Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment in Spain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment in Spain M.A. Salgado-Gálvez O.D. Cardona M.L. Carreño A.H. Barbat Monograph CIMNE IS-69, 2015 Monografías de Ingeniería Sísmica Editor A. H. Barbat Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment in Spain M.A. Salgado-Gálvez O. D. Cardona M.L. Carreño A.H. Barbat Monograph CIMNE IS-69, 2015 CENTRO INTERNACIONAL DE MÉTODOS NUMÉRICOS EN INGENIERÍA Edificio C1, Campus Norte UPC Gran Capitán s/n 08034 Barcelona, Spain MONOGRAFÍAS DE INGENIERÍA SÍSMICA Editor A. H. Barbat ISSN: 1134-3249 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD AND RISK ASSESSMENT IN SPAIN Monografía CIMNE IS69 Los autores ISBN: 978-84-943307-7-3 Depósito legal: B-2889-2015 Ackwnowledgments The authors are grateful for the support of the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain “Enfoque integral y probabilista para la evaluación del riesgo sísmico en España” -CoPASRE (CGL2011-29063). Also to the Spain’s Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness in the framework of the researcher’s formation program (FPI). Also to Professor Mario Ordaz, Dr. Gabriel A. Bernal, Dr. Mabel Cristina Marulanda, César Velásquez and Daniela Zuloaga for their contributions and encouragement during this work. CONTENTS FOREWORD X 1. SEISMIC RISK AS A PUBLIC RISK 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 CAT-MODELS 4 1.3 THE “ACCEPTABLE” RISK 7 2. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SPAIN 9 2.1 INTRODUCTION 9 2.2 GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS ESTIMATION 10 2.2.1 Effects of magnitude and distance 10 2.2.2 Amplitude parameters estimation 11 2.3 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT FOR SPAIN 13 2.3.1 Seismo-tectonic settlement in Spain 13 2.3.2 Selected seismogenetic sources 13 2.3.3 Selection of the analysis model 16 2.3.4 Historical earthquakes' catalogue 18 2.3.5 Assignation of earthquakes to the considered seismogenetic sources 19 2.3.6 Seismicity parameters of the seismogenetic sources 22 2.3.7 Strong ground motion attenuation relationships 32 2.3.8 Analysis procedure 34 2.4 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT 35 2.5 SEISMIC HAZARD RESULTS 37 2.5.1 Hazard curves for selected cities 37 2.5.2 Uniform hazard spectra for selected cities 39 2.5.3 Seismic hazard maps 40 2.5.4 Set of stochastic scenarios 43 2.5.5 Comparison of the results with the elastic design spectra defined in NSCE- 02 and Eurocode-8 43 2.6 LOCAL SITE EFFECTS 44 2.6.1 Site-effects in Lorca 45 3. EXPOSED ASSETS 47 3.1 INTRODUCTION 47 3.1.1 General parameters 48 3.1.2 Comprehensive required information required at urban level 49 3.1.3 Parameters to characterize the seismic physical vulnerability 49 3.2 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE EXPOSURE DATABASE ASSEMBLY PROCESS 51 3.3 EXPOSED ASSETS AT NATIONAL LEVEL FOR SPAIN 51 3.4 EXPOSED ASSETS IN LORCA, MURCIA 57 3.4.1 Appraisal of the exposed elements in Lorca 69 4. PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY OF THE EXPOSED ASSETS 73 4.1 INTRODUCTION 73 4.2 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY CONDITIONS 74 4.2.1 Construction material 74 4.2.2 Age 75 4.2.3 Structural system 75 4.2.4 Structural and load irregularities 76 4.2.5 Energy dissipation capacity 77 4.2.6 Adjacent buildings 78 4.2.7 Construction quality 78 4.3 METHODOLOGIES TO QUANTIFY SEISMIC VULNERABILITY 79 4.3.1 Qualitative damage scales 79 4.3.2 HAZUS approach 79 4.3.3 Fragility curves 80 4.3.4 Damage probability matrixes 81 4.3.5 Vulnerability functions 83 4.3.6 Estimating human casualties 87 4.4 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY ESTIMATION 87 4.5 REPRESENTATIVE BUILDING CLASSES IN LORCA 89 4.5.1 Stone masonry (M-PP) 89 4.5.2 Earthen constructions (M-TA) 90 4.5.3 Toledo masonry (M-ET) 90 4.5.4 Brick masonry with wooden slabs (M-L) 90 4.5.5 Brick masonry with reinforced concrete slabs (M-H) 90 4.5.6 Pre 1995 reinforced concrete frames (E-H) 90 4.5.7 Post 1995 reinforced concrete frames (E-H2) 90 4.5.8 Precast reinforced concrete frames (E-HF) 90 4.5.9 Steel frames (E-HP) 90 4.6 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS SELECTED FOR SPAIN 91 4.7 SEISMIC VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS SELECTED FOR LORCA 93 5. PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT 95 5.1 INTRODUCTION 95 5.2 METHODOLOGY FOR THE PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT 96 5.2.1 Loss generation process 96 5.2.2 Specific risk metrics 99 5.2.3 The loss return period 101 5.2.4 Analysis for a single scenario 102 5.3 UNCERTAINTIES IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS 102 5.4 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS AT NATIONAL LEVEL FOR SPAIN 105 5.4.1 Comparison of the PML for different hazard models 110 5.5 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS AT LOCAL LEVEL FOR LORCA 110 5.5.1 Results for the single scenario 111 5.5.2 Comparison with the damage levels recorded after May’s 2011 earthquake 117 5.5.3 Comprehensive and