Case StudyGIS-Based Seismic Damage Estimation: Case Studyfor the
City of Kelowna, BCM. N. Alam1; S. Tesfamariam, M.ASCE2; and M.
Shahria Alam3Abstract: Thisstudyintegratesriskassessment
toolsfordiagnosisofurbanareasagainst seismicdisasters(RADIUS)
andgeographicinformation system (GIS), hence forth denoted as GBR
(GIS based RADIUS). The GBR is applied for seismic damage
estimation of city ofKelowna, in the interior of British Columbia,
Canada. Ground-shaking intensity in the area was developed
utilizing the seismic source zonesdened by the Geological Survey of
Canada and opinions fromthe local experts. Building inventories
were compiled by aggregating data frommunicipal databases as well
as sidewalk surveys and surveys through Google Maps. The GIS tool
came in to be handy to provide a basis foreffective decision making
and gauge the vulnerable areas. Estimated damage and damage
distributions were mapped on a block-by-block (5 35km) basis. The
assessment revealed that an earthquake scenario of M8.5 in the
Cascadia Zone may potentially damage around 58 buildingswithin the
city, causing 12 injuries. Plus, the study showed some damage
assessment for the lifelines, for example, road and water
pipelinesnetworks. The assessment results further revealed that the
city of Kelowna downtown area was expected to suffer the highest
amount of damage,which in turn may produce the highest amount of
economic loss, because it is the concentration of concrete
high-rise buildings and clusteredeconomicactivities. Therefore,
forgoodmeasure,extrameticulouseffortsandrazor-sharpinsightbundledwithpreciseseismicdamageestimation(2-32-kmgrids)wereconductedforthedowntownareato
provideguidelinesforemergencyresponse.TheproposedGBRframework
provides a useful tool to quickly assess the expected damages in
response to a major seismic event, which can be updated
easilyduring disaster. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000082.
2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.CE Database subject
headings: Seismic effects; Risk management; Earthquakes; Damage;
Geographic information systems; Canada;Case studies.Author
keywords: Seismic hazard; Seismic risk; Vulnerability; Earthquake;
Damage; RADIUS; Geographic information system
(GIS).IntroductionIncreased vulnerability and corresponding risk in
many urban areasisamajor concern(Munich2000). Becauseof limitations
of areadily-available budget and efforts to implement seismic
disasterreduction measures, a scenario of what will happen if a
seismic eventoccursisvital forearthquake-pronecities.
Seismicdamageesti-mationcanserveas astartingpoint
foraneffectiveseismicrisk-reduction program (Alam et al. 2011). It
is highly noted that suchmeasures require an assessment of
potential damage to make rec-ommendations for prevention,
preparedness, and response (Ingleton1999). Theassessment of
theexpecteddamagesfor apotentialdisaster essentially consists of
risk evaluation (WMO 1999), amongothers. For decision making and
emergency management purposes,seismic risk can be dened in terms of
potential economic, social,and environmental losses froma
particular earthquake event(Tesfamariamand Saatcioglu 2008; Carreo
et al. 2011). To conductregionalseismicriskestimation,
amultidisciplinaryevaluationisrequiredto assess the potential
physical damage, the number andtypeof causalities, as well as
thesocial fragilities andlackofresilience conditions (Cardona and
Hurtado 2000). Several
seismiclossestimationmethodshavebeendevelopedfromdifferentper-spectivesduringthelast
decades. TheATC-13project
(AppliedTechnologyCouncil1985)isoneoftherst majorprojectsre-garding
the assessment of seismic risk in terms of
damageprobabilitymatricesproposedbyWhitmanet al. (1973). Afterthat,
a numbers of approaches andmethodologies have beendeveloped all
over the world (Alam et al.
2011).Recently,differentseismicriskassessmenttoolsthat
integrateinformationfromexistingbuildinginventoryandsiteseismicityhave
been reported (Onur et al. 2006, van Westen et al. 2005). Abasic
subdivision of the tools can be made between the
commercialandnoncommercialoneswithinthereportedseismicriskquanti-cationmethods.
Commercial catastrophe modelingtechniquesdeveloped for earthquakes
include the EQEHAZARD (EQECAT),EarlyPost-EarthquakeDamageAssessment
Tool, andImageCat(van Westen et al. 2005), which have been
developed by differentinsurance and government organizations. The
noncommercial lossestimation models are freely available software
for which themanualsandsoftwarecanbedownloadedfromtheinternet.
TheNatural Hazards Electronic Map and Assessment Tools
InformationSystem has been developed by Emergency Preparedness
Canada toprovide emergency planners with a tool that supports the
denitionand execution of elaborate models which will assist in
predicting/estimating the potential impact of a natural
hazard/disaster ina dened area of interest (Brun et al. 1997).
MAEviz, developed bya joint effort between the Mid-America
Earthquake Center and theNational Center for
SupercomputingApplications, isoneof themodern platform independent
open source seismic risk assessment1GraduateStudent, School
ofEngineering, TheUniv. ofBritishCo-lumbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V
1V7. E-mail: [email protected] Professor, School of
Engineering, The Univ. of BritishColumbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada
V1V1V7 (corresponding author).E-mail:
[email protected] Professor, School of
Engineering, The Univ. of BritishColumbia, Kelowna, BC, Canada V1V
1V7. E-mail: [email protected]. This manuscript was submitted
on November 21, 2011; approvedon March 30, 2012; published online
on April 11, 2012. Discussion periodopenuntil July1, 2013; separate
discussions must be submittedforindividual papers. Thispaper ispart
of theNatural HazardsReview,Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1, 2013. ASCE,
ISSN 1527-6988/2013/1-6678/$25.00.66 / NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE
/ FEBRUARY 2013Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from
ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13.
Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights
reserved.software(MAEViz; Elnashai et al. 2008). It
canbeutilizedforpredisaster planning, mitigation, as well as rapid
response assess-ment after a disaster. However, the complexity of
using this softwaremay require skilled technical persons, which may
lead to a
certainamountofcost.TheHazards-UnitedStates(HAZUS)softwareisinteractivesoftwarereleasedbyFEMA(2004)
andtheNationalInstitute of Building Sciences (NIBS). Hazard
U.S.Multi-hazard(HAZUS-MH) was developedinanArcGISplatform,
andfulldatasets on the level of census tract can be obtained for
the entireUnited States (Kircher et al. 2006). However, it is
difcult to applytheHAZUSmethodinother parts of theworldbecauseof
thecomplexityand largequantity ofinput datarequired.
