SELENA - An open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure

Computers and Geosciences

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 257-269

  Molina, S ^a,c   Lang, D H ^b,c   Lindholm, C D ^b,c  

^a Fase II   (Spain)

^b NORSAR   (Norway)

^c International Centre for Geohazards   (Norway)

Author keywords

Building damage; Capacity spectrum method; Casualties; Economic loss; Open source software; Seismic risk assessment

Indexed keywords

BUILDING DAMAGE; CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD; ECONOMIC LOSS; OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARES; SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DAMAGE DETECTION; EARTHQUAKES; EQUATIONS OF MOTION; ESTIMATION; GEOLOGIC MODELS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH RISKS; INPUT OUTPUT PROGRAMS; MATLAB; RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; WEB SERVICES;

RISK PERCEPTION;

DATA PROCESSING; DECISION MAKING; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EARTHQUAKE EVENT; ECONOMIC IMPACT; GROUND MOTION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; INJURY; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE; SPECTRAL ANALYSIS;

CALIFORNIA; SAN FERNANDO VALLEY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 75749131365     PISSN: 00983004     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2009.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Report ATC-40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, United States, 346 pp.
2. BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards), 2002. Indian Standard - Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 - General Provisions and Buildings (5th revision). IS 1893, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 39 pp.
3. Bommer J.J., Scherbaum F., Bungum H., Cotton F., Sabetta F., and Abrahamson N.A. On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95 2 (2005) 377-389
4. Campos Costa A., Sousa M.L., Carvalho A., and Coelho E. Seismic loss scenarios based on hazard disaggregation. Application to the metropolitan region of Lisbon, Portugal. In: Oliviera C.S., Goula X., and Roca A. (Eds). Assessing and Managing Earthquake Risk. Geo-scientific and Engineering Knowledge for Earthquake Risk Mitigation: Developments, Tools, Techniques (2006), Springer, Netherlands 449-462
5. CEN (European Committee for Standardization). prEN 1998-1:200X, Eurocode 8: Design for Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings (2002), Building Code, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium 224 pp
6. Coburn A., and Spence R. Earthquake Protection. Chicester. second ed. (2002), John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England 420 pp
7. Cornell C.A. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58 5 (1968) 1583-1606
8. Crowley H., Pinho R., and Bommer J. A probabilistic displacement-based vulnerability assessment procedure for earthquake loss estimation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2 (2004) 173-219
9. Dames & Moore, Inc., 1996. Earthquake loss estimation pilot study for the Portland Metropolitan Region. Report prepared for the National Institute of Building Sciences, 79 pp.
10. Davis, J.F., Bennett, J.H., Borchardt, G.A., Kahle, J.E., Rice, S.J., Silva, M.A., 1982a. Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in southern California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 60, 128 pp.
11. Davis, J.F., Bennett, J.H., Borchardt, G.A., Kahle, J.E., Rice, S.J., Silva, M.A., 1982b. Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in the San Francisco Bay area. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 61, 160 pp.
12. Eguchi R.T., Goltz J.D., Seligson H.A., Flores P.J., Heaton T.H., and Bortugno E. Real-time loss estimation as an emergency response decision support system: the early post-earthquake damage assessment tool (EPEDAT). Earthquake Spectra 13 (1997) 815-832
13. EQE International, Inc., 1997. Second pilot test study of the standardized nationally applicable loss estimation methodology, Boston, Massachusetts. Report prepared for the National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC, 120 pp.
14. Erdik, M., Aydinoǧlu, N., 2002. Earthquake risk to buildings in Istanbul and a proposal towards its mitigation. In: Proceedings of the Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting on Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Megacity Vulnerability and Resilience, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1-10.
