report!on!the!sara!exposure!and! vulnerability!workshop!in!medellin...
TRANSCRIPT
Version 1.0 – May 2014
Report on the SARA Exposure and Vulnerability Workshop in Medellin, Colombia.
Report produced in the context of the GEM South America integrated Risk Assessment (SARA) project
The GEM-‐SARA Exposure and Seismic Vulnerability Modelling Workshop was carried out in the city of Medellin, Colombia during the 12th and the 14th of March 2014. The following participants attended the event:
Adriana Ayala University of Loja, Quito – Ecuador Ana Beatriz Acevedo EAFIT University, Medellin -‐ Colombia Astrid Milena González Zapata Suramericana, Medellin – Colombia Bladimir García Mesa Suramericana, Medellin – Colombia Carlos Villacis Global Earthquake Model Foundation, Pavia -‐ Italy Catalina Yepes Global Earthquake Model Foundation, Pavia – Italy Fabricio Yépez University of San Francisco of Quito, Quito – Ecuador Fernando Alexis Osorio EAFIT University, Medellin -‐ Colombia Gloria Estrada Suramericana, Medellin – Colombia Helen Crowley Global Earthquake Model Foundation, Pavia – Italy Hernán Santamaría CIGIDEN, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago – Chile
Jairo Valcárcel GEM Foundation, Bogota – Colombia José Gregorio Rengel FUNVISIS, Caracas – Venezuela Juan Diego Jaramillo EAFIT University, Medellin -‐ Colombia Miguel Estrada CISMID, Lima – Peru Ricardo Peñaherrera León Metropolitan District of Quito, Quito – Ecuador Romme Rojas FUNVISIS, Caracas – Venezuela Sahar Safaie GEM Foundation, Guatemala City – Guatemala Santiago Victoria Suramericana, Medellin – Colombia Víctor Hugo Ángel Marulanda Suramericana, Medellin – Colombia Vitor Silva Global Earthquake Model Foundation, Pavia – Italy
Report on the SARA Exposure and Vulnerability Workshop in Medellin, Colombia
Report produced in the context of the GEM South America integrated Risk Assessment (SARA) project
Copyright © 2014 Authors. Except where otherwise noted, this work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons license CC BY 3.0 Unported
The views and interpretations in this document are those of the individual author(s) and should not be attributed to the GEM Foundation. With them also lies the responsibility for the scientific and technical data presented. The authors do not guarantee that the information in this report is completely accurate.
www.globalquakemodel.org
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1 SARA EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY WORKSHOP ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background to the SARA Exposure and Vulnerability Workshop .................................................... 1
1.2 Agenda of the SARA Exposure and Vulnerability Workshop ........................................................... 3
2 CURRENT STATUS ON SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND EXPOSURE IN THE REGION ................................... 4
2.1 Regional initiatives and projects ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2 National experiences ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Chile ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Colombia ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Ecuador .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.4 Peru ........................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.5 Venezuela .............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Summary of main gaps and needs on exposure and vulnerability modelling ............................... 10
2.3.1 Exposure databases ............................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2 Vulnerability modelling ........................................................................................................ 11
2.3.3 Main gaps and needs ........................................................................................................... 12
2.3.4 Potential contributions ........................................................................................................ 13
3 FUTURE SARA ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AMERICA ...................................................................................... 14
3.1 Modelling exposure and seismic vulnerability at the national and subnational scale .................. 14
3.1.1 Department of Antioquia, Colombia .................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Chile ..................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 City scenarios ................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.1 Quito .................................................................................................................................... 19
4 EXPOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 Exposure working session .............................................................................................................. 22
4.1.1 Comparison of results .......................................................................................................... 25
5 ACHIEVEMENTS AND MOVING FORWARD ............................................................................................ 31
5.1 Achievements ................................................................................................................................ 31
5.2 Moving forward ............................................................................................................................. 32
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................ 40
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................................ 41
1
1 SARA EXPOSURE AND VULNERABILITY WORKSHOP
1.1 Background to the SARA Exposure and Vulnerability Workshop
The “South America integrated Risk Assessment” (SARA) project started in January 2013, and it has been promoted since then by the GEM Foundation with support from the Swiss Re Foundation. The aim of the project is to accomplish an integrated and collaborative assessment of seismic risk in South America. To achieve this, unified regional seismic hazard model as well as exposure and physical vulnerability models for residential buildings at regional, national and sub-‐national levels will be created. The construction of these models is facilitated through the tools and methodologies developed within the GEM initiative.
One of the most important principles of the project is to involve the scientific community in South America for the development of the models. Discussion regarding the current status on assessing seismic risk has been needed in order to identify gaps and potential ways to contribute to the improvement of earthquake loss estimates. Therefore, in December 2013 a group of experts from South America worked together in Bogotá (Colombia) in a workshop dedicated to the development of a regional seismic hazard model. Moreover, a workshop on exposure and seismic vulnerability modelling was carried out in Medellin (Colombia), from the 12th to the 14th of March 2014, in which a description of experiences, ongoing projects, strategies to develop robust inventory databases, and physical vulnerability models of existing buildings were discussed.
The present report provides a unified documentation on the activities and topics discussed during this latter workshop, along with the activities that are ongoing in each country inside the regional programme. So far, there are three active regional working groups: Colombia, Chile and Ecuador. In addition, there have been interactions with researchers from Peru and Venezuela, and it is expected to have their participation in the near future. The majority of the documents and presentations produced during the workshop can be found in the GEM NEXUS webpage1.
It is worth mentioning that the workshop was the first meeting for the participants within the regional project concerning the risk component (though previous GEM workshops on hazard and risk had been held in the region in 2011 in order to identify potential partnerships and plan the activities of the SARA project). The participants had the opportunity to share their experiences and expectations on modelling exposure and physical vulnerability in the region.
The workshop was intended for the discussion of the following topics:
• Review and discussion of current experiences in developing exposure databases and seismic fragility/vulnerability functions for buildings in South America.
1 http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/gem-‐south-‐america/files/
• Review and discussion of tools and methodologies developed within GEM for exposure and fragility/vulnerability modelling.
• Presentation of cases studies in South America at the national, subnational and local level.
Section 1.2 illustrates the agenda of the workshop, which was divided into five sessions. During the first one, a brief description of the GEM initiatives and regional activities in South America was provided, in addition to the hazard component of the SARA project. In the second session, the local experts from the five participating countries (Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela and Peru) presented the current status on exposure, vulnerability and risk modelling of each country (a summary of this information is provided in Chapter 2. In the following two sessions, GEM tools for modelling exposure were presented (GED4GEM, TaxT, Inventory Data Capture Tools), as well as methodologies for developing vulnerability/fragility functions. Regarding the exposure part, a working session was performed in order to describe and identify residential building typologies in the region and their building fractions for urban and rural areas. A summary of the results of this working session is presented in Chapter 4. The final session was about the activities that each working group will accomplish during the course of the SARA project, as described in Chapter 3.
3
1.2 Agenda of the SARA Exposure and Vulnerability Workshop
GEM-SARA Exposure and Seismic Vulnerability Modelling Workshop 12th-14th March 2014
Page 2 of 2
Wednesday, 12 March – Status update (Chair: Helen Crowley)
9:00 - 9 :15 Welcome Suramericana - Gloria Estrada
9:15 - 9 :45 GEM initiative and regional activities in South America - Helen Crowley
9:45 - 10:00 GEM SARA project: hazard component – Vitor Silva
10:00 - 10:30 Current status on exposure, vulnerability and risk modeling in Colombia - Ana Acevedo
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break
11:00 - 11:30 Current status on exposure, vulnerability and risk modeling in Chile - Hernán Santamaría
11:30 - 12:00 Current status on exposure, vulnerability and risk modeling in Venezuela - José Gregorio Rengel
12:00 - 12:30 Current status on exposure, vulnerability and risk modeling in Ecuador - Fabricio Yépez
12:30-14:00 Lunch
14:00-14:30 Presentation of OpenQuake-engine - Vitor Silva
14:30-15:30 Example of earthquake loss estimation and seismic risk assessment (Peru) - Catalina Yepes
15:30 - 16:00 Socio-economic indicators and integrated risk in the SARA project - Jairo Valcárcel
16:00 - 16:30 Coffee break
16:30 - 17:30 Moving forward: How can the current seismic risk assessment in South America be improved?
Thursday, 13 March - Exposure (Chair: Vitor Silva)
9:00 - 9:30 Current status on exposure, vulnerability and risk modeling in Peru - Miguel Estrada
9:30 - 10:30 GEM Building taxonomy - Catalina Yepes
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break
11:00 - 12:00 Presentation of GEM exposure tools (Android tool, SIDD, Windows tool) - Catalina Yepes
12:00 - 14:00 Lunch
14:00 – 16:00 Exposure working session (Vitor Silva, Catalina Yepes)
14:00 -15:30 Creation of TaxT reports and estimation of building distribution for each country
15:30 16:00 Share and analysis of results
16:00 - 16:30 Coffee break
16:30 - 17:00 Development of exposure models using Census or GED4GEM - Vitor Silva
17:00 - 17:30 Scope and limitations of available exposure databases and potential uses - Jairo Valcárcel
19:30 – 22:00 Dinner together
Friday, 14 March - Seismic Vulnerability and Risk (Chair: Vitor Silva)
9:00 - 9:15 Welcome to EAFIT - Ana Acevedo
9:15 - 10:00 Physical Fragility and Vulnerability on OpenQuake - Vitor Silva
10:00 - 10:30 Global vulnerability database and Fragility Function Manager - Catalina Yepes
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break
11:00 - 11:30 Development of analytical fragility/vulnerability functions - Catalina Yepes
11:30 - 12:00 Development of empirical fragility/vulnerability functions - Catalina Yepes
12:00 - 14:00 Lunch
14:00 - 14:30 Case study: Exposure and vulnerability modelling in Antioquia (Ana Beatriz Acevedo and Juan Diego Jaramillo)
14:30 - 15:00 Case study: Development of city scenarios: Quito - Fabricio Yépez
15:00 - 15:30 Case study: Exposure and vulnerability modelling in Chile - Hernán Santamaría 15:30 - 16:00 Discussion: Available vulnerability/fragility functions and scope and limitations of current
practices in vulnerability modelling in South America 16:00 - 16:30 Coffee break 16:30 - 17:30 Moving forward: planning of the activities
2 CURRENT STATUS ON SEISMIC VULNERABILITY AND EXPOSURE IN THE REGION
In South America several projects have been developed in order to evaluate earthquake losses. These studies have been conducted at different geographical scales (regional assessments, country profiles and city scenarios) and they were focused mainly on the assessment of seismic vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure. This section describes some of those experiences in terms of the methodologies and data used, and the potential uses of such analyses. The studies include a sample of the work published in technical reports, conference proceedings or peer-‐reviewed journals. The update of this summary should be performed periodically, and it should include the participation of the community of experts in South America.
