!"#$%#!%&

!&

Seismic Evaluations – Translated into English!

Controlling Costs in Seismic Risk Management

SeismiCatWilliam P. Graf, P.E.

Vice President, ImageCat Inc. Long Beach, California

Mitigating the Risks of a Hostile Natural Environment

NAREIM National Association of Real Estate Investment Managers 2013 | A&E Architectural &

Engineering Council

Miami Beach, FL 10/23/13

AGENDA Introductions Seismic Evaluations – Translated into English! •  Seismic Risk Terminology •  Single-site Seismic Risks •  Stakeholders & Loss Allocation Controlling Costs in Seismic Risk Management •  Portfolio Seismic Risks •  EQ Risk Best Practices •  Controlling Earthquake Costs •  A Seismic Risk Management System •  Discussion

Handouts

!"#$%#!%&

$&

Poll •  How many have formal criteria for earthquake PMLs? •  How many have ever required retrofit?

•  How many accept seismic reports supplied by sellers?

•  How many have conducted high-level engineering studies for unique or high-value buildings?

•  How many carry earthquake insurance for the part of the real estate portfolio in seismic zones?

•  How many do portfolio seismic risk assessment?

•  How many have post-earthquake response plans and rapid post-quake damage assessment systems?

Introductions

!"#$%#!%&

%&

ImageCat is an international disaster risk management firm meeting the global risk and disaster management needs of government and commercial clients using advanced technology.

Since 2000, ImageCat has served government, major corporations, and research institutions. ImageCat is headquartered in Long Beach, California, with European operations in London, United Kingdom.

Government Clients

!"#$%#!%&

'&

Insurance Industry

Structural Firms

!

CH2MHill

!"#$%#!%&

(&

William P. Graf, P.E. •  M.S. Structural Engineering, UCLA, 1982 •  Professional Engineer since 1984 •  1979-1986 Bechtel Power Corporation •  1986-2011 URS Corp. (Dames & Moore)

– Manager, Seismic Risk Software & Services •  2011-present ImageCat Inc.

– Vice President, Engineering SeismiCat

William P. Graf, P.E. •  Developer of SeismiCat Seismic Risk

Management System •  ASTM E 2026 Subcommittee, subtask leader on

relating uncertainty to level of investigation •  HAZUS Tsunami Module Development Team,

Lifeline Structures •  Author, Code-Oriented Damage Assessment

(CODA) Model •  Implemented current FEMA Seismic Benefit-Cost

Analysis Toolkit, based on HAZUS SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

)&

Seismic Evaluations – Translated into English!

Seismic Risk Terminology

Exposure: the buildings, contents, people and processes at risk

Hazards: ground shaking, soil liquefaction, surface fault rupture, slope instabilities, tsunami, seiche, etc.

Vulnerability: fragility or damageability, the relationship between hazard and damage, loss or disruption

Risk: the relationship between loss severity and frequency

!"#$%#!%&

*&

Risk

Risk occurs at the intersection of exposure, hazard and vulnerability

R = E x H x V

Risk

Risk has at least two dimensions, i.e.: – consequence and probability – loss and return period

Loss

, Dam

age

Cas

ualti

es o

r Dow

ntim

e

Return Period [Years]

!"#$%#!%&

+&

Seismic Hazards – • Ground shaking • Surface fault rupture • Soil liquefaction and

soil failures • Slope instability • Tsunami

Single-Site Seismic Risks

!"#$%#!%&

,&

ASTM E 2026 and E 2557

E 2026-07 Standard Guide for Seismic Risk Assessment of Buildings

E 2557-07 Standard Practice for Probable Maximum Loss (PML) Evaluations For Earthquake Due-Diligence Assessments

Basic Standards for PMLs

Under revision

ASCE/SEI 41-13

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

ASCE STANDARD

Combines procedures for existing buildings: ASCE 31-03 (Evaluation) + ASCE 41-06 (Retrofit)

Chapter 16 includes Tier 1 Checklists:

New

!"#$%#!%&

!"&

“Wish List” for Documents for Seismic Studies

Structural drawings (originals, mods, retrofits) Architectural drawings Geotechnical report (‘soils report’) Construction photos Earthquake damage reports Accelerometer recordings Computer models (ETABS, SAP, !) Also, access to Engineer-of-Record, Constructor

Structural Evaluation

Translating Engineering Findings to Risks

Structural Evaluation ASCE 41-13; FEMA 154

Building Codes (IBC)

Damage Relationships ATC 13 "Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California"

Code-Oriented Damage Assessment (CODA) [Graf & Lee, 2009] Steinbrugge, K.V. various publications

Thiel & Zsutty, EERI Spectra, 1987 Wesson et al., EERI Spectra, 2004

Porter et al, CUREE HAZUS MH

Relationship? Engineering Judgment!

!"#$%#!%&

!!&

Building Damage Models

•  ATC-13 [1985] •  CODA – Code-Oriented Damage Assessment

•  HAZUS-MH ® With CODA and HAZUS, Structural Engineers can adjust the engineering parameters to suit the specific building

SeismiCat

CODA: Code-Oriented Damage Assessment

!"#$%#!%&

!$&

HAZUS-MH ® • Set according to model building type, height and Seismic Design Level • Adjust value allocation (STR, NSD, NSA) • Adjust capacity parameters (period Te, strength Cs) • Adjust fragility parameters (STR, NSD, NSA) • Outputs – expected damage (SEL) and probability of collapse

Cladding and Partition Failures Ceilings, Equipment, Contents

STR: Structural Drift-Sensitive NDS: Nonstructural Drift-Sensitive NSA: Nonstructural Acceleration-Sensitive

SeismiCat

ASTM E 2026 and E 2557 Terminology

Scenario Loss (SL) • Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) • Scenario Upper Loss (SUL)

Probable Loss (PL)

Probable Maximum Loss (PML)

!"#$%#!%&

!%&

ASTM E 2026 and E 2557 Scenario Loss

Typical scenario is defined by the shaking and other hazards with 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., the life of a building). The equivalent return period is 475 years. Other scenarios may be defined if they are more relevant. 10% chance of exceedance in a loan life of 30 years, would equate to earthquake hazards with a 285-year return period.

Probabilistic Scenario: Return Period vs. Exposure Period and Probability of Exceedance

P=1- e -t T

t = exposure period (years) P = probability of exceedance in exposure period, t T = average return period

190

285

475

!"#$%#!%&

!'&

ASTM E 2026 and E 2557 Terminology

Scenario Loss (SL): earthquake damage loss expectation to building systems ! associated with a) specified earthquake events on specific fault(s) affecting the building, or b) probabilistic earthquake ground motions having a stated return period. Scenario Expected Loss (SEL): Mean or expected value of damage loss for the defined scenario. Scenario Upper Loss (SUL): loss with 10% chance of being exceeded for the defined scenario.

ASTM E 2026 and E 2557 SEL and SUL

Damage Factor = repair cost / replacement value

Pro

babi

lity

Den

sity

1.00.0 0.5

Scenario

Expected Loss

(SEL) "mean"

10% of area

Scenario

Upper Loss

(SUL)

!"#$%#!%&

!(&

What is PML? Owner or Lender criteria may define PML as:

• Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) • Scenario Upper Loss (SUL)

Damage Factor

Pro

babi

lity

Den

sity

1.00.0

SEL

SUL

PML???&

What is a 20% damage level?

Most users tend to set their acceptance criteria at a 20% damage level. The choice depends on their risk appetite. Some allow higher risk levels with insurance. 20% damage corresponds to a Moderate Damage state – roughly to high levels of nonstructural damage, with some significant structural damage, and some potential for yellow-tagging and vacancy required for repair.

!"#$%#!%&

!)&

Moderate Nonstructural Damage (20%) Partition Walls: Large and extensive cracks requiring repair and repainting; some partitions may require replacement of gypsum board or other finishes. Suspended Ceilings: Falling of tiles is fairly extensive; in addition the ceiling support framing (T-bars) has disconnected and/or buckled at few locations; lenses have fallen off of some light fixtures and a few fixtures have fallen; localized repairs are necessary. Equipment: Movements are large and damage is fairly extensive; piping leaks at a few locations; elevator machinery and rails may require realignment.

Moderate Structural Damage (20%) Wood Framed Construction: Large plaster or gypsum-board cracks at corners of door and window openings; small diagonal cracks across shear wall panels exhibited by small cracks in stucco and gypsum wall panels; large cracks in brick chimneys; toppling of tall masonry chimneys. Steel Moment Frame: Some steel members have yielded exhibiting observable permanent rotations at connections; few welded connections may exhibit major cracks through welds or few bolted connections may exhibit broken bolts or enlarged bolt holes. Concrete Shear Wall: Most shear wall surfaces exhibit diagonal cracks; some shear walls have exceeded yield capacity indicated by larger diagonal cracks and concrete spalling at wall ends.

!"#$%#!%&

!*&

“Risk Appetite”

Large lenders, especially those involved in CMBS, may be more risk-tolerant, accepting a 20% SEL. (This implies an SUL of from 25% to 40% – Extensive Damage). More traditional lenders (e.g. real estate investments for life insurance companies), as well as owners, may be more cautious, accepting a 20% SUL, and requiring earthquake insurance above some level (e.g., SUL = 15%). Define the Scenario: Most real estate due diligence uses a scenario based on the earthquake hazards with a 475-year return period. One well-known lender uses a 200-year return period, but also requires life-safety in the code design earthquake.

What is ‘PML’? You Decide! How do you decide?

1. What is your risk position? •  Developer, Owner, Lender, Insurer?

2. How long will you hold the risks? •  less than 1 year (CMBS) •  a few years (developer) •  30 Years (lender) •  50 Years (owner)

3. What level do you require in PML studies?

If you accept 20% SEL, you assume more risk than if you accept a 20% SUL.

!"#$%#!%&

!+&

Reports should provide both, to show uncertainty.

SUL considers the uncertainty in the estimate.

Uncertainty in seismic risk estimates is affected by: •  Quality of the investigator (engineer) •  Available information (esp. drawings) •  Level of Investigation (SS, BS, BD) • Age of building (pre-code?) • Special hazards (i.e., liquefaction)

ASTM E 2026: SEL and SUL

SUL / SEL Ratio a function of

Quality of Information and Level of Investigation

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Level 2!SUL = 0.22

Level 3!SUL = 0.33

SEL = 0.15

Damage Factor (fraction of repl. value)

Pro

babi

lity

Den

sity

Beta Distribution, recommended !

Damage Factor = repair cost / replacement value

Pro

babi

lity

Den

sity

1.00.0 0.5

Scenario

Expected Loss

(SEL) "mean"

10% of area

Scenario

Upper Loss

(SUL)

Level 0 SUL = 0.33

!"#$%#!%&

!,&

ASTM E 2026: SUL/SEL Ratio

Proposed Desktop Study Site Visit or Drawing Review Site Visit + Drawing Review Detailed Engineering Review

Probable Loss – a better answer •  Considers the full range of earthquake hazards •  Considers the building vulnerability with its uncertainty •  Provides a direct relationship between risk and return period

But most Structural Engineering consultants do not offer it.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Damage Factor

Pro

babi

lity

Den

sity

Threshold

Probability of !Exceeding!Threshold

Return Period [Years]

Gro

und

Shak

ing

(Sa)

10 100 1000 10,000

Hazard Bin

!"#$%#!%&

$"&

Typical Seismic Risk Analysis Comparing Scenario Losses and Probable Loss

Controlling Costs in Seismic Risk Management

!"#$%#!%&

$!&

Portfolio Seismic Risks The catastrophic element of risk

Portfolio Seismic Risk Assessment •  Large portfolio owners and lenders need to:

– manage seismic risks, – respond to seismic events, and – choose appropriate levels of earthquake

insurance •  Portfolio risk assessments are often done for

insurance, using conservative catastrophe models (RMS, AIR, EQECat) with no engineering input.

•  Due diligence process provides high-level data and the opportunity to re-use the good data.

SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

$$&

SeismiCat Multi-Site (studies) • Ground shaking simulations

compatible with USGS • ATC-13, CODA and HAZUS damage

relationships • Risk curves with ground-up loss,

direct (insurer) loss, or lender loss for owners, lenders and insurers.

Portfolio Risks SeismiCat

Uncertainty in PF Seismic Risk Value uncertainty in replacement values, B.I.

Ground Motion uncertainty in the selected ground motion parameter for damage, and uncertainty in annual frequency of occurrence

Building Performance variability (damage or loss, given the ground motion parameter)

Risks from "Special" hazards (fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide, ...) are difficult to model!

!"#$%#!%&

$%&

Lender Loss Allocation Model

Application: “How much quake insurance should I buy?”

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Por

tfol

io-W

ide

Loss

Am

ount

475 Years

Average Return Period [Years]

A

B

C

D

"Ground-up" losses, no engineering input Improved "ground-up" losses, with engineering input Insured losses, typical deductible applied

Portfolio seismic risk assessment helps an owner decide on limits of coverage (D? C? B? A?), and so pays for itself.