Theoverallcomparison of various noncommercial seismic loss
estimationprocesses is summarized in Table 1.Therecent development
of geographical informationsystem(GIS) technology has introduced
the GIS as a media concept (SuiandGoodchild2001),
whichreplacedthetraditional useofGISas only a database-mapping
spatial analytical tool. This newadvancement emphasizes more on the
communication of geo-graphical information to a larger community.
Seismic hazard and
riskinvestigationshavebecomemoreandmorecomplexintermsofhandling a
large amount of spatial data with subsequent analysis.
GIStechnologycanbeasuitabletooltocopewiththesecomplexities(Pessina
and Meroni 2009).In 2002, the International Institute for
Geoinformation Scienceand Earth Observation launched a research
project with Strength-eningLocal AuthoritiesinRiskManagement
todevelopgenericmethodologies for GIS-based risk assessment and
decision supportthat can be benecial for local authorities in
medium-sized cities indeveloping countries
(vanWestenetal.2005).Butitneedshighlevelsof professional
involvement aswell asbetter accuracyindatabase and resources.
Community watching can also useful,however, thelevel
ofaccuracyisnot goodenoughtomakethedecisions (www.nset.org.np). The
1990s was declared by the
UnitedNationsastheinternationaldecadefornaturaldisasterreduction.The
riskassessment tools for diagnosis of urbanareas againstTable 1.
Comparison of Various Seismic Loss Estimation Methodologies
[Adapted from www.nset.org.np/ (NSET
2001)]MethodologiesStakeholders involvementMotivation tocommunity
AccuracyResourcerequiredPossibility of use indeveloping countries
Professionals Authorities CommunityRisk assessment tools
fordiagnosis of urban areasagainst seismic disastersMedium High
Medium High Medium Low YesGeographical informationsystem-based risk
assessmenttools for diagnosis of urbanareas against
seismicdisasters gridHigh Low Low Low Mediumhigh High
YesStrengthening local authoritiesin risk managementHigh Medium Low
Low High High YesCommunity watching Low Medium High High Low Low
YesHAZUS High Low Low Low High High YesTable 2. Past Seismic Damage
Estimation StudiesAuthors CommentsAnagnostopoulos et al. (2008) The
authors developed geographic information systems scenario-based
system software called SEISMOCARE toestimate the regional damage
for a particular seismic event. It provides an avant-garde approach
for seismic riskmanagement in terms of hazard identication,
vulnerability assessment, and risk assessment in a spatial
manner.Barbat et al. (2010) The authors argued that geographic
information systems can be used to show the risk spatially for
scenarios of theprobable hazards for a particular zone. Acase study
of a pilot urban area, Barcelona, Spain, was presented to
investigateand compare the most relevant seismic vulnerability and
risk analysis methods of different research projects. In thisstudy,
geographic information systems were utilized to describe the
spatial distributions of expected damages froma probable
earthquake.Codermatz et al. (2003) Geographic information systems
can effectively be utilized to assess the seismic risk of a
particular zone. The authorsapplied the geographic information
systems technology to infrastructures in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia
region of NorthEast Italy. Ageographic information systems-based
HAZUS method was applied to the tunnels and bridges of a
highwaynetwork to generate the probable seismic risk of the
infrastructure. The study depicted the strength of
geographicinformation systems technology in categorization,
detailing, and mapping spatial data for a specic zone.Okazaki
(2000, 2003) The authors presented the case studies of 58 cities
around the world (27 cities in Asia, 12 cities in Europe and
Africa,and 19 cities in Latin America) with utilization of the Risk
Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas AgainstSeismic
Disasters tool.GeoHazards International(1994)GeoHazards
International has applied the risk assessment tools for diagnosis
of urban areas against seismic disastersmethod to actual risk
management projects implemented in cities such as Quito, the
capital of Ecuador.National Society for EarthquakeTechnologyNepal
(2001);Asian Urban Disaster MitigationProgram (2003)National
Society for Earthquake TechnologyNepal has applied the risk
assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areasagainst seismic
disasters method to actual risk management projects implemented in
Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal.NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE /
FEBRUARY 2013 / 67Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from
ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13.
Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.seismic
disasters (RADIUS) project (GeoHazards International2004) is one of
the major initiated projects within this period.
Al-thoughthelevelofaccuracyinRADIUSisnotsufcientforde-signinganystructures,
it is goodenoughfor decisionmaking,considering thenancial and
temporal aspects. The integration ofGIS with RADIUS can enhance the
accuracy of the results.The method described by the GIS-based
RADIUS (GBR)(RADIUS1999) guidelines has the mainobjectives of
raisingawareness in the community of seismic risk and the actions
thatcould be taken to manage it, and incorporating all the
stakeholdersof the community in the risk management process. The
utilizationof RADIUS and GIS in seismic loss estimation has been
found inliteratureseparately,
whichisshowninTable2.Verylittleap-plication of RADIUS in North
American cities is reported.In this paper, the GIS and
RADIUSareintegratedwithacasestudyfor thecityof Kelowna, BC, Canada.
Thisstudyaimstodevelop a method that is convenient to use before or
during a majorseismic event. The results give the spatial idea
about the potentiallosses, whichwill guidethe rst respondersfor
quickresponseduring a disaster. The tool is also useful for
decision makers, becauseit gives an idea about the potential risky
areas. The authorities cantakedecisions onimmediaterepair or
retrottinginterventions.Future development activities can also be
guided with the help of theresult. The main tasks in this
integration are the following:Considering ground motion amplication
because of local soilconditions; Classifying and assessing the
vulnerability of the city ofKelownas building inventory;Selecting
damage factors suitable to Canadian construction; and Assessingthe
worst case scenarioas well as the optimisticscenario and mapping
the damage states in GIS.Geographical Information System-Based
RiskAssessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areasagainst Seismic
Disasters MethodFig. 1 shows the overall procedure for the proposed
GBR method.After compilationof thedifferent data,
thedatabasegoesundera quality inspection phase. With approval from
quality inspection,thewholedatabaseis subjectedunder
aGISqueryanalysis
toformulatetheinputdataforRADIUS(Okazaki2000).Afterana-lyzing in
RADIUS, the results can be represented in GIS maps toshow the
spatial distributions of the seismic damage states.Fig. 1.Workow
diagramofthegeographicalinformationsystem-based risk assessment
tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismicdisasters
methodFig. 2. General owof
earthquakedamageestimationinproposedgeographical
informationsystem-basedriskassessment toolsfor di-agnosis of urban
areas against seismic disasters method (adapted fromRADIUS
2000)Fig. 3. Sample grid area in risk assessment tools for
diagnosis of urbanareas against seismic disastersFig. 4. Surface
ground amplication for different soil/rock types in riskassessment
tools for diagnosis of urban areas against seismic
disasters(adapted from Koei and Oyo 2001)68 / NATURAL HAZARDS
REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013Nat. Hazards Rev.