15. ESRI, 2004. ArcGIS 9 - what is ArcGIS? Report of ESRI, Redlands, United States. URL: 〈http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/what_is_arcgis.pdf〉 (accessed 15.10.09).
16. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1985. An assessment of damage and casualties for six cities in the Central United States resulting from earthquakes in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Report of the Central United States Earthquake Preparedness Project (CUSEPP), Washington, DC, United States, pp. 1-4.
17. Federal Emergency Managemet Agency (FEMA), 1996. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273. Report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 435 pp.
18. ®97 Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, User Manual (1997), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States 197 pp
19. ®99 Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, User Manual (1999), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States 314 pp
20. ®99-SR1 estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States (FEMA 366). Report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 33 pp.
21. ®99-SR2 (Service Release 2). Technical Manual (2002), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), Washington, DC 708 pp
22. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2004. Using HAZUS-MH for risk assessment (FEMA 433). Report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 224 pp.
23. ®MH MR1: Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Maintenance Release 1 (MR1), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States. Available from: 〈http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/hz_patches.shtm#6〉 (accessed 15.01.05).
24. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2005b. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures (FEMA 440). Report prepared by Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project) for Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 392 pp.
25. ®MH MR2: Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Maintenance Release 2 (MR2). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States. Available from: 〈http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2896〉 (accessed 03.11.09).
26. ®MH MR3: Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Maintenance Release 3 (MR3) (2007), Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC, United States 699 pp
27. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. HAZUS-MH Estimated annualized earthquake losses for the United States (FEMA 366). Report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 66 pp.
28. Hansen, R., Bausch, D., 2006. A GIS-based methodology for exporting the Hazards US (HAZUS) earthquake model for global applications. In: Proceedings of the Earthquake Workshop, Malta, 64 pp. Available from: 〈http://www.usehazus.com/docs/gis_global_hazus_paper.pdf〉 (accessed 1510.09).
29. Harlan, M.R., Lindbergh, C., 1988. An earthquake vulnerability analysis of the Charleston, South Carolina Area. Report CE-88-1, Department of Civil Engineering, The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina, United States, 633 pp.
30. International Code Council (ICC), 2006. 2006 International Building Code (IBC-2006). Building code, International Code Council, United States, 664 pp.
31. Kircher C.A. Earthquake loss estimation methods for welded steel moment-frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra 19 2 (2003) 365-384
32. Kircher C.A., Seligson H.A., Bouabid J., and Morrow G.C. When the big one strikes again - estimated losses due to a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 22 S2 (2006) S297-S339
33. Lang, D.H., Gutiérrez Corea, F.V., Lindholm, C.D., 2009. RISe - Risk Illustrator for SELENA - User Manual v2.0. NORSAR, Kjeller, Norway, 24 pp. URL: 〈http://www.norsar.no/pc-62-68-RISe---Risk-Illustrator-for-SELENA-.aspx〉 (accessed 15.10.09).
34. Lang, D.H., Gutiérrez Corea, F.V. 2010 RISe: illustrating geo-referenced data of seismic risk and loss assessment studies using Google Earth. Earthquake Spectra 26(1), February 2010 15 pp., in press.
35. Lang D.H., Molina S., and Lindholm C.D. Towards near-real-time damage estimation using a CSM-based tool for seismic risk assessment. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12 S2 (2008) 199-210
36. Luco, N., 2007. Modeling vulnerability, e.g., for residential risk - 'ResRisk'. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Open-Source Risk Software, Pasadena, CA, United States. Available from: 〈http://www.risk-agora.org〉 (accessed 03.11.09).
