Bayesian Framework for Updating Seismic Loss Functions with Limited Observational Data in Low-to-Moderate Seismicity Regions

References

• Adhikari, R. K., and D. D’Ayala. 2020. 2015 Nepal earthquake: Seismic performance and post-earthquake reconstruction of stone in mud mortar masonry buildings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 18 (8): 3863–96. doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00834-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aslani, H., and E. Miranda, 2005. Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings, Report No. 157. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford, CA.
   Google Scholar
• ATC-13. 1985. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technical Council.
   Google Scholar
• Ayres, J. M., and T. Y. Sun. 1973. Nonstructural damage, The San Fernando, California earthquake of February 9, 1971. Washington, D.C: National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
   Google Scholar
• Ayres, J. M., T. Y. Sun, and F. R. Brown, 1967. A report on non-structural damage to building – Alaska Earthquake. Washington, D.C.
   Google Scholar
• Bai, J.-W., M. B. D. Hueste, and P. Gardoni. 2015. Seismic vulnerability assessment of tilt-up concrete structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 11 (9): 1131–46. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2014.938659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bai, J.-W., P. Gardoni, and M. B. D. Hueste. 2011. Story-specific demand models and seismic fragility estimates for multi-story buildings. Structural Safety 33 (1): 96–107. doi: 10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.09.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canuti, C., A. Dall’Asta, G. Leoni, and M. Morici, 2019b. Risk assessment of Camerino municipality: A case study of Vallicelle district. In: COMPDYN 2019-7th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Method in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Crete, Greece: National Technical University of Athens, 944–58.
   Google Scholar
• Canuti, C., S. Carbonari, A. Dall’Asta, L. Dezi, F. Gara, G. Leoni, M. Morici, E. Petrucci, A. Prota, and A. Zona. 2019a. Post-earthquake damage and vulnerability assessment of churches in the Marche region struck by the 2016 Central Italy seismic sequence. International Journal of Architectural Heritage 15 (7): 1000–21. doi: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1653403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardone, D., G. Perrone, and A. Flora. 2020. Displacement-based simplified seismic loss assessment of Pre-70S RC buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 24 (sup1): 82–113. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2020.1716890.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. J., J. H. Kim, I. Choi, and B. Gencturk. 2021. Experimental and numerical investigation of vertical through-plate for concrete-filled steel tube column to H-beam connections. Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 30 (4): e1831. doi: 10.1002/tal.1831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, S. H., and J. L. Beck. 2009. Bayesian model updating using hybrid Monte Carlo simulation with application to structural dynamic models with many uncertain parameters. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 135 (4): 243–55. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2009)135:4(243).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ching, J., J. L. Beck, and K. A. Porter, 2004. Application of Bayesian state estimation in real-time loss estimation of instrumented buildings. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, I., J. H. Kim, and H.-R. Kim. 2015. Composite behavior of insulated concrete sandwich wall panels subjected to wind pressure and suction. Materials 8 (3): 1264–82. doi: 10.3390/ma8031264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, I., J. H. Kim, J. Jang, H. Chang, and G. Kang. 2021. Composite effects on rotational constraints of a double-beam system reinforced with beam-end concrete. Engineering Structures 228: 111585. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, I., J. H. Kim, and Y.-C. You. 2016. Effect of cyclic loading on composite behavior of insulated concrete sandwich wall panels with GFRP shear connectors. Composites Part B: Engineering 96: 7–19. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.04.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, A. C., M. L. Sousa, A. Carvalho, and E. Coelho. 2010. Evaluation of seismic risk and mitigation strategies for the existing building stock: Application of LNECloss to the metropolitan area of Lisbon. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 8 (1): 119–34. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9160-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousineau, D., S. Brown, and A. Heathcote. 2004. Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: Methods and packages. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36 (4): 742–56. doi: 10.3758/BF03206555.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crowley, H., R. Pinho, M. Pagani, and N. Keller. 2013. Assessing global earthquake risks: The Global Earthquake Model (GEM) initiative. In Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems, edited by S. Tesfamariam, and K. Goda, 815–38. Sawston, ‎Cambridg: Woodhead Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• DeBock, D. J., and A. B. Liel. 2015. A comparative evaluation of probabilistic regional seismic loss assessment methods using scenario case studies. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 19 (6): 905–37. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2015.1015754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eguchi, R. T., J. D. Goltz, H. A. Seligson, P. J. Flores, N. C. Blais, T. H. Heaton, and E. Bortugno. 1997. Real-time loss estimation as an emergency response decision support system: The Early Post-Earthquake Damage Assessment Tool (EPEDAT). Earthquake Spectra 13 (4): 815–32. doi: 10.1193/1.1585982.