2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of
British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use
only; all rights reserved.General outline of the RADIUS method is
summarized in Fig. 2.Scenario earthquake, ground condition,
demographic data, andmean damage ratio are the most important input
data for earthquakedamageestimation. Zoningof thearea, soil
condition, buildingclassication, lifeline inventory, and soil
condition are also majorinputdataforthetool. Inthissection,
thenecessityofzoningisexplained using historical examples.Zoning of
AreaDamage estimation is generally carried out by subdividing
thestudyarea; hence, seismicdamageestimationisoftencalledseismic
microzoning. In therst step of the proposed method, thestudy area
should be divided into equal-sized square grids. The gridsize
varies depending on the size of the study area as well as the
scaleof the study (local or regional). Fig. 3 shows a sample zoning
of thearea in RADIUS. The input values should be assigned to each
of thegrids, and therefore spatially distributed outputs can be
obtained.Earthquake Hazard
AssessmentAsimpliedmethodtoevaluategroundconditionsisintroducedinRADIUS.
The observed damage is a result of both the weakness
ofbuildingsandthesoil conditionof thestudyarea. Four
groundclassications based on the surface soil, namely, hard rock,
soft rock,Table 3. Attenuation Equations Utilized in Risk
Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas Against Seismic
Disasters (Adapted from RADIUS 2000)Equation Source Attenuation
equation1 Joyner and Boore (1981) Peak ground acceleration 5
100:249 3M2logD20:00255 3D21:02, D5E217:320:52 Campbell (1981) Peak
ground acceleration 5 0:0185 3exp1:28 3M 3D21:75, D5E 10:147
3exp0:732 3M3 Fukushima and Tanaka (1990) Peak ground acceleration
5 100:41 3M2log10R10:032 3100:41 3M
20:0034 3R11:30=980Note: E5 epicentral distance; R 5 hypocentral
distance; M5 earthquake magnitude.Fig. 5. Attenuation relationships
utilized in risk assessment tools for diagnosis of urban areas
against seismic disastersTable 4. Risk Assessment Tools for
Diagnosis of Urban Areas Against Seismic Disasters Building Class
Denition (credit, with permission: RADIUS 2000,GeoHazards
International 2004)Risk assessment toolsfor diagnosis of urbanareas
against seismicdisasters building class DenitionResidential 1
Informal construction: mainly slums and row housing made from unred
bricks, mud mortar, loosely tied walls and roofsResidential 2
Unreinforced masonry (URM)-reinforced concrete composite
construction: substandard construction, not complying with thelocal
building code provisions (height up to 3 stories).Residential 3
URM-reinforced concrete composite construction: old, deteriorated
construction, not complying with the latest building codeprovisions
(height of 46 stories).Residential 4 Engineered reinforced concrete
construction: newly constructed multistory buildings for
residential and commercial purposes.Educational 1 School buildings,
up to 2 storys: generally, the percentage of this type of building
should be very low.Educational 2 School buildings higher than 2
storys: ofce buildings should also be included in this class;
generally, the percentage of this typeof buildings should be very
low.Medical 1 Low- to medium-rise hospitals: generally, the
percentage of this type of building should be very low.Medical 2
High-rise hospitals: generally, the percentage of this type of
building should be very low.Commercial Shopping centers.Industrial
Industrial facilities.NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013 /
69Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org
by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For
personal use only; all rights reserved.mediumsoil, and soft soil
have been adopted in the RADIUS tool. Inaddition, an unknown soil
type also exists for the convenience ofthe users. These
classications correspondtothe amplicationfactors of eachsoil type,
which can be changed by the user,depending on the situation. The
values of amplication factors havebeen shown in Fig. 4 for
different soil classes.The reoccurrence of a past damaging
earthquake or an active
faultearthquakeisnormallyadoptedincaseofascenarioearthquakeselection.
Kapposet al. (2008)
denedascenarioearthquakeasaparticularseismicevent,
whichhasaprobabilityofexceedinghigher, equal, or lowerthan the
code-specied design earthquakefor the area. Unlike the seismic risk
analysis, a comprehensive de-scription of consequences is provided,
considering the occurrenceof a particular seismic event in the
scenario-based analysis. Althoughhypothetical earthquakes can be
used as the scenario earthquake, itshould be validated from a
seismological point of view. However,the historical earthquakes
provided in the RADIUS tool are helpfulfor
decidingscenarioearthquakeinput parameters, for example,location,
depth, magnitude, and occurrence time of the
earthquake.Itisnecessarytospecifythetimeofoccurrenceforthescenarioearthquake,
becausethecasualtycount dependsonwhether theearthquake occurs
during night or day. The seismic intensity scale isthemost
commonlyusedindextospecifythelevel of groundshaking and effect
within a study area. Although there are variousindices, the
modiedMercalli intensity(MMI) for the seismic
intensityscaleisadoptedinthetool derivedfromthepopular
empiricalformula. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is also adopted in
the toolfor the convenience of design engineers and calculated by
one ofthree of the most popular attenuation formulas, shown in
Table 3,and converted to MMI using the empirical formula of
Trifunac andBrady (1975) (Fig. 5).Collection of Existing Building
InventoryTensimpliedbuildingclasses, for example, residential
(RES1,RES2, RES3, and RES4), educational (EDU1 and EDU2),
medical(MED1 and MED2), commercial, and industrial have been
adoptedinthe RADIUS tool. Classications of building types used
inRADIUS are described in Table 4. The tool gives fragility
functionsfor each of these building categories.Vulnerability
Assessment and Damage EstimationVulnerability curves showthe
relationship between the meandamage rate and seismic hazard (MMI or
PGA). The vulnerabilitycurvesfor
buildingandlifelinedamagesarenormallybasedonMMI (RADIUS 2000). Onur
et al. (2005) proposed mean damagefactors (MDFs) for major classes
of buildings for British Columbia.Damage ratios for MMI V and IV
have been adopted in this methodfrom the RADIUS tool. The
modiedgure is shown in Fig. 6. InFig. 6, as expected, the concrete
buildings suffer more damage in anyseismic event compared with
wooden structures. The percentage ofMDFs is multiplied with the
number of building within a block
tomeasurethetotalnumberofdamagedbuildings(RADIUS2000).The user
inputs the percentage of each building type for each mesharea. Mesh
weights, dened as the relative density of buildings ineach mesh
unit, should be specied for each grid. Thus, combiningall
thefactorswiththecalculatedseismicintensitydistribution,building
damage can be estimated.The tool can also be utilized for lifeline
damage estimation, forexample, roads (local and highway), bridges,
tunnels, electrical andtelecommunication supply (towers and
substations), water supply andsewage(trunkanddistributionlines,
pumpingstations, andtreat-ment plants), reservoirs, dams and tanks,
and gasoline stations, butthe damage to contents or business
interruption cannot be estimated.For lifelines, RADIUS can
calculate the total damage at a city levelonly and not for
individual meshes.Loss of LivesBecause casualties and injuries
caused by the seismic events are themain social damage parameters,
their reduction should be the mainobjective of the community in
disaster planning and preparedness(RADIUS 1999). Casualties can be
calculated from the number ofdamagedandcollapsedbuildings.
