1 / 20

Combined Hurricane and Earthquake Hazard Component Vulnerability Analysis

Combined Hurricane and Earthquake Hazard Component Vulnerability Analysis. Terri R. Norton and Makola M. Abdullah, Ph.D. Florida A&M University - Florida State University Wind Hazard and Earthquake Engineering Lab. OUTLINE. Introduction Fragility Curves Research Objectives

daniel_millan
Télécharger la présentation

Combined Hurricane and Earthquake Hazard Component Vulnerability Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Combined Hurricane and Earthquake Hazard Component Vulnerability Analysis Terri R. Norton and Makola M. Abdullah, Ph.D. Florida A&M University - Florida State University Wind Hazard and Earthquake Engineering Lab

  2. OUTLINE • Introduction • Fragility Curves • Research Objectives • Research Proposal • Vulnerability Analysis • Damage Estimation (USGS, 2004)

  3. INTRODUCTION • Each year the United States is affected by natural hazards. • Hurricanes plague the east coast, while earthquakes affect the west. • These hazards have the potential to cause extensive property damage and create mass casualties. • Hurricane Andrew (1992), Hurricane Floyd (1999) • Northridge Earthquake (1994)

  4. INTRODUCTION cont. • Understanding system vulnerability is essential to damage prediction. • Vulnerability = susceptibility of being damaged • System vulnerability can be approximated through the collection of component vulnerabilities. • Fragility curves are used to measure vulnerability.

  5. FRAGILITY CURVES • Relate the probability of being in or exceeding a building damage state to a response parameter. f[]: is the standard normal probability integral mr:is the median fragility Br: is the logarithmic standard deviation and x is the peak (ground or spectral) acceleration (FEMA, 1999)

  6. Extensive Complete Moderate Slight X Extensive Complete Moderate Slight X Top floor Beam Lower Corner Column X X Third Floor Bracing X Interior Walls Third Floor Slab FRAGILITY TYPES Component vs. System Fragility • System fragility is needed for input in most loss estimation software, like HAZUS. • Research considers a building as an assembly of components. • Unanwa (2000) • Shinozuka (2000) (Kishi, 2003)

  7. OBJECTIVES • Develop generalized component fragilities for wood-framed residential structures. • Use fault tree analysis to identify component relationships • Determine system vulnerability based on weighted component fragility. • Estimate the economic loss of the structure.

  8. USGS peak acceleration map ASCE wind speed map Demand Conversion Input Demand Damage Estimate Vulnerability PROPOSED APPROACH • Component fragility based on converted demand • Fault tree analysis • Compilation of component fragility into system fragility • Vulnerability converted into economic loss • Total loss based on system vulnerability

  9. INPUT DEMAND • Earthquake loads • USGS peak acceleration map (% g) • Extreme wind loads • ASCE 7 wind speed design map (mph) • Loads converted to a generalized demand parameter

  10. COMPONENT VULNERABILITY • Each component fragility will be a function of a specific demand parameter. • Windows may be a function of pressure • Wall may be a function of shear force • Existing research will assist in constructing component fragilities functions. • Maximum likelihood method may also assist in the estimation of the two-parameter lognormal distribution function.

  11. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD where and F(x): probability of being damaged 1-F(x): Probability of not being damaged x: input demand a: 0 or 1, does not or does sustain damage (Shinozuka, 2000)

  12. FAULT TREE ANALYSIS • Explains the logical sequence of damage propagation. • From direct to indirect damage

  13. SYSTEM VULNERABILITY • A function of all the component fragilities combined.

  14. SYSTEM VULNERABILITY • A function of all the component fragilities combined. (Shinozuka, 2000)

  15. Vulnerability, % Input Demand DAMAGE APPROXIMATION $ Repair Cost

  16. ECONOMIC LOSS • Repair Cost • Structural and Nonstructural damage • Damage of contents • Loss of Functionality

  17. QUESTIONS? (FEMA, 1994)

  18. CONTACT INFO • Terri R. Norton • Email: norton@eng.fsu.edu • Makola M. Abdullah, Ph.D. • Email: abdullah@eng.fsu.edu • http://www.eng.fsu.edu/departments/civil/index.html • http://www.wheel.eng.fsu.edu FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

  19. FRAGILITY DEVELOPMENT • ATC-13 (1985): heuristic damage functions • estimates were based on the personal knowledge and experience of experts in the field • HAZUS (1997): a combination of heuristic and analytical damage function models • The focus of this assessment is the building’s response to ground motion • Unanwa (2000): heuristic and analytical damage functions • Consideration was given to damage propagation either through the direct impact of the wind or as a result of damage of other components

  20. Roof covering Roof structure Beams and Columns Connections Slabs Partition walls Exterior wall Exterior doors & windows Exterior doors Interior Mechanical & Electrical Plumbing Foundation BUILDING COMPONENTS

More Related