Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

RECENT APPLICATIONS FOR RAPID ESTIMATION OF EARTHQUAKE SHAKING AND LOSSES WITH ELER SOFTWARE

Mine Betl Demircioglu1, Mustafa Erdik2, Yaver Kamer3, Karin Sesetyan4, Cneyt Tzn5

ABSTRACT

A methodology and software package entitled Earthquake Loss Estimation Routine (ELER) was developed for rapid estimation of earthquake shaking and losses throughout the EuroMediterranean region. The work was carried out under the Joint Research Activity-3 (JRA3) of the EC FP6 project entitled Network of Research Infrastructures for European Seismology (NERIES). The ELER methodology anticipates: 1) finding of the most likely location of the source of the earthquake using regional seismo-tectonic data base; 2) estimation of the spatial distribution of selected ground motion parameters at engineering bedrock through region specific ground motion prediction models, bias-correcting the ground motion estimations with strong ground motion data, if available; 3) estimation of the spatial distribution of site-corrected ground motion parameters using regional geology database using appropriate amplification models; and 4) estimation of the losses and uncertainties at various orders of sophistication (buildings, casualties). The multi-level methodology developed for real time estimation of losses is capable of incorporating regional variability and sources of uncertainty stemming from ground motion predictions, fault finiteness, site modifications, inventory of physical and social elements subjected to earthquake hazard and the associated vulnerability relationships which are coded into ELER. The present paper provides brief information on the methodology of ELER and provides an example application with the recent major earthquake that hit the Van province in the east of Turkey on 23 October 2011 with moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.2. For this earthquake, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute (KOERI) provided almost real time estimations in terms of building damage and casualty distribution using ELER.
Keywords: earthquake risk model; sensitivity; uncertainty; hazard; exposure; vulnerability.
1

Research Associate, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazii University, Turkey. Ph. +90 216 516 33 69, Fax: +90 216 308 01 63, Email: betul.demircioglu@boun.edu.tr. 2 Professor, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazii University, Turkey. Ph.+ 90 216 332 65 60, Fax: +90 216 308 01 63, Email: erdik@boun.edu.tr. 3 Phd student, ETH Zurich, Switzerland . Ph. +044 633 71 61, Email: ykamer@ethz.ch. 4 Research Associate, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazii University, Turkey. Ph. 90 216 516 33 69, Fax: +90 216 308 01 63, Email: karin@boun.edu.tr. 5 Research Associate, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Bogazii University, Turkey. Ph. +90 216 516 33 60, Fax: +90 216 308 01 63, Email: cuneyt.tuzun@boun.edu.tr.

Manuscript received on 31st January 2012, reviewed and accepted on 14th August 2012 as per publication policies of NED University Journal of Research.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