Thenumberofinhabitantsre-siding inside buildings during the
earthquake is essential for casualtyandinjuryestimations,
whicharenormallynot thesameduringday and night time. In RADIUS, the
day (6 a.m.6 p.m.) and night(6p.m.6a.m.)
populationsarecalculatedindividuallyfor eachFig. 6. Mean damage
factors for wooden (wooden light-frame low-riseresidential) and
concrete (concrete frame with concrete walls high
rise)buildingsinVancouver,Canada(adaptedfromOnuretal.2005andRADIUS
2000)Fig. 7. Case study area denoted by 0.5- 3 0.5-km blocks70 /
NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013Nat. Hazards Rev.
2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of
British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use
only; all rights reserved.type of building classication. The day
and night time denitions canbe changed by the user.Withall of
theseconsiderations inmind, theproposedGBRmethod has been developed
for the reduction of deaths and sufferingcaused by seismic hazards
in vulnerable communities in the world.The main characteristics of
the method can be highlighted as follows: Compilation of the
GIS-based inventory of a city; Development of sounddamage estimates
for anappropriatescenario-based contingency plan of a city;Best
possible use of existing information and local expertise;
Incorporation of representatives of the various
stakeholdersthroughout the project; andSetup of the environment
that will allow the instant start of theimplementation of the
prepared risk management plans.Illustrative ExamplesIn this
section, two different case studies are presented for the
im-plementation of the proposed GBR. Therst case study is based
onthe 1978 Thessaloniki (Greece) Earthquake (Kappos et al. 2008).
Itwas intended to compare the RADIUS results with a past
earthquakescenario, which would validate the utility of RADIUS. In
the case ofthe second case study, the RADIUS project was
implemented for thecity of Kelowna, BC to estimate the probable
damage states for twodifferent seismic scenarios.Applicability of
RADIUS for Greece: 1978 Thessaloniki(Greece) Earthquake (Mw6.5)The
major earthquake occurred in Thessaloniki in June 1978, witha focal
depth estimated to be between 6 and 11 kmand an epicenter ata
distance of about 30 km NE of the city; a magnitude of Mw6.5
hasbeenconsideredfor thisvalidationcasestudy(Theodulidiset
al.2006).ThemaximumPGAwasfoundtobe0.15g,whichcauseda total of 47
deaths, 37 of them a result of the collapse of a 9-storyreinforced
concrete (RC) building, a limited number of partial col-lapses, and
slight to moderate damage to a large number of buildingswith a
repair cost equal to 1.6% of the cost of replacing the
existingbuilding stock (Stylianidis et al. 2002). Fig. 7 shows the
study areadened by Kappos et al. (2008) and the 0.5- 30.5-km blocks
for theRADIUS case study. The local soil amplication factor was
assigneda value of 1. The city had 1 million inhabitants and 19,000
buildings(Kapposet al. 2008).
ThestudyutilizedthefragilitycurvesfromKappos et al. (2008), where
the PGA demand curves were convertedto the MMI.Table 5. Results of
Thessaloniki Case Study with Proposed Geographical Information
System-Based Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban
Areasagainst Seismic Disasters
MethodAreaindenticationMeshweightSoiltypePeak groundacceleration
(g)Modied MercalliintensityDamaged
buildingCountPopulation(day)Population(night)Injury (severeand
moderate) Death1 3 1 0.0 5.5 8 119,638 19,379 34 12 3 2 0.1 5.9 11
16,627 33,253 64 33 3 1 0.0 5.5 8 119,638 19,379 34 14 3 1 0.0 5.5
8 16,627 33,253 43 25 3 1 0.0 5.5 8 119,638 19,379 34 16 3 1 0.0
5.5 8 16,627 33,253 42 27 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838 46 18 4 1
0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 57 39 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838 46 110
4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 57 311 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838
45 112 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 57 313 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517
25,838 45 114 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 57 315 4 1 0.0 5.5 11
159,517 25,838 45 116 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 56 317 4 1 0.0
5.5 11 159,517 25,838 46 118 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 58 319 4
1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838 46 120 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169 44,337 57
321 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838 45 122 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 22,169
44,337 57 323 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838 45 124 4 1 0.0 5.5 11
22,169 44,337 57 325 4 1 0.0 5.5 11 159,517 25,838 45 126 4 1 0.0
5.5 11 22,169 44,337 57 327 2 1 0.0 5.5 5 79,759 12,919 23 028 2 1
0.0 5.5 5 11,084 22,169 29 129 2 1 0.0 5.5 5 79,759 12,919 23 030 2
1 0.0 5.5 5 11,084 22,169 28 131 2 1 0.0 5.5 5 79,759 12,919 23 032
2 1 0.0 5.5 5 11,084 22,169 28 133 2 1 0.0 5.5 5 79,759 12,919 23
034 2 1 0.0 5.5 5 11,084 22,169 28 1NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE /
FEBRUARY 2013 / 71Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from
ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13.
Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights
reserved.Withalltheseparameterstakenintoconsideration,aRADIUSsimulation
has been conducted. The results of the case study with
theproposedGBRmethodhavebeenshowninTable5. Fromtheanalysis, about
309buildings wouldbedamagedfor the samemagnitude earthquake of
Thessaloniki in June 1978. The probablecausalitiesis54,
whichiscomparablewiththereal scenario(47deaths). Figs.
8and9showtheprobablespatial distributionsofdamaged buildings as
well as causalities, respectively, which is alsocomparable withthe
previous data fromKappos et al. (2008).Comparisons of the
simulation with the real earthquake scenario aresummarized in Table
6.Case Study for the city Kelowna, British
ColumbiaWiththeproposedmethod,acasestudyontheseismicdamageestimation
for the city of Kelowna, BC, Canada was
conducted.AccordingtotheCanadianDisasterDatabase,
anincreaseover300% in the number of natural disasters has been
reported in thelast fewdecades (Public Safety Canada 2007). Risk
assessment forseismic hazard has become imperative for developing
an effectiveemergency management plan for the city of Kelowna. The
spatialrepresentation of the probable impacts can be an essential
tool forthe decision makers for the future development planning of
cities(Becketal.2009).Thehistoricalearthquakeswithintheregionhave
been obtained fromthe Canadian Seismicity Database(Earthquakes
Canada 2012).Zoning of the Study AreaThe city has been divided into
twenty-ve 5- 35-kmgrids. The basicinput data for buildings and
lifelines are depicted in Figs. 10 and 11,respectively.
Furthermore, to have higher resolution, the downtownarea has been
divided in ninety-four 2- 32-kmgrids, which has beenanalyzed
separately andnally combined with the city map.Soil Class
SelectionBased on local expert consultation and past studies
(Church 1981;Gough et al. 1994), a soil classication map was
developedaccording to Table 7. An elevation contour map was
utilized to selectthehillyareaswithinthecity.
Themapwasdevelopedforgridanalysis in RADIUS, which requires a
single soil class for each0.5- 3 0.5-km grid, which is not
necessarily the actual case. Theclassication is shown in Fig. 12,
which shows that the downtownarea of Kelowna falls under soft soil
class, which might come fromrecent sediments, designatedbysoil
Type4. Basedonexpertopinion, a 2-km strip of the downtown area from
the
OkanaganLakeShorewasassignedassoftsoil(designatedassoilType4)because
of recent deposits of the area. The soil Type 1 area is
mainlycomposed of rocks (hard and soft), where the soil Type 3
color areascover the medium soil types.Seismic Fault Zone
SelectionThe oceanic Juan de Fuca Plate, situated west of Vancouver
Islandand extending fromthe north tip of the island to Northern
California,is moving toward North America at about 25 cm/year. This
regionis called the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Geological evidence
showsthat large subduction earthquakes have struck this area every
300800years(EarthquakesCanada2012). For theVancouver
area,Onuretal.(2005)describedthatthemaximumprobableseismiceventcanbegreaterthanMw8.0.WhereasfortheCascadiaSub-duction
Zone, Satake et al. (1996) predicted the maximum
seismiceventashighasMw9.0.AnearthquakeofM8.5,intheCascadiaFig. 8.
Building damage distribution with the proposed
geographicalinformation system-based risk assessment tools for
diagnosis of urbanareas against seismic disasters method for the
1978 Thessaloniki (Greece)earthquake (ranges shown as the number of
damaged buildings)Fig. 9. Distributionof causalitieswith the
proposed method (rangesshown as the number of causalities)Table 6.
Comparison between Real Earthquake Scenarios with RiskAssessment
Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against Seismic
DisastersResultsTopicKapposet al. (2008)Risk assessment toolsfor
diagnosis of urbanareas against seismicdisasters resultFocal
distance 611 km 10 kmHighest peak groundacceleration recorded
(g)0.15 0.1Casualties (death) 47 5472 / NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE
/ FEBRUARY 2013Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from
ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13.
Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights
reserved.Subduction Zone (20-kmdepth), has been considered as the
scenarioearthquake (Table 8).Compilation of the Geographical
InformationSystem-Based Inventory for the city of KelownaForthe
building inventory,a rapid visualsurveythrough GoogleMaps,
andinordertovalidatethework,
somephysicalsurveys,havealsobeenconducted.
Thebasemapdevelopedforthecityof Kelowna is showninFig. 13, whereas
Fig. 14 shows theFig. 10. Basic risk assessment tools for diagnosis
of urban areas against seismic disasters input data for the city of
KelownaFig. 11. Lifelines and study grid input data for the city of
KelownaTable 7. Soil Classication (Adapted from RADIUS
1999)Classcode DescriptionAmplicationfactorStandard penetrationtest
N value (fromexpert opinion)0 Unknown 1.00 1 Hard rock 0.55 Not
applicable2 Soft rock 0.70 25503 Medium soil 1.00 10254 Soft soil
1.30 ,10NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013 / 73Nat.
Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by
University of British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For
personal use only; all rights reserved.distributionof
buildingsbyheight. These guresshowthat thebuilding density is more
in the Downtown (Grid C5) and Rutland(Grid D5) areas. Fig. 14 also
depicts that 91%of the buildings withinthe city are low-rise (13
stories) timber buildings, and the remaining9% of buildings are
mainly RC.Mean Damage Factors Considered for theBuilding Classes of
the Study AreaTheMDFshavebeenincorporatedfromastudybyOnuret
al.(2005), which was developed for Vancouver, BC. In this study,
thepredominant building types were wooden light-frame
low-riseresidential buildings, which included 3- or 4-story
apartmentbuildings, having the lowest MDFs, about 5% for MMI VIII.
OthercommonbuildingtypesforKelownaareconcretehighrises, themajority
of which are concrete frame with concrete walls high riseand have
MDFs of about 11% for MMI VIII. These damage
factorshavebeenincorporatedintheRADIUSsoftwaretoevaluatetheseismic
risk for the city of Kelowna, which is shown in Table 9.Results and
DiscussionTheproposedGBRmethodisuniquecomparedwiththecurrentRADIUS
procedure in terms of spatial representation of the damagestates.