2.1 Regional initiatives and projects
At regional level, the Inter-‐American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank (WB) and the International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ISDR) have promoted the evaluation of expected losses by programs such as the Systems of Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management (Cardona et al. 2003, Ordaz and Yamín, 2004). These studies provided rough estimates at the country level for specific return periods, and they were based on approximated exposure models, along with vulnerability functions derived from expert opinion and simplified models for assessing probable maximum losses.
In addition, the development of the platform “Comprehensive Approach for Probabilistic Risk Assessment-‐CAPRA”2 (Cardona et al. 2010) has been promoted by the World Bank and has been used for the recent reports of the Global Assessment (ERN 2011, CIMNE 2013). By using CAPRA, several country profiles (i.e. Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru) and case studies have been developed in Latin America for risk mitigation and risk transfer purposes. At regional scale, a retrofitting benefit cost analysis for school buildings was carried out by Valcárcel et al. (2013).
Moreover, earthquake losses for South American Andean capital cities have been estimated and compared by Vaziri et al. (2012). The exposure datasets were derived from census data, surveys, expert opinion of local institutes and satellite imagery. Both seismic hazard and building vulnerability were evaluated in terms of Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI). On this basis, loss exceedance curves were obtained for Santiago (Chile), Quito (Ecuador) and Lima (Peru).
Regarding vulnerability reduction, in the framework of the project “Adobe” leaded by the Regional Centre of Seismology in South America (Centro Regional de Sismología para América del Sur -‐ CERESIS),
2 http://www.ecapra.org/
5
guidelines for retrofitting adobe houses have been produced. These techniques have been applied in pilot cases in Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela3.
2.2 National experiences
The following sections describe the experiences in seismic risk assessment in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, taking into account the information provided by the participants of the workshop and a survey of the state-‐of-‐the-‐art in the region.
2.2.1 Chile
In Chile, seismic performance and vulnerability analysis of different building typologies and structures, as well as damage scenarios of various cities (Arica, Antofagasta and Copiapo) have been developed. For masonry buildings, Román (2009) applied simplified vulnerability indices in a sample of buildings and compared the results of expected damage with those found in the earthquake consequence databases of three different events. Additionally, Silva (2011) used a wall density index in order to evaluate the physical fragility of buildings of social interest housing programs in the metropolitan region, and to estimate the expected losses for specific events and for earthquakes with ground motions with a 475 years return period.
For reinforced concrete frames and shear wall buildings with different heights in the city of Valdivia, Martinez (2012) obtained capacity curves by using static nonlinear analysis, and the performance point of the structure was estimated through the capacity spectrum method (ATC-‐40, 1996) and vulnerability functions were derived following the guidelines of the RISK UE project (Milutinovic & Trendafiloski 2003). Using a similar procedure, Aburto (2013) developed a fragility function for a specific bridge.
Regarding seismic risk assessment, Fisher et al. (2002) presented a framework to estimate losses for individual buildings according to the following steps: i) characterization of ground motion, ii) construction of the building model, iii) evaluation of the inelastic building response, iv) structural damage assessment, and v) risk evaluation. In addition, a damage assessment of buildings in northern Chilean cities was presented by Tapia et al. (2002), using the tool RADIUS (Risk Assessment Tool for Diagnosis of Urban Areas Against Seismic Disasters). In this work, an exposure database was constructed with field surveys and census data, and the main building typologies were identified at block level. For each building type, a vulnerability function was considered, describing the expected damage in terms of MMI. These vulnerability functions were derived using the damage observed after the Algarrobo earthquake of March 3rd (1985) that occurred off the coast of central Chile. Moreover, since 2011 the Security and Insurance Commission, in collaboration with the Association of Insurers of Chile have been working in the development of a model for assessing seismic and tsunami maximum probable losses in the country for insurance purposes (SVS 2013).
2.2.2 Colombia
In Colombia there are several efforts for assessing earthquake losses at country and city levels that have been used for the analysis of risk reduction programs, definition of emergency plans and risk transfer. At
3 See: http://www.ceresis.org/proyect/padobe.htm
national scale, ERN (2004a) presented a seismic risk assessment of public buildings and low income households in order to identify risk financing mechanisms. In this study, a proxy model of the built area was used taking into account census data, indices of built area per inhabitants and the average building value per square meter. The building typologies were described according to expert opinion, and vulnerability functions were derived following the methodologies suggested by Ordaz (2000) and Miranda (1999), in which the expected losses are obtained as function of the building’s spectral acceleration at the fundamental period.
At local scale, seismic microzonation studies have been developed for the main cities of the country, which are located in areas of medium or high seismic hazard: Bogotá (Cardona and Yamín 1997; CEDERI 2006), Manizales (CIMOC 2002), Bucaramanga (INGEOMINAS-‐CDMB 2002), Medellin (Consortia Microzonificación 2006), Cali and intermediate cities (CEDERI 2005c). Some of these studies have also been used for the evaluation of earthquake losses.
In the case of Bogota, Cardona & Yamín (1997) adopted vulnerability functions from the ATC-‐13 report (ATC 1985) in order to evaluate building damage. Also, seismic scenarios were performed in order to define emergency management activities of the city, based on the estimation of injuries, casualties, homeless population and debris, among other results of interest (CEDERI 2005a). The previous study created a building inventory based on cadastral data, and the building stock was classified into structural typologies taking into account features such as the occupancy, the socioeconomic conditions and the number of floors.
Additionally, a study on the seismic risk of essential facilities in Bogota (CEDERI 2005 b) was useful for defining risk mitigation programs and for the evaluation of retrofitting alternatives. In this case, the building inventory was created using the building information available for essential facilities related to health, education and police stations, among others. Moreover, studies on the evaluation of financial instruments and risk transfer mechanisms were performed for public and private buildings in Manizales and Bogotá (ERN 2004b, ERN 2006). In the aforementioned studies, the vulnerability of the building stock was also defined following the methodologies suggested by Ordaz (2000) and Miranda (1999). Lastly, another interesting study carried out by Salgado et al. (2013), which presents the variations in the seismic risk of Bogotá and Manizales when considering different tectonic models. A summary of the objectives and results of the different seismic risk assessments in Bogotá was presented by Yamín et al. (2013).
In the case of the city of Medellin, three main studies have been developed for seismic microzonation and loss assessment. In the work developed by the municipality of Medellin (Municipio de Medellín, 1994), the losses were estimated for specific earthquakes defined by their magnitude. The peak ground acceleration at the location of the buildings was estimated using ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) taking into account the properties of the seismic sources (location, depth, azimuth and rupture laws). In addition, the Fourier amplitude spectra on bedrock were obtained and soil transfer functions were used in order to estimate the amplified acceleration response spectra.
The exposure model in the previous study was built based on information regarding the construction density, socioeconomic conditions and land or building occupancy. The height of the buildings and material of construction were obtained using aerial imagery. Vulnerability functions were defined in terms of the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period, taking into account correction factors
7
associated to the socioeconomic strata, age and occupancy of buildings, as well as the weight of the roof. The evaluation of loss exceedance curves, annual average losses and probable maximum losses for given return periods was conducted using the PERCAL methodology (Jaramillo, 1997).
On the other hand, Consorcio Microzonificación (2006) presented a seismic microzonation and a seismic risk assessment of Medellin and its surrounding municipalities. In this study, the exposure model was created at the level of blocks, and the geographical distribution of building typologies was developed using aerial imagery, field surveys and data collection for specific areas. Fragility functions were derived in terms of the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period and considering the interstorey drift as the engineering demand parameter. Losses have been calculated through the employment of the software IE-‐RISS (Estrada and Jaramillo, 2002).
In Salgado-‐Gálvez et al. (2014), risk estimates for Medellin were calculated using the most recent seismic hazard model for Colombia, and spectral transfer functions for each region defined in the seismic microzonation were also used, in order to consider the dynamic soil response and site effects. The exposure model was derived from the cadastral database that includes data about the number of stories and building age, and a classification based on the usage and socio-‐economic level. Moreover, buildings have been classified in different structural typologies and vulnerability functions were developed following the methodologies suggested by Ordaz (2000) and Miranda (1999). Using the platform CAPRA, loss exceedance curves for the city and probable maximum losses aggregated by county and structural typology were calculated.
2.2.3 Ecuador
In Ecuador, the most representative studies have been developed for the main cities of the country, focusing in the analysis of seismic scenarios as well as risk estimates of buildings and lifelines. In this regard, in 1995, the Project “Escenario Sísmico de Quito” was developed with the lead of the local government and the participation of various national and international institutions. In this study, the damage in buildings, roads, components of the water supply system, power networks and sewers was estimated due to the occurrence of likely seismic events (Chatelain et al, 1999; Yépez 2001).
The building inventory was developed for Quito taking into account the 1990 census data. It was developed at the level of blocks (around 11,200) and the buildings were classified into structural typologies according to the predominant material of construction and the structural system (Yépez 2001).
Regarding the structural vulnerability, the representative buildings of each typology were evaluated according to the ATC-‐22 (Applied Technology Council, 1989) recommendations. Also, four adobe structures located in the old part of the city were analysed, mainly under shear conditions. Special structures such as hospitals, schools, industrial facilities, as well as the sewage system, water reservoir tanks, transmission towers, gas and oil stations near the city, and the airport were inspected individually with higher scrutiny.
In this project, the ground shaking was described in terms of the MMI scale and the expected building damage was estimated using the damage probability matrix method provided by the ATC-‐13 (1985). The seismic hazard analysis and results of microzonation studies, as well as the exposure, damage
probability matrices and procedures for assessing damage and losses were incorporated in a software (RISMIC) developed by the university “Escuela Politécnica Nacional”.
Another study, “The Quito School Safety Project” included the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of schools, the design retrofitting interventions, and the application of those techniques to a sample of buildings. The priority of the buildings was assigned according to the number of occupants and simplified analysis of the seismic vulnerability using the methodologies suggested by the ATC-‐13 (1985) guidelines. Finally, detailed models were developed for a reduced sample of structures (see GeoHazards International, 1995).
Further studies have been developed for the seismic risk of lifelines. Assessments of the expected damage of bridges were performed by Atiaga and Demoraes (2003), through the application of the methodology suggested by HAZUS (FEMA 1999). In addition, an updated seismic risk assessment of the sewer system of Quito was performed using the platform CAPRA4.
Finally, damage scenarios have also been developed for the city of Cuenca (Universidad de Cuenca, 2001). In this study, a survey with 2200 sample buildings was carried out in order to identify the different building typologies. A vulnerability index (GNDT 1993) was adopted in order to score the fragility of buildings. Finally, vulnerability functions were derived for different building typologies, in which the expected damage is represented by a vulnerability index as a function of the peak ground acceleration (PGA).
