Financial risk assessment methodology for natural hazards
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.39.2.91-105Abstract
Engineered facilities are deemed safe if they have little or no probability of incurring damage when subjected to regular actions or natural hazards. Any probability of the performance of any designed system (i.e. capacity) not being able to meet the performance required of it (i.e. demand) results in risk, which might be expressed either as a likelihood of damage or potential financial loss. Engineers are used to dealing with the former (i.e. damage), which gives a fair indication of repair/strengthening work needed to bring the system back to full functionality. Nevertheless, other non-technical stakeholders (such as owners, insurers, decision-makers) of the designed facilities cannot read too much from damage. Hence, risk, if interpreted in terms of damage only, will not be comprehended by all stakeholders. On the other hand, financial risk expressed in terms of probable dollar loss in easily understood by all. Therefore, there is an impetus on developing methodologies which correlate the system capacity and demand to financial risk. This paper builds on the existing probabilistic risk assessment methodology and extends it to estimate expected annual financial loss. The general methodology formulated in this paper is applicable to any engineered facilities and any natural hazard. To clarify the process, the proposed methodology is applied to assess overall financial risk of a highway bridge pier due to seismic hazard.
References
Carr A.J., 2004, “RUAUMOKO: Inelastic Dynamic Computer Program”, Computer Program Library, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Cornell C.A, Jalayer F., Hamburger R.O., and Foutch D.A., 2002, “Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines”, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, April, pp 526-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526)
Der Kiureghian A., 2005, “Non-ergodicity and PEER’s framework formula”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34 (13), pp 1643-1652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.504
Dhakal R.P., and Mander J.B., 2005, “Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methodology for Natural Hazards”, Final Report submitted to Institute of Nuclear and Geological Sciences IGNS, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, 60 pages.
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”, Nuclear Engineering and Design No.59, pp 315-338 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(80)90203-4
Lee K., and Foutch D.A., 2002, “Performance Evaluation of New Steel Frame Buildings for Seismic Loads”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31 (3), pp 653-670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.147
Mander J.B., and Basoz N., 1999, “Enhancement of the Highway Transportation Lifeline Module in HAZUS”, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Martinez M.E., 2002, “Performance-Based Seismic Design and Probabilistic Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame Structures”, Master of Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Standards New Zealand, 1995, “Concrete Structures Standards, Part I- The Design of Concrete Structures, NZS3101:1995”.
Standards New Zealand, 1992, General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings, NZS4203:1992.
Stirling M.W., McVerry G.H., and Berryman K.R., 2002, “A New Seismic Hazard Model for New Zealand”, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 5, pp 1878-1903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010156
Tanabe T., 1999, “Comparative Performance of Seismic Design codes for Concrete Structures”, Vol. 1, Elsevier, New York.
Vamvatsikos D., and Cornell C.A., 2004, “Applied Incremental Dynamic Analysis”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.20 No.2, pp 523-553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737737