fully probabilistic seismic risk results for Lorca 122 5.6 USING THE PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC RISK RESULTS AT URBAN LEVEL 130 REFERENCES 131 Annex A. Magnitude recurrence rate plots for the considered seismogenetic Sources 147 Annex B. Probabilistic seismic hazard maps for Spain 165 Annex C. Age distribution by inspected zone in Lorca 169 Annex D. Vulnerability functions used for the probabilistic risk assessment at national level 173 Annex E. Vulnerability functions used for the probabilistic risk assessment at local level 177 Annex F. CRISIS 2014. A desktop software to perform probabilistic seismic hazard assessment 185 Annex G. CAPRA Platform 195 FOREWORD It has been largely argued that earthquakes are natural, but disasters are not. Because of that, interests and efforts on different disciplines have been developed with the aim of reducing the damages, losses and casualties associated to those events. Whilst important advances have been made in developed countries, especially in terms of reducing casualties, it is interesting to see that more than 90% of the deaths because of natural events occur in developing countries (UNISDR, 2002; Rasmussen, 2004). Although being a worrying figure, it also shows that decreasing that value is not an impossible task in the short-medium term if the correct actions are taken both at the technical and political level, just as has happened in most developed countries. Seismic risk is considered as a catastrophic risk since it is associated to events with high impact (both in terms of severity and geographical extension) and low occurrence frequency. Those characteristics have implications in the way that both, hazard and risk need to be quantified and assessed differing from the traditional actuarial approaches, besides the inherent uncertainties, like for example what magnitude will the next earthquake have, where is it going to occur and also how the buildings subjected to earthquake forcer will perform; therefore, a fully probabilistic approach is required. Within a probabilistic framework, not only the uncertainties are to be quantified, considered and included but also propagated throughout the analysis. Probabilistic seismic hazard and risk modelling allows considering the losses of events that have not occurred but are likely to happen because of the hazard environment. This approach can be understood as analogous to classical actuarial techniques useful for other perils where, using historical data, a probability distribution is adjusted and the end tail is modelled to account for loss ranges that have not yet been recorded. This work attempts to explain how probabilistic seismic risk assessments can be performed at different resolution levels, using, strictly speaking, the same methodology (or arithmetic) and, then, how to obtain results in terms of the same metrics; but, also, highlighting what the differences in terms of inputs for the analysis and the reasons for them (i.e. including the dynamic soil response effects which are only relevant in local assessments) are. First, a country level assessment is first xi Foreword performed with similarities to the presented by Cardona et al. (2014) using a coarse- grain exposure database that includes only the building stock in the urban regions of Spain. Second, a urban seismic risk assessment with the detail of state-of-the-art studies such as the ones developed by Marulanda et al. (2013) and Salgado-Gálvez et al (2013; 2014a) is performed for Lorca, Murcia. In both cases, the fully probabilistic seismic risk results are expressed in terms of the loss exceedance curve which corresponds to the main output of said analysis from where different probabilistic risk metrics, such as the average annual loss and the probable maximum loss, as well as several other relationships, can be derived (Marulanda et al., 2008; Bernal, 2014). Because of the damage data availability for the Lorca May 2011 earthquake, a comparison between the observed losses and those modelled using an earthquake scenario with similar characteristics in terms of location, magnitude and spectral accelerations was done for the building stock of the city. The results of the comparison are presented in terms of expected losses (in monetary terms) and damage levels related to the obtained the mean damage ratios compared with the observed by post-earthquake surveys. This work aims to present a comprehensive probabilistic seismic risk assessment for Spain, where the different stages of the calculation process are explained and discussed. The stages of this assessment can be summarized as follows: Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment Assembly of the exposure database Seismic vulnerability assessment Probabilistic damage and loss calculation Nowadays, there are several tools available to estimate catastrophe risk by means of probabilistic approaches, while most of the approaches to calculate risk in a probabilistic manner have common procedures, their methodologies are either not clearly explained or not available at all to the general public.