2.2.4 Peru
Several studies have been performed for the assessment of seismic hazard, vulnerability and risk at different geographical scales. With the support of the World Bank, a project for an open seismic hazard model for Peru, as well as catastrophic profiles for the country have been developed using the CAPRA platform.
Particular interest has been devoted to the analysis of the seismic risk of Lima. In this regard, likely earthquake scenarios were defined in Pulido et al. (2012). Alva-‐Hurtado (1993) performed seismic damage scenarios, and seismic microzonation and risk estimates were developed by CISMID (2004) with an update performed by Zavala et al (2010). In addition, seismic risk calculations were conducted by Olarte et al. (2012) for insurance purposes. In these studies, the exposure model was developed by collecting information concerning the construction materials, lateral load resisting systems, occupancy and state of conservation. The physical vulnerability was estimated in terms of maximum drift and spectral acceleration at the fundamental period. For emergency management and recovery planning, tsunami and earthquake damage scenarios were evaluated in the project Predes (2009).
Moreover, studies on expected damages and losses on lifelines have also been developed for Lima. For example, a seismic risk evaluation of the water supply system was presented by Torres-‐Cabrejos and Huaman-‐Egoavil (1993), while a loss assessment of the sewer system, using the platform CAPRA, was presented by ERN-‐AL (2012).
Regarding the evaluation of the vulnerability of buildings, Silva (2013) applied probabilistic methodologies for damage assessment of mid-‐rise buildings, and Meneses-‐Loja and Aguilar (2004) used
4http://www.ecapra.org/es/mapa-‐de-‐amenaza-‐s%C3%ADsmica-‐del-‐per%C3%BA
9
vulnerability indices in order to evaluate the vulnerability of schools in Lima. Also, specific studies were developed for the evaluation of retrofitting alternatives for educational and health infrastructure (Olarte et al. 2013; Santacruz 2012; CISMID 2014). Furthermore, Tarque et al. (2010) derived vulnerability functions for adobe buildings in Cusco, based on mechanical procedures and earthquake damage data.
Nowadays, in the framework of the Japanese Program, Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development Programme (SATREPS), several efforts have been developed for improving seismic risk analysis in Peru and for promoting risk management strategies. In this inititative, improvements in the exposure model of Lima using satellite imagery and census data were presented in Matsuoka et al. (2013). Furthermore, seismic performance and structural behaviour of reinforced concrete walls, unreinforced masonry walls and low ductility walls were analysed by Sunley et al. (2013), Saito et al. (2013) and Zavala et al. (2013), respectively. Other studies on the seismic vulnerability of buildings in the historic centre of Lima were developed by Cuadra et al. (2013), as well as damage estimation models by Matsuoka and Estrada (2013). For what concerns the evaluation of emergency response and recovery activities, Murao et al. (2013) presented an analysis of the urban recovery process in Pisco after the earthquake of August 2007.
2.2.5 Venezuela
In Venezuela, seismic risk studies have been conducted for specific urban areas and facilities. Castillo et al. (2008a; 2008b; 2011) presents estimates of the damage of buildings, casualties and economic losses of non-‐engineered buildings in Merida, through the application of the Vulnerability Index Method (Benedetti and Petrini, 1984) and considering seismic events described in terms of macroseismic intensities. On the other hand, Schmitz et al. (2002) presented the microzonation study of Caracas, with special detail in the District of Chacao, given the importance of the exposed values (residential and commercial buildings) and the possible soil effects in the area. In addition, Safina et al. (2012) presented a vulnerability analysis for buildings with more than three stories and essential buildings, as well as detailed fragility models for reinforced concrete buildings.
At the country level, a program was implemented in order to evaluate and mitigate the risk in school buildings. This program included the identification of construction type, location, number of floors and occupation of about 28,000 schools. In addition, a detailed inspection of 250 buildings was carried out and ten schools were selected as pilot projects for a detailed seismic evaluation. Moreover, optimal retrofitting strategies were suggested, as well as guidelines for structural and non-‐structural vulnerability reduction (López et al. 2007, 2008).
Furthermore, risk indices for these school buildings were obtained for different seismic scenarios. At the location of each school, the PGA was estimated for specific seismic events, defined by a given magnitude, hypocentre, and using appropriate GMPEs. Fragility functions were derived in order to evaluate the probability of exceedance of different damage states (light, moderate, severe and collapse) for a set of PGA values. For each damage state a damage factor was assumed following the Hwang and Lin (2002) procedure. On this basis, a mean damage factor of the schools was obtained as the sum of the damage factors multiplied by their probability of occurrence. Also, repair costs were calculated as the multiplication between the mean damage factor and the facilities value according to its educational level and social importance. Moreover, to estimate the number of casualties, the mortality rate
described in ATC-‐13 was used, and it was assumed that the seismic events occur when schools were fully occupied (Lopez et al. 2008).
Nowadays, FUNVISIS is promoting the project SismoCaracas, which encompasses a building inventory and surveys of bridges, hospitals, fire stations, historical and residential buildings of Caracas in order to identify structural characteristics and to assign a vulnerability index. In addition, this project includes the development of analytical fragility functions for specific buildings, taking into account the methodologies suggested in the projects HAZUS (FEMA/NIBS 1999) and RISK UE (Milutinovic & Trendafiloski 2003). These results will be useful for prioritization of structural interventions and retrofitting of buildings.
2.3 Summary of main gaps and needs on exposure and vulnerability modelling
Based on the information provided by the participants of the workshop, a summary of the status in modelling exposure and vulnerability modelling is described in the following sections. Also, a qualitative scale of the progress is presented in order to visualize the status of each country, based on the benchmarks suggested by Cardona et al. (2003) in the Risk Management Index. With this analysis, it will be possible to identify main gaps and needs for risk modelling in South America.
2.3.1 Exposure databases
In order to describe the achievements for modelling exposure, the following topics have been considered:
Sources of information
Several sources of information have been used. At the scale of cities, cadastral databases have been used in order to identify building locations, as well as relevant characteristics for estimating replacement cost and structural vulnerability. Additionally, field surveys, aerial and satellite imagery have been used for mapping building inventory and describing building typologies.
At the national scale, proxy models have been developed using census data and socioeconomic indicators in order to estimate the built-‐up area and economic value at the municipality level. The regional distribution of building types has been defined through expert opinion.
Relevant assumptions
The most relevant assumptions are related to the classification of buildings into structural types as well as their geographical distribution. At city level, homogeneous areas have been identified based on surveys and aerial images. At the national level, the description of the building types relies on expert opinion, and the replacement cost estimation has been developed using cadastral statistics, prices per square meter and socioeconomic indicators.
Level of detail
At the scales of cities, exposure databases have been developed at building-‐by-‐building resolution (e.g. Bogota, Manizales, Medellin and Lima), while in other cities (e.g. Quito) the exposure database has been estimated at block level. On the other hand, at national level, proxy exposure databases have been developed at municipality level.
11
Limitations of exposure models
Exposure models (at national and city levels) are limited regarding the economic value of the building stock. The use of cadastral values and socioeconomic indicators allows obtaining only an approximate commercial value. However, it is necessary to have access to more accurate data, especially if the results of risk estimates will be used for defining emergency funds or insurance mechanisms.
At national level, exposure models are also limited regarding the classification of buildings into structural types. Given the significant effort and cost of field surveys, expert opinion is one of the most preferred alternatives. In this regard, it is necessary to find strategies to gather information or alternative sources that could be used to review and validate the assumptions initially considered.
Table 1 presents a qualitative scale that could be used in order to evaluate the progress in developing exposure models, taking into account the level of detail of the models and the sources of information.
Table 1 Progress levels for modelling exposure
Level Description
Low Structural typologies are adopted from other regions. The value of the exposed infrastructure is unknown.
Incipient Both structural typologies and value of the exposed infrastructure are defined according expert criteria.
Appreciable Structural typologies are defined based on secondary data (material of roofs and floors, etc). It is estimated the built area and its economic value by using indices per square meter, prices of construction and socioeconomic conditions.
Notable Structural typologies are described based on field surveys. Buildings location is defined on aerial or satellite imagery or cadastral databases. There is information available regarding the value of the buildings and infrastructure, described by typologies and geographical areas.
High There is information available of the structural properties of buildings on census or architectonic databases. There is accurate information regarding the value of buildings, contents and services provided.
2.3.2 Vulnerability modelling
Types of analysis
In South America different approaches have been used to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of buildings, which are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 Types of vulnerability analysis and its applications in South American countries
Method Countries Applications
Vulnerability indices (adopted from GNDT 1993, ATC-‐21) Venezuela, Peru (Lima)
Prioritize buildings using the vulnerability indices. Assessment of expected losses for specific events.
Damage probability matrices (Adopted from ATC-‐13) Capital cities Quito, Santiago, Lima
Evaluation of expected damage and losses for specific return periods.
Evaluation of exceedance probability curves.
Fragility functions based on observed damage data. Chile Evaluation of expected damage.
Fragility/vulnerability functions based on simplified calculations of the seismic response of buildings to ground motion intensities (Ordos 2000; Miranda 1999)
Colombia, Peru Evaluation of expected damage/loss.
Evaluation of loss exceedance curves.
Method Countries Applications
Analytical fragility functions based on structural analysis (according to the methodologies suggested in HAZUS and RISK UE).
Chile, Peru Venezuela
Evaluation of damage/loss.
Evaluation of exceedance probability curves.
Assessing economic losses
Economic losses were estimated by different approaches. When discrete damage states and fragility functions were adopted, the losses were calculated by applying consequence functions (relating cost of repair to cost of replacement for different damage states) to the estimated damage. On the other hand, direct relations between the expected ground motion intensity and the economic losses have been used in Peru and Colombia. These vulnerability curves have been developed by using exponential functions; the parameters of such functions were adjusted by assuming different loss ratios for a given range of the ground motion intensity, taking into account the properties of the building typologies.
Calibration of vulnerability functions
Calibration of analytical vulnerability functions has been performed in Venezuela for a portfolio of school buildings. In addition, the project SismoCaracas includes the calibration of vulnerability models using damage data from the earthquake of Caracas in 1967.
Table 3 suggests a qualitative scale that could be used in order to evaluate the progress in modelling seismic vulnerability, taking into account the selected methodology, the evaluation of the expected damage and the quality of the information used in the analysis).
Table 3 Performance levels for vulnerability modelling
Level Description
Low Use of qualitative scales for assessing vulnerability of buildings.
Incipient Classification of buildings into vulnerability classes. Adoption of damage probability matrices and fragility functions from other regions.
Appreciable Application of vulnerability indices.
Notable
Use of mechanical based indices
Simplified calculations of the seismic response of buildings given a ground motion intensities
Development of fragility functions based on observed damage.
