DEVELOPMENT OF HAZTURK AND APPLICATION IN ISTANBUL

Transcription

1 DEVELOPMENT OF HAZTURK AND APPLICATION IN ISTANBUL Himmet Karaman, PhD Assist. Prof. Istanbul Technical University Civil Engineering Faculty Department of Geomatics Engineering

2 Outline 2 Need for Loss Assessment in Istanbul Pilot Study Area Hazard Inventory Fragility Loss Assessment Comparisons Conclusions

3 Need for Loss Assessment in Istanbul 3 Due to the high earthquake risk in Istanbul, impact and loss assessment studies are needed Existing loss assessment tools are mostly proprietary, closed code, region-specific or all the above

4 4 Constrains for the Use of a Loss Assessment Software Difference in: Administrative units for aggregation Earthquake source and path features Vulnerability of the inventories Cost functions and other socio-economic parameters

5 Pilot Study: Zeytinburnu 5

6 Application for Istanbul 6 Istanbul Point Based Building Dataset

7 Available Data and Models 7 Available data and models from the previous studies for Istanbul and Marmara Region were researched. The main titles for the studies searched were; Hazard Fragility Inventory

8 Hazard Earthquakes since 1500 AD 8

9 Hazard Seismicity of the Region 9 The observations of Sato et al., (2004) imply that the MMF is the only active fault in this area. Their result supports the single localized active thoroughgoing right-lateral strike-slip fault system described by Le Pichon et al. (2001) in the western Sea of Marmara.

10 Hazard Most Possible Earthquake Scenario 10 According to JICA report, there are four different models based on the breaks on the fault line inside the Marmara Sea. Model A, is the break on the east side of the fault line. The length of this segment is 120 km and starts from the fault line, which was broken in 1999 earthquake. This model, is the most possible one among the 4 earthquake scenarios because of the direction of the seismic movement to west. Mw is expected to be 7.5

11 Hazard Main Marmara Fault Focal Mechanism 11 Event Number Average Average Average Strike Dip Rake No of Events latitude longtitude depth (º) (º) (º) (ºN) (ºE) (km) Sato et al., (2004)

12 Hazard Available Attenuation Relations for Marmara Region 12 Attenuation Relations Ground Motion Parameters Distance Type Kalkan & Gülkan (2004) PGA & PSA Joyner-Boore Özbey et al., (2004) PGA & SA Joyner-Boore Ulusay et al., (2004) PGA Epicentral Distance Boore et al., (1997) PGA & SA Joyner-Boore Sadigh et al., (1997) PGA & SA Joyner-Boore Spudich et al., (1999) PGA & PSV Joyner-Boore Boore and Atkinson (2006) PGA, PGV, PSA Joyner-Boore Campbell and Bozorgnia (2006) PGA, PGV, PGD, PSA, SD Rupture Distance Chiou and Youngs (2006) PSA & SA Rupture Distance

13 Hazard Effect of the Topography 13 Eurocode8 is used to determine the effect of the topography i H i 1 max F TOPO Istanbul slope map is used to calculate the amplification of the ground acceleration 1.4, i 30 max FTOPO 1.2, 15 i 30 1, H 30 m or i 15

14 Inventory Inventories 14 Inventory data describe the location and characteristics of the assets of interest to the decision-maker seeking the loss assessment results. JICA (2002) study building data Zeytinburnu Urban Transformation Project building data KOERI (2003) study building data IMM & IGDAS s Natural Gas Network data IMM Soil Type data based on NEHRP (1997) IMM Istanbul Geology Map JICA (2002) study Liquefaction Potential Map IMM DEM data

15 Inventory Data Classification 15 Dataset Data Format Extension Data Type Hazard Map ASCII Raster *.asc, *.txt ASCII Building ArcGIS Shape file *.shp Point Geology ArcGIS Shape file *.shp Polygon Topography ASCII Raster *.asc, *.txt ASCII Boundry ArcGIS Shape file *.shp Polygon Attenuation Table *.csv Table Fragility Table *.csv, *.xml Table, Code Others ArcGIS Shape file *.shp Line, Point, Polygon Mapping XML *.xml XML

16 Inventory Building Inventory (Zeytinburnu) 16 The building dataset contains records for 17,037 buildings. For buildings, the metadata required to describe the inventory are; location (latitude and longitude), structure type, year built, occupancy detail, occupancy type, building value, building content value, number of dwelling unit area, essential facilities, number of stories, HAZUS structure type

17 Inventory Building Inventory (Istanbul) 17 The building dataset for Istanbul includes point based buildings for whole Istanbul with structure types, number of storeys, occupation classes (1994 and 2000), construction year interval, foundation elevation of the building

18 Inventory Burried Pipeline Inventory 18 Pipe Type Joint Type Soil Type Diameter K cm Coefficient for Dimensionless Data

19 Fragility Fragility Relations 19 To evaluate the effect of ground shaking or ground displacements on the assets in the earthquake-prone area, fragility relationships are required. These are conditional probability functions that relate the severity of shaking to the probability of reaching or exceeding different levels of damage.

