Development of Hazard Damaged Buildings Model by Chi-Chi Earthquake Data

1. Development of Hazard Damaged Buildings Model by Chi-Chi Earthquake Data B. J. Lee College of Construction and Development Feng Chia University Nov. 17, 2003

2. Contents • Introduction • Overview of Building Damage • Estimation of Strong Motion • Fragility Curves for the Building Damage • BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis • Conclusions

3. Introduction Chichi Earthquake & Chelungpu Fault The Chelungpu fault cross Guangfu elementary school, Wufeng , Taichung County

4. Introduction Building Damage Survey Report 8,773 buildings were surveyed in preliminary report

5. Introduction incomplete Building Damage Ratio = (Buildings) = (Buildings) No suitable database • Although the survey report is very useful, the inventory of buildings was not possible to associated with data. • To construct the fragility curve to be used for damage assessments, however, building damage data associated by inventory are necessary.

6. Introduction Building Damage Database List of earthquake building subsidy Partially & Totally Collapsed Building Database of Building Tax (inventory of buildings) Address Type of Structure Floor Area Name Construction Period …… Chichi Earthquake Building Damage Data Warehouse

7. Overview of Building Damage in the Chichi Earthquake Use Base Area to Measure Building Damage One Building Base area

8. Overview of Building Damage in the Chichi Earthquake Structural Type Distribution of Totally Collapsed Buildings

9. Overview of Building Damage in the Chichi Earthquake Collapsed Ratio for Each Structural Type

10. Overview of Building Damage in the Chichi Earthquake Collapsed Ratio of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Different Construction Periods

11. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion Distribution of Accelerometer Sites • Recover region : (Miaoli、Taichung、 Nantou、Jiayi、Yunlin and Changhua) • Number of accelerometer sites : 103 • Min=21.05 gal Max=989.22 gal Avg.=214.62 gal St.Dev.=177.492 gal

12. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Model - Campbell Form Coefficients of different strong motion factors

13. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion =correction factor = number of observation (103sites) = data of Chichi earthquake = data of Campell form Correction Factor for Campbell Form (Tsai, 2001)

14. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion Campbell Form Including Correction Factor Chichi earthquake records (103 stations)

15. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion Geostatistic Theory Equation of horizontal attenuation relationship Trend Kriging Residual

16. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion Ordinary Kriging System (Semi-variogram) • Spherical Model Data interval : 2500 M h Distance (M)

17. Estimation of Strong Ground Motion Estimated PGA Distribution in Recover Region PGA(gal) Taichung County Taichung City Nantou County Che-long-pu fault

18. Fragility Curve for Building Damage Fragility Curves • A lot of seismologists hypothesize lognormal distribution between strong motion and building damage (Shinozuka, 1999; Yamaguchi & Yamazaki, 1999; Osamu Murao, 1999) • After Determining the mean and standard deviation, we can construct the fragility curve

19. Fragility Curve for Building Damage Study region – 15 Km buffer of Chelungpu fault line

20. Fragility Curve for Building Damage Fragility curves of the different structural types – totally collapsed

21. Fragility Curve for Building Damage Fragility curves of RC building for three different construction periods

22. Near-Fault Area Hanging Wall Foot Wall Puli Basin BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis Topographical Classification of Nantou County

23. BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis CDF of estimated PGA for different topographic conditions

24. Topographic Condition - - Hanging wall Foot wall Near-fault line Basin - - 5.99 5.88 6.11 6.07 - - 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.05 RC Before 1982 6.76 0.48 7.29% 4.85% 11.05% 7.84% 1983~1989 6.87 0.45 3.83% 2.37% 6.38% 3.87% After 1990 7.06 0.55 3.53% 2.33% 5.45% 3.72% Reinforced Masonry 6.72 0.44 6.79% 4.36% 10.73% 7.17% Mud-Brick 6.19 0.33 30.50% 21.23% 41.88% 35.72% Masonry 6.48 0.40 13.78% 9.13% 20.59% 15.19% BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis

25. BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis Risk probability • The damage ratio of building= the degree of building resist the strong motion index (R) < PGA(S) Risk probability of building damage refers to the probability when resistance of the building against strong motion index ( ) is smaller than significance of strong motion ( )

26. The stands for the cumulative probability distribution and is also called reliability index. BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis Risk probability

27. Topographic Condition - - Hanging wall Foot wall Near-fault line Basin - - 5.99 5.88 6.11 6.07 - - 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.05 RC Before 1982 6.76 0.48 7.29% 4.85% 11.05% 7.84% 1983~1989 6.87 0.45 3.83% 2.37% 6.38% 3.87% After 1990 7.06 0.55 3.53% 2.33% 5.45% 3.72% Reinforced Masonry 6.72 0.44 6.79% 4.36% 10.73% 7.17% Mud-Brick 6.19 0.33 30.50% 21.23% 41.88% 35.72% Masonry 6.48 0.40 13.78% 9.13% 20.59% 15.19% BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis Risk probability

28. å m w N = Pi k kl k=1 k = building category l = indicates the subsurface soil condition Nk = ratio of buildings with category k w kl = risk probability of building category k on soil condition l BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis • Murao et al. (1999)

29. BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis Actual Damage vs. Risk Analysis Risk level Actual damage level

30. BuildingSeismic Risk Analysis Error of Risk Analysis >

31. Conclusions Haz-Taiwan

32. Thank You for Your Attention