Skip to main content

Post-processing HAZUS earthquake damage and loss assessments for individual buildings

Natural Hazards volume 105, pages 21–45 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Building damage probabilities are invaluable for assessing short-term losses from natural hazards. In many countries however, the individual building level data required for assessing reliable damage are usually unavailable. This paper shows how the post-processing of aggregate HAZUS earthquake damage assessments can yield building-level damage probabilities. On the basis of three plausible scenarios for Northern Israel, we generate and visualize a building-level combined damage probability index. We use the tools of exploratory spatial data analysis to purge any causal influences in the spatial pattern of these calculated damage probabilities. The costs and benefits of our approach are discussed.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

adapted from Gvirtzman and Zaslavsky 2009)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. HAZUS-MH is a freely available, GIS (Geographic Information Systems)-based damage and loss estimation software developed by FEMA (the US Federal Emergency Management Agency) in association with NIBS (the National Institute for Building Sciences). It currently incorporates dedicated modules for dealing with earthquakes, flooding, hurricanes and tsunamis. Outputs include physical damage assessment for buildings and critical infrastructure, economic loss evaluation and social impact assessment, such as displaced households and shelter requirements. For a chronology of HAZUS development, see Schneider and Schauer (2006).

  2. Fragility functions express a mathematical relationship between the probability of an undesirable event occurring, such as building collapse, and environmental excitation—for example, ground motion acceleration or any other extreme loading condition.

References

  • Ambraseys NN (2009) Earthquakes in the mediterranean and middle east, a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amit R, Zilberman E, Enzel Y, Porat N (2002) Paleoseismic evidence for time dependency of seismic response on a fault system in the southern Arava valley, Dead Sea rift, Israel. Geo Soc Am Bull 114:192–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avni R (1999) The 1927 Jericho earthquake, comprehensive macroseismic analysis based on contemporary sources. Ph.D. thesis, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel (in Hebrew with English abst.)

  • Baer G, Funning GJ, Shamir G, Wright TJ (2008) The 1995 November 22, Mw 7.2 Gulf of Eilat earthquake cycle revisited. Geophys J Int 175:1040–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawady A, Korrat I, El-Hadidy M, Gaber H (2017) Update earthquake risk assessment in Cairo, Egypt. J Seismol 21:571–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begin ZB (2005) Destructive earthquakes in the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea: their recurrence intervals and the probability of their occurrence. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/12/2005 (in Hebrew).

  • Bell FG (1999) Geological hazards: their assessment, avoidance and mitigation. Spon Press, Taylor and Francis, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bendito A, Rozelle J, Bausch D (2014) Assessing potential earthquake loss in Mérida State, Venezuela using HAZUS. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 5(3):176–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgina Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthq Spectra 24:139–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU-JRC (2017) Seismic risk assessment tools workshop, 11–12 May, Joint Research Center Technical Report. https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/innovation/ENCML/Seismic-Risk-Assessment-Tools-Workshop. Accessed 27 Aug 2020

  • Fotheringham AS, Brundson C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfunkel Z (1981) Internal structure of the Dead Sea leaky transform (rift) in relation to plate kinematics. Tectonophysics 80:81–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidoboni E, Comastri A, Traina G (1994) Catalogue of ancient earthquakes in the Mediterranean area up to the 10th century. ING-SGA, Bologna, Italy

  • Gvirtzman Z, and Zaslavsky Y (2009) Map of zones with potentially high ground motion amplification (in Hebrew). Geological Survey of Israel Report # GSI/15/2009, map

  • Hansen R, Bausch D, McNabb SCJ, Rozelle J (2010) A updated GIS-based methodology for exporting the HAZUS earthquake model for global applications: HAZ EM (Extended Mediterranean) loss estimation, presented at workshop on reducing earthquake losses in the extended Mediterranean region (RELEMR): Ankara, Turkey

  • Hamiel Y, Amit R, Begin ZB, Marco S, Katz O, Salamon A, Zilberman E, Porat N (2009) The seismicity along the Dead Sea fault during the last 60,000 years. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2020–2026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaiswal K, Wald DJ (2008) Creating a global residential building inventory for earthquake loss assessment and risk management. U.S.G.S. Open File Report, OF 2008-1160. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1160. Accessed 27 Aug 2020

  • Katz O, Hecht H, Almog E (2008) Geological data base for HAZUS: geotechnical and landslides susceptibility maps. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/08/2008, Hebrew

  • Klar A, Meirova T, Zaslavsky Y, Shapira A (2011) Spectral acceleration maps for use in SI 413 amendment no. 5. The Geophysical Institute of Israel, Hebrew