20 Fragility Fragility Curve 20 The fragility relationships for the study were specific to Turkey, not standard relationships that are used globally in some other software packages. The fragility relationships were integrated with cost functions so that the most probable damage state is translated to economic losses that can then be aggregated for any size geographical region. P(LS/PGA) Slight Moderate Extensive Complete PGA (g)

21 Fragility Comparison of Fragility Assessment Methods 21 Methods Empirical Judgmental Hybrid Effort Simple analytical model increasing time and computation effort Detailed analysis procedure Precision accuracy of the assessment Application building stock individual building (Jeong and Elnashai, 2006)

22 Fragility Parametrized Fragility Method 22 In this approach (Jeong and Elnashai, 2006) a set of fragility relationships with known reliability are derived based on the fundamental response quantities of stiffness, strength and ductility. A closed-form solution for a generalized single-degree-of-freedom system is employed to construct a response data base of coefficients describing commonly used lognormal fragility relationships. Once the three fundamental quantities of a wide range of structural systems are defined, the fragility relationships for various limit states can be constructed without recourse to further simulation. This approach is ideally suited to regional loss assessment since it provides completely consistent and uniformly reliable damage assessment. (Jeong and Elnashai, 2006)

23 Fragility Strong Ground Motion Database 23 For the fragility analysis 42 strong ground motion record were used. 16 of them were from the earthquakes occurred in Marmara Region 26 of them are from the earthquake occurred on the San Andreas Fault Zone

24 Fragility San Andreas & North Anatolian Faults 24

25 Fragility Selection of the Records 25 TR - Magnitude-Epicentral Distance TR - Magnitude-Soil Type Magnitude Magnitude Epicentral Distance Magnitude Magnitude Soil Type Epicentral Distance Soil Type (Vs30 m/ss) US - Magnitude-Epicentral Distance US - Magnitude-Soil Type Magnitude Soil Types Epicentral Distance 5.5 Magnitude Epicentral Distance Soil Type (Vs30 m/ss)

26 Fragility Comparison of Fragility Curves 26 0,2 sec Sa Sd (in) PGA (g) KOERI (2003) JICA (2002)

27 Loss Assessment General Frame of the HAZTURK 27

28 Mitigation Planning Preliminary Analyses Initial Scenario Definition Loss Assessment 28 Load Hazard Load Inventory Ground Shaking Ground Failure Load Vulnerability Functions Fragility Database Mapping (Inventory to Fragilities) Damage Ratios ( Expected Value ) As-built damage estimate As-built economic loss estimate Estimate costs to apply each level of retrofits Retrofit Cost Table Discount Rates, if applicable Damage estimate with retrofits Revise retrofits No Economic loss with retrofits Meets objectives and optimized? Benefit-Cost ratio Yes Report mitigation strategy and results

29 Loss Assessment Analyses 29 Scenario Earthquake Analyses Building Liquefaction Analysis Structural Damage Analyses Non-structural and Content Damage Analysis Economic Loss Analyses Retrofit Cost Estimation Analyses Repair Cost Analyses Cost Benefit Analyses Fiscal Impact Analyses Network Based Seismic Retrofitting Multi Attribute Utility Analysis Business Content Loss Business Interruption Loss Business Inventory Loss Household and Population Dislocation Short Term Shelter Needs GIS Analyses

30 Loss Assessment Creating the Hazard Map by using the Attenuation Relations 30

31 Loss Assessment Creating the Hazard Map by using the Attenuation Relations 31

32 Loss Assessment Building Damage 32

33 Loss Assessment Building Damage Map 33

34 Loss Assessment 3D Visualization of the Building Damage 34

35 Loss Assessment Reporting the Analyses Results 35

36 Loss Assessment 7.5 Mw - Building Damage Before Retrofit 36

37 Loss Assessment 7.5 Mw - Building Damage After Retrofit 37

38 Loss Assessment Detailed Building Damage Report 38

39 Loss Assessment 7.5 Mw Building Economic Loss Before Retrofit 39

40 Loss Assessment 7.5 Mw Building Economic Loss After Retrofit 40

41 Loss Assessment Building Retrofit Cost Estimate 41 Retrofit Analyses Results for the Buildings according to Building Codes of 1975 (tolow), 1998 (tomoderate) ve 2007 (tohigh)

42 Loss Assessment Building Damage Map for Istanbul 42

43 Loss Assessment 7.5 Mw - Building Damage Istanbul 43

44 Loss Assessment 7.5 Mw - Building Damage Istanbul 44

45 Loss Assessment Zeytinburnu District Natural Gas Pipeline Damage Analyses 45

46 Loss Assessment 46 Previous Loss Assessment Studies For Istanbul there are very few compairable studies on earthquake loss assessment. JICA (2002) KOERI (2003) IEMP (2003) Kucukcoban (2004) However, there are some minor studies for Zeytinburnu District. Yakut et al., (2004) Griffiths et al., (2007)

