Hazus Deep Dive into Methodology and Applications
Transcript of Hazus Deep Dive into Methodology and Applications
Hazus Deep Dive into Methodology and Applications
Date January 30, 2019
National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program Workshop
Hazus Future (2018-2022)
OpenHazus
• Open and transparent methodology • Vetted by the scientific community • Made freely available to all • Directly integrate enhanced hazard data • Streamlined site-specific data inventory • Modular architecture • Improve loss estimation methodologies • Align with FEMA programmatic needs • Move to open source technologies
Based on 2012 expert-developed methodology, endorsed by NTHMP Coastal areas of 5 High risk States and 5 Territories (National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program) Hazus leverages hazard inundation data from authoritative sources: • NOAA (SIFT) (Hazus-ready sample data from FEMA MSC) • Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys • Washington Department of Natural Resources • Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries • California Geological Survey, California Emergency Management Agency • University of Hawaii, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency – Great
Aleutian Tsunami (GAT)
Hazus
Tsunami Module
• Hazus Tsunami Capabilities:
• Integrates external hazard data + quick look capability
• GBS and site-specific building losses.
• Evacuation (USGS) and Casualty modules.
• No harbor infrastructure capability.
Hazus
Tsunami Modules
GAPS
Hazus
Tsunami Module Coverage
Hazard
Integrates external authoritative hazard data at 3 Levels:
Hazard
GUI helps prepare and convert data to required Flux and Depth input:
Estimating Velocity from Runup – Level 1
Comparing numerical modeling velocity grid (SIFT) vs empirical (P646 and ASCE)
Testing of ASCE Equation:
Testing of P-646 Equation:
Hazus National Structure Inventory
• Pilots: Kenai Peninsula, Grays Harbor, Tillamook
• School locations, teachers, students (ORNL, HIFLD Open)
• Day/night population (LEHD) • Over/Under 65 population • Foundation type/height
(pre/post NFIP) • Design levels based on
median year built • Leverage area thresholds to
assign med and high rise • Hotel Pop from FEMA P-58
Damage Functions Structural Losses Based on Momentum Flux (feet3/sec2) • Earthquake
Building Type (28)
• Seismic Design Level (8)
Tsunami Damage Analysis Methodology – Leverage SQL Tables
Slight Median
Slight BetaModerate
MedianModerate
BetaExtensive Median
Extensive Beta
Complete Median
Complete Beta
W1 494 0.74 494 0.74 494 0.74 494 0.74High Code Seismic Design
Flux_ (ft3/sec2)
Probability of Exceeding
Slight
Probability of Exceeding
Moderate
Probability of Exceeding
Extensive
Probability of Exceeding
Complete
Probabilty of No Damage
Probability of Slight Damage
Probability of Moderate
Damage
Probability of Extensive
Damage
Probability of Complete
Damage50 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00100 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02150 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05200 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11250 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18300 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25350 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32400 0.388 0.388 0.388 0.388 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39450 0.450 0.450 0.450 0.450 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45500 0.507 0.507 0.507 0.507 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51550 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56600 0.604 0.604 0.604 0.604 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60650 0.645 0.645 0.645 0.645 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64700 0.681 0.681 0.681 0.681 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68750 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71800 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74850 0.768 0.768 0.768 0.768 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77900 0.791 0.791 0.791 0.791 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79950 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81
1000 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83
Structural Damage
Exceeding Damage State Probabilities Discrete Damage State Probabilities
W-High Code Seismic Design W-High Code Seismic Design
Developed DepthID and FluxID with precalcuated damage states (~130K rows)
All 28 bldg. types and 7 seismic design levels
Hazus Tsunami – Combined TSU – EQ Losses (UDF and GBS)
Earthquake results for this study region are not up to date. Switch to earthquake hazard and run analysis based on the same earthquake scenario that generated the current tsunami hazard.
1)Run earthquake first
2)Run tsunami and combined losses
3)Very fast analysis leveraging SQL look up tables
1 2
3
Combined Loss Example P[CSTR|EQ+TS] = P[CSTR|EQ] + P[CSTR|TS] - P[CSTR|EQ] P[CSTR|TS] +
(P[≥ESTR|EQ] - P[CSTR|EQ]) (P[≥ESTR|TS] - P[CSTR|TS])
Structural Losses
Non-Structural Losses
Bldg Loss Ratio Contents
Content Loss Ratio
Total Building Losses
Grays Harbor, Earthquake Only 360,960,000$ 1,267,352,000$ 21% 458,383,000$ 9% 2,086,695,000$ Grays Harbor, Tsunami Only 207,937,000$ 382,284,000$ 8% 590,984,000$ 12% 1,181,205,000$ Grays Harbor, Combined Losses 456,632,737$ 1,795,299,752$ 29% 1,403,765,861$ 28% 3,655,698,350$
Tsunami Casualty Model 2 Steps: 1. Evacuation Travel Time Ttravel from USGS Pedestrian Evacuation
Analyst 2. Probability of Casualties – Rfatality Rcasualty FEMA (2013), Yeh (2014) –
based on Community Preparedness Levels
Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis – Level 1
Level 1: Safe but conservative approach 1. Add road network: ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2016/ 2. Determine Safe Zones (area of study region not inundated, >0-
2m and >2m)
Marsh
Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis – Level 1
Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis – Level 2
Level 2: Analysis performed using USGS tool
Level 2 – Import to Hazus
Pedestrian Travel Time Reporting
Casualty Model Probability Step 2 (“Reaction Time”)
Good
Fair Poor
Good
Fair Poor
Community Preparedness: • Largest source
of uncertainty in casualty model.
