The revised <scp>T</scp>hiel–<scp>Z</scp>sutty earthquake damage model—Reformulated and extended—Part 2

Thiel, Charles C.; Zsutty, Theodore C.

doi:10.1002/tal.1394

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many public damage methods have been developed in the past (e.g. Steinbrugge (1982), ATC-13 (King and Rojahn, 2002; Rojahn, 1985), Thiel and Zsutty (1987, 2017a, 2017b), HAZUS (Kircher et al, 1997), CODA (Graf and Lee, 2009), FEMA P-58 (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012)). With various levels of complexities and efforts, these methods can be adapted to specific buildings to estimate the mean damage for a given ground motion intensity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic risk assessments for real estate portfolios: Impact of engineering investigation on quality of seismic risk studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic risk evaluation studies for real estate portfolios conducted by technical professionals (often Civil and Structural Engineers) have become increasingly desirable and common in financial decisions. In this article, we develop a series of risk measures and ratings based on common outcomes from probabilistic portfolio seismic risk assessments. We first define two portfolio risk metrics: Portfolio Expected Loss (PELα) and Portfolio Upper Loss (PULα), where “α” is the annual exceedance probability, or the corresponding return period (“1/α”). PULα/PELα ratio characterizes the uncertainty in estimated portfolio risks which results from the uncertainty in seismic performance of the individual assets. Three uncertainty levels are defined, namely, low, medium, and high, based on the PULα/PELα. We then develop an asset risk metric, called Tail Contribution Index (TCIα), that characterizes the contribution of individual assets to the portfolio losses that fall within the high-consequence “tail” of the portfolio loss distribution. To describe the overall engineering efforts of a portfolio seismic risk study, we develop a portfolio risk metric, called Portfolio Level of Investigation (PLIα), that characterizes the effective level of engineering investigation. Three investigation levels are defined: low ( desktop), medium ( semi-engineered), and high ( engineered), based on the PLIα. Finally, based on the combination of uncertainty level and investigation level, we develop a rating scheme by which the quality (Qα) of a portfolio seismic risk study is characterized. Five quality levels are defined: very poor, poor, fair, good, and very good. These risk indices and ratings can help stakeholders and technical professionals better diagnose and communicate portfolio seismic risks, scope adequate studies, effectively utilize valuable resources, and base financial decisions on risk assessment results that have the desired reliability.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic risk assessments for real estate portfolios: Impact of engineering investigation on quality of seismic risk studies

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reliability of Seismic Performance Assessments for Individual Buildings and Portfolios

Thiel

Zsutty²,

Lee

2021

Risks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic performance and loss assessments are required in areas of Insurance, Finance and Public Policy. Providers are Structural Engineers and Risk Management Firms. There are no current procedures to evaluate the epistemic and aleatory uncertainties for such assessments. The essential issue is whether or not there is sufficient reliability in the result to use the result as the basis for risk management decisions and actions. For a single building this may be whether or not a prescribed earthquake performance level is met, life safety or if a portfolio’s vulnerability level is acceptable, whether the. loss for a given time period is less than a stated value. A method based in part on Federal Emergency Management Agency P-695, is developed for evaluating the reliability of performance and/or loss assessments for both individual and portfolios of buildings. Consideration is given to how well the building investigation and corresponding evaluation process have been performed, the qualifications of the person(s) doing the assessment, the thoroughness of the building evaluation, the technical validity of the assessment procedure or model and what computational reliabilities are presented. The method characterizes the uncertainty of each component of the assessment procedure for each building by qualitative determined assignments. The resulting reliability measure is likely to be most useful for determining whether/or not a building has acceptable life safety performance, or if a portfolio has an acceptably low loss risk over a given period of time. In both cases, the reliability must either be sufficient to warrant action, or serve to indicate need for improved assessment.

show abstract

The revised Thiel–Zsutty earthquake damage model—Reformulated and extended—Part 2

Cited by 2 publications

References 11 publications

Seismic risk assessments for real estate portfolios: Impact of engineering investigation on quality of seismic risk studies

Seismic risk assessments for real estate portfolios: Impact of engineering investigation on quality of seismic risk studies

Reliability of Seismic Performance Assessments for Individual Buildings and Portfolios

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About