141

M. B. Demircioglu et al. Mine Demircioglu is a Research Associate in the Department of Earthquake Engineering at Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute at Bogazii University, Turkey where she received her Masters and PhD in Earthquake Engineering. Her major filed of interest is seismic hazard and risk assessments. Mustafa Erdik is a Professor of Earthquake Engineering and director of Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute at Bogazii University, Turkey. He received his Masters and PhD from Rice University, USA. He is a member of several academic and technical boards such as Global Earthquake Model (GEM), Earthquake Model of Middle East (EMME), Turkish National Committee of Earthquake Engineering. Yaver Kamer is a Phd student at ETH Zurich where he is working on earthquake forecasting. He received his Bachelors and Masters in Control and Automation Engineering from Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. His research interests include fault network reconstruction, pattern recognition, ground motion and loss estimations. Karin Sesetyan is a Research Associate in the Department of Earthquake Engineering at Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute at Bogazii University, Turkey. She received her Masters and PhD in Earthquake Engineering from Bogazici University, Turkey. Her main research areas are earthquake hazard and risk assessment and simulation of strong ground motion. Cneyt Tzn is a Research Associate in the Department of Earthquake Engineering at Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Bogazii University, Turkey.He received his Masters and PhD in Structural Earthquake Engineering from Bogazici University, Turkey. His main research areas are vulnerability assessment, nonlinear structural analysis, earthquake resistant design, base isolation and high-rise design.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The Joint Research Activity 3 (JRA3) of the EC FP6 Project entitled NERIES [1, 2] is aimed at establishing a methodology for rapid estimation of earthquake damages, casualties, shelters and food requirements throughout the Euro-Med Region. Within the scope of this activity, a rapid loss estimation tool, entitled Earthquake Loss Estimation Routine (ELER) [3-5], was developed by the researchers from KOERI, Bogazii University, Imperial College (IC), NORSAR and EuroMediterranean Seismological Centre (EMSC). The ELER software incorporates both regional and urban-scale almost real-time estimation of losses after a major earthquake in the Euro-Med region. The European rapid loss estimation tool is expected to help enable effective emergency response, on both local and global levels, as well as enabling public information. It has been selected for testing and utilization in the implementation of the open-source global risk engine for Global Earthquake Model (GEM) [6] project. In the framework of Earthquake Model for Middle East (EMME) [7] project, which is also a regional program of GEM, ELER software is used in connection with the Seismic Risk Module to calculate regional estimates of building damage and casualty distributions using intensity based building vulnerability relationships and regional building inventory databases and population distributions. Within the content of another module of EMME, which is called the City Scenario Applications, ELER is used to estimate the building damage and casualty distribution on urban scale. Based on detailed building inventory, capacity and vulnerability data, spectral displacement based loss estimation calculations are performed for the estimation of building damage and casualties. As a regional application, ELER has been used in Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran and Pakistan based on the methodologies defined in the framework of Risk Module of EMME. As an urban loss estimation application, ELER is also currently used for the earthquake scenarios of the cities of Yerevan (Armenia), Tbilisi (Georgia), Irbid (Jordan), Mashhad (Iran) and Karachi (Pakistan). These applications will serve as a guideline both for mitigation activities prior to an earthquake or provide valuable information for the officials responsible for the search and rescue activities in case of an earthquake. Additionally, ELER has been successfully used for the rapid estimations of the building damages and casualties in recent earthquakes in Turkey. Within the framework of several projects and cooperations with other institutes, ELER is currently being used also by several institutions in Europe, such as Italian Civil Defence and Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research and Technical Institute (ITSAK) (the latter funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) in a bilateral project).

142

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

2.

METHODOLOGY

The software package comprises a hazard module and three loss estimation modules: Level 0, Level 1 and Level 2. The hazard module produces earthquake shake maps in terms of selected ground motion parameters such as peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV) and spectral acceleration (Sa), through region-specific and/or user selected ground motion prediction equations (GMPE). The shake mapping methodology is similar to the USGS [8] ShakeMap [9]. For site-specific analysis, the hazard module utilizes shear wave propagation velocity (e.g. average shear wave propagation velocity in 30 m (98 ft) depth of the medium, Vs-30) distributions obtained from regional geology (Quaternary, Tertiary, Mesozoic (QTM) maps) or slope-based Vs-30 maps [10]. Following the estimation of the spatial distribution of selected ground motion parameters, earthquake losses (damage, casualty and economic) can be estimated at different levels of sophistication, namely Levels 0, 1 and 2, based on the availability of building inventory and demographic data [11]. The Level 0 module provides estimates of the number of casualties and their geographic distribution, using either regionally adjusted intensity-casualty or magnitude-casualty correlations and population distributions. The Level 1 module calculates regional estimates of building damage and casualty distributions based on macroseismic building vulnerability models such as Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi [12] and regional building inventory data bases and population distributions. The Level 2 type analysis corresponds to a higher sophistication level in loss estimation methodology, in which the building damage and casualty distributions are obtained using analytical vulnerability relationships and building damage-related casualty vulnerability models, respectively. The Level 2 module of ELER (similar to HAZUS [13] and HAZUS-MH [14]) essentially aims at assessing the earthquake risk (building damage, consequential human casualties and macroeconomic loss quantifiers) in urban areas. Spectral capacity-based vulnerability assessment methodology is utilized for building damage estimations. The following methods can be chosen for the calculation of performance point: Capacity Spectrum Method [15], Modified Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum Method [16], Reduction Factor Method [17], and Coefficient Method [18]. The inventory data for the elements at risk consist of grid (geo-cell) -based urban building and demographic inventories. For building grouping, the European building taxonomy developed by Lagomarsino and Giovinazzi [12] within the EC FP5 RISK-UE project and model building types of HAZUS-MH [14] is used. The default database of the software includes building capacity and analytical fragility parameters for both building taxonomies, also providing the user also the capability of defining custom capacity and fragility curves using the Building Database Creator (BDC) tool. Having calculated the damaged buildings by one of the above mentioned methods, casualties are estimated based on the number of buildings in different damage states and the casualty rates for each building type and damage level. Recently, a new version (v3.1) of ELER software has been released with the tool of pipeline damage which can be used to estimate the expected number of damages in a pipeline network due to a destructive earthquake. The software is available for all users on the official website of Earthquake Engineering Department of Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute. More detailed information can be obtained for both hazard and risk module of the software from the technical manual [11] of the software. 3. 3.1 APPLICATIONS Van-Ercis Earthquake 2011 (Mw = 7.2)