High Development of analytical fragility/vulnerability functions based on structural analysis, ideally with verification using past damage data
However it is important to mention that the majority of the fragility and vulnerability functions derived in each country are not publically available, and were mostly developed for a single building, instead of classes.
2.3.3 Main gaps and needs
According to the information collected and the summary presented in the previous sections, the main gaps and needs on exposure and vulnerability modelling in South America are summarized below:
13
Modelling exposure
• Accurate data in order to evaluate the replacement cost of buildings;
• Unified criteria in order to classify buildings into structural types;
• Detailed descriptions of building types;
• Field surveys and/or support materials in order to identify building types at the country level as well as their geographical distribution;
• Standards to evaluate the quality of exposure models in terms of their completeness regarding the classification of buildings into structural typologies, the distribution of inhabitants and the detail of the information available;
• Access to information available on cadastral databases and similar sources in order to collect data regarding built area, number of buildings, height of buildings, age, value of the infrastructure and use.
Modelling physical vulnerability
• Review the applicability of damage probability matrices and structural parameters of building types described in initiatives from other regions;
• Derive analytical vulnerability functions for the most common building typologies. In particular, the assessment of non-‐engineered buildings should be encouraged;
• Calibration and validation of fragility/vulnerability functions with earthquake consequence data.
2.3.4 Potential contributions
Taking into account the main gaps and needs on exposure and vulnerability modelling, the potential contributions from the SARA project and the GEM Foundation are related to the improvement and update of data and methodologies used for risk assessment. In addition the tools that have been developed by the GEM Global Components can be provided to the scientific community in order to develop new case studies. In this regard, it is possible to improve existing risk models for countries and/or cities in South America by exploring GEM tools, which are useful to:
• Describe main characteristics of building and classify them into structural typologies.
• Collect information of buildings in field surveys.
• Develop exposure models using field surveys and data available.
• Develop vulnerability functions of common building typologies in accordance with the GEM Vulnerability Guidelines (D’Ayala et al. 2014, Porter et al. 2014 and Rossetto et al. 2014).
Currently, the GEM Foundation is promoting the development of exposure databases and vulnerability curves of predominant residential buildings at national level in Chile, and at subnational level in the department of Antioquia (Colombia). At the local scale, these activities are also promoted in Quito, in order to update city scenarios and identify risk management strategies for the city. A description of such activities is presented in Chapter 3.
3 FUTURE SARA ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AMERICA
The following sections summarize the activities that will be developed in the scope of collaboration between different research centres from South America and the GEM Foundation, within the scope of the SARA project. These include the development of exposure models and vulnerability functions at national and subnational scales, as well as the evaluation of damage and losses for a number of earthquake scenarios.
3.1 Modelling exposure and seismic vulnerability at the national and subnational scale
3.1.1 Department of Antioquia, Colombia
In Colombia, significant earthquakes have occurred since 1950. The most relevant disaster occurred in 1999 (Armenia), in which more than a million of inhabitants were affected and the losses were estimated as 1,857 millions USD (near to the 1.41% of the Gross Domestic Product) (CEPAL 1999). Figure 1 presents the total population affected by earthquakes in Colombia since 1950.
Figure 1. Total population affected during earthquakes in Colombia since 1950 (Source: EM-‐DAT)5
According to the national census of 2005, the total population of Colombia was estimated in 47,121,089 inhabitants in 2013. Around 59% of the population is concentrated in the departments of Cundinamarca (21.8%), Antioquia (13.5%), Valle del Cauca (9.8%), Santander (4.7%), Atlántico (5.0%) and Bolívar (4.4%)6. From these departments, two are located in zones of high seismic hazard (Valle del Cauca and Santander), two in zones of medium seismic hazard (Cundinamarca and Antioquia) and two in zones of low seismic hazard (Atlántico and Bolívar) (See Figure 2).
5 EM-‐DAT. The International Disaster Database. Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters-‐CRED. See: http://www.emdat.be/database 6 DANE, National Census 2005
110
1001,000
10,000100,000
1,000,00010,000,000
1950
1962
1967
1970
1970
1979
1979
1981
1983
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1995
1995
1999
2000
2004
2004
2007
2008
2013
Tota
l pop
ulat
ion
affe
cted
year
15
Population (2013)
PGA (cm/s2)
Figure 2. Population and seismic hazard for Colombia (Tr 475 years) (Source: Servicio Geológico Colombiano7)
In the case of Antioquia, 40% of the population lives in Medellin. The population and urban growth has been concentrated in informal settlements (zones formed by the illegal use and occupation of land), which, in general, are located in the peripheral areas of the city (González, 2009). These settlements are characterized by the use of non-‐engineered structures with inadequate materials and construction techniques, which leads to high seismic vulnerability.
As an initial attempt to perform seismic risk analysis and loss estimation in the department of Antioquia, an exposure model for the region will be developed at the level of municipalities, as well as vulnerability functions for the most common residential building. These activities will be developed by the research group of Applied Mechanics of the University EAFIT. The main activities of this project are:
• Gathering information and description of the buildings in the metropolitan area of Antioquia (Caldas, La Estrella, Sabaneta, Envigado, Itagui, Medellin, Bello, Copacabana, Girardota y Barbosa);
• Extrapolate the information of buildings of the metropolitan area to the rest of municipalities in the department;
• Describe and define a set of building typologies by using tools and methodologies provided by the GEM Foundation;
• Development of an exposure model for the department of Antioquia;
• Review of fragility/vulnerability functions used in previous studies in Antioquia;
• Development of fragility/vulnerability functions for common residential buildings using the tools and guidelines provided by the GEM Foundation.
7 http://aplicaciones7.sgc.gov.co/M%C3%81PA_NACIONAL_AMENAZA_SISMICA/default.aspx
Antioquia
Cundinamarca
Valle del Cauca
Santander
Atlántico
Bolívar
This project will be developed during 12 months, and it is considered the first step for obtaining a national exposure model. Currently, additional efforts have also been focused in the definition of a strategy with the National Unit of Disaster Risk Management in order to obtain information from field surveys in a sample of building types across the country, which can be used to describe residential buildings and to establish building classes and their representativeness regarding the total building portfolio.
3.1.2 Chile
The importance of seismic loss assessment in Chile relies in the high seismicity of the country and the consequences that earthquakes have generated in the society. The total losses estimated for the Maule earthquake in 2010 were near 24 billions USD (around 11% of the GDP)8 and the population affected was approximately 2.6 million of inhabitants. Figure 3 presents the total population affected by earthquakes in Chile since 1950.
Figure 3. Total population affected during earthquakes in Chile since 1950 (Source: EM-‐DAT).
According to the national census, the total population of Chile was estimated in 17,556,815 inhabitants in 2013. Around 55% of the population is concentrated in the regions of Santiago (35.4%), Bio-‐Bio (10.5%) and Valparaíso (9.1%)9; all of them located in areas of high seismic hazard (see Figure 4).
As an initial attempt to perform seismic risk analysis and loss estimation in Chile, a project that focus on the creation of an inventory database at national level, the description of the residential building stock and the derivation of vulnerability functions have been established. These activities will be developed with the participation and collaboration of the National Research Centre for the Integrated Management of Natural Disasters (Centro Nacional de Investigación para la Gestión Integrada de Desastres Naturales-‐CIGIDEN), and the main activities are described below:
8 http://papeldigital.info/ltrep/2011/02/20/01/paginas/024.pdf 9 DANE, National Census 2005
110
1001,000
10,000100,000
1,000,00010,000,000
1953
1953
1958
1960
1960
1963
1965
1966
1971
1983
1985
1987
1995
1997
2005
2007
2007
2010
2012
Tota
l pop
ulat
ion
affe
cted
year
17
Population (2010)
Figure 4. Population and seismic hazard for Chile (Source: USGS10)
Exposed building inventory to seismic hazard in Chile
A general building inventory will be constructed for the whole country, and a detailed one will be developed for some selected cities. The national exposure database will be created at the municipality level, that is the smallest administrative unit in Chile in which most of the data is available. This inventory will be constructed with secondary data coming from governmental and private sources, such as the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism, the Ministry of Public Works, the Ministry of National Resources, the National Institute of Statistics and the national census of population and housing. Private sources include the Chilean Chamber of Construction (Cámara Chilena de la Construcción, CChC). This is an initial attempt to develop a building inventory that will provide the best estimation that is possible to construct within the time frame.
The detailed building inventory will be constructed for selected cities in Chile with a resolution of block-‐by-‐block. The information will be collected mostly from data available in the municipalities (Direcciones de Obras – Municipal Building Departments) and field surveys. Given the budget restrictions, rapid visual inspections of three cities will be carried out. Moreover, a detailed inspection of one city will be performed in order to test the GEM Inventory Data Capture Tools (IDCT), as well as to obtain a benchmark for the general inventory (i.e. the national exposure database).
Three cities will be chosen to be representative of three zones of Chile, each characterized by specific climatic and particular social aspects (see Table 4)
10 See: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/chile/gshap.php
Zone Cities considered Population Dwellings
Northern Chile Iquique 180000 60000
Central Chile Rancagua 230000 75000
Talca 200000 70000
South of Chile Temuco 2700000 90000
Osorno 155000 55000
Table 4 Possible cities considered for the development of a detailed exposure dataset.
The databases will be created in GIS format, and for both the national and the detailed inventories, the following fields will be at least included: ID, municipality, population, coordinates (latitude and longitude), percentage of built-‐up area per building type and economic value per area by building type.
Identification of the main building typologies in Chile
The most prevalent residential building typologies will be identified based on the results of the national and detailed inventories. Initial estimates show that medium and high-‐rise buildings are mostly Reinforced Concrete (RC) and low-‐rise buildings are RC and masonry. Up to three stories houses vary by region, but they are mostly masonry. In the north of Chile, about 80% of the houses are masonry (mostly concrete masonry units, CMU), whilst in the south, about 80% of the houses are wooden structures. Building typologies will be described using tools provided by the GEM Foundation, and the templates suggested by the World Housing Encyclopedia Project will also be considered.
Evaluate existing fragility curves for the most common building typologies in Chile
Based on the most common building typologies identified in Chile, an evaluation of existing fragility and vulnerability curves for Chilean buildings (as well as curves derived for other South American countries) will be conducted. The suitability of the resulting models will also be assessed using post-‐earthquake damage data.
Development of fragility curves for Chilean buildings
It is expected that the existing fragility curves will cover a small proportion of the building inventory and therefore, new fragility models will be derived, following the GEM vulnerability guidelines, for the most common typologies.
Replacement costs estimation for the most common building typologies in Chile
The replacement costs will be estimated, for the most prevalent building typologies identified in the inventory, based on the following data:
• Reconstruction costs for damaged buildings in the recent Maule 2010 earthquake;
19
• Construction unit prices, developed by the CChC and widely used in Chile. These costs will be adjusted based on the information described in the previous bullet point.
