Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

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

Beginner’s Guide to Fragility, Vulnerability, and Risk

  • Keith PorterEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_256

Introduction

This entry provides a primer for earthquake-related fragility, vulnerability, and risk. Many of its concepts can be applied to other perils. Section “Fragility” discusses fragility – the probability of an undesirable outcome as a function of excitation. Vulnerability (the measure of loss as a function of excitation) is discussed in section “Vulnerability.” Section “Hazard” presents enough information about seismic hazard for the reader to understand risk, which is discussed in section “Risk for a Single Asset.” Section “Conclusions” provides brief conclusions. For solved exercises, see Porter (2014).

Fragility

Uncertain Values

Many of the terms used here involve uncertain quantities, often called random variables. “Uncertain” is used here because it applies to quantities that change unpredictably (e.g., whether a tossed coin will land heads or tails side up on the next toss) and to quantities that do not vary but that are not known with certainty. For example, a particular...

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

References

  1. American Society of Appraisers (2013) Definitions of value relating to MTS assets, Machinery & Technical Specialties Committee of the American Society of Appraisers. Reston VA, http://www.appraisers.org/Disciplines/Machinery-Technical-Specialties/mts-appraiser-resources/DefinitionsOfValue. Accessed 18 May 2015
  2. Ang AHS, Tang WH (1975) Probability concepts in engineering planning and design, 1 basic principles. Wiley, New York, 409 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1985) ATC-13, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. Redwood City, CA, 492 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 1 – methodology FEMA P-58-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. http://goo.gl/QN8AQz
  5. Atkinson GM, Kaka SI (2007) Relationships between felt intensity and instrumental ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bazzurro P, Cornell A (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520Google Scholar
  8. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  9. European Seismic Commission Working Group—Macroseismic Scales (1998) European macroseismic scale 1998 EMS-98. Luxembourg. http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb5/pb53/projekt/ems/eng/index_eng.html. Accessed 17 July 2006
  10. Faenza L, Michelini A (2010) Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground motion parameters in Italy and its application in ShakeMap. Geophys J Int 180:1138–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Field EH, Dawson TE, Felzer KR, Frankel AD, Gupta V, Jordan TH, Parsons T, Petersen MD, Stein RS, Weldon RJ II, Wills CJ (2007) The Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2). USGS open file report 2007–1437Google Scholar
  12. Jaiswal KS, Aspinall WP, Perkins D, Wald D, Porter KA (2012) Use of expert judgment elicitation to estimate seismic vulnerability of selected building types. Proc 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, September 2012, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson GS, Sheppard RE, Quilici MD, Eder SJ, Scawthorn CR (1999) Seismic reliability assessment of critical facilities: A handbook, supporting documentation, and model code provisions, MCEER-99-0008. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 384 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaestli P, Faeh D (2006) Rapid estimation of macroseismic effects and ShakeMaps using macroseismic data. In: Proceedings of First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaka SI, Atkinson GM (2004) Relationships between instrumental ground-motion parameters and Modified Mercalli intensity in Eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(5):1728–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGuire RK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284Google Scholar
  17. Murphy JR, O'Brien LJ (1977) The correlation of peak ground acceleration amplitude with seismic intensity and other physical parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:877–915Google Scholar
  18. National Institute of Building Sciences and Federal Emergency Management Agency (NIBS and FEMA) (2009) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS®MH MR4 Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. NIST/SEMATECH (2013) e-Handbook of statistical methods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  20. Porter KA (2009a) Cracking an open safe: HAZUS vulnerability functions in terms of structure-independent spectral acceleration. Earthq Spectra 25(2):361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter KA (2009b) Cracking an open safe: more HAZUS vulnerability functions in terms of structure-independent spectral acceleration. Earthq Spectra 25(3):607–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porter KA (2010) Cracking an open safe: uncertainty in HAZUS-based seismic vulnerability functions. Earthq Spectra 26(3):893–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Porter KA (2014) A beginner’s guide to fragility vulnerability and risk, with solved exercises. Resource document. http://spot.colorado.edu/~porterka/Porter-beginners-guide.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2014
  24. Porter KA, Kennedy RP, Bachman RE (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23(2):471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Porter K, Farokhnia K, Vamvatksikos D, Cho I (2014) Analytical derivation of seismic vulnerability functions for highrise buildings, global vulnerability consortium. Available from www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/gem-vulnerability/posts/
  26. Sørensen MB, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2007) Deliverable 4.1: generation of area-specific relationships between ground motion parameters (PGA, PGV) at certain sites, magnitude M and distance R to the causative fault and site intensities in terms of EMS-98. Databank of intensity data points and related parameters, seismic early warning for Europe. GFZ Potsdam 19–32, Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  27. Trifunac MD, Brady AG (1975) On the correlation of seismic intensity scales with the peaks of recorded strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 65:139–162Google Scholar
  28. Tselentis GA, Danciu L (2008) Empirical relationships between modified Mercalli intensity and engineering ground-motion parameters in Greece. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1863–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wald DJ, Allen TI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1379–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wald DJ, Quitoriano V, Heaton TH, Kanamori H (1999) Relationships between peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Earthq Spectra 15(3):557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wesson RL, Perkins DM, Leyendecker EV, Roth RJ, Petersen MD (2004) Losses to single-family housing from ground motions in the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 20(3):1021–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wills CJ, Clahan KB (2006) Developing a map of geologically defined site-conditions categories for California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4A):1483–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wood HO, Neumann F (1931) Modified Mercalli intensity scale of 1931. Bull Seismol Soc Am 21:277–283Google Scholar
  34. Worden CB, Gerstenberger MC, Rhoades DA, Wald DJ (2012) Probabilistic relationships between ground-motion parameters and modified Mercalli intensity in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102(1):204–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil, Environmental, and Architectural EngineeringUniversity of Colorado, Boulder and SPA Risk LLCDenverUSA