• Uncertainty incorporated throughout.
Probability Density Functions (PDF) created from user parameters. • Median = half react
Casualty Model – Casualty Parameters
Good
Fair Poor
Median Reaction Time (Tprep): • Local Example: 30 min travel, 0 min warn time
Good (0.2*30=6min); Fair (0.6*30=18min); Poor (1.0*30=30min)
• Distant Example: 240 min travel, 60 min warn time Good (0.2*180=36min); Fair (0.6*180=108min); Poor (1.0*180=180min)
Casualty Model Probability Step 2
Requires assessment of time to safety and time to “partial” safety Results in probability that population is impacted in these zones
Rcasualty = probability in this zone
Zone = 99% fatality, 1% injury
Zone = 50% fatality, 50% injury
Rfatality = probability in this zone
Travel Time Mapping
1) Summarized at Census Block Combined with Night/Day & Under and Over 65 Population walking speeds
2) Maximum pedestrian travel times for each block are applied
Application Examples
PMEL - SIFT • NOAA's Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) and specifically their Short-term Inundation Forecast for Tsunami (SIFT) product.
• PMEL SIFT for five localities: Crescent City, CA; Garibaldi, OR; Homer, AK; Kahului, HI; and Westport, WA.
• Each state folder contains Tsunami hazard input data required for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 analysis in Hazus.
Honolulu County Inventory Updates
• Essential Facility Updates - Leveraged previous survey work, including detailed UH building data.
• New Site-Specific Building Inventory:
• DLNR Sea Level Rise building data ~20K
• Expanded to 80K based on footprints, assessor data
• More accurate building floor areas and valuations increased exposures over default (~90%)
Hazus “3,500 year” Tsunami $1.8 Billion Essential Facility Losses Population Exposed: • Day: 404K • Night: 294K
$41.5 Billion
Total Building Economic Loss
Hazus “1,500 year” Great Aleutian Tsunami Extreme Evacuation Zone $396 Million Essential Facility Building Losses Population Exposed: • Day: 298K • Night: 217K
$18.2 Billion Total Building Economic Loss
Hazus “400 year” Standard Evacuation Zone Standard Evacuation Zone $67 Million Essential Facility Building Losses Population Exposed: • Day: 86K • Night: 59K
$2.3 Billion Total Building Economic Loss
Honolulu County Annualized Tsunami Losses
$81.2M Annual Tsunami Losses: • ~1/4th Hurricane Wind • ~2x greater than Coastal
Flooding
Total Building Economic Losses
$81.2 Million
Annual Building Economic Loss
$43,257,017 $1,545,724,492
$2,76
400 year1,500 year3,500 year
Total Education Building Losses
$4.4 Million Annual Education Building Economic Loss
$6,044,243 $87,081,385
$525,565,0
400 year1,500 year3,500 year
Total Government Building Losses
$0.5 Million Annual Government Building Economic Loss
$2,253,128,683
$18,208,896,659
$41,501,040,666
400 year
1,500 year
3,500 year
Hazus Tsunami Essential Facility Losses
• Significant losses in extreme zones
• Mostly schools and government occupancy types
[CELLRANGE]
[VALUE] [PERCENTAGE
]
[CELLRANGE] [VALUE]
[PERCENTAGE]
[CELLRANGE], [VALUE],
[PERCENTAGE]
Hawaii’s Great Aleutian Tsunami Scenario
• “East Aleutian” scenario energy directed to Hawaii
• Geologic evidence on Kauai – 30 foot runup, ~500 years ago
• 3x greater than 1946 – Hawaii’s deadliest tsunami
Hazus GAT Statewide Loss by Count Summary Assessed by Loss Ratio: • (Hazus bldg. loss/Hazus bldg. value)
Hazus GAT Statewide Building Economic Loss Summary
• Highest countywide loss ratios: Maui and Kauai
• Greatest total losses: Oahu
• Building only losses: Does not include damage to Harbor Facilities
Hazus Tsunami Model LossesState of Hawaii - Max Aluetian ScenarioBuilding Economic Loss ($K)County Structural Non Structural Contents Income Total Bldg Loss Loss RatioHawaii 271,326$ 686,223$ 992,391$ 608,395$ 2,558,336$ 4.5%Honolulu 2,478,743$ 8,556,046$ 7,174,106$ 1,891,767$ 18,208,896$ 3.4%Kauai 252,452$ 494,485$ 571,793$ 292,312$ 1,611,041$ 8.9%Maui 655,124$ 1,139,508$ 1,691,499$ 997,428$ 4,483,560$ 9.0%
Total 3,657,645$ 10,876,262$ 10,429,789$ 3,789,902$ 26,861,833$
Honolulu Ped Travel Times
Hazus GAT Statewide Evacuation and Casualty Summary
• 4.5 hour tsunami travel time
• Large exposed populations.
• No casualties at “Good” preparedness level.
• Casualties could occur in poorly prepared communities (eg. tourist, cruise ship)
San Diego Tijuana EQ Scenario – M6.9 Rose Canyon
Triggered landslide scenario, Coronado escarpment
Tsunami casualties could exceed EQ casualties
Model Support [email protected]