Throughthe proposedmethod, the relative risk
canbedeterminedforeachoftheanalyzedgridsbyestimatingphysicaldamage
of buildings and lifelines for a particular seismic scenario.This
section presents the estimation of physical damage to
buildingsandlifelinesforeachofthe5-35-kmgridswithinthecityofKelowna
for different earthquake scenarios. Cardona and Hurtado(2000) dene
the physical damage to buildings and lifelines and thenumber of
causalities and injuries as hard seismic risk, whereas theseismic
hazard potential and the soft soil area are regarded as the
softFig. 12. Soil classication of the city of Kelowna (fromexpert
opinion)Table 8. Scenario Earthquakes for the City of
KelownaScenario ValuesOccurrence time 2 a.m.Earthquake magnitude
8.5Earthquake direction relative from Ref. mesh North
eastEarthquake distance (km) to Ref. mesh 271Fig. 13. Base map of
the city of KelownaFig. 14. Distribution of buildings by height74 /
NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013Nat. Hazards Rev.
2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of
British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use
only; all rights reserved.seismic index. The seismic hazard of the
area is depicted as the MMIof each grid for the particular seismic
event.In Fig. 15, the MMI distribution for the particular scenario
hasbeenplottedon theGIS mapusinganappropriatecolorand sizescale. In
addition to the density and type of building classes, the soiltype
and distance from the earthquake source also play vital roles
inbuildingdamage(RADIUS2000). Thedistributionsof damagedbuildings
are predicted more in the downtown area, which isdepicted in Fig.
16. For the particular scenario earthquake with M8.5,the expected
damage of the buildings can be as high as 58 with 12injuries (Figs.
16 and 17, Tables 10 and 11). Damage scenarios fordifferent
lifelines (e.g., roads, waterlines) have been summarized inTable10.
Themajorityofthebuildingsandlifelineswithinthedowntownareawillsuffermoredamagefora
particularscenarioearthquake of M8.5 in the Cascadia Subduction
Zone. Fig. 17 depictsthe distribution of injured people within the
city, which will help theemergency operations of therst
responders.The risky areas denoted by the dark colors can be a
benchmarkfor further damageassessment of
infrastructureandlifelines. Forexample,
theroadnetworksareassessedwiththehelpofMDFs(Fig. 18). The average
MMI for the different blocks is derivedfromthescenario earthquake
for the case study. Fig. 19 and Table 12 showthedistributionof
thedamagedmajor roadnetworkfor thescenarioearthquake (M8.5).
Fromthis case study, the highly risky areas for theTable 9. Mean
Damage Factors for Major Classes of Buildings in Kelowna(Adapted
from Onur et al. 2005)Mean damage factors (percentage)for modied
Mercalli intensityMaterial Building type IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI
XIIWood Wooden light-frame low-riseresidential0.2 0.4 1.0 3.8 4.9
11.6 18.9 28.1 37.4Concrete Concrete framewith concretewalls high
rise0.8 1.0 1.1 4.0 11.3 22.9 30.4 43.2 54.2Fig. 15. Modied
Mercalli intensity distributions for an M8.5 scenarioin the
Cascadia Zone (distance 271 km)Fig. 16. Number of damaged building
distribution for an M8.5 scenarioin the Cascadia Zone (distance 271
km)Fig. 17.
DistributionofinjuredpeopleforanM8.5scenariointheCascadia Zone
(distance 271 km)NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013 /
75Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org
by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For
personal use only; all rights reserved.road network are mostly in
the downtown area. This can be used asa benchmark for the decision
makers to prioritize the developmentwork as well as to select
alternative safe routes in case of a futureseismic disaster. The
vulnerability of other utilities and lifelines canalso be
determined in the same manner with the help of the proposedGBR
method.ConclusionsTheproposedGBRmethodprovidesasuitabletoolto
assesstheseismic vulnerability in a relatively fast and convenient
way. Fromthe seismic damage estimation case study conducted for the
city ofKelowna, withtheproposedmethod, thefollowingconclusionshave
been drawn for a scenario earthquake of M8.5 in the
CascadiaSubduction Zone:Eventhoughthesoil classicationsystemis
limitedfor theproposed method, the study reveals that Kelownas
downtownarea is situated on recent deposits, which amplies the
groundaccelerations for seismic events. The distribution of
MMIwithin the city has been found to be in a range of IIIV.
Thestudy reveals that most of Kelownas downtown falls under theMMI
of V;Thenumber of damagedbuildings might beas highas 58,causing 12
injuries; About 1 km of the road network of the city might suffer
majordamage, most of whichisplacedinthecityof Kelownasdowntown
area; and From the GIS spatial analysis, the downtown area of the
city ofKelowna is more susceptible to seismic damage, compared
withother areas, which may have a large economic loss
consequence.Table 10. Number of Buildings Damaged by Scenario
Earthquake of M8.5 in Cascadia Zone (Distance 271
km)BlockModiedMercalliindexResidential1Residential2Residential3Residential4Educational1Educational2Medical1Medical2
Commercial Industrial TotalA8 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1B4 4.3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13B5 4.2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6B6 4.2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 3B7 4.1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1B8 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2C1 3.6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C2 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C3 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0C4 4.3 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7C5 4.3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 6C6
4.2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2C7 4.2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1C8 4.1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1D1 3.6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1D2 3.6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1D3 3.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1D4 3.8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4D5 3.8 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3D6 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0D7 3.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0E4 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2E5 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2E6 3.8
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1E7 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Table
11.Population and Casualty Distribution for Scenario Earthquakeof
M8.5 in Cascadia Zone (Distance 271
km)BlockMeshweightPopulation(day)Population(night)Injury
count(moderateand severe)A8 1 10,218 1,300 0B4 4 37,155 1,858 1B5 4
33,718 5,127 1B6 4 27,402 4,087 0B7 3 3,483 6,966 0B8 1 4,412 1,579
0C1 0 0 0 0C2 0 0 0 0C3 0 0 0 0C4 2 11,843 19,042 4C5 2 12,772
17,277 3C6 2 4,877 5,109 0C7 1 1,161 2,322 0C8 1 1,161 2,322 0D1 1
1,161 2,322 0D2 1 1,161 2,322 0D3 2 2,322 4,644 0D4 2 12,772 10,543
1D5 2 9,521 11,286 1D6 0 0 0 0D7 0 0 0 0E4 1 6,154 2,996 0E5 1
6,154 2,996 0E6 1 7,373 2,717 0E7 0 0 0 076 / NATURAL HAZARDS
REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY 2013Nat. Hazards Rev.
2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of
British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use
only; all rights
reserved.Althoughtheproposedmethodisfavorableintermsof
datamanagement, there are some limitations. The quantication of
theuncertainty in the results of the method was not addressed
within theframework,
whichisamajorlimitationoftheproposedmethod.RADIUSfragilityfunctionsgeneralizeboththeRCandmasonrybuildings,
which may not be the most appropriate in real-time casestudies.
Thestructural typedevelopedsomeuncertaintybysim-plifying all the
buildings into the major 2 types (wooden and RCbuildings). The
occupancy classes also have a similar kind of un-certainty. This
caused the buildings within a certain type to react inthe same
manner for a particular seismic activity, whereas certainbuildings
have unique features and do not follow the same damagepattern. The
estimation of the population for the individual blocksalso impact
the overall loss assessment, because the population hasbeen
estimated in accordance with the building size, which maynot be
always accurate. Moreover, the census variables have beenderived
fromStatistics Canada 2006 Census data, which limits theseismic
damage estimation to the year 2006. The current estimatedvalues
maychange because of the steadyincrease inoverallpopulation.
Assigning the building inventory with the
actualnumberofcurrentinhabitantswouldimprovethequalityoftheresults.
The values can be updated easily with the proposedGBRmodel.
Furthermore, the building survey has been done with arapidscheme
throughGoogle Maps. For the
downtownarea,adetailedsidewalksurveycanbeconductedtoget
amorein-depth knowledge regarding the existing vulnerabilities
within
thecity.Theproposedmethodologiesforseismicdamageestimationcan yield
the guidelines for engineers in designing the future ex-tension and
retrot of the existing infrastructures. Although, thedeveloped
seismic damage assessment method entails some
un-certaintycomingfromboththenaturalheterogeneityoftheda-tabase and
other uncertainties, it proposes a very effective tool
tovisualizetheriskwithinaspecicarea. It will alsoguidetheengineers
to develop an effective scenario-based seismic hazardemergency plan
and a robust decision support tool for the city. Therisk assessment
method can be applied to other citieswith verylittle
modications.AcknowledgmentsThenancialsupportfromthe
NaturalSciencesandEngineeringResearch Council of Canada (NSERC)
under the Discovery GrantProgram is acknowledged.Fig. 18.
Meandamagefactorsfortheroadnetwork(AdaptedfromRADIUS 1999)Fig. 19.
Damaged road network for an M8.5 scenario in the CascadiaZone
(distance 271 km)Table 12. Damage Count for Life Lines for M8.5
Scenario in Cascadia Zone (Distance 271 km)Life line
NoteTotalcountDamagecounts UnitDamage ratio(percentage)Road 1
Length of local roads 315 0.92 Kilometers 0.0030Road 2 Length of
major roads such as freeways/highways 482 0.00 Kilometers
0.0000Bridge Number of major transportation bridges (road and
railway) 1 0.00 Count 0.0000Tunnels Number of major transportation
tunnels 0 0.00 Count 0.0000Electric 1 Number of major electrical
and telecommunication transmission towers 35 0.00 Count
0.0000Electric 2 Number of electrical and telecommunication
substations 4 0.00 Site 0.0000Water1 Length of major water and
sewage trunk and distribution lines 560 0.12 Kilometers 0.0002Water
2 Number of water and sewage pumping stations 5 0.00 Site
0.0000Water 3 Number of water and sewage treatment plants 2 0.00
Site 0.0000Reservoir 1 Number of storage reservoirs or dams 4 0.00
Count 0.0000Reservoir 2 Number of terminal reservoirs or elevated
storage tanks 5 0.00 Count 0.0000Gasoline Number of gasoline
stations 56 0.00 Count 0.0000NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY
2013 / 77Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from
ascelibrary.org by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13.
Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights
reserved.ReferencesAlam, M. N., Alam, M. S., and Tesfamariam, S.
(2011). Buildings seismicvulnerability assessment methods:
Acomparative study. Nat. Hazards,62(2), 405424.Anagnostopoulos, S.,
Providakis, C., Salvaneschi, P., Athanasopoulos,
G.,andBonacina,G.(2008).
SEISMOCARE:AnefcientGIStoolforscenario-type investigations of
seismic risk of existing cities. Soil. Dyn.Earthquake Eng., 28(2),
7384.AppliedTechnologyCouncil(ATC).(1985).Earthquakedamageevalu-ationdataforCalifornia,AppliedTechnologyCouncil,Washington,DC.Asian
Urban Disaster Mitigation Program. (2003).Asian Urban
Disaster490MitigationProgram(AUDMP).http://www.adpc.net/AUDMP/491
18 audmp.html (Feb. 21, 2011).Barbat, A. H., et al. (2010).
Seismicvulnerabilityandriskevaluationmethodsforurbanareas.
Areviewwithapplicationtoapilot area.Struct. Infrastruct. Eng.,
6(12), 1738.Beck, T., Bergenthal, J., andMacannuco, D. (2009).
Federationofau-thoritative disaster models with incident management
constructivesimulation. 2009 IEEEConf. Technol. Homel. Secur.,
HomelandSecurity, Boston, MA, 401408.Brun, S. E., Etkin, D.,
Gesink, L. D., Wallace, L., and White, R. (1997).Copingwithnatural
hazardsinCanada: Scientic, government andinsurance industry
perspectives. Environmental Adaptation ResearchGroup, Environment
Canada and the Institute for EnvironmentalStudies, University of
Toronto, Toronto.Campbell, K. W. (1981). Near-source attenuation of
peak horizontal ac-celeration. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 71(6),
20392070.Cardona, O. D., and Hurtado, J. E. (2000). Holistic
seismic risk
estimationofametropolitancenter.Proc.,12thWorldConf.EarthquakeEng.,Auckland,
New Zealand.Carreo, M. L., Cardona, O. D., and Barbat, A. H.
(2011). Newmethodologyforurbanseismicriskassessment
fromaholisticperspective, Bull.Earthquake Eng., 10(2),
547565.Church, B. N. (1981). Geologyof Kelowna, tertiaryoutlier
(east half),PreliminaryMapNo. 45, MinistryofEnergy,
MinesandPetroleumResources, Canada.Codermatz, R., Nicolich, R., and
Slejko, D. (2003). Seismic risk assess-ments and GIS technology:
Applications to infrastructures in the Friuli-Veneziagiulia region
(NE Italy). Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
32(11),16771690.Earthquakes Canada. (2012). National Resources
Canada NRCAN,http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca, (Dec. 24,
2010).Elnashai, A., Hampton, S., Lee, J. S., Mclaren, T., Myers, J.