The Van-Ercis earthquake 2011 (Mw = 7.2) took place on 23 October 2011 at 10:41 GMT in the province of Van, in Eastern Turkey near Lake Van. The epicentre was about 30 km (98 ft) to the north of the Van city centre, with a population of 367,419 (Figure 1). The total population of Van province is 1,035,418. The earthquake parameters reported by various seismological institutions are presented in Table 1. The fault plane solutions from the different institutions indicate a pure reverse faulting. Following the first determination of the earthquake parameters, KOERI broadcasted initial estimates of intensity distribution, building damage and casualties using the ELER software. The first step of damage estimation was the assessment of the instrumental intensity distribution through the use of ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs), geologic formation based regional site classification map (with VS-30QTM correlations suggested by Borcherdt [19] and PGA/PGV to intensity correlations of Wald et al. [9] (Figure 2).

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

143

M. B. Demircioglu et al.

Figure 1. Location map of the major event. Table 1. Earthquake information provided by different seismological centres GFZ HARVARD EMSC USGS KOERI Potsdam CMT 13:41:21(Local) 10:41:21 UTC 10:41:30.6 UTC 10:41:23.4 10:41:22.2 Time UTC UTC 38.67N, 43.42E 38.78N, 38.628N, 38.7578N, Latitude, 38.67N, 43.58E 43.40E 43.486E 43.3602E Longitude 15 (9.3) 10 (6.2) 15.4 (9.6) 20 (12.4) Depth km (miles) 5 (3.1) 6.6 (ML), 7.2 (Mw) 7.1 (Mw) Magnitude 7.1 (Mw) 7.1 7.2 (Mw) Fault plane solution

Figure 2. Instrumental intensity distribution estimated for the Van earthquake. The building stock in the major cities of Van, Ercis and vicinity consists mainly of non-engineered low rise buildings and engineered mid-rise reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings with infill walls. The predominant structural system used for RC buildings in Turkey consists of RC frames with a symmetric floor plan and with unreinforced masonry infill walls. Except for some industrial plants or assemblages, steel construction is rare. In villages, the dominant building type consists of adobe and stone masonry buildings minimally reinforced with timber lintel beams. The roofs are constructed mostly with galvanized steel sheets. Livestock shelters generally have heavy earthen

144

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

roofs. Those buildings with heavy earth roof experienced heavy damage and collapse as it has also been experienced in previous rural earthquakes in Turkey. In more general terms, the building stock in the region can be classified in four groups: Reinforced concrete (RC1); unreinforced masonry (M5), Adobe (M2) and Rubble Stone (M1). Figure 3 presents the sub-provinces and the KOERI estimates for the grid based total number of buildings in Van province. In Table 2, estimated number of buildings at the provincial and sub-provincial level and their percent breakdown with respect to building types can be found. Table 2 suggests that at the provincial level unreinforced masonry buildings, with 75%, constitute the largest group. The intensity based vulnerability relationships based on Turkish damage data are used for the estimation of the building damages. The empirical vulnerability relationships for mid-rise RC framed buildings for the 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake damage distribution are based on Coburn and Spence [20] and are illustrated in Figure 4. Based on available empirical data, compilations from referenced works and engineering interpretations, the vulnerability curves for the general medium-rise (4-8 storey) RC frame type buildings in Turkey that were obtained by DEE-KOERI [21] are provided in Figure 5. Considering the damage level relations between low, medium and high rise R/C frame structures, the vulnerability curves for low-rise and high-rise RC frame type buildings are obtained by half a unit left shifting of the intensity scale in the horizontal axis of the vulnerability curves of the medium rise RC frame buildings. The vulnerability curves for masonry structures are assumed to be similar to the vulnerability curves of low-rise RC structures. The horizontal and vertical axes indicate the range of Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK) intensities and the percentage of loss for the five different damage grades, D1 through D5, as defined in European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) [22].

Figure 3. The sub-provinces of Van, Merkez being the administrative centre of the province, and the KOERI estimations for the grid-based total number of buildings in Van.