• Indirect costs (such as temporary housing and lost productivity) may be inferred using data from the 2010 earthquake, and can be included in the cost evaluation.
The aforementioned activities will be developed during 18 months by the research group of CIGIDEN and the results will be open in order to contribute to the definition of a model for assessing earthquake losses in the country. Local institutions such as the Chilean Association of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (Asociación Chilena de simología e ingeniería Antisísmica-‐ ACHISINA), the National Office of Emergencies (Oficina Nacional de Emergencias del Ministerio del Interior-‐ONEMI) and the Security and Insurance Commission (Superintendencia de valores y Seguros-‐SVS) will have access to data and models for implementing risk reduction and mitigation strategies.
3.2 City scenarios
3.2.1 Quito
The Metropolitan District of Quito (MDQ) is the capital district of Ecuador. It is located in the province of Pichincha, at the north of the country, in the Andean cordillera. According to the 2010 census, the population was estimated as 2,239,191 inhabitants. The estimated contribution of the city to the GDP is around 15% (La hora 2011). Figure 5 presents a map of the population density by neighbourhoods.
Figure 5. Population density in the Metropolitan District of Quito.
The importance of the analysis of earthquake losses in Quito relies not only in the considerable high seismic hazard (a PGA around 0.4 g for a return period of 475 years), but also in the physical vulnerability of the buildings. In the last 30 years the population of Quito has doubled, together with a rapid urban expansion characterized by poor socio-‐economic conditions that has led to the construction of non-‐engineered structures located in hazardous areas such as steep mountain slopes (Chatelain et al, 1999), and the deterioration of buildings in the historical centre.
In this regard, the main objective in the Metropolitan District of Quito is to estimate, for specific seismic scenarios, the expected losses of the residential building portfolio. This project will be conducted by researchers of the University of San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) and local experts of the Metropolitan Municipality of Quito. The main activities of the project are described below:
Seismic hazard analysis
This task includes the analysis of existing seismic hazard and microzonation studies of Quito, the identification of Vs30 profiles and their use in recent national seismic hazard studies in order to define earthquake scenarios and associated amplified ground motions for the city.
Exposure and seismic vulnerability of residential buildings
The exposure model will be created based on the information available in cadastral databases and the results of the description of buildings included in the metro line survey11. The study area of this survey is 22 km x 100 m and included 3175 buildings. From this building sample, 400 architecture drawings and 100 structural design specifications were available. Within this context, it will be possible to identify the location of each building, the representative structural typologies, the economic value and the exposed population.
Regarding the seismic vulnerability of buildings, the methodologies used in previous studies will be reviewed and new analytical vulnerability functions for the most common residential buildings will be developed. The new physical vulnerability models will follow the GEM guidelines, and will be based on the information from the structural drawings of 100 buildings.
Risk assessment and loss estimation
Loss estimates for earthquake scenarios, as well as indicators of socio-‐economic vulnerability and resilience will be evaluated using the OpenQuake-‐engine. These results will be utilised in order to define risk mitigation and post-‐disaster recovery strategies for the city in the framework of the Metropolitan System of Integral Risk Management (MSIRM).
There is an excellent chance to contribute to the seismic safety of Quito through the update and evaluation of seismic scenarios of the city. This project results from the mutual interest of collaboration and aligned initiatives of different sectors: the financial support of Swiss Re Foundation, as a contribution to improve the resilience of communities of developing countries exposed to the seismic hazard; the technical support of the GEM Foundation in the development and application of methodologies for seismic risk assessment; the efforts and interest of the government of Quito in developing seismic risk reduction plans; and the expertise of local researchers of the USFQ. This is a positive environment for developing earthquake loss estimations for Quito with large possibilities of application and use.
11 See: Technical Information of the Metro of Quito. Survey of buildings and structures. http://www.portaltecnico.metrodequito.gob.ec/tecmetro.php?c=1318 [Last checked 20/05/2014]
21
4 EXPOSURE
As part of GEM activities in the regional programme, a detailed description of the methodologies and tools developed in GEM for the creation of exposure and vulnerability models was presented during the workshop, as summarized below:
• GEM Building Taxonomy v2.0: The purpose of the GEM Building Taxonomy is to describe and classify buildings in a uniform manner through 13 attributes, which are divided into four groups: structural system, building information, exterior attributes, and roof/floor/foundation.
• TaxT v4.0: It enables a user to create a report, which summarizes the attribute values that have been chosen as representative of the specific building in accordance with the GEM building taxonomy. A photo of the building and a brief text summary can be included as well.12
• GED4GEM Deliverable v2.2: The Global Exposure Database (GED) is a homogenized open database of global building stock and population distribution, containing the spatial, structural, and occupancy-‐related information. Information can be found at four different geographical scales: Country level, sub-‐country level (province/city), local level and single buildings. Up to now, only information at country and sub-‐country levels can be found.
• IDCT Android and Windows Tools v1.1: The Android and Windows Inventory Data Capture Tools (IDCT) allows users to collect building (inventory) information. These tools have been developed for devices using either the Android or Windows operating systems. It utilises a map interface to mark survey points, and define a number of attributes about the structural characteristics (according to GEM Taxonomy), with eventual earthquake damage.13
• SIDD v1.0: The Spatial Inventory Data Developer (SIDD) allows users to process exposure data largely through a process of assigning “mapping schemes”. SIDD serves as a critical intermediary between raw sample data collected in the field, building footprint data extracted through remote sensing, and the final estimate of regional exposure contained within a GIS dataset. 14
• Fragility Function Manager v2.0: A tool that covers fragility functions for buildings and bridges in Europe. Functions are stored in terms of a given taxonomy classification, and using a common format.15
• Global Vulnerability Database: A database under development that aims to generate an online global vulnerability database that includes fragility/vulnerability functions, damage-‐to-‐loss models and capacity curves. The database contains information about approaches utilized to derive these functions/curves, like modelling assumptions, analysis techniques, statistical procedures and treatment of uncertainties, with an associated quality rating system.
A working session on exposure was carried out during the workshop. The participants were grouped according to their country, and were asked to classify buildings using the GEM Building taxonomy and estimate building fractions for the most common typologies in their region. The TaxT tool was employed to generate a taxonomy report (in PDF) for each building typology, with the respective photo. The
12 http://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/gem-‐building-‐taxonomy/posts/apply-‐the-‐gem-‐building-‐taxonomy-‐v2.0-‐using-‐taxt 13 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.globalquakemodel.org.idctdo 14 http://www.globalquakemodel.org/resources/use-‐and-‐share/tools-‐apps/Fragility function manager v2 15 http://www.vce.at/SYNER-‐G/files/downloads.html
taxonomy reports generated during this activity are presented in Appendix B, while Section 4.1 presents the results of building typologies and building fraction for each country.
Another activity carried out during the working session on exposure was the improvement of the Spanish version of the GEM Building Taxonomy. The participants evaluated the proposed translation and provided suggestions for definitions and terminology utilised, since depending on the country, different terminologies are employed for the attributes. As a result, an improvement of the Spanish version of GEM Building Taxonomy was generated, and it is presented in the tables of Appendix A.
4.1 Exposure working session
A summary of the results of the working session on exposure is presented in this section. The countries included are Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Venezuela. The definition of the building typologies and corresponding fractions are based on the expert judgment of the participants, and not the views of their institutions.
Figure 6 presents a summary of the common building typologies found in South America in accordance with the building fractions provided by the participants. It can be observed that unreinforced masonry (mampostería no reforzada), confined masonry (mampostería confinada) and reinforced concrete frames (pórticos de concreto reforzado) are the most common building typologies in urban areas, while in rural areas earth/adobe (tapia/bahareque/adobe), unreinforced masonry (mampostería no reforzada) and reinforced masonry (mampostería reforzada) are the most predominant types of construction.
Figure 6. Common building typologies in South America for urban (top) and rural (bottom) areas.
0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
70%#
Tapia#/
#Bahar
eque#/#Ad
obe#
Mamp
ostería#N
o#refo
rzada##
Mamp
ostería#refo
rzada#
Muros#de##
PórDc
os#de#con
creto#reforzado
#
PorDc
os#de#Ace
ro#
Mader
a#/#Caña#
40%#
30%# 30%#
0%# 0%# 0%# 0%#
70%#
20%#
0%# 0%# 0%#0%#
10%#11%#19.1%#
46.9%#
0%#5.8%#
0%#
17.2%#
30%#
10%#
30%#
5%#
13%# 12%#
0%#
Porce
ntage*d
e*edifi
cios*
Tipología*de*edificios*por*país*3*Zona*Rural*
Chile#
Colombia#
Ecuador#
Venezuela#
23
Figure 7 presents building fractions in Colombia for urban and rural areas. These values have been provided by the participants and are based in the information available in exposure databases (such as the seismic microzonation of Medellin -‐ Consorcio Microzonificación 2006).
Figure 7. Building fractions in Colombia.
In the urban context, the most common building types are unreinforced masonry structures (~80%) and reinforced masonry buildings (10%). In the rural context, the most common building types are Bahareque (30%), tapia (40%) and unreinforced masonry (20%).
Figure 8 presents building fractions in Chile for urban and rural areas. These values have been defined based on expert opinion.
Figure 8. Building fractions in Chile
0%#10%#20%#30%#40%#50%#60%#70%#80%#
Mampostería#confinada#
Mampostería#no#reforzada#
Mampostería#reforzada#
Tapia#
Bahareq
ue#
PórDcos#de#acero
#arriostrados#
PórDcos#de#concreto
#reforzad
o#
Sistem
a#dual#de#concreto#
Muros#estructurales#de#concreto
#reforzad
o#
Sistem
a#reDcular#celular#
Madera#
1%#
79%#
3%# 2%# 0%# 0%#10%#
3%# 1%# 1%# 1%#0%#
20%#
0%#
40%#30%#
0%# 0%# 0%# 0%# 0%#
10%#
Porcen
tage*de*ed
ificio
s* Urbano#
Rural#
0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
Adobe#
Mampostería#no#reforzada#
Reinforced#concrete#mid#rise
#Pre>code#
AlbBloH#4
#pisos#
Alb>Arcilla#4#pisos#
HA#8>22>muro
s#delgados#
Casa#Alb#arcilla#1#piso#
0%#
34%#
2%# 3%# 5%#1%#
55%#
40%#
30%#
0%# 1%# 0%# 0%#
29%#
Porcen
tage*de*e
dificios* Urbano#
Rural#
In the urban context, the most common building types are masonry walls (55%) and unreinforced masonry structures (34%). In the rural context, the most common building types are clay masonry walls (~70%) and unreinforced masonry buildings (30%).
Figure 9 presents building fractions in Ecuador for urban and rural areas. These values have been defined based on expert opinion and have been verified with information available in the national census regarding the construction material at the dwelling level.
Figure 9. Building fractions for Ecuador.