D., Navarro,C., Spencer, B., and Tolbert, N. (2008).Architectural
Overview ofMAEvizHAZTURK. J. Earthquake Eng., 12(S2), 9299.FEMA.
(2004). Hazus:TheFederalEmergencyManagementAgencys(FEMAs)
methodology for estimating potential losses from
disasters.http://www.geohaz.org/news/images/publications/QuitoRiskManagementProject.pdf
(Aug. 21, 2011).Fukushima, Y. and Tanaka, T. (1990). A new
attenuation relation for peakhorizontal acceleration of strong
earthquake ground motion in Japan.Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 80(4),
757783.GeoHazards International. (1994). TheQuito, Ecuador,
earthquakeriskmanagement projectAn overview. www.geohaz.org (Apr.
27, 2011).GeoHazardsInternational. (2004). RADIUSintroduction.
http://www.geohaz.org/projects/radius.html (Apr. 27, 2011).Gough,
N. A., Hughes, G. G. A., and Nikkel, D. C. (1994). Soil
managementhandbookfortheOkanaganandSimilkameenvalleys, B.C.
Ministryof Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, British Columbia,
Canada.Ingleton, J. (1999). Natural disaster management. A
Presentation to Com-memorate the International Decade for Natural
Disaster ReductionIDNDR 1990-2000, Tudor Rose, Leicester,
U.K.Joyner, W. B., and Boore, D. M. (1981). Peak horizontal
acceleration
andvelocityfromstrong-motionrecordsincludingrecordsfromthe1979Imperial
Valley, California, earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.,
71(6),20112038.Kappos,A.J.,Panagopoulos, G.,andPenelis, G.(2008).
Developmentofaseismicdamageandlossscenarioforcontemporaryandhis-torical
buildings in Thessaloniki, Greece. Soil. Dyn. Earthquake
Eng.,28(1011), 836850.Kircher, C. A., Whitman, R. V., andHolmes, W.
T. (2006). HAZUSearthquake loss estimation methods. Nat. Hazard.
Rev., 7(2), 4559.Koei, N., and Oyo Corp. (2001). The study on
earthquake disaster miti-gationintheKathmanduvalley.InterimRep.,
National SocietyforEarthquake TechnologyNepal.MAEViz [Computer
software]. Urbana, IL, Mid-AmericaEarthquakeCenter (MAEC).Munich Re
Group. (2000). Topics 2000. Natural catastrophesThe
currentposition, Special Millenium Issue, Munich, Germany.Okazaki,
K. (2000). RADIUSRiskassessment toolsfor diagnosisofurban areas
against seismic disasters.
http://www.unisdr.org/publications/v.php?id=2752 (Mar. 27,
2011).Okazaki, K. (2003). Study on motivation and management for
sustainableearthquake disaster reduction: Through implementation of
the UNRADIUS project. Ph.D. dissertation.Onur, T., Ventura, C. E.,
and Finn, W. D. L. (2005). Regional seismic
riskinBritishColumbiaDamageandloss
distributioninVictoriaandVancouver. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 32(2),
361371.Onur, T.,Ventura, C.E., andFinn,W. D. L.(2006).
Acomparisonoftwo regional damage estimation methodologies. Can.
Journal of CivilEng., 33(11),
14011409.Pessina,V.,andMeroni,F.(2009).
AwebGIStoolforseismichazardscenarios and risk analysis. Soil. Dyn.
Earthquake Eng., 29(9), 12741281.Public Safety Canada. (2007).
Canadian Disaster Database, Ottawa.RADIUS: Risk assessment tools
for diagnosis of urban areas against seismicdisasters(1999).
UnitedNationsOfceforDisasterRiskReduction,Geneva.RiskAssessment
Toolsfor Diagnosisof UrbanAreasAgainst SeismicDisasters(RADIUS).
(2000). Riskassessment toolsfordiagnosisofurban areas against
seismic disasters. http://www.geohaz.org/projects/radius.html (Apr.
21, 2011).Satake, K., Shimazaki, K., Tsuji, Y., and Ueda, K.
(1996).Time and sizeof a giant earthquake in Cascadia inferred
fromJapanese tsunami recordsof January 1700. Nature, 379,
246249.Stylianidis, K. C., Kappos, A. J., and Penelis, Gr. G.
(2002). WP052ndlevel analysis: Churches/monumental
buildings.RISK-UERep., Thes-saloniki, Greece.Sui, D. Z., and
Goodchild, M. F. (2001). GIS as media? Int. J. Geogr. Inf.Sci.,
15(5), 387390.Tesfamariam, S., and Saatcioglu, M. (2008).
Risk-based seismic evaluationof reinforced concrete buildings.
Earthquake Spectra, 24(3), 795821.Theodulidis, N., et al.
(2006).Retrospective prediction of macro seismicintensities using
strong ground motion simulation: The case of the 1978Thessaloniki
(Greece) earthquake (M6.5). Bull. Earthquake Eng.,4(2),
101130.ThestudyonearthquakedisastermitigationintheKathmanduvalley.(2001).NationalSocietyforEarthquakeTechnology(NSET),
www.nset.org.np/.Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G. (1975). On the
correlation of seismicintensity with peaks of recorded strong
ground motion. Bull. Seismol.Soc. Am., 65(1), 139162.van Westen, C.
J., Kumar Piya, B., and Guragain, J. (2005). Geo-informationfor
urbanriskassessment indevelopingcountries: TheSLARIM project.
Geo-information for disaster management Gi4DM:Proc., 1st Int. Symp.
onGeo-InformationforDisasterManagement.P. J. M. van Oosterom, S.
Zlatanova, and M. Elfriede, eds., Springer,Berlin, 379392.Whitman,
R. V., Reed, J. W., and Hong, S. T. (1973). Earthquake
damageprobability matrices. Proc., 5th World Conf. Earthquake Eng.,
Rome,2531.WorldMeteorological Organization(WMO). (1999).
Comprehensiveriskassessment for natural hazards. WMO/TDNo. 955,
Geneva,Switzerland.78 / NATURAL HAZARDS REVIEW ASCE / FEBRUARY
2013Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013.14:66-78.Downloaded from ascelibrary.org
by University of British Columbia on 07/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For
personal use only; all rights reserved.