Table 2. Building stock information for Van Merkez Van (Total) Ercis Muradiye (Centre) 35,194 77,974 10,678 3,618 Number of Buildings 5% 12.7% 27% 5% Reinforced Concrete 82% 63% 81% Unreinforced 75% Masonry 9% Adobe 9.5% 8% 12% 4% Rubble Stone 2.8% 2% 2%

Edremit 20,121 51% 36% 12% 1%

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

145

M. B. Demircioglu et al.

Figure 4. The empirical vulnerability relationships for mid-rise R/C framed buildings obtained from 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake damage distribution.

Figure 5. The vulnerability curves for the general low-, mid- and high-rise R/C frame buildings and masonry buildings in Turkey. Thin lines refer to the vulnerability curves (D1 to D5) of mid-rise RC buildings, whereas bold lines refer to the vulnerability curves (D1 to D5) of lowrise and high-rise RC and all masonry buildings. In Figures 6 and 7, building damages as estimated by ELER software are presented. Figure 7 shows grid based, D3+D4+D5 (substantial to heavy damage + very heavy damage + destruction) type damages in the region. It is estimated that about 4,000 buildings (about 5-6 of the total number of buildings in Van province) may have received that type of damage (Figure 7a). The largest damage of this type is estimated in grid cells located in Van city centre and in the sub-provincial centre of Ercis. In Figure 7b, the percentage of estimated buildings in damage state D3+D4+D5 over the total number of buildings in each grid cell is shown. Figure 6 shows estimated, grid based, D1+D2 (slight-mainly non-structural damage + moderate damage) type damages in the region. It is estimated that about 10,000 buildings may have received moderate damage whereas about 24,500 buildings may have received slight damage. The distribution of the number of buildings in damage state D1 and D2 is given in Figure 6a. The percentage of this number to the total number of buildings in each grid cell is given in Figure 6b. On the basis of United Nation Situation Report No. 7 [23], Disaster and Emergency Management Agency of Turkey (AFAD) [24] declared that in the Province of Van 861 buildings collapsed (probably EMS-98 damage states: D4+D5) and 3713 buildings (5270 housing units) are damageduninhabitable (probably EMS-98 damage states: D2+D3). It is furthermore reported by AFAD that in the 23 October 2011 (Mw = 7.2) main shock, the numbers of heavily damaged and totally collapsed (D4+D5) buildings in Van and Ercis are, respectively, 36 (6 total collapse) and 1095 (65 total collapse).

146

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

Figure 6. Building damages estimated by ELER, damage type D1+D2. The number of damaged buildings in each grid is shown in the top figure. In the bottom figure grid based percentages of damaged buildings are presented.

Figure 7. Building damages estimated by ELER, damage type D3+D4+D5. The number of damaged buildings in each grid is shown in the top figure. In the bottom figure grid based percentages of damaged buildings are presented. As it can be assessed, the rapid estimations of building damage provided with ELER software are in agreement with the field observations. According to AFAD [24] the death and injury tolls were 604 (as of 5 November 2011) and 2,608 (as of 31 October 2011), respectively. For the intensity based building damage and casualty estimations in Turkey, based on the data form past earthquakes, the DEE-KOERI [21] methodology foresees the number of deaths be equal to the number of buildings with damages in D4 and D5 level. The number of hospitalized injuries is found

Figure 8. The fatality distribution estimated with ELER methodology.


NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

147

M. B. Demircioglu et al.

by multiplying the fatality figure by 4. This model has also been proven to be applicable in the recent Van earthquake and, as based on the ELER analysis, the estimated fatalities and hospitalized injuries were 710 and 2,840, respectively. The fatality distribution estimation by ELER is presented in Figure 8 . The rapid building and casualty estimations conducted with the ELER software found general acclaim as the real damage and casualty figures of the earthquake became available. The factors leading to the successful estimations of damages and casualties were the correct determination of the epicentral location, the use of ground motions prediction models that best fit the strong ground motion data in Turkey, and the use of geo-coded building and population inventories. Due to the proximity of the earthquake epicentre to one of the major cities in the region, rapid damage estimations were highly sensitive to correct determination of magnitude and hypocentral coordinates. 4. CONCLUSION