Similarities have been found in the urban and rural context of Ecuador. In both cases, approximately 50% of the buildings are confined masonry structures and 20% are unreinforced masonry buildings. In the urban case, there are 12% of reinforced concrete frames, while in rural areas there are 10% of wooden structures.
Figure 10 presents building fractions in Venezuela for urban and rural areas. These values have been defined based on expert opinion and the results of the surveys developed for the project Sismo Caracas.
In the urban context, the most common building types are reinforced concrete moment frames with infill walls (25%), confined masonry walls (18%) and concrete walls (13%). In the rural context, the most common building types are Bahareque (30%), unreinforced masonry (30%), confined masonry (10%) and steel moment frames (10%).
0%#
10%#
20%#
30%#
40%#
50%#
60%#
Tapial#adobe#
Mamposteria#no#reforzada#
Mamposteria#confinada#no#duc>l#
Mamposteria#reforzada#
Por>co#vigas#descolgadas#
Por>co#de#losa
#plana#
Bahareque#
Madera#
Caña#
3%#
21%#
50%#
2%# 3%#
12%#
3%# 3%# 3%#7%#
19%#
45%#
2%# 1%#5%# 4%#
10%#7%#
Porcen
tage*de*ed
ificio
s* Urbano#
Rural#
25
Figure 10. Building fractions for Venezuela
4.1.1 Comparison of results
In order to compare the results obtained in the exposure working session, the information available in GED4GEM16 was used as a benchmark. GED4GEM is an open homogenized database of global building stock, in which information at national level is available according to the dwelling fractions proposed in the UN-‐Habitat17 and PAGER (Jaiswal et al. 2010) projects. The dwelling fractions presented in UN-‐Habitat were based on Census data and a global mapping scheme, while the fractions proposed in PAGER were based on available reports from the project World Housing Encyclopedia (WHE), the United Nations Database, Census data and expert opinion.
16 http://www.globalquakemodel.org/what/physical-‐integrated-‐risk/exposure-‐database/ 17 http://unhabitat.org/
0%#
5%#
10%#
15%#
20%#
25%#
30%#
Pór+cos#concreto#
Pór+cos#concreto#m
uros#de#relleno#
Pór+cos#concreto#en#2#direcciones#
Muros#de#concreto#en#una#direccion#
Pór+cos#de#acero#
Pór+cos#de#acero#diagonalizados#
Pór+cos#de#acero#con#perfiles#
Pór+cos#de#acero#con#cerchas#
Pór+cos#prefabricados#
Muros#de#mampostería#
Muros#de#mampostería#no#confinada#
Bahareque#
5%#
25%#
2%#
13%#
4%# 5%#7%#
2%# 2%#
12%#
18%#
5%#5%#8%#
0%#
5%#
0%# 0%#
10%#
2%# 0%#
30%#
10%#
30%#
Porcen
tage*de*ed
ificio
s*
Urbano#
Rural#
Figure 11 Building fractions for urban areas in Chile, Colombia and Ecuador according to GED4GEM
Using GED4GEM, it is possible to obtain the residential building fractions in rural and urban areas according to a set of building typologies, using information regarding dwelling fractions and average number of dwellings per building typology. Figure 11 and Figure 12 present the residential building typology fractions for urban and rural areas proposed in the GED4GEM for Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela (this information has been distributed amongst two figures simply for the sake of clarity, and not according to any particular order).
27
Figure 12 Building fractions for rural areas in Peru and Venezuela according to GED4GEM
A comparison of the results compiled during the exposure working session with the fractions comprised in the GED4GEM is illustrated in
Table 5. The objective of this comparison is to verify and improve the results contained in the GED4GEM, thus contributing to the open enhancement of this database taking into account the knowledge of the participants of the workshop.
29
Table 5 Comparison of the results
Country Urban Building fractions Rural Building fractions
Chile
Colombia
Ecua
dor
Vene
zuela
Conventions
From
Table 5 it is possible to observe significant differences in both the building types and the building fractions in all countries. Therefore, a revision of the information concerning the national building portfolio is needed, and its accuracy and reliability can only be improved through consultation of national building surveys and other documentation compiled regionally, and most importantly, through the involvement of local experts.
Furthermore, these results show the importance of using public data and the discussion of the information available in order to built consensus and reliable exposure databases. Therefore, it could be interesting to promote a procedure for the review and enhancement of the GED4GEM database, taking into account the detail of the sources of information and the experience of the reviewers, following methodologies for decision making such as the Delphi Method or the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
31
5 ACHIEVEMENTS AND MOVING FORWARD
One of the objectives of SARA is to collaborate in the understanding of the seismic risk in the region. In this regard, it is necessary to stay in contact with ongoing regional and local projects in order to avoid parallel efforts and to encourage share of data and knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary to identify (in a collaborative manner) gaps, needs and areas of interest for assessing seismic risk. In this regard, the channels of communication of GEM are open and the staff will be looking for a constant dialogue and discussion on the data and methodologies used for the calculation of potential losses in South America.
5.1 Achievements
In the following, the main achievements during the workshop are presented:
• The participants (from GEM and the representative countries) have gotten a better idea of the current status of exposure and vulnerability modelling activities in the various regions;
• Dissemination of GEM’s mission, its tools and methodologies for exposure and vulnerability modelling. Hence, all the participants have now a better understanding of the SARA project and GEM’s activities;
• A description of building typologies in urban/rural areas in the various regions using the GEM Building Taxonomy has been carried out, as well as an initial estimation of building fractions per typology;
• GEM has discussed with the participants the activity plan for Chile, Quito and Antioquia, as well as the challenges and ways to move forward;
• The Spanish version of the GEM Building Taxonomy has been reviewed and tested, and suggestions were made regarding the Spanish definitions (see Appendix A);
• GEM heard from two different stakeholders – Quito Municipality and Suramericana – about their needs, challenges and expectations for the SARA project;
• The workshop created an opportunity to define a work plan with CISMID for the Lima City Scenario project and with FUNVISIS for risk assessment in Venezuela; discussions with these two parties are ongoing.
• The following suggestions regarding GEM tools/activities were made by the participants:
− On the IDCT tool, features like column to floor area ratio and density of walls could be added. These two parameters are used in countries like Colombia, Chile and Venezuela as indicators of seismic building performance;
− Produce a common damage form to be used in South America to collect post-‐earthquake damage data;
− GEM should encourage data sharing, as well as create tools and means to share information (to avoid duplication of efforts in the future).
• All the information produced within the context of this project (presentations, minutes, guidelines and reports) will be publicly available through the GEM Nexus webpage.
5.2 Moving forward
GEM Working Programme II gives special attention to the application of tools and methodologies developed within the context of the GEM Global Components18, in close collaboration with local experts. Then, within the framework of the SARA project, it is necessary to keep working in the activities planned for Colombia, Ecuador and Chile regarding the development of exposure and vulnerability models for the residential building stock. In addition, it is fundamental to promote similar projects in other countries of the Andean Region such as Argentina, Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia, taking into consideration the local experience and ongoing regional and local projects.
In this regard, it has been agreed to maintain a permanent contact between the GEM Secretariat and the regional groups that are already participating in the regional initiative (CIGIDEN, EAFIT, USFQ-‐MDQ). In this sense, GEM will contact each working group every three months for a status update, and in addition, the regional project manager will visit each of the groups in seven-‐eight months to share updates from GEM (tools, data and documents) and provide technical support. Moreover, GEM will be responsible to share the updates with all partners through the GEM NEXUS webpage.
Following GEM values of openness, transparency and collaborative work, it is considered positive to communicate the activities developed in SARA in channels of communication of international/regional partners (i.e. EERI, World Bank, UNISDR) in order to disseminate the progress and invite local experts to join and participate. As the project is oriented to create credible models for earthquake loss assessment in South America, it is necessary to built a community, a network of experts, and promote the discussion of the results obtained in SARA with a wider audience.
For example, leading experts already collaborating in SARA could select specific tasks (such as review of inventory model, or fragility functions) in order to review the results in interim workshops at their country with the participation of colleges and other researchers, ensuring that the actual process is the result of the effort of a wider community, rather than simply from an academic research done by a single entity.
In addition, the project should continue promoting the development of case studies that will be useful for local governments in order to define risk management strategies. In this sense, a close communication with stakeholders is necessary in order to find their needs (i.e. types of assets to be considered, or if there is a specific district that needs more refined assessments, or a specific structural system that has been of concern and a better understanding of its vulnerability is required).
Finally, a future workshop could take place in April/May 2015 in Quito, both to present the Quito City Scenario to the municipality and to share exposure and vulnerability models in each country. Furthermore, GEM could offer an OpenQuake-‐engine and platform training session, and together with the participants produce risk assessment results and upload them to the OpenQuake platform.
18 http://www.globalquakemodel.org/what/
33
Workshop participants
REFERENCES
Aburto, P. (2013) “Análisis de la vulnerabilidad sísmica del puente Pedro de Valdivia-‐Chile”. Undergraduate Thesis. Universidad Austral.
Alva-‐Hurtado, J.E (1993) “Seismic safety of the Lima metropolitan area”. Issues in Urban Earthquake Risk: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on an Evaluation of Guidelines for Developing Earthquake Damage Scenarios for Urban Areas. Istanbul, October 8-‐11, 1993. Tucker, Brian E, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994, pp 251-‐264
Applied Technology Council (ATC-‐13) (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Report ATC-‐13, Redwood City, California.
Applied Technology Council (ATC-‐22) (1989) A handbook for seismic evaluation of existing buildings (Preliminary). Report ATC-‐22, Redwood City, California.
Applied Technology Council (ATC-‐25) (1991) Seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the conterminous United States. Report ATC-‐25, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Redwood City, California.
Applied Technology Council (ATC-‐40) (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Vol 1. Redwood City. California
Atiago, G. & Demores, F (2003) Vulnerabilidad sísmica de pasos elevados y puentes que forman parte de la infraestructura vial del distrito metropolitano de Quito – adaptación y aplicación de la metodología HAZUS®99. [On line]. Available at: http://www.savgis.org/SavGIS/Etudes_realisees/DEMORAES_ATIAGA_Vulnerabilidad_sismica_puentes_2003.pdf [Last checked 10/04/2014]
Benedetti, D. & Petrini, V. (1984) “Sulla vulnerabilitá sismica di edifici in muratura i proposte di un metodo di valutazione”. L'industria delle Construzioni, 149, 66-‐74.
Cardona, O. D., & Yamín, L.E (1997). “Seismic Microzonation and estimation of earthquake loss scenarios: integrated risk mitigation Project of Bogotá, Colombia”. Earthquake Spectra 13(4): 795-‐814
Cardona, O.D, Hurtado, J.E., Duque, G., Moreno, A., Chardon, A.C., Velásquez, L., Prieto, S.D. (2003) “Indicadores para la medición del riesgo”-‐ Fundamentos metodológicos IADB/IDEA Programa de Indicadores para la Gestión de Riesgos. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Manizales. [On line]. Available at:http://idea.unalmzl.edu.co [Última consulta 10/04/2010].
