Analytical Estimation of Economic Loss for Buildings in the Area Struck by the 1999 Athens Earthquake and Comparison with Statistical Repair Costs

Abstract

Reliable loss assessment (in monetary terms) for buildings struck by an earthquake is an essential factor in the development of seismic risk scenarios for a given urban area. The evaluation of loss due to building damage in a certain region depends both on seismic hazard and the vulnerability of the building stock in the area. The study presented herein consists of predicting the loss to selected groups of buildings struck by the 1999 Athens earthquake using an analytical methodology and comparison with statistical repair costs collected after the earthquake. Since no near-field strong ground motion recordings from the main shock were available, a pilot methodology was used for its analytical evaluation for different soil conditions. Different suites of motions were derived, based on various theoretical and semi-empirical approaches, and were then used in analytical investigations of the seismic behavior of the buildings in the examined area, aiming at the prediction of economic losses. An in-situ survey of about 10% of the total building stock was performed, and data regarding the structural type, actual earthquake damage, and corresponding repair costs were collected. The statistically derived repair cost for the area was compared with the economic loss estimation obtained using the analytical procedure and various estimates of the seismic action in the area considered, and was found to agree with it reasonably for some of the seismic hazard scenarios.

Reinforced Concrete Frames Strengthened by Tension-Tie Elements Under Cyclic Loading: Experimental Investigation

“…Apparently, these RC buildings present weaknesses concerning their strength, ductility and stiffness in lateral seismic excitations. Thus, seismic upgrading in this type of structures is essential in order to avoid sudden total or local collapses, excessive damages or even loss of life from earthquakes [1][2][3][4].…”

Urban seismic risk assessment: statistical repair cost data and probable structural losses based on damage scenario—correlation analysis

“…The results for the total compatible repair cost fluctuate from 1869.72 to 2419.708 L€, whereas the values for the total equivalent Table 2 Repair cost of structural system and constructed area of buildings according to the damage level of studies (1) and (2) The referred mean compatible repair values are applied and used in the paper are in bold replacement area fluctuate from 5.179 to 8.147 Jm 2 . Moreover, Table 5 presents the total compatible repair cost (2095.224 L€) regarding the information of both studies (Karabinis and Baltzopoulou 2006;Kappos et al 2007) distributed in damage levels and levels of macroseismic intensity for the 178,578 structural buildings. According to the results, in meizoseismal areas with IX macroseismic intensity the total compatible repair cost was estimated at 424.781 L€, representing 20.27 % of the total cost, and details regarding 27,089 damaged buildings were recorded (15.17 % out of the 178,578 total damaged Attica's buildings) in an area with a total of 32,574 buildings (4.40 % out of the 740,315 total building population in Attica).…”

“…A fourth parameter may then be added through which the seismic risk can be related to a social or economic loss; several studies have been developed internationally aiming at the urban seismic risk assessment (Costa et al 2010;Crowley et al , 2010aErdik et al 2003Erdik et al , 2006Lantada et al 2009;Marulanda et al 2013;RADIUS 1999;RISK-UE 2001-2004Rivas-Medina et al 2013;Salgado-Gálvez et al 2015;Silva et al 2015;SYNER-G 2009SYNER-G -2011Vicente et al 2010;Carreño 2012;Crowley et al 2010b). The seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of distinguished building classes, representative of the Southern Europe building stock and the development of damage scenarios for estimating structural losses due to a probable future earthquake concentrate during the past decades intense research interest [Baltzopoulou et al 2012;Karabinis 2011, 2013;Kappos et al 2007; Karabinis and Baltzopoulou 2006 Sarris et al 2009] aiming at the rational management and mitigation of seismic risk. As mentioned, components of seismic risk assessment are (1) the seismic hazard; (2) the ''exposure'' that is under the seismic risk, such as the density of population, the structural inventory (number and types of buildings); and (3) the seismic vulnerability analysis of existing buildings.…”

“…The information about the damage level was available for 1,78,058 damaged buildings and they were discriminated into structural types along with the level of macroseismic intensity Karabinis 2011, 2013). The mean compatible repair cost (€/m 2 ) and the mean constructed area per building according to the damage level were evaluated based on information derived from the Post Earthquake Crisis Management Division of Aharnes (Karabinis and Baltzopoulou 2006) and Ano Liosia (Kappos et al 2007) region and referred in replacement of collapsed (black) or heavily damaged buildings (red) and repair/strengthening of buildings with moderate damages (yellow) or just repairs of light (green) damages. Note that, depending on the type and the extent of damage, local or general, there were respective provisions for local repair or general repair/strengthening of the building (Karabinis and Baltzopoulou 2006).…”

Inventory of the building stock in the city of Serres (Greece) for seismic vulnerability assessment and loss estimation

“…An attempt to use the AUTh hybrid approach and develop loss estimation scenarios in cases where the building stock data are not as detailed as desired has been carried out by Karakostas et al [21] within the MASSIVE project for the cities of Athens (Greece) and L'Aquila (Italy). The same building typologies have also been used by Kappos et al [22] for direct loss estimation (without the use of DPMs or fragility curves) and comparison with available damage data for the building stock of Ano Liosia (Athens) that was heavily struck by the 1999 Athens earthquake, using several series of seismic hazard scenarios.…”