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi T, Tavron B, Katz O, Amit R, Hamiel Y, Bar-Lavi Y, Romach S, Salamon A (2010) Earthquake loss estimation in Israel using the new HAZUS-MH software: preliminary implementation. Final Report, Israel Geological Survey Report # GSI/11/2010

  • Levi T, Bausch D, Katz O, Rozelle J, Salamon A (2015) Insights from HAZUS loss estimations in Israel for Dead Sea transform earthquakes. Nat Hazards 75:365–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploeger SK, Atkinson GM, Samson C (2010) Applying the HAZUS-MH software tool to assess seismic risk in downtown Ottawa, Canada. Nat Hazards 53(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portnov BA, Dubnov J, Barchana M (2009) Studying the association between air pollution and lung cancer incidence in a large metropolitan area using a kernel density function. Soc Econ Plan Sci 43(3):141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimi V, Khodakarami MI, Vahdani R (2015) Determination of structural fragility curves of buildings with HAZUS methodology for seismic risk assessment in the city of Semnan, Iran. Presented at 10th International Congress on Civil Engineering, 5–7 May, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

  • Rozelle J (2018) International adaptation of the HAZUS earthquake model using global exposure datasets. Masters Thesis, University of Colorado at Denver

  • Rotstein Y, Bruner I, Kafri U (1993) High-resolution seismic imaging of the Carmel fault and its implications for the structure of Mt. Carmel. Israel J Earth Sci 42:55–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu H, Luco N, Baker JW, Erdem K (2008) Converting HAZUS capacity curves to seismic hazard compatible building fragility functions: effect of hysteretic models. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering October 12–17, 2008, Beijing, China

  • Salamon A, Katz O, Crouvi O (2010) Zones of required investigation for earthquake-related hazards in Jerusalem. Nat Hazards 53(2):375–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon A, Aksinenko T, Zaslavsky Y (2013). The location of the Carmel Fault between Yagur and Haifa Port as inferred from subsurface data. (Hebrew). Israel Geological Survey, Rep. GSI/01/2013

  • Schneider PJ, Schauer PE (2006) HAZUS—its development and its future. Nat Hazards Rev 7:40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SI (Standards Institute) 413 (1995) design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, amendment 3 2009, amendment 5 2013. Israel Standards Institute, Tel Aviv, Hebrew

  • Shapira A, Avni R, Nur A (1993) New estimate of the Jericho earthquake epicenter of July 11, 1927. Israel J Earth Sci 42:93–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira A., Hofstetter A (2002). Seismic parameters of seismogenic zones: Appendix C, in Shapira, A. An updated map of peak ground accelerations for the Israel Standard 413: Israel Geophysical Institute Report 592/230/2002: p.74 (in Hebrew, with appendices in English)

  • Shapira A, Hofstetter R, Abdallah AQF, Dabbeek J, Hays W (2007) Earthquake hazard assessments for building codes, final report. Submitted to the U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade

  • Shapira, A (2011) A Preparedness Framework for Destructive Earthquakes in Israel National Steering Committee for Earthquake Preparedness (INSCEP), Jerusalem (Hebrew).

  • Shmueli DF, Ben Gal M, Segal E, Reichman A, Feitelson E (2018) How can regulatory systems be assessed? The case of earthquake preparedness in Israel. Evaluation 25(1):80–98

  • Vazurkar UY, Chaudhari DJ (2016) Development of Fragility Curves for RC Buildings. International Journal of Engineering Research 5(3):591–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Vecere A, Monteiro R Ammann W Giovinazzi S, Melo Santos R (2017) Predictive models for post disaster shelter needs assessment. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 21:44–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei HH, Shohet I, Skibniewski MJ, Levy SS, R, Levi T, Salamon A, Zohar M, (2015) Assessment of casualty and economic losses from earthquakes using a semi-empirical model. Procedia Eng 123:599–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar M, Salamon A, Rubin R (2016) Reappraised list of historical earthquakes that affected Israel and its close surroundings. J Seismol 20(3):971–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Daniel Felsenstein

  2. Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Eilat Elbaum

  3. Geological Survey of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel

    Tsafrir Levi & Ran Calvo

Authors
  1. Daniel Felsenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eilat Elbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsafrir Levi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ran Calvo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Felsenstein.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Felsenstein, D., Elbaum, E., Levi, T. et al. Post-processing HAZUS earthquake damage and loss assessments for individual buildings. Nat Hazards 105, 21–45 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04293-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04293-1

Keywords

  • HAZUS
  • Post-processing
  • Damage assessment
  • Earthquakes
  • Israel