37. McGuire, R.K., 2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERI Publication No. MNO-10, Oakland, CA, United States, 221 pp.
38. Mitrani-Reiser, J., 2007. An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory Technical Report EERL 2007-01, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, United States, 175 pp.
39. Molina, S., Lang, D.H., Lindholm, C.D., 2009. SELENA v4.1 - User and Technical Manual v4.1. NORSAR, Kjeller, Norway, 85 pp. URL: 〈http://www.norsar.no/c-144-SELENA.aspx〉 (accessed 15.10.09).
40. Molina S., and Lindholm C.D. A logic tree extension of the capacity spectrum method developed to estimate seismic risk in Oslo, Norway. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9 6 (2005) 877-897
41. Muto, M., Krishnan, S., Beck, J. L., Mitrani-Reiser, J., 2008. Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Life-cycle Civil Engineering, Varenna, Lake Como, Italy, pp. 215-232.
42. Naeim, F., Alimoradi, A., Hagie, S., Comartin, C., 2007. PACT - Performance Assessment Calculation Tool - User Guide for Beta Version 1.0, May 27, 2007. ATC-58 Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Report prepared for Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, United States, 29 pp.
43. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1973. A study of earthquake losses in the Los Angeles, California area. Report prepared for the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development by NOAA, Washington, DC, 331 pp.
44. Nielson B.G., and DesRoches R. Analytical seismic fragility curves for typical bridges in the central and southeastern United States. Earthquake Spectra 23 3 (2007) 615-633
45. In: Oliveira C.S., Roca A., and Goula X. (Eds) (2006), Springer, Netherlands 543 pp
46. Porter, K.A., Kiremidjian, A.S., 2001. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its uses in seismic performance evaluation and risk-management decision-making, Report 139. Report of the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford, CA, United States, 196 pp.
47. Reichle, M.S., Kahle, J.E., Atkinson, T.G., Johnson, E.H., Olson, R.A., Lagorio, H.J., Steinbrugge, K.V., Clue, L.S., Haney, T.P., Powers, J.E., 1990. Planning scenario for a major earthquake: San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 100, 182 pp.
48. Rojahn C., King S., Scholl R., Kiremidjian A., Reaveley L., and Wilson R. Earthquake damage and loss estimation methodology and data for Salt Lake County, Utah (ATC-36). Earthquake Spectra 13 4 (1997) 623-642
49. Rojas H.A., Pezeshk S., and Foley C.M. Performance-based optimization considered both structural and non-structural components. Earthquake Spectra 23 3 (2007) 685-709
50. Scherbaum F., Bommer J.J., Bungum H., Cotton F., and Abrahamson N.A. Composite ground-motion models and logic trees: methodology, sensitivities and uncertainties. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95 5 (2005) 1575-1593
51. Spencer, B., Elnashai, A., Myers, J., Hampton, S., 2008. MAEviz Overview. Mid-America Earthquake Center, Urbana, IL, USA. URL: 〈http://mae.cee.uiuc.edu/software_and_tools/maeviz.html〉 (accessed 15.10.09).
52. Steinbrugge, K.V., Bennett, J.H., Lagorio, H.J., Davis, J.F., Borchardt, G.A., Toppozada, T.R., Degenkolb, H.J., Laverty, G.L., McCarty, J.E., 1987. Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 78, 243 pp.
53. Toppozada, T.R., Bennett, J.H., Borchardt, G.A., Saul, R., Davis, J.F., 1988. Planning scenario for a major earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 99, 197 pp.
54. Toppozada, T.R., Borchardt, G.A., Haydon, W., Petersen, M., Olson, R., Lagorio, H., Anvik, T., 1995. Planning scenario in Humboldt and Del Norte counties, California, for a great earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 115, 159 pp.
55. Webb, T.M., 1999. NHEMATIS: Project overview and future framework. Report of the Nobility Environmental Software Systems Inc., Vancouver, BC for Emergency Preparedness Canada, 23 pp.
56. Wong I., Bouabid J., Graf W., Huyck C., Porush A., Silva W., Siegel T., Bureau G., Eguchi R., and Knight J. Potential losses in a repeat of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 21 4 (2005) 1157-1184
57. Wyss, M., 2005. Earthquake loss estimates applied in real time and to megacity risk assessment. In: Carle, B., Van de Walle, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International ISCRAM Conference, Brussels, Belgium, pp. 297-299.