela (2016) Gallery of photography, Alajuela, Costa Rica. https://goo.gl/MSb758. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  34. Narciso J, Vilanova S, Carvalho J, Pinto C, Lopes I, Nemser E, Oliveira C, Borges J (2013) Site-condition map for Portugal based on Vs30 values and evaluation of the applicability of Vs30 proxies. In: Proceedings of the European geosciences union assembly, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  35. National Institute of Statistics and Census—INEC (2016) Population and housing census—1973, 1984, 2000, 2011. San José, Costa Rica. http://www.inec.go.cr/sistema-de-consultas. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  36. National Institute of Statistics and Census—INEC (2016) National enquiry of homes—2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. San José, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  37. Ordaz M, Arroyo D (2016) On uncertainties in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 32:1405–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, Simionato M, Vigano D (2014) OpenQuake-engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett 85(3):692–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Papanikolaou A, Taucer F (2014) Review of non-engineered houses in Latin America with reference to building practices and self-construction projects. Institute for Protection and Security of the Citizenship, Ispra, VareseGoogle Scholar
  40. Paté-Cornell E (1996) Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 54(2–3):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Redmond L, DesRoches R (2012) Housing report: timber stilt homes. In: World house encyclopedia. Report 165Google Scholar
  42. Ruiz-García J, Negrete M (2009) Drift-based fragility assessment of confined masonry walls in seismic zones. Eng Struct 31:170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sadigh K, Chang C, Egan J, Makdisi F, Youngs R (1997) Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sauter F, Shah H (1978) Study of insurance for earthquakes. National Insurance Institute, San José (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  45. Seismosoft Ltd. (2015) SeismoStruct user manual version 7.0. Seismsoft Ltd., PaviaGoogle Scholar
  46. Silva V (2017) Critical issues on probabilistic earthquake loss assessment. J Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1297264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M, Monelli D, Pinho R (2014) OpenQuake-engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Nat Hazards 13(5):1455–1490Google Scholar
  48. Smyrou E, Blandon C, Antoniou S, Pinho R, Crisafulli F (2011) Implementation and verification of a masonry panel model for nonlinear dynamic analysis of infilled RC frames. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1519–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sojo D, Denyer P, Gazel E, Alvarado G (2017) Geology of the Tapantí quadrant (1:50,000), Costa Rica. Revista Geológica de América Central 56:83–116 (in Spanish) Google Scholar
  50. Tournon J, Alvarado G. (1993) Simplified geology map of Costa Rica. https://goo.gl/f3LkMW. Accessed 1 Sept 2018 (in Spanish)
  51. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015a) Costa Rica risk profile. http://www.preventionweb.net. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  52. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015b) Global risk assessment data, methodology and usage. Annex 1. https://www.preventionweb.net/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  53. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015c) Chart of the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. https://www.preventionweb.net/files/44983_sendaiframeworkchart.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  54. Villar-Vega M, Silva V, Crowley H, Yepes C, Tarque N, Acevedo A, Hube M, Coronel G, Santa-María H (2017) Development of a fragility model for the residential building stock in South America. Earthquake Spectra 33(2):581–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wald D, Allen T (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1379–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wald D, Quitoriano V, Heaton T, Kanamori H (1999) Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra 15(3):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weatherill G, Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2014) Exploring the impact of spatial correlations and uncertainties for portfolio analysis in probabilistic seismic loss estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 13(4):957–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wesson R, Perkins D, Luco N, Karaca E (2009) Direct calculation of the probability distribution for earthquake losses to a portfolio. Earthquake Spectra 25(3):687–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. World Bank (2017) Disaster risk profiles—Costa Rica. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. http://documents.worldbank.org/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018 (in English)
  60. World Bank Group (2017) Country disaster risk profiles: technical step-by-step guide to the CDRP property (building stock) model. https://collaboration.worldbank.org/docs/DOC-11634. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
  61. Yepes-Estrada C, Silva V (2017) Probabilistic seismic risk in South America for the residential building stock. In: Proceedings 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, 9–13 January 2017, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  62. Yepes-Estrada C, Silva V, Valcárcel J, Acevedo A, Tarque N, Hube M, Coronel G, Santa-María H (2017) Modeling the residential building inventory in South America for seismic risk assessment. Earthquake Spectra 33(1):299–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhao Y, Zhang J, Asano J, Ohno A, Oouchi Y, Takahashi T, Ogawa T, Irikura H, Fukushima K, Thio Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(3):898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IUSSPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Global Earthquake Model FoundationPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations