Technical Papers
Mar 16, 2018

Epistemic Uncertainties in Fragility Functions Derived from Post-Disaster Damage Assessments

Publication: ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 2

Abstract

Fragility functions define the probability of meeting or exceeding some damage measure (DM) for a given level of engineering demand (e.g., base shear) or hazard intensity measure (IM; e.g., wind speed, and peak ground acceleration). Empirical fragility functions specifically refer to fragility functions that are developed from posthazard damage assessments, and, as such, they define the performance of structures or systems as they exist in use and under true natural hazard loading. This paper describes major sources of epistemic uncertainty in empirical fragility functions for building performance under natural hazard loading, and develops and demonstrates methods for quantifying these uncertainties using Monte Carlo simulation methods. Uncertainties are demonstrated using a dataset of 1,241 residential structures damaged in the May 22, 2011, Joplin, Missouri, tornado. Uncertainties in the intensity measure (wind speed) estimates were the largest contributors to the overall uncertainty in the empirical fragility functions. With a sufficient number of samples, uncertainties because of potential misclassification of the observed damage levels and sampling error were relatively small. The methods for quantifying uncertainty in empirical fragility functions are demonstrated using tornado damage observations, but are applicable to any other natural hazard as well.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

The first author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. GMO2432. The second author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the National Science Foundation under research Grant No. 1150975.

References

Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.
Balderrama, J. A., et al. (2011). “The Florida coastal monitoring program (FCMP): A review.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 99(9), 979–995.
Blanchard, D. O. (2013). “A comparison of wind speed and forest damage associated with tornadoes in Northern Arizona.” Weather Forecasting, 28(2), 408–417.
Blessing, C., and Masters, F. (2005). “Attrition of ground weather observations during hurricane landfall.” 10th Americas Conf. on Wind Engineering, American Association for Wind Engineering, Baton Rouge, LA.
Bradley, B. A. (2010). “Epistemic uncertainties in component fragility functions.” Earthquake Spectra, 26(1), 41–62.
Ciampoli, M., Petrini, F., and Augusti, G. (2011). “Performance-based wind engineering: Towards a general procedure.” Struct. Saf., 33(6), 367–378.
City of Joplin. (2015). “Fact sheet: City of Joplin May 22, 2011 EF5 Tornado.” ⟨http://www.joplinmo.org/DocumentCenter/View/1985⟩ (Mar. 15, 2016).
Der Kiureghian, A. D., and Ditlevsen, O. (2009). “Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter?” Struct. Saf., 31(2), 105–112.
Efron, B. (1979). “Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife.” Ann. Stat., 7(1), 1–26.
Ellingwood, B., Rosowsky, D., Li, Y., and Kim, J. (2004). “Fragility assessment of light-frame wood construction subjected to wind and earthquake hazards.” J. Struct. Eng., 1921–1930.
Frey, H. C., and Rhodes, D. S. (1998). “Characterization and simulation of uncertain frequency distributions: Effects of distribution choice, variability, uncertainty, and parameter dependence.” Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J., 4(2), 423–468.
Gisbert, F. J. G. (2003). “Weighted samples, kernel density estimators and convergence.” Empirical Econ., 28(2), 335–351.
Holland, A. P., Riordan, A. J., and Franklin, E. C. (2006). “A simple model for simulating tornado damage in forests.” J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., 45(12), 1597–1611.
Holland, G. J. (1980). “An analytic model of the wind and pressure profiles in hurricanes.” Mon. Weather Rev., 108(8), 1212–1218.
Ioannou, I., Rossetto, T., and Grant, D. (2012). “Use of regression analysis for the construction of empirical fragility functions.” 15 WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
Kashani, A. G., Crawford, P., Biswas, S., Graettinger, A., and Grau, D. (2014). “Automated tornado damage assessment and wind speed estimation based on terrestrial laser scanning.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 04014051.
Kashani, A. G., and Graettinger, A. J. (2015). “Cluster-based roof covering damage detection in ground-based LiDAR data.” Autom. Constr., 58, 19–27.
Kennedy, R. P., Cornell, C. A., Campbell, R. D., Kaplan, S., and Perla, H. F. (1980). “Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant.” Nucl. Eng. Des., 59(2), 315–338.
Kuligowski, E. D., Lombardo, F. T., Phan, L. T., Levitan, M. L., and Jorgensen, D. P. (2014). “Technical investigation of the May 22, 2011, tornado in Joplin, Missouri.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Lallemant, D., Kiremidjian, A., and Burton, H. (2015). “Statistical procedures for developing earthquake damage fragility functions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(9), 1373–1389.
Li, Y., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2006). “Hurricane damage to residential construction in the US: Importance of uncertainty modeling in risk assessment.” Eng. Struct., 28(7), 1009–1018.
Lombardo, F. T., Roueche, D. B., and Prevatt, D. O. (2015). “Comparison of two methods of near-surface wind speed estimation in the 22 May, 2011 Joplin, Missouri tornado.” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 138, 87–97.
Marshall, T. P. (2002). “Tornado damage survey at Moore, Oklahoma.” Weather Forecasting, 17(3), 582–598.
Marshall, T. P., et al. (2008). “Damage survey of the Greensburg, KS tornado.” 24th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, American Meteorological Society, Savannah, GA.
McDonald, J. R., Mehta, K. C., and Mani, S. (2006). “A recommendation for an enhanced Fujita scale (EF-scale), revision 2.” Wind science and engineering, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX, 111.
Noh, H. Y., Lallemant, D., and Kiremidjian, A. S. (2015). “Development of empirical and analytical fragility functions using kernel smoothing methods.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 44(8), 1163–1180.
Padgett, J., and DesRoches, R. (2007). “Sensitivity of seismic response and fragility to parameter uncertainty.” J. Struct. Eng., 1710–1718.
Porter, K., Kennedy, R., and Bachman, R. (2007). “Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering.” Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 471–489.
Prevatt, D. O., et al. (2012a). “Making the case for improved structural design: Tornado outbreaks of 2011.” Leadersh. Manage. Eng., 254–270.
Prevatt, D. O., Coulbourne, W., Graettinger, A. J., Pei, S., Gupta, R., and Grau, D. (2012b). Joplin, Missouri, tornado of May 22, 2011: Structural damage survey and case for tornado-resilient building codes, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Rojahn, C., and Sharpe, R. (1985). “Earthquake damage evaluation data for California.”, Redwood City, CA.
Rota, M., Penna, A., and Strobbia, C. L. (2008). “Processing Italian damage data to derive typological fragility functions.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 28(10–11), 933–947.
Roueche, D. B., Lombardo, F. T., and Prevatt, D. O. (2017). “Empirical approach to evaluating the tornado fragility of residential structures.” J. Struct. Eng., 04017123.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M., Lee, J., and Naganuma, T. (2000). “Statistical analysis of fragility functions.” J. Eng. Mech., 1224–1231.
Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, New York.
Stewart, J. P., et al. (2015). “Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the global earthquake model.” Earthquake Spectra, 31(1), 19–45.
Twisdale, L. A., and Dunn, W. L. (1983). “Probabilistic analysis of tornado wind risks.” J. Struct. Eng., 468–488.
Vickery, P., and Twisdale, L. (1995). “Wind-field and filling models for hurricane wind-speed predictions.” J. Struct. Eng., 1700–1709.
Vickery, P. J., Skerlj, P. F., Lin, J., Twisdale, Jr, L. A., Young, M. A., and Lavelle, F. M. (2006). “HAZUS-MH hurricane model methodology. II: Damage and loss estimation.” Nat. Hazards Rev., 94–103.
Yazgan, U. (2015). “Empirical seismic fragility assessment with explicit modeling of spatial ground motion variability.” Eng. Struct., 100, 479–489.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering
Volume 4Issue 2June 2018

History

Received: Aug 25, 2016
Accepted: Nov 2, 2017
Published online: Mar 16, 2018
Published in print: Jun 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Aug 16, 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4329-6759. E-mail: [email protected]
David O. Prevatt, Ph.D., F.ASCE [email protected]
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Coastal Engineering, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: [email protected]
Franklin T. Lombardo, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share