   Google Scholar
• Esmaili, O., L. Grant Ludwig, and F. Zareian. 2018. An applied method for general regional seismic loss assessment—With a case study in Los Angeles county. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 22 (9): 1569–89. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1284699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FEMA. 2003. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, Hazus-Mh 2.1 technical manual-earthquake model. Washington, DC, USA: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   Google Scholar
• FEMA. 2012. FEMA P-58: Next-generation seismic performance assessment for buildings, volume 1 – Methodology. Washington, D.C: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Giordano, N., F. De Luca, A. Sextos, F. Ramirez Cortes, C. Fonseca Ferreira, and J. Wu. 2020. Empirical seismic fragility models for Nepalese school buildings. Natural Hazards 105 (1): 1–24. 10.1007/s11069-020-04312–1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan, E. M., H. N. Mahmoud, and B. R. Ellingwood. 2020. Resilience of school systems following severe earthquakes. Earth’s Future 8 (10): 10. doi: 10.1029/2020EF001518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, N. L., S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan. 1994. Chapter 14, lognormal distributions. In Continuous univariate distributions, volume 1, edited by N. L. Johnson, S. Kotz, and N. Balakrishnan, 207–58. New York: Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Karaman, H., M. Şahin, A. S. Elnashai, and O. Pineda. 2008. Loss assessment study for the Zeytinburnu district of Istanbul using Maeviz-Istanbul (HAZTURK). Journal of Earthquake Engineering 12 (sup2): 187–98. doi: 10.1080/13632460802014030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koutsourelakis, P. S. 2010. Assessing structural vulnerability against earthquakes using multi-dimensional fragility surfaces: A Bayesian framework. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 25 (1): 49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.probengmech.2009.05.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreinovich, V., W. L. Oberkampf, L. Ginzburg, S. Ferson, and J. Hajagos. 2007. Experimental uncertainty estimation and statistics for data having interval uncertainty. Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA (United States): Sandia National Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, S., M. Choi, H. S. Lee, and M. Park. 2020. Bayesian network-based seismic damage estimation for power and potable water supply systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 197: 106796. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2020.106796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MathWorks. 2018. MATLAB. Natick, MA, USA: The MathWorks, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Miano, A., F. Jalayer, R. De Risi, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. 2016. Model updating and seismic loss assessment for a portfolio of bridges. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14 (3): 699–719. doi: 10.1007/s10518-015-9850-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MOIS. 2018. 2017 statistical yearbook of natural disaster (in Korean). Sejong-si, Korea: Ministry of the Interior and Safety.
   Google Scholar
• Muto, M., and J. L. Beck. 2008. Bayesian updating and model class selection for hysteretic structural models using stochastic simulation. Journal of Vibration and Control 14 (1–2): 7–34. doi: 10.1177/1077546307079400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muto, M., S. Krishnan, J. L. Beck, and J. Mitrani-Reiser, 2008. Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation. In: Life-Cycle Civil Engineering - Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, IALCCE ’08, Varenna, Lake Como, Italy, 215–20.
   Google Scholar
• Noh, H.-Y., A. Kiremidjian, L. Ceferino, and E. So. 2017. Bayesian updating of earthquake vulnerability functions with application to mortality rates. Earthquake Spectra 33 (3): 1173–89. doi: 10.1193/081216eqs133m.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrone, G., D. Cardone, G. J. O’Reilly, and T. J. Sullivan. 2019. Developing a direct approach for estimating expected annual losses of Italian buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1–32. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2019.1657988.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, K. 2010. Cracking an open safe: Uncertainty in HAZUS-based seismic vulnerability functions. Earthquake Spectra 26 (3): 893–900. doi: 10.1193/1.3459153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, K. A., and A. S. Kiremidjian, 2001. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its uses in seismic performance evaluation and risk management decision-making, Report No. 139. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, K. A., A. S. Kiremidjian, and J. S. LeGrue. 2001. Assembly-based vulnerability of buildings and its use in performance evaluation. Earthquake Spectra 17 (2): 291–312. doi: 10.1193/1.1586176.
   Google Scholar
• PPS. 2018. Analysis of construction expenses classified by public facilities (in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Public Procurement Service
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, C. M., and E. Miranda, 2009. Building-specific loss estimation methods & tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering, Report No. 171. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Stanford, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Rihal, S. 1994. Correlation between recorded building data and non-structural damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Sacramento, California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.
   Google Scholar
• Romero, D. Z., B. Akbas, J. Budiman, and J. Shen. 2020. Consideration of economic vulnerability in seismic performance evaluation of structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 18 (7): 3351–81. doi: 10.1007/s10518-020-00822-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, J., J. Kim, and K. Lee. 2014. Seismic assessment of damaged piloti-type RC building subjected to successive earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 43 (11): 1603–19. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinozuka, M., M. Q. Feng, H. Kim, T. Uzawa, and T. Ueda, 2001. Statistical analysis of fragility curves. Report No. MCEER-03-0002. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Singhal, A., and A. S. Kiremidjian. 1998. Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering 124 (8): 922–29. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:8(922).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, R., C. E. CHang, and S. E. Eguchi, 2001. Updating real-time earthquake loss estimates: Methods, problems and insights. Technical Report MCEER-01-0005, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
   Google Scholar
• Tubaldi, E., E. Ozer, J. Douglas, and P. Gehl. 2021. Examining the contribution of near real-time data for rapid seismic loss assessment of structures. Structural Health Monitoring 1–20. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1475921721996218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worden, C. B., E. M. Thompson, M. Hearne, and D. J. Wald. 2020. ShakeMap manual online: Technical manual, user’s guide, and software guide. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Z., X. Lu, X. Zeng, Y. Xu, and Y. Li. 2019. Seismic loss assessment for buildings with various-LOD BIM data. Advanced Engineering Informatics 39: 112–26. doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2018.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuen, K.-V., and S.-C. Kuok. 2011. Bayesian methods for updating dynamic models. Applied Mechanics Reviews 64 (1): 010802. doi: 10.1115/1.4004479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar