1 / 21

Key Considerations in Modeling of Earthquake Risk in Turkey

Key Considerations in Modeling of Earthquake Risk in Turkey. Fouad Bendimerad, PhD, PE Christian Mortgat, PhD Financing the Risks of Natural Disasters World Bank Washington DC June 2-3, 2003. Background .

lidia
Télécharger la présentation

Key Considerations in Modeling of Earthquake Risk in Turkey

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. Key Considerations in Modeling of Earthquake Risk in Turkey Fouad Bendimerad, PhD, PE Christian Mortgat, PhD Financing the Risks of Natural Disasters World Bank Washington DC June 2-3, 2003

  2. Background • Present key risk modeling consideration introduced in RMS RiskLink Turkey Earthquake Model • This presentation is mainly focused on impact of hazard parameters on modeling risk around Marmara Sea Region. • Illustration of variability of Loss Exceeding Probability (LEP) and Average Annual Loss (AAL) to residential exposure with respect to: • Source parameters • Rupture parameters • Recurrence parameters • The risk around the Marmara Sea is key to the insurance industry because a large proportion of the exposure is in this region, and because there is a large probability of a large earthquake hitting the region in the near future Confidential

  3. Background • RMS RiskLink Turkey Earthquake model was released commercially in July 2001 • Model and its applications were presented to the Turkish insurance industry during a seminar in Istanbul co-organized with the Association of Insurance and Reinsurance Companies of Turkey (TSRSB) on February 24, 2003 Confidential

  4. Number of Mahalles = 922 I s t a n b u l (Mahalle Resolution) B l a c k S e a M a r m a r a S e a Analysis Resolution The loss analysis is performed at the Mahalle (I.e., neighborhood) level. About 10,000 stochastic events are simulated and loss is calculated for each event. An LEP is develop from the loss to each event. AAL is calculated accordingly I s t a n b u l Confidential

  5. Earthquake Exposure • Commercial lines constitutes the largest exposure • 58% of the total earthquake exposure is located around the Marmara Sea (Cresta Zones 1 to 4) ; including 40% in Cresta 1 (Istanbul). Hence, earthquake model warrants major focus on the risk around the Marmara Sea. Confidential

  6. Seismic Activity In Turkey • Earthquake risk in Turkey is characterized both by high severity and high frequency • 1999 Izmit and Duzce earthquakes (M7.4 and 7.2, respectively) created the largest historical losses Historical Earthquakes 1850-1999 Confidential

  7. More than 10 million people and close to 60% of the economic value of Turkey would be impacted by an earthquake in the Marmara Sea region Max magnitude could be as high as M7.7, potentially causing major losses 1992 1999 1967 1912 1957 1951 1944 1943 1942 1939 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.8 6.8 Earthquake Threat to Istanbul • The cluster of earthquakes on the North Anatolia Fault in the last century identifies a seismic gap around Istanbul Seismic Gap Marmara Sea Confidential

  8. Historic Seismicity in the Marmara Sea • Ambraseys (2002) identifies 54 earthquakes of M>6.8 taking place in the Marmara Sea Region in the last 20 centuries • Earthquakes seemed to take place in sequences of clusters that repeat itself every 300 years approximately Confidential

  9. Source Modeling and Rupture Modeling • Three source models are considered to take into consideration uncertainty in the NAFZ structure in the Marmara Sea • “Cascade” rupturing (I.e., potential for rupture of more than one segment) is considered in the study. Probability of cascade is determined by looking at ruptures in past events Confidential

  10. Recurrence Modeling • In Model (a) eq. recurrence is modeled as Poisson • Model (b) and Model (c) consider characteristic events for M>6.5 • Characteristic events are restricted on the fault segments • M<=6.5 occur within the area source following Poisson • In the Northwest Strand of the MSSZ, the rate of occurrence is estimated using four methods: • Slip rate • Slip rate + Time dependency (I.e., Renewal model) • Same as 2. + permanent stress migration due to the 1999 earthquakes • Same as 3. + transient stress migration due to the 1999 earthquakes • In the Southern Strand, occurrence is based on slip rate Confidential

  11. Other Model Parameters • Uniform slip rate on the NAFZ is estimated at 2.4cm/year. About 2.0 cm/year is assigned to the Northwest strand of the MSSZ • Rate are calculated while preserving the energy balance in the fault • The time lapsed since the last occurrence and the average recurrence time are based on historical data. Investigation of historical seismicity for the last 2000 years • Maximum magnitude is adjusted to take into consideration the rupture length of “cascade” events • A background source of Mmax=6.5 is added to all models to account for the possibility of an earthquake outside of the geometry of the defined sources • Rate of earthquake occurrence in the background source is calculated using smoothed historical seismicity using and adaptive Gaussian Kernel technique Confidential

  12. Combining Model • An event tree technique is used to combine different models and calculate an event rate Confidential

  13. Probability Results • (1) and (2) are similar, but there only about 1/3rd of (6) • (3) increases probabilities significantly • (6) is very high for M>=7.0, but lowest for M>=7.5 • Stress transfer (4) and (5) has a significant impact Confidential

  14. Loss Results • Comparison of loss depends on the return period • (6) does not produce the highest losses • (1) produce the lowest losses • “Cascade” has a significant impact on increase losses for the high return periods • (5) produces the largest losses Confidential

  15. Historical Loss Reconstruction Calibration is achieved by successive approximation Confidential

  16. Model Calibration: Historical Loss 99 Kocaeli (7.4) Economic Loss -Residential 98 Adan Ceyhan (6.2) Average 99 Duzce (7.2) 92 Erzincan(6.8) Confidential

  17. Model Calibration: Scenario Analysis Istanbul Max Scenario (M7.5) D C B Confidential

  18. Model Calibration: Industry Losses Loss Loss Event Magnitude Calculated Observed 1999 KOCAELI 7.4 $506 $410 1999 DUZCE 7.2 $124 $125 2002 Sultandagi 6.3 TCIP $.80 Non-TCIP $1.5 Repeat 1999 Kocaeli TCIP 7.4 $400 Repeat 1939 Erzincan 7.9 TCIP $57 Non-TCIP $67 Central Marmara 7.5 Worst Case TCIP $1,100 Scenario Non-TCIP $2,000 Confidential

  19. Model Validation: Pure Premium Pure Premium Sub-Province Level • Model Resolution allows to identifies significant differences in risk within the different geographical regions of Turkey High Medium Low Confidential

  20. Model Validation: Modeled OEP versus Scenario Events • Model results are consistent with historical experience • Model allows relationship between individual scenarios and probabilistic losses Confidential

  21. Conclusion • Model takes into consideration all the plausible scientific assumptions • In-depth treatment of the seismo-tectonic in the region • Thorough calibration of hazard and vulnerability components • Validation with respect to various benchmarks and historical experience Confidential

More Related