Cardona, O.D., Ordaz, M.G., Reinoso, E., Yamin, L.E., Barbat, A.H. (2010) “Comprehensive Approach for Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CAPRA): International Initiative for Disaster Risk Management Effectiveness”. 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (14ECEE). 30 Ago-‐ 3 Sept, Ohrid, Macedonia
Castillo, A., Pujades, L.G., Almansa, F. (2008 a) “Seismic Risk Scenarios For Mérida, Venezuela”. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October 12-‐17, Beijing, China.
Castillo, A., López-‐Almansa, F., Pujades, L.G (2008 b) “Seismic risk reduction measures of a vulnerable urban informal settlement in Mérida, Venezuela. Cost-‐Benefit Analysis.” The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October 12-‐17, Beijing, China
Castillo, A., López-‐Almansa, F., Pujades, L.G (2011) “Seismic risk analysis of urban non-‐engineered buildings: application to an informal settlement in Mérida, Venezuela”. Natural Hazards, 59 (2): 891-‐916
Castillo A (2006). “Seismic risk scenarios for buildings in Mérida, Venezuela. Detailed vulnerability assessment for non-‐engineered housing”. PhD Thesis. Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona.
35
CEDERI (2005a) “Estrategia para transferencia, retención, mitigación del riesgo sísmico en edificaciones indispensables y de atención a la comunidad del Distrito Capital-‐Bogotá, Colombia”.
CEDERI (2005b) “Escenarios de riesgo y pérdidas por terremoto para Bogotá D.C. Fondo de Prevención y Atención de Emergencias de Bogotá”. Dg 47 b No 47-‐09 Int 11.
CEDERI (2005c) “Estudio de Microzonificación sísmica y evaluación del riesgo de las ciudades intermedias del Valle del Cuaca, Palmira, Tulúa y Buga”. Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca.
CEDERI (2006) “Innovación e investigación tendientes a la actualización de la información sísmica de la ciudad de Bogotá”. Fondo de Prevención y Atención de Emergencias de Bogotá. Dg 47 bNo 47-‐09 Int 11.
CEPAL (1999) El terremoto de enero de 1999 en Colombia: Impacto socioeconómico del desastre en la zona del Eje Cafetero. LC/MEX/L.374 LC/L.1201. United Nations Development Programme – Colombia. Economic Comission for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Chatelain, J.L., Tucker, B., Guillier, B., Kaneko, F., Yepes, H., Fernandez, J., Valverde, J., Hoefer, G., Souris, M., Duperier, E., Yamada, T., Bustamante, G., & Villacis, C. (1999) “Earthquake risk management pilot project in Quito, Ecuador”. GeoJournal 49: 185–196
CIMNE (2013) Modelación probabilista de riesgos naturales en el nivel global: el modelo global de riesgo. Background Paper prepared for the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013. UNISDR, GAR. [On line]. Available at:
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2013/en/bgdocs/CIMNE%20et.al.%202013a-‐SPA.pdf [Last checked 10/04/2014]
CIMOC (2002) Microzonificación sísmica de la ciudad de Manizales. Research center of Materials and Civil Works (CIMOC). Research Center in Disasters and Risks (CEDERI). Report prepared for the Mayor’s Office of Manizalez. [On line]. Available at:
http://idea.manizales.unal.edu.co/gestion_riesgos/descargas/microzon/informe_final.pdf [Last checked 06/05/2014]
CISMID (2004), “Estudio de Vulnerabilidad y Riesgo Sísmico de 32 distritos de Lima y Callao”. Informe Técnico, Lima, Perú
CISMID (2014 ) “CISMID terminó los estudios de vulnerabilidad sísmica de 14 hospitales”. [On line]. Available at: http://www.cismid-‐uni.org/item/61-‐el-‐cismid-‐termino-‐los-‐estudios-‐de-‐vulnerabilidad-‐sismica-‐de-‐14-‐
hospitales.html. [Last checked 12/04/2014]. Consorcio Microzonificación (2006) “Microzonificación y Evaluación del Riesgo Sísmico del Valle de Aburrá. Área
Metropolitana del Valle de Aburrá”. Crowley, H., Colombi, M., Silva, V. (2014) “Chapter 4: Epistemic uncertainty in fragility functions for European RC
buildings,” In: SYNER-‐G: Typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk: buildings, lifelines, transportation networks and critical facilities, Ed: Pitilakis, Crowley, Kaynia, in press
Cuadra, C., Saito, T., Zavala, C. (2013) “Diagnosis for Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation of Historical Buildings in Lima, Peru”. Journal of Disaster Research (8), 2, 320-‐327
D’Ayala D., Meslem A., Vamvatsikos D., Porter K., Rossetto T., H. Crowley, V. Silva (2014) “Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of low/mid-‐rise buildings”, GEM Technical Report Series 2014, GEM Foundation, in press.
ERN (2004 a) “Definición de la responsabilidad del Estado, su exposición ante desastres naturales y diseño de mecanismos para la cobertura de los riesgos residuales”. Report prepared for the World Bank, Agencia Colombiana de Cooperación Internacional-‐ACCI; Departamento Nacional de Planeación-‐DNP
ERN (2004 b) “Diseño de esquemas de transferencia de riesgo para la protección financiera de edificaciones públicas y privadas en Manizales en el caso de desastres por eventos naturales”. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Agencia Colombiana para la Cooperación Internacional. Banco Mundial
ERN (2006) “Estimación de Pérdidas Económicas para Diferentes Escenarios de Riesgo en Edificaciones Públicas y Privadas en Bogotá y Análisis Económico del Riesgo Residual en el Distrito Capital de Bogotá – Estudio E1”.
Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo y para el Banco Mundial.
ERN (2011). “Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, Probabilistic Modeling of Natural Risks at the Global Level”, Phase 1A, Development of Methodology and Case Studies.
ERN-‐AL (2012) Perú: Gestión de Riesgo de Desastres en Empresas de Agua y Saneamiento. Tomo I: Perfil de Riesgo Catastrófico, Medidas de Mitigación y Protección Financiera. Caso Sedapal y Emapica. Centro Internacional de Métodos Numéricos en Ingeniería (CIMNE), Evaluación de Riesgos Naturales (ERN), Ingenieros Consultores S.C., ITEC Ltda. e INGENIAR Ltda. Report prepared for the World Bank , Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and the Canadian International Development Agency. [On line]. Available at: http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/WSP-‐LAC-‐Peru-‐Gestion-‐De-‐Riesgo-‐De-‐Desastres-‐En-‐Empresas-‐De-‐Agua-‐Y-‐Saneamiento-‐Tomo-‐1.pdf [Last checked 10/04/2014]
ERN (2012) “Microzonificación sísmica del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito: estudio de la amenaza sísmica a nivel local” Programa para la reducción de riesgos urbanos en el Distrito Metropolitano de Quito. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo-‐PNUD.
Estrada, G.M., Jaramillo, J.D (2002) “IE-‐RISS: a modeling system to manage risks and disasters”. 7th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. July 21-‐25, 2002. Boston, United States.
FEMA/NIBS (1999). “Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology HAZUS® 99”. Federal Emergency Management Agency – FEMA. Washington, D.C.
Fischer, T., Alvarez, M., De la Llera, J.C., Riddell, R. (2002) “An integrated model for earthquake risk assessment of buildings” Engineering Structures, 24(7): 979–998
FUNVISIS (2009) “Proyecto de microzonificación sísmica en las ciudades Caracas y Barquisimeto. Informe Técnico FUN-‐035-‐a 2009”. Requerido por el Fondo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación FONACIT 200400738.
GeoHazards International (1995) “Invirtiendo en el futuro de Quito. Proyecto de Seguridad Sísmica de las edificaciones escolares de Quito, Ecuador”. Escuela Politécnica Nacional [On line] Available at: http://www.geohaz.org/news/images/publications/QuitoSchoolProjectSpanish.pdf [Last checked 10/04/2014].
GNDT (1993) “Rischio Sismico Di Edifici Pubblici, Parte I: Aspetti Metodologici”. Proceedings of CNR-‐Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Roma, Italy.
González, G. (2009) “Gestión de los Asentamientos Informales: Un Asunto de Política Pública”. VIII Seminario de Investigación Urbana y Regional, Gobierno de Municipios y Aglomeraciones Urbanas, Bogotá, 55p
Hwang H. And Y. W. Lin (2002). “Seismic Loss Assessment of Memphis City School Buildings”. Proceedings of The Seventh U. S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston
Hu, Z., C. Huyck, M. Eguchi, J. Bevington (2014) “User guide: Tool for spatial inventory data development”, GEM Technical Report Series 2014, GEM Foundation, in press.
INGEOMINAS-‐CDMB (2002) “Microzonificación Simogeotécnica Indicativa de Bucaramanga” Jaiswal, K., Wald, D., Porter, K. (2010) “A Global Building Inventory for Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk
Management”. Earthquake Spectra, 26(3): 731–748 Jaramillo, J.D. (1997). Programa para el Cálculo de Perdidas por Sismo (PERCAL ver.6). Departamento de Ingeniería
Civil, Universidad EAFIT. Medellín La hora (2011) Quito. Crece el PIB en Quito. Martes 5 de julio de 2011.[On line]. Available at:
http://www.lahora.com.ec/index.php/noticias/show/1101168308/-‐%C2%AD%E2%80%901/Crece_el_PIB_en_Quito_.html#.UiR0nxuLKSo [Last checked 22/04/2014]
López OA, Hernandez JJ, Del Re G, Puig J, Espinosa L (2007) “Reducing seismic risk of schools in Venezuela”. Earthquake Spectra 23(4):771–790
37
Lopez O.A.; Hernandez, J.J.; Marinilli A.; Bonilla R.; Fernandez N.; Dominguez J.; Baloa T.; Coronel G.; Safina S.(2008) “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of School Buildings in Venezuela”. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October 12-‐17, 2008, Beijing, China. Paper ID 09-‐01-‐0041
López, O.A., Coronel, G., Ascanio, W., Rojas, R., Páez, V., Olbrich, F., Rengel, J. González, J. (2014) “Índice de priorización de edificios para la gestión del riesgo sísmico”. FUNVISIS. Informe técnico No FUN-‐002, 2014. Prolongación Calle Mara. Urbanización El Llanito, Caracas 1070, Venezuela.
Martínez, J (2012) “Caracterización de la vulnerabilidad sísmica utilizando curvas de fragilidad y matrices de probabilidad de daño para algunas tipologías estructurales de hormigón armado. Aplicación a la ciudad de Valdivia, Región de Los Lagos”. Master Thesis. Universidad Austral.
