Skip to main content

Developing and testing the Automated Post-Event Earthquake Loss Estimation and Visualisation (APE-ELEV) technique

Abstract

An automated, real-time, multiple sensor data source relying and globally applicable earthquake loss model and visualiser is desirable for post-event earthquake analysis. To achieve this there is a need to support rapid data ingestion, loss estimation and integration of data from multiple data sources and rapid visualisation at multiple geographic levels. In this paper, the design and development of the Automated Post-Event Earthquake Loss Estimation and Visualisation (APE-ELEV) system for real-time estimation and visualisation of insured losses incurred due to earthquakes is presented. A model for estimating ground up and net of facultative losses due to earthquakes in near real-time is implemented. Since post-event data is often available immediately from multiple disparate sources, a geo-browser is employed to facilitate the visualisation and integration of earthquake hazard, exposure and loss data. The feasibility of APE-ELEV is demonstrated using a test case earthquake that occurred in Tohoku, Japan (2011). The APE-ELEV model is further validated for ten global earthquakes using industry loss data.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Notes

  1. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDPDEF.txt.

  2. http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=10&step=1#reqid=10&step=3&isuri=1&1003=16.

  3. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CPIAUCSL.txt.

References

  • AIR Worldwide Earthquake Models website: http://www.air-worldwide.com/Models/Earthquakes/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Allen TI, Wald DJ, Hotovec AJ, Lin K, Earle PS, Marano KD (2008) An Atlas of ShakeMaps for selected global earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report, pp 2008–1236

  • Amini J, Karami J, Sarab AA, Safarrad T (2012) An evaluation of the RADIUS model in assessing the damages caused by earthquake via GIS (Case Study Region 1 Tehran). Urban Reg Stud Res J 11

  • Bal IE, Crowley H, Pinho R (2010) Displacement-based earthquake loss assessment: method development and application to Turkish building stock, IUSS Press, Research Report Rose 2010/02

  • Boomer J, Spence R, Erdik M, Tabuchi S, Aydinoglu N, Booth E, del Re D, Peterken O (2002) Development of an earthquake loss model for Turkish catastrophe insurance. J Seismol 6(3):431–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks HE, Doswell CAI (2001) Normalized damage from major tornadoes in the United States: 1890–1999. Weather Forecast 16(2):168–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), United States Department of Commerce website. http://www.bea.gov/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • CAPRA website. http://www.ecapra.org/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Cho S, Huyck CK, Ghost S, Eguchi RT (2003) A validation study of the REDARS earthquake loss estimation software program. ASCE Conf Proc 133:89

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins DJ, Lowe SP (2001) A micro validation dataset for U.S. Hurricane models, casualty actuarial society forum, casualty actuarial society, Arlington, VA

  • Daniell JE (2011) Open source procedure for assessment of loss using global earthquake modelling software (OPAL). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(7):1885–1900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE, Khazai B, Wenzei F, Vervaeck A (2011) The CATDAT damaging earthquakes database. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2235–2251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economic Research of Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis website. http://research.stlouisfed.org/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Eguchi RT, Goltz JD, Seligson HA, Flores PJ, Blais NC, Heaton TH, Bortugno E (1997) Real-time loss estimation as an emergency response decision support system: the early pot-earthquake response tool (EPEDAT). Earthq Spectra 13:815–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EM-DAT website. http://www.emdat.be/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • EmerGeo website. http://www.emergeo.com/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Erdik M, Aydinoglu N, Fahjan Y, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Siyahi B, Durukal E, Ozbey C, Biro Y, Akman H, Yuzugullu O (2003) Earthquake risk assessment for Istanbul metropolitan area. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frolova N, Larionov V, Bonnin J (2011) Earthquake casualties estimation in emergency mode, human casualties in earthquakes. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Advances in natural and technological hazards research vol. 29. Springer, pp 107–124

  • Gasparini P, Manfredi G, Zschau J (eds) (2007) Earthquake early warning systems. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Geonames website. http://www.geonames.org/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Global Administrative Areas Database website. http://www.gadm.org/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Harrower M, Bloch M (2006) MapShaper.org: a map generalization web service. IEEE Compu Graph Appl 26(4):22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huyck CK, Chung HC, Cho S, Mio MZ, Ghosh S, Eguchi RT, Mehrotra S (2006) Centralized web-based loss estimation tool: INLET for disaster response. Proc SPIE 6178:61780B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal K, Wald DJ (2011) Rapid estimation of the economic consequences of global earthquakes. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1116. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1116/

  • Kamer Y, Demircioglu MB, Erdik M, Hancilar U, Harmandar E, Sesetyan K, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Zulfikar AC (2010) Earthquake loss estimation routine ELER v 3.0 user manual. Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazici University, Turkey

  • Kircher CA, Whitman RV, Holmes WT (2006) HAZUS earthquake loss estimation methods. Nat Hazards Rev 7(2):45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang DH, Gutierrez FV (2010) RISe a google earth-based tool to illustrate seismic risk and loss results. Earthq Spectra 26(1):295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller S, Muir-Wood R, Boissonnade A (2008) An exploration of trends in normalized weather-related catastrophe losses. In: Diaz HF, Murnane RJ, (eds) Climate extremes and society, pp 225–247

  • Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36(3):257–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muto M, Krishnan S, Beck JL, Mitrani-Reiser J (2008) Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on life-cycle civil engineering. Lake Como, Italy

  • National Geophysical Data Centre (NSDC) website. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • PAGER archive website. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/archives.php. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Pielke R Jr, Gratz J, Landsea CW, Collins D, Saunders MA, Musulin R (2008) Normalized hurricane damage in the United States: 1900–2005. Nat Hazards Rev 9(1):29–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke RA Jr, Rubiera J, Landsea C, Fernandez ML, Klein R (2003) Hurricane vulnerability in Latin America and the Caribean: normalized damage and loss potentials. Nat Hazards Rev 4(3):101–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter K, Scawthorn C (2007) OpenRisk: open-source risk software and access for the insurance industry, 1st international conference on Asian catastrophe insurance, Japan

  • Reese S, Bell RG, King AB (2007) RiskScape—a new tool for comparing risk from natural hazards. Water Atmos 15(3):24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D, Dhu T, Row P, Clark D (2007) Geoscience Australias EQRM: open-source software for earthquake risk modelling, 8th pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Singapore

  • Sandvik B (2008) Thematic mapping engine, part 2: supporting document, MSc dissertation in geographical information science. Institute of Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh

  • ShakeMap archive website. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/list.php?n=sc&y=2010. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Sousa ML, Campos Costa A, Carvalho A, Coelho E (2004) An automatic seismic scenario loss methodology integrated on a geographic information system. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, Canada, Paper No 2526

  • Spencer BF, Myers JD, Yang G (2005) MAEviz/NEESgrid and applications overview. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on an earthquake loss estimation program for Turkey. Istanbul, Turkey

  • Trendafiloski G, Wyss M, Rosset Ph (2011) Loss estimation module in the second generation software QLARM, human casualties in earthquakes. In: Spence R, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Advances in natural and technological hazards research, vol. 29. Springer, Berlin, pp 95–106

  • Tucker C, Webb TM (2000) Progress on a natural hazard risk assessment model. Workshop on geotechnique and natural hazards at the 53rd Canadian geotechnical conference. Montreal, Canada

  • United States Geological Survey (USGS) website. http://www.usgs.gov/. Last checked: 15 July 2012

  • Vranes K, Pielke R Jr (2009) Normalized earthquake damage and fatalities in the United States: 1900–2005. Nat Hazards Rev 10(3):84–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald DJ, Earle PS, Allen TI, Jaiswal K, Porter K, Hearne M (2008) Development of the U.S. Geological Survey’s PAGER system (prompt assessment of global earthquakes for response). In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China

  • Wald D, Lin K-W, Porter K, Turner L (2008) ShakeCast: automating and improving the use of ShakeMap for post-earthquake decision-making and response. Earthq Spectra 24(2):533–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald DJ, Worden BC, Quitoriano V, Pankow KL (2006) ShakeMap manual: technical manual, user’s guide, and software guide. U.S, Geological Survey, Version 1

  • Wernecke J (2008) The KML handbook: geographic visualization for the web, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

  • Yeh C-H, Loh C-H, Tsai K-C (2006) Overview of Taiwan earthquake loss estimation system. Nat Hazards 37(1–2):23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Mr. Philip Shott, Mr. Andrew Siffert and Dr. Georg Hoffman of Flagstone Re’s R&D team, Halifax, Canada for their input and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blesson Varghese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Astoul, A., Filliter, C., Mason, E. et al. Developing and testing the Automated Post-Event Earthquake Loss Estimation and Visualisation (APE-ELEV) technique. Bull Earthquake Eng 11, 1973–2005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9495-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9495-7

Keywords

  • Earthquake modelling
  • Post-event earthquake analysis
  • Insured loss estimation
  • Loss visualisation