Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation

Mitrani-Reiser, Judith; Beck, James L.; Muto, Matthew M.; Krishnan, Swaminathan

doi:10.1201/9780203885307.ch28

Cited by 14 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The next step of the performance assessment is to calculate the risk of loss of human life by combining information on whether or not a collapse occurs with assumptions about the portion of the building that collapses, the number of people likely to have been in the collapsed part of the building, and factors that affect how lethal collapse is for building occupants (Mitrani-Reiser 2007, Coburn et al 1992). The expected annual rate of fatalities (EAF), which represents an average yearly number of fatalities, accounting for all possible future earthquakes, is computed similarly to the annualized losses: …”

Section: Performance-based Cost-benefit Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Economic losses are also reported for each building in Table 1. The details of these computations, including fragility functions and repair costs associated with different components are described elsewhere (Ramirez et al 2012, Liel and Deierlein 2008, Mitrani-Reiser 2007). Economic losses associated with repairs are annualized over the lifetime of the structure to give expected annual loss (computed through Equation 2), which vary from 1.6% to 5.2% of the total replacement cost of the building.…”

Section: Performance-based Cost-benefit Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The implied value of human life, or the amount society is willing to pay to save a life, depends on the nature of the risk, the victim's remaining lifespan, future earning potential, and other factors. In engineering and construction projects, human life is typically valued in the range of $2 to $5 million (Mitrani-Reiser 2007), which is about the same as the average amount awarded per victim by the September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund (Feinberg et al 2004). Interestingly, these values are substantially lower than those associated with health regulations for some contaminants such as arsenic, which have been estimated to cost as much as $100 million per life saved (Haimes 2008).…”

Section: Overview Of Cost-benefit Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-benefit assessment is used to evaluate the effectiveness of various seismic retrofit strategies to address concerns about earthquake safety and damage to older concrete frame buildings. The benefits of mitigation are quantified in monetary terms by assessing the reductions in risk of building damage (repairs) and occupant fatalities. When evaluated considering repair costs only, the maximum cost of retrofitting that offers a positive rate of return is 10% to 30% of the building replacement value. Since seismic retrofits generally cost more than this, this result suggests that reduced risk of damage and repairs alone does not warrant the expense of retrofitting. However, the added benefits of reduced fatality risks would make retrofitting cost-effective if it costs as much as 60% of the building replacement cost. The cost-benefit approach provides an important tool to evaluate the merits of seismic mitigation in light of competing demands for finite public and private resources.

show abstract

Section: Performance-based Cost-benefit Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Performance-based Cost-benefit Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of Cost-benefit Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To estimate losses from downtime, Mitrani-Reiser (2007) computes expected monetary loss, which is the expected loss in rental income multiplied by the estimated downtime. Loss estimates are used to estimate the expected annualized losses from an earthquake.…”

Section: Indirect Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The total costs of seismic retrofits: State of the art

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the current state-of-practice with respect to quantifying the total cost to retrofit an existing building. In particular, we combine quantitative, qualitative, and heuristic data to provide a taxonomy for understanding the direct and indirect costs associated with seismic risk mitigation. Much of the literature to date has focused on estimating structural retrofit costs, the costs of retrofitting the structural elements of a building. In contrast, there is very little research or data on the remaining cost components of the total cost. We propose using structural cost as the foundation for approximating the remaining cost components and the total cost itself. To validate our findings, we compare the proposed approximations with actual cost estimates developed by engineering professionals.

show abstract

“…Comerio (2006) advocated for disaggregating downtime into “rational” and “irrational” components, where the former is the time to perform the necessary repairs, and the latter is the duration associated with the myriad of activities that lead up to the start of repairs (e.g., building inspection, financing, and engineering assessments). Mitrani-Reiser (2007) incorporated a previously developed repair time algorithm (Beck et al, 1999) into a PBEE-centric framework for quantifying earthquake-induced building downtime (including rational and irrational components) and the associated indirect losses. The repair time methodology, that is, excluding the irrational components of downtime, was adapted and incorporated into the FEMA P-58 seismic performance assessment guidelines for buildings (FEMA, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bayesian parameter estimation of duration-based variables used in post-earthquake building recovery modeling

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Bayesian parameter estimation methodology for updating the distributions of the duration-based variables used in post-earthquake building recovery modeling is presented. The distributions of the recovery-related parameters specified in the resilience-based earthquake design initiative (REDi) and HAZUS are used as the basis of the priors. A data set of observed building damage and recovery following the 2014 South Napa earthquake is assembled and used to illustrate the proposed methodology. The recovery data set includes the permit acquisition and repair time for over 800 buildings affected by the earthquake. With this data, the conjugate prior (CP) and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are implemented to update the probability distribution parameters for the duration-based recovery variables. While the CP approach is easier to implement because it offers an analytical solution, the MCMC provides more flexibility in terms of the types of prior and sampling distributions that can be accommodated. Moreover, the results from a comparative implementation on the Napa data set shows that the MCMC method provides a reasonable approximation of the posterior marginal distribution of the duration-based recovery variables relative to the CP analytical solution.

show abstract

Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation

Cited by 14 publications

References 1 publication

Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings

Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings

The total costs of seismic retrofits: State of the art

Bayesian parameter estimation of duration-based variables used in post-earthquake building recovery modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About