Matsuoka, M., & Estrada, M. (2013)“Development of Earthquake-‐Induced Building Damage Estimation Model Based on ALOS/PALSAR Observing the 2007 Peru Earthquake”. Journal of Disaster Research 8 (2):pp. 346-‐355
Matsuoka, M., Miura, H., Midorikawa, S., Estrada, M. (2013) “Extraction of Urban Information for Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment in Lima, Peru Using Satellite Imagery” Journal of Disaster Research . 8(2): 328-‐345
Meneses-‐Loja, J., Aguilar, Z. (2004) “Seismic vulnerability of school buildings in lima, Peru.” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-‐6, 2004 Paper No. 1683.
Milutinovic Z.V, Trendafiloski G.S (2003), “WP4: Vulnerability of current buildings”. RISK-‐UE Project Handbook. Sep. 2003. RISK-‐UE project report.111 pp
Miranda, E. (1999) “Approximate seismic lateral deformation demands on multistory buildings”. Journal of Structural Engineering 125(4): 417-‐425
Municipio de Medellín (1994) “Programa de prevención sísmica para Medellín”. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el desarrollo – PNUD y Universidad EAFIT.
Olarte, J., Aguilar, Z., Zavala, C., Martinez, A., Gallardo, J. (2012) “Estimate of the Probable MaximumLoss PML in Lima and Callao: application to the peruvian insurance industry”. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October 12-‐17, 2008, Beijing, China
Olarte, J. Proaño, R., Torres, R., Rojas, V. (2013) “Dynamic analysis and retrofit techniques for educational infrastructure”. Centro Peruano Japonés de Investigaciones Sísmicas y Mitigación de Desastres. Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería, Lima-‐Perú.
Ordaz, M., Miranda, E., Reinoso, E. and Pérez-‐Rocha, L.E. (2000). “Seismic Loss Estimation Model for Mexico City”, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 1902.
Ordaz, M. G. and L. E. Yamín (2004). “Eventos máximos considerados (EMC) y estimación de pérdidas probables para el cálculo del índice de déficit por desastre (IDD) en doce países de las Américas”. Programa de Información e Indicadores de Gestión de Riesgos. Inter-‐-‐-‐American Development Bank – IADB, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean , ECLAC – Instituto de Estudios Ambientales – IDEA.
Porter K.A, Farokhnia K, Cho I.H, Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Grant D, Jaiswal K, Wald D, D’Ayala D, Meslem A, So E., Kiremidjian A.S, Noh H (2012) “Global Vulnerability Estimation Methods for the Global Earthquake Model”, Proceedings of the fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 23-‐24 September.
Porter K.A, Farokhnia K, Vamvatsioks V, Cho I.H, (2014) “Guidelines for analytical vulnerability assessment of high-‐rise buildings” GEM Technical Report Series 2014, GEM Foundation, in press
Predes (2009) “Diseño de escenario sobre el impacto de un sismo de gran magnitud en Lima Metropolitana y Callao”. Reporte preparado para Instituto Nacional de Defensa Civil – INDECI. Agencia Suiza para el Desarrollo y la Cooperación COSUDE.[On line]. Available at:
http://www.predes.org.pe/predes/images/dis_esc_lima.pdf [Last checked 10/04/2014] Pulido, N., Tavera, H., Aguilar, Z., Calderón, D.,Chlieh, M, Sekiguchi, T., Nakai, S., Yamazaki, F. (2012) “Mega-‐
earthquakes rupture scenarios and strong motion simulations for Lima, Peru”. The international Symposium
for CISMID 25th Aniversary. Technological advances and learned lessons from last great earthquakes and tsunamis in the world
Román, S. (2009) “Vulnerabilidad sísmica de las viviendas de albañilería de bloques de hormigón del norte de Chile”. Master thesis. Universidad de Chile.
Rossetto T., Ioannou I., Grant D.N., T.Maqsood (2014) “Guidelines for empirical vulnerability assessment,” GEM Technical Report Series 2014, GEM Foundation, in press.
Safina, S., Andrade, M., Schmitz, M., Jraige, C., Espinosa, L. (2008) “Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Caracas, Venezuela”. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. October 12-‐17, 2008, 14WCEE, Beijing, China
Safina, S., López, A., Luis, A., Lirio, B., Castillo, L., Marval, M. (2012) “Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings in the Municipality of Chacao Metropolitan Area of Caracas, Venezuela”. 15th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering. 24-‐28 September. Lisbon, Portugal.
Saito, T., Moya, L., Fajardo, C., Morita, K. (2013) “Experimental Study on Dynamic Behavior of Unreinforced Masonry Walls” Journal of Disaster Research 8 (2):305-‐311
Salgado, M. A., Zuloaga, D., Cardona, O. D. (2013) “Evaluación probabilista del riesgo sísmico de Bogotá y Manizales con y sin la influencia de la Calda Tear”. Revista de Ingeniería. Enero-‐Junio: 6-‐13. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá D. C.
Salgado-‐Gálvez, M.A., Zuloaga-‐Romero, D., Bernal, G.A., Mora, M.G., Cardona, O.D. (2014) “Fully probabilistic seismic risk assessment considering local site effects for the portfolio of buildings in Medellín, Colombia” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.12(2): 671-‐695.
Schmitz, M., Enomoto, T., Ampuero, J.P., Rocabado, V., Kantak, P., Sánchez, J., Rendón1, H., González, J., Abeki, N., J.-‐P. Villotte, J.P., Navarro, M., Delgado, J. (2002) “Seismic microzoning study in Chacao District, Caracas, Venezuela”. 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, London, 2002 Paper Reference 808.
Santacruz, S (2012) Proyecto CAPRA PUCP Evaluación de Riesgo sísmico en colegios y hospitales de Lima. [On line]. Available at: http://blog.pucp.edu.pe/item/157980/proyecto-‐capra-‐pucp-‐evaluacion-‐de-‐riesgo-‐sismico-‐en-‐colegios-‐y-‐hospitales-‐de-‐lima
Schmitz, M., Hernández, J., Audemard, F., Malavé, G.,González, M., Granado,C. Sánchez, J., Andrade,L., Klarica, S. (2006) “Avance de los proyectos de microzonificación sísmica en las principales ciudades de Venezuela”. Proceeding of: VIII Congreso Venezolano de Sismología e Ingeniería Sísmica –VIII CONVESIS-‐, Volume: 1.
Silva, N. (2011) “Vulnerabilidad sísmica estructural en viviendas sociales, y evaluación preliminar de riesgo sísmico en la Región Metropolitana”. Master Thesis. Universidad de Chile.
Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M, Modelli D, Pinho R (2013) “Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model’s open-‐source software for seismic risk assessment” Natural Hazards.
Silva, H. (2013) “Aplicación de Metodología Probabilística para la Estimación del Daño de un edificio de mediana altura diseñado bajo la Norma Peruana”. Centro Peruano Japonés de Investigaciones Sísmicas y Mitigación de Desastres -‐ CISMID
Sunley, S., Kusunoki , K., Saito, T., Zavala, C (2013). “Experimental Study on Flexural Behavior of Reinforced”. Journal of Disaster Research 8 (2): 296-‐304.
SVS (2013) Análisis e Impacto del 27-‐F en el Mercado Asegurador. Superintendencia de Valores y Seguros de Chile. [On line]. Available at: https://www.svs.cl/sitio/destacados/doc/TERREMOTO-‐9-‐1-‐13.pdf. [Last checked 06/05/2014]
Tapia, P., Roldán, W., Villacis, C. (2002) “Vulnerabilidad sísmica de las ciudades del norte de Chile: Arica, Antofagasta y Copiapo”. VIII Jornadas Chilenas de Sismología e Ingeniería Antisísmica. Valparaíso, Abril, 2002.
Tarque N, Crowley H, Pinho R, Varum (2010) “Seismic risk assessment of adobe dwellings in Cusco, Peru, based on mechanical procedures”. 14th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (14ECEE). Ohrid. Macedonia. 30-‐08; 03-‐09 201
39
Torres-‐Cabrejos, R.E., Huaman-‐Egoavil, C.E (1992) “Evaluation on seismic risk on water supply pipelines” 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Madrid, Spain, 1992. Balkema. Rotterdam. ISBN 9054100605
Universidad de Cuenca (2001) Amenaza Sísmica en el Austro, Vulnerabilidad y Riesgo Sísmico en la ciudad de Cuenca. Proyecto Fundacyt P-‐BID 400. Cámara de la Construcción de Cuenca (CCC). Red Sísmica del Austro (RSA).
Valcárcel J.A., Mora M.G.,Cardona O.D., Pujades L.G., Barbat A. H., Bernal G.A. (2013).“Methodology and applications for the benefit cost analysis of the seismic risk reduction in building portfolios at broadscale”. Natural Hazards 69, (1): pp 845-‐868.
Vaziri, P., Zoback, M.L., Tabucchi, T.H.P., Cabrera, C.M (2012) “Comparative Analysis of Economic and Human Casualty Seismic Risk for South American Andean Capital Cities”. 15th World Conference On Earthquake Engineering. 24-‐28 September. Lisbon, Portugal
Villacís, C., Tucker, B., Yepes, H., Kaneko, F., Chatelain, J.L (1997) “Use of seismic microzoning for risk management in Quito, Ecuador”. Engineering Geology, 46(1): 63–70.
Yamazaki, F., and Zavala, C.(2013) “SATREPS Project on Enhancement of Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster Mitigation Technology in Peru”. Journal of Disaster Research. 8(2): 224-‐234
Yamín, L.E., Ghesquiere, F., Cardona, O.D., Ordaz, M.G (2013) Modelación probabilista para la gestión del riesgo de desastre El caso de Bogotá, Colombia. Banco Mundial, Universidad de los Andes. ISBN: 978-‐958-‐695-‐840
Yépez, F (2001) “Últimos avances en la evaluación del riesgo sísmico de Quito y futuros proyectos de mitigación”. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO); Cooperazione Internazionale (COOPI). Memorias del Seminario: Gestión de riesgos y prevención de desastres. Quito, 2002. p.16-‐28,
Zavala, C., Estrada, M., Aguilar, Z., Lazares, F., Rios F., Gibu, P. (2010) “Estudio de microzonificación sísmica y vulnerabilidad en la ciudad de Lima”. Centro Peruano Japonés de Investigaciones Sísmicas y Mitigación de Desastres – CISMID Facultad de Ingeniería Civil – Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería. CISMID-‐FIC-‐UNI Proyecto MVCS-‐BID
Zavala, C., Gibu, P., Lavado, L., Taira, J., Cárdenas, L., Ceferino, L. (2013) “Cyclic Behavior of Low Ductility Walls Considering Perpendicular Action”. Journal of Disaster Research 8 (2):312-‐319
APPENDIX A
The following tables present the Spanish version of the GEM Building Taxonomy V 2.0
41
APPENDIX B