!"#$%#!%&

$'&

Regional Risk Comparison (Ground-up)

SeismiCat

475 years

Total insured value (TIV) No. CA $64.7M So. CA $176.8M WA $95.9M $337.5M

Which region dominates? Where can I invest without increasing my catastrophic loss?

Risk Reduction Opportunity SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

$(&

What the earthquake catastrophe models can't do -- what most models don't consider: •  Aftershocks and triggered seismicity à la Christchurch.

For example, M7s in L.A. or Oakland after an M8 on SA. •  Tall building collapses in the urban environment,

affecting other less damaged buildings •  Unknown behavior of new or unique building systems •  Regional recession or depression post-quake •  Changes in regulation post-quake -- land-use policy,

code changes, etc. •  "Black swans breed white elephants." Market reaction

to "black swans" (eg, non-ductile concrete frames, pre-NR WSMFs, etc.). These can become ‘white elephants.’

EQ Risk ‘Best Practices’

!"#$%#!%&

$)&

Seismic Risk Management Process

Risk transfer Risk reduction Diversification

Portfolio Risk Surveillance

Seismic Risk Screening

Risk Mitigation

Planning, Response & Recovery

Earthquake occurs!

Risk avoidance

•  Select a Structural Engineering firm specializing in seismic risk assessment and retrofit

•  Develop policy, deploy a scope of work for screening buildings in seismic zones

•  Conduct site-by-site seismic risk assessments By a P.E. (Civil or Structural)

•  Save and manage the data

•  Revise with feedback from portfolio surveillance

Seismic Risk Screening

!"#$%#!%&

$*&

•  Which buildings drive the risks? – What risk reduction opportunties exist?

•  How effective are your ‘buffers’? – Owners: earthquake insurance – Lenders: owner equity, earthquake insurance

•  Lenders – What happens if the real estate market plunges again?

Portfolio Risk Surveillance

• Recovery planning • Earthquake insurance • Strategic sale & acquisition • Seismic retrofit • Damage detection (instrumentation) • Rapid post-quake damage estimation

Risk Mitigation

!"#$%#!%&

$+&

•  Consultant team selection and preparation

Earthquake occurs! •  Post-earthquake damage simulation •  Gathering information from news, site staff •  Mobilization of engineering consultants •  Stabilization of damaged buildings •  Local building jurisdiction inspections and

safety postings (red, yellow, green tag) •  Executing the recovery plan

Planning, Response & Recovery

% g16-3232-4848-6464+

8-164-80-4

Highest hazard

Lowest hazard

Best Nationwide Seismic Hazards Source: U.S. Geological Survey [Petersen et al, 2008] • Probabilistic Hazard Curves (Sa versus Return Period) for single-site • New model in 2014 – based on new attenuation relationships (NGA)

!"#$%#!%&

$,&

Include Local Seismic Hazards Liquefaction,surface faulting, landslide, Site Class

Maps and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) help us determine local geology and hazards. Geotechnical investigation reports are even better.

Controlling Earthquake Costs

!"#$%#!%&

%"&

Average Annual Loss (AAL) – long-term annual loss rate

AAL = ! PF_Lossi x Annual_freqi

AAL = Earthquake Loss Cost per Year

This is typically found in portfolio risk analysis. You can set your earthquake budgets accordingly! Examples: Hotel Portfolio 0.20% Ground-up ($2M on $1B) Mixed Equity 0.19% Ground-up ($4M on $2.1B) Lab and Office Equity 0.24% Ground-up ($5M on $2.1B)

PF_Lossi = Portfolio-wide loss in earthquake scenario (i) Annual_freqi = Rate of occurrence per year for earthquake scenario (i)&&

What Does Seismic Risk Management Cost Each Year? • Due-diligence (PML reports, Consultants, internal staff) • Earthquake insurance premiums • Seismic retrofit • Planning / preparedness

What Does Seismic Risk Management Save? IF NO QUAKE OCCURS • Reduced insurance premiums • Enhanced resale – value and ease of sale • Improved rating IF A MAJOR QUAKE OCCURS • Losses avoided – bad buildings screened out • Lower retained losses (below deductible) • Reduction in repair cost, lost revenue at retrofit properties • Reduced liability

You stay in business!