The software ELER can be applied in different regions with different seismic hazard levels and different building characteristics. Seismic loss estimation in terms of building damage and casualty can be calculated using the built-in methodologies and parameters in ELER once the input file for seismic hazard, building inventory and demographic data are provided for the region under consideration. In case of the Van earthquake, the building damage and casualty estimations are in good agreement with the figures announced by the government officials. Based on the other verification studies performed for recent events in Turkey, it can be deduced that the proposed methodology and parameters in ELER can be used in regional loss estimation applications. The ELER software is publicly available and can be downloaded from the web site of Bogazii University. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The development of ELER software was funded by the EU- FP6 NERIES project. The authors wish to thank Dr Domenico Giardini, Dr Torild van Eck, Dr Stefan Wiemer and the JRA3 working group of NERIES. The authors also would like to thank Dr Ufuk Hancilar, Dr Cem Yenidogan and Dr Can Zulfikar from the Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute for their help in the development of ELER. In addition, the authors are thankful to Prof Eser akti for the compilation of the damage database for two Van earthquakes. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] Giardini D, Bossu R, Eck TV, Wiemer S. Networking Research Infrastructures for Earthquake Seismology in Europe. Trans Amer Geophys Un 2008;89(24):219-229. NERIES- EC FP6 Project. Network of Research Infrastructures for European Seismology, 2007 (accessed on 15 January 2012). Available from http://www.neries-eu.org/. Erdik M, Cagnan Z, Zulfikar C, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Durukal E, Kariptas C. Development of Rapid Earthquake Loss Assessment Methodologies for Euro-Med Region. In: Proceedings of 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Beijing, China: 2008. p. S04-004. Erdik M, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu M, Hancilar U, Zulfikar C, Cakti E, Kamer Y, Yenidogan C, Tuzun C, Cagnan Z, Harmandar E. Rapid Earthquake Hazard and Loss Assessment for Euro-Mediterranean Region, Acta Geophy 2010;58(5):855-892. Hancilar U, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Erdik M. ELER software - A New Tool for Urban Earthquake Loss Assessment. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 2010;10(12):2677-2696. GEM-Global Earthquake Model. Uniform and Open Standards to Calculate and Communicate Earthquake Risk Worldwide, 2009 (accessed on 15 January 2012). Available from http://www.globalquakemodel.org/regional-programmes/middle-east/emme. Earthquake Model of the Middle East Region (EMME). Hazard, Risk Assessment, Economics & Mitigation, 2009 (accessed on 15 January 2012). Available from http://www.emme-gem.org. USGS PAGER. Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response, 2009 (accessed on 15 January 2012). Available from http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/pager/. Wald DJ, Worden BC, Quitoriano V, Pankow K. ShakeMap manual: technical manual, users guide, and software guide. United States Geological Survey (USGS), USA, 2005.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

148

[10] Allen TI, Wald DJ. Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions (Vs,30) and amplification around the globe. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 1357, 2007. [11] Demircioglu MB, Erdik M, Hancilar U, Sesetyan K, Tuzun C, Yenidogan C, Zulfikar AC. Technical manual-Earthquake loss estimation routine ELER-v2.0. Bogazici University, Department of Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, 2009. [12] Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S. Macroseismic and Mechanical Models for the Vulnerability and Damage Assessment of Current Buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 2006;4(4):415-443. [13] FEMA 1999. HAZUS earthquakes loss estimation methodology. US Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA, 1999. [14] FEMA 2003. HAZUS-MH risk assessment and user group series. US Federal Emergency Management Agency, USA, 2003. [15] ATC 40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, USA, 1996. [16] FEMA 440. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. US Federal Emergency Management Agency, Applied Technology Council, USA, Report No. 440, 2005. [17] Fajfar P. A Non Linear Analysis Method for Performance-Based Seismic Design. Earthq Spec 2000;16(3):573-591. [18] ASCE/SEI 41-06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. American Association of Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard No. ASCE/SEI 41-06, 2007. [19] Borcherdt RD. Estimates of Site-Dependent Response Spectra for Design (Method and Justification). Earthq Spec 1994;10(4):617-654. [20] Coburn A, Spence R. Earthquake protection. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., England, 2002. [21] DEE-KOERI. Earthquake risk assessment for the Istanbul metropolitan area. Report prepared by Department of Earthquake Engineering-Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Bogazici University Press, Istanbul, 2003. [22] Grnthal G (Editor). European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS 1998). Cahiers du Centre Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie. Conseil de l'Europe. Luxembourg, 1998. [23] UN Resident Coordinator. Turkey earthquake, UN Situation Report No. 7, 2011 (accessed on 15 January 2012). Available from http://reliefweb.int. [24] Disaster and Emergency Management Agency of Turkey (AFAD). Van Earthquake Report, 2011 (updated 5 November 2011; accessed on 15 January 2012). Available from http://www.afetacil.gov.tr.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH, THEMATIC ISSUE ON EARTHQUAKES, 2012

149

Вам также может понравиться