47 Comparison Comparison of the Analysis Results with the Previous Studies 47 Model District Building # Heavy Damage Moderate Damage Insignificant Damage sayı % sayı % sayı % A Zeytinburnu 15,573 2, , , C Zeytinburnu 15,573 3, , , A Istanbul 724,623 51, , , C Istanbul 724,623 59, , , Ratio to Zeytinburnu İstanbul İstanbul Building # % Heavy Damaged Bldg # % Heavy Damaged Bldg Ratio 13.22% 5.73% Table 1 Model A & C for Zeytinburnu & İstanbul Building Damage (JICA, 2002) Table 3 Zeytinburnu & İstanbul Heavy Damaged Building Ratio (İDMP, 2003) Mw=7.5 Building # Insignificant Moderate Heavy Collapsed Mean Damage Building # Sd Based 737,653 Collapsed # 59,176 % 8.0 Heavy Damaged # 128,047 % 17.4 Moderate Damaged # 195,097 % % 35.60% 16.40% 4.22% 18.55% Mw=7.7 Building # Insignificant Moderate Heavy Collapsed Mean Damage Table 2 İstanbul Damaged Building (KOERI, 2003) % 35.14% 30.59% 17.74% 38.32% Table 4 Zeytinburnu Building Damage Ratios (HAZTURK, 2007)

48 Comparison Comparison of the Mw 7.5 Earthquake Loss Assessments 48 HAZTURK Insignificant Moderate Heavy Complete Boore & Atkinson (2006) Ozbey et al., (2004) Boore et al., (1997) Kalkan & Gulkan (2004) JICA (2002) H+M+P H+M H H: Heavy M: Moderate P: Partially KOERI (2003) --- Moderate Heavy Complete --- Spectral Displacement Intensity Yakut et al., (2006) Low risk Mod. risk High risk IEMP (2003) Heavy Damaged Bld % Kucukcoban (2004) Insignificant Moderate Heavy JICA-Check JICA-New IBB-New

49 Comparison Comparison of the Mw 7.5 Earthquake Loss Assessments 49 HAZTURK Mw 7.7 Insignificant Moderate Heavy Complete Boore and Atkinson (2006) Boore et al., (1997) JICA (2002) Mw 7.7 H+M+P H+P H Boore et al., (1997)

50 Zeytinburnu District HAZTURK Building Damage Results Summary 50 Structure Type Mw=7.5 Mw=7.7 Building # Insignificant Moderate Heavy Collapsed Mean Damage Insignificant Moderate Heavy Collapsed Mean Damage C % 40.91% 12.19% 2.78% 15.77% 13.90% 41.07% 31.55% 13.48% 35.92% C % 37.55% 7.10% 2.00% 11.79% 21.14% 46.09% 23.60% 9.17% 28.48% C % 32.92% 25.36% 7.10% 25.61% 10.16% 22.38% 31.62% 35.85% 53.17% PC % 37.53% 20.89% 4.95% 21.94% 12.35% 32.39% 34.89% 20.36% 42.60% PC % 34.88% 19.12% 2.15% 18.08% 17.69% 33.62% 36.19% 12.49% 36.45% RM % 33.62% 17.68% 2.19% 17.14% 19.18% 34.24% 33.84% 12.74% 35.48% S % 33.39% 10.64% 2.86% 36.78% 17.29% 35.56% 32.15% 15.00% 36.78% S % 39.29% 28.70% 5.56% 48.20% 7.29% 27.93% 41.35% 23.43% 48.20% URM % 33.03% 24.19% 13.53% 52.59% 10.04% 24.19% 29.72% 36.06% 52.59% W % 40.37% 9.64% 3.87% 31.52% 18.62% 44.87% 23.97% 12.55% 31.52% W % 28.09% 4.90% 0.41% 20.31% 34.19% 44.19% 17.63% 4.00% 20.31% All Types % 35.60% 16.40% 4.22% 18.55% 16.53% 35.14% 30.59% 17.74% 38.32% Zeytinburnu District Building Damage Analysis Results from HAZTURK

51 Conclusions 51 According to the results the Unreinforced Masonry (URM) building type is the most vulnerable to earthquakes, with a complete damage ratio of 13.53%. The concrete frame structures with unreinforced masonry infills (C3) are found out to be the second most vulnerable building type in Zeytinburnu District with a 7.10% complete damage ratio. It is observed that buildings between 1 to 3 stories, suffer more damage than the rest of the building stock. In general, structures built before 1976 are more vulnerable (mean damage ratio of 40%) than those build after 1999 (mean damage ratio of 25%). In spite of the fact that there exist significant differences in terms of datasets and methodologies, comparable results with those from the previous studies are obtained here.

52 Conclusions 52 It is observed here that HAZTURK provides comparable building damage estimates with the previous studies. The differences can be explained by the difference of the data used in each study. HAZTURK is a rapid and reliable tool that can perform earthquake loss assessment analysis for large numbers of buildings by using several different scenarios and parameters. This software also includes several different attenuation relations for different types of seismic zones.

53 Thank you! 53