!"#$%#!%&

%!&

Use a good process

1.  Assign a qualified internal manager 2.  Use a seismic risk management system

•  Actively manage the due-diligence process; scope appropriately. •  Maintain your PML data; re-use in portfolio risk assessment

3.  When are seismic studies needed? •  Equivalent to UBC Seismic Zones 3 & 4? TIV > $10M? •  Pre-Benchmark buildings? All buildings?

4.  Set good criteria, to suit your portfolio and your stakeholder risk position 5.  Monitor regional seismic risk accumulations 6.  Use a limited set of qualified providers 7.  Use good hazard data (geotech reports, good maps) 8.  Use all available data (drawings, site visit, past reports, Engineer-of-Record)

Prepare and Mitigate

•  Develop a response plan •  Mitigate nonstructural hazards as a part of

normal maintenance •  For major buildings, deploy BORP •  Rapid post-earthquake risk estimates •  Instrument your buildings •  Use benefit / cost analysis to inform retrofit

decisions

!"#$%#!%&

%$&

Beware 1.  PML reports provided by the seller

2.  Unqualified providers (low-bid environmental and PCA firms)

3.  Big retrofit projects based on a single consultant recommendation? Get a second opinion!

4.  Weak risk models (MMI-based or PGA-based for high-rise)

5.  Ideosyncratic methods (i.e., no connection with engineering)

6.  Suspiciously low uncertainty – SUL/SEL ratios < 1.4

7.  Hidden risks – liquefaction, landslide, fault rupture, tsunami

8.  “Eggs in one basket” -- local risk concentrations

9.  Portfolio earthquake coverage based on insurance broker portfolio analysis

10.  Wind and flood risks (do you only screen earthquake risk?)

SeismiCat

SeismiCat by ImageCat, Inc.

www.seismicat.com

Online single-site earthquake risk management system

!"#$%#!%&

%%&

Vulnerability

Site Hazards

Exposure data

Earthquake Simulations

Aggregate Loss

Individual Risks

Multi-site Analysis

High-quality Engineering

Data

Risk Management Decisions

SeismiCatSeismic Risk Management System

Single-site Analysis

Post-Earthquake Alerts!

Automatic Geocoding and Location Mapping

!"#$%#!%&

%'&

Building Information •  Input basic information about age, height, size and occupancy

Site Hazards

•  Digital data for soil condition, liquefaction susceptibility at building location. •  User over-writable when more actuate information is available. •  Surface rupture hazard. •  Shaking hazard directly calculated on the specified soil condition by USGS (2010)

!"#$%#!%&

%(&

Site Shaking Hazards

•  Hazard recurrence curves •  Demand spectral plots

SeismiCat

Site Hazards

Site Condition Mapping

SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

%)&

Site Hazards

Fault Mapping

SeismiCat

Site Hazards •  Surface Rupture Mapping (AP Zones)

SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

%*&

Building Damage Models •  ATC-13 [Applied Technology Council, 1985] •  Code-Oriented Damage Assessment (CODA) [Graf & Lee Spectra, 2009] •  HAZUS®-MH (FEMA/NIBS)

Building Vulnerability Modeling

User customizable building damage

parameters.

HAZUS&&

CODA&&

SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

%+&

Risk Criteria •  Input the specific risk criteria (exposure period, etc.)

Loss Results

Probable Loss Scenario Loss Average Annual Loss

SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

%,&

Loss Results

Scenario Loss •  Scenario Expected Loss (SEL) •  Scenario Upper Loss (SUL)

Probable Maximum Loss •  Mean -- PML(50) •  Upper Bound – PML(90)

SeismiCat

Comprehensive Risk Report

!"#$%#!%&

'"&

Project browsing and queuing •  Past projects are easily accessed •  Selected projects can be exported for portfolio analysis

Earthquake Scenario Analysis

•  Shakemaps are used for scenario earthquake analysis We just had an earthquake! Were my buildings damaged?

!"#$%#!%&

'!&

Earthquake Scenario Analysis •  Selected historical events are available for analysis

Questions

Discussion

!"#$%#!%&

'$&

Q: So what if I don't screen seismic risks or do portfolio risk assessment? Won't a "normal" building portfolio perform well? A: Well, since everyone else is cherry picking, you may end up with a portfolio full of real dogs. Basically you are rolling the dice and saying, "I am betting no big quake hits my big investment clusters." Q: Well, what if I just stick with new buildings? Won't new codes deliver better buildings? A: Yes, but aren't there lots of good deals out there for existing and older buildings? Won't you be limiting your deal volume? Also, some of the new systems in new buildings are relatively untested, like really tall wood-frames in some of the current apartment developments, or the mega-warehouses that are 1/4-mile long. All of these innovations are "experiments," and some of them may fail.

