Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 985–997, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-985-2019 © Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Loss assessment of building and contents damage from the potential earthquake risk in Seoul, South Korea Wooil Choi1, Jae-Woo Park2, and Jinhwan Kim2,3 1Risk Management Team, HIS Insurance Service Co., Ltd., 7, Jong-ro 5-gil, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03157, Korea 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, South Korea 3Multi Disaster Countermeasures Organization, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 283, Goyang-daero, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, 10223, South Korea Correspondence: Jinhwan Kim ([email protected]) Received: 2 October 2018 – Discussion started: 12 December 2018 Revised: 3 April 2019 – Accepted: 4 April 2019 – Published: 3 May 2019 Abstract. After the 2016 Gyeongju earthquake and the 2017 1 Introduction Pohang earthquake struck the Korean peninsula, securing fi- nancial stability regarding earthquake risks has become an On 15 November 2017, an earthquake of M 5.4 on the important issue in South Korea. Many domestic researchers Richter scale hit the northern region near Pohang, located are currently studying potential earthquake risk. However, in the southeastern part of the Korean peninsula. Aside from empirical analyses and statistical approaches are ambiguous the M 5.8 Gyeongju earthquake in 2016, it was the second in the case of South Korea because no major earthquake has strongest recorded earthquake in South Korea since monitor- ever occurred on the Korean peninsula since the Korean Me- ing began in 1978 (Fig. 1). teorological Agency started monitoring earthquakes in 1978. The earthquakes that occurred in Gyeongju and Pohang This study focuses on evaluating possible losses due to earth- were caused by the Yangsan fault zone, classified as an ac- quake risk in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, by using a tive fault, on the Korean Peninsula, which has the ability to catastrophe model methodology integrated with GIS (Geo- generate earthquakes with a maximum intensity of M 7.0, ac- graphic Information Systems). Building information, such as cording to Kyung (2010) and the South Korean Ministry of structure and location, is taken from the building registration Public Safety and Security (MPSS, 2012). If an earthquake database and the replacement cost for buildings is obtained of M 6.0, similar to the Gyeongju and Pohang earthquakes, from insurance information. As the seismic design code in occurs in or near Seoul, where major industrial and com- the KBC (Korea Building Code) is similar to the seismic de- mercial facilities are concentrated, huge losses, the likes of sign code of the UBC (Uniform Building Code), the dam- which have never been experienced in the past, may occur. age functions provided by HAZUS-Multi-hazard (HAZUS- The disaster risk financing industry, such as the insurance MH) are used to assess the damage state of each building in companies, could be subject to especially catastrophic dam- event of an earthquake. A total of 12 earthquake scenarios are age. According to the Natural Disaster Reduction Project re- evaluated by considering the distribution and characteristics port prepared at the request of the South Korean Ministry of of active fault zones on the Korean peninsula and damages, Public Safety and Security (2015), 2.76 million people may with total loss amounts are calculated for each of the sce- lose their lives, and USD 2848 billion of economic losses, narios. The results of this study show that loss amounts due including indirect loss such as business interruption, may to potential earthquakes are significantly lower than those of occur if an earthquake of M 7.0 strikes Seoul (note that previous studies. The challenge of this study is to implement the losses in US dollars in this study are converted from an earthquake response spectrum and to reflect the actual as- the original Korean currency based on the exchange rate of set value of buildings in Seoul. USD 1 ≈ KRW 1200, as of 1 January 2016). However, as this report relies on the HAZUS-MH for most of the analysis Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 986 W. Choi et al.: Loss assessment from potential earthquake risk Figure 1. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) map of the Pohang earthquake (a) and Gyeongju earthquake (b). Source: Korean Meteorological Administration (2018). data, such as the replacement cost of property and the seismic The definition and procedure of the catastrophe model can characteristics of the earthquake, the estimated result may marginally differ between researchers or suppliers, but the differ from the actual damage loss amount in South Korea. conventional procedure can be summarized as in Fig. 2. This study uses catastrophe model methodology to predict As shown in Fig. 2, the catastrophe model has a four step losses and damage to buildings and their contents from a po- process. (i) An information database of that property that tential earthquake that could occur in Seoul. This study dif- may be exposed to disaster should be constructed. However, fers from the previous studies in that it implements the actual the exposure data sets in previous studies are typically avail- building and insurance data and the observed seismic charac- able at relatively coarse resolutions because they are accom- teristics of South Korea. The detailed information of approx- panied by difficulties related to limited resources or privacy imately 630 000 buildings across Seoul is acquired through issues, among others (Dell’Acqua et al., 2012; Figueiredo the building registration database. The replacement cost of and Martina, 2016). In order to overcome these limitations, each building and its contents is statistically estimated by us- this study used the building registration database of South ing an insurance database that is classified by occupancy to Korea to build an exposure data set. Detailed information simulate the real situation in South Korea. of the building must be recorded, which is registered in the building registration database whenever the building is con- structed or reconstructed according to the Building Act of 2 Methodology South Korea. In this study, the detailed information needed to evaluate the vulnerability of all buildings in Seoul was ex- Predicting loss amount from a potential disaster using a tracted from the building registration database. The extracted catastrophe model differs from the actuarial approach model. data are classified into 36 structure types and 33 occupan- While the actuarial technique estimates the loss based on em- cies (the same as the building types of HAZUS-MH) and di- pirical data, the catastrophe model generates disaster scenar- vided into three seismic codes estimated based on a compre- ios based on a scientific understanding of disasters and as- hensive consideration of the construction year, total building sesses the loss amount from an event scenario. For possible area, and occupancy. The details of the classification of the earthquakes in South Korea, it is appropriate to use the catas- 36 structure types and 33 occupancies are shown in Tables 1 trophe model for predicting losses because empirical data and 2, respectively. from earthquakes on the Korean peninsula are too scarce to (ii) A hazard module for the generation of a physical enable actuarial processing. hazard map from a simulated earthquake event should be developed. For example, the peak ground acceleration can be represented as hazard intensity in an earthquake hazard Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 985–997, 2019 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/19/985/2019/ W. Choi et al.: Loss assessment from potential earthquake risk 987 Table 1. Model building types. Height No. Label Description Range Typical Name Stories Stories Meter 1 W1 Wood, light frame (≤ 465 m2) 1–2 1 4.3 2 W2 Wood, commercial and industrial (> 465 m2) All 2 7.3 3 S1L Steel moment frame Low-rise 1–3 2 7.3 4 S1M Mid-rise 4–7 5 18.3 5 S1H High-rise 8C 13 47.5 6 S2L Steel braced frame Low-rise 1–3 2 7.3 7 S2M Mid-rise 4–7 5 18.3 8 S2H High-rise 8C 13 47.5 9 S3 Steel light frame A11 1 4.6 10 S4L Steel frame with cast-in-place concrete shear walls Low-rise 1–3 2 7.3 11 S4M Mid-rise 4–7 5 18.3 12 S4H High-rise 8C 13 47.5 13 S5L Steel frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls Low-rise 1–3 2 7.3 14 S5M Mid-rise 4–7 5 18.3 15 S5H High-rise 8C 13 47.5 16 C1L Concrete moment frame Low-rise 1–3 2 6.1 17 C1M Mid-rise 4–7 5 15.2 18 C1H High-rise 8C 12 36.6 19 C2L Concrete shear walls Low-rise 1–3 2 6.1 20 C2M Mid-rise 4–7 5 15.2 21 C2H High-rise 8C 12 36.6 22 C3L Concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill walls Low-rise 1–3 2 6.1 23 C3M Mid-rise 4–7 5 15.2 24 C3H High-rise 8C 12 36.6 25 PC1 Precast concrete tilt-up walls A11 1 4.6 26 PC2L Precast concrete frames with concrete shear walls Low-rise 1–3 2 6.1 27 PC2M Mid-rise 4–7 5 15.2 28 PC2H High-rise 8C 12 36.6 29 RM1L Reinforced masonry bearing walls with wood or metal deck diaphragms Low-rise 1–3 2 6.1 30 RM1M Mid-rise 4C 5 15.2 31 RM2L Reinforced masonry bearing walls with precast concrete diaphragms Low-rise 1–3 2 6.1 32 RM2M Mid-rise 4–7 5 15.2 33 RM2H High-rise 8C 12 36.6 34 URML Unreinforced masonry bearing walls Low-rise 1–2 1 4.6 35 URMM Mid-rise 3C 3 10.7 36 MH Mobile homes A11 1 3.0 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (2013) www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/19/985/2019/ Nat.