Contact William P. Graf, C.E. Vice President, Engineering ImageCat Inc. (www.imagecatinc.com) 400 Oceangate, Suite 1050 Long Beach, CA 90802 562-628-1675 x 223 562-547-5711 cell wpg@imagecatinc.com

SeismiCat

!"#$%#!%&

'%&

Selected References Algermissen, S. T., M. Hopper, K. Campbell, W. A. Rinehart, D. Perkins, K. V. Steinbrugge, H. J. Lagorio, D. F. Moran, F. S. Cluff, H. J. Degenkolb, C. M. Duke. G. O. Gates, N. N. Jacobson. R A. Olson, and C. R. Allen, 1973, A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Los Angeles. California Area, Washington, D.C., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Algermissen, S. T., W. A. Rinehart, J. Dewey, K. V. Steinbrugge, H. J. Degenkolb, L. S. Cluff. F. E., McClure, R. F. Gordon, S. Scott, and H. J. Lagorio, 1972, A Study of Earthquake Losses in the San Francisco Bay Area, Washington, D.C.: Office of Emergency Preparedness, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

ASCE 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings

ASTM E 2026-07, Standard Guide for Seismic Risk Assessment of Buildings

ASTM E2557-07, Standard Practice for Probable Maximum Loss (PML) Evaluations for Earthquake Due-Diligence Assessments

Graf, W.P., and Lee, Y.J., Code-Oriented Damage Assessment for Buildings, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 25, No. 1, February 2009, EERI.

Graf, W.P., The Value of Engineering Input in Seismic Risk Studies, Journal of Reinsurance, Intermediaries and Reinsurance Underwriters Association, IRU, Inc., Vol. 11 No. 4, Fall, 2004.

Graf, W.P., Developments in Single-site Earthquake Risk Assessment, 6th International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Palm Springs, California, November, 2000.

King, S. A., and Rojahn, C., 2002. ATC-13–1: Commentary on the Use of ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for Probable Maximum Loss Studies of California Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California.

Martel, R. R., 1964. Earthquake damage to Type III buildings in Long Beach, 1933, in Earthquake Investigations in the Western United States, 1933–1964, Publication 41–2, U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C.

Moehle, J. P., “A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering,” Proceedings, Tenth U.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Seismic Design and Construction Practices, Report ATC-15-9, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 2003

Selected References Rogers, A. M., S. T. Algermissen, W. W. Hayes, D. M. Perkins, D. 0. Van Strein. H. C. Hughes. R. C. Hughes, H. J. Lagorio, and K. V. Steinbrugge, 1976, A Study of Earthquake Losses in the Salt Lake City, Utah Area. USGS Open File Report 76-89, United States Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.

Rojahn, C., ATC-13: Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1985.

Steinbrugge, K.V., J.H. Bennett, H.J. Lagorio, J.F. Davis, G.A. Bordardt, and T.R. Toppozada, Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault in the San Francisco Bay Area, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 78, 1987, scale 1:200,000

Steinbrugge, K.V., 1986, Earthquake loss estimation on a regional basis; Observations on practices and problems. Seismic Hazard and Vulnerability, El Cerrito, California, EERI.

Steinbrugge, Karl V. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Tsunamis: An Anatomy of Hazards. New York, NY: Skandia America Group, 1982. IZ&G QE506 .S74 1982.

Steinbrugge, K.V. and Roth, Jr., R.J., Dwelling and mobile home monetary losses due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake with an emphasis on loss estimation, USGS Bulletin 1939-B, 1994.

Thiel, C.C., and Zsutty, T.C., Earthquake Characteristics and Damage Statistics, Earthquake Spectra 3, 747–792, 1987.

Thiel, C.C. Jr., Kosonen, T.E., Stivers, D.A., “SEL versus SUL: managing seismic risk in commercial real estate investments,” The Structural Design Of Tall And Special Buildings, 389–404 (2012)

Wesson, R.L., Perkins, D.M., Leyendecker, E.V., Roth, R.J., and Petersen, M.D., Losses to single-family housing from ground motions in the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra 20, 1021–1045, 2004.

Wiggins, J.H., and C.E. Taylor, NTS Engineering, "Damageability of Low-rise Construction", Report No. 1442-1, 1986.