Post-earthquake recovery models can be used as decision support tools for pre-event planning. However, due to a lack of available data, there have been very few opportunities to validate and/or calibrate these models. This paper describes the use of building damage, permitting, and repair data from the 2014 South Napa Earthquake to evaluate a stochastic process post-earthquake recovery model. Damage data were obtained for 1,470 buildings, and permitting and repair time data were obtained for a subset (456) of those buildings. A “blind” prediction is shown to adequately capture the shape of the recovery trajectory despite overpredicting the overall pace of the recovery. Using the mean time to permit and repair time from the acquired data set significantly improves the accuracy of the recovery prediction. A generalized model is formulated by establishing statistical relationships between key time parameters and endogenous and exogenous factors that have been shown to influence the pace of recovery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1995. Procedures for Post-Earthquake Building Safety Evaluation Procedures, ATC-20, Redwood City, CA.
2.
BurtonH. V.DeierleinG.LallemantD. and LinT.2016. Framework for incorporating probabilistic building performance in the assessment of community seismic resilience, Journal of Structural Engineering142(8), C4015007.
3.
BurtonH. V. and KangH.2017. Towards the seismic resilience of residential communities: A conceptual framework and case study, in Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 9–13 January, Santiago, Chile.
4.
ÇağnanZ.DavidsonR. and GuikemaS.2004. Post-earthquake restoration modeling of electric power systems, in Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1–6 August, Vancouver.
5.
ChangS. E.ShinozukaM. and SveklaW.1999. Modeling post-disaster urban lifeline restoration, in Optimizing Post-Earthquake Lifeline System Reliability, ASCE, Seattle, WA, pp. 602–611.
6.
ComerioM. C.2006. Estimating downtime in loss modeling, Earthquake Spectra22(2), 349–365.
7.
ComerioM. C. and BlecherH. E.2010. Estimating downtime from data on residential buildings after the Northridge and Loma Prieta earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra26(4), 951–965.
8.
DidierM.SunL.GhoshS. and StojadinovicB.2015. Post-earthquake recovery of a community and its electrical power supply system, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25–27 May 2015, Crete, Greece.
ElliottJ. R.2014. Natural hazards and residential mobility: General patterns and racially unequal outcomes in the United States, Social Forces93(40), 1723–1747.
11.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2003. HAZUS MR4 Technical Manual, Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Washington, D.C.
12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012. Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Report No. FEMA P58-1, Redwood City, CA.
13.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2015. Performance of Buildings and Non-structural Components in the 2014 South Napa Earthquake, Report No. FEMA P-1024, Washington, D.C.
14.
Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER), 2014. Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 24, 2014 M6 South Napa Earthquake, Report No. GEER-037, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
15.
GrinbergerA. Y. and FelsensteinD.2017. A Tale of two earthquakes: Dynamic agent-based simulation of urban resilience, Applied Spatial Modeling and Planning, New York, NY.
16.
HaasJ. E.KatesR. and BowdenM. J.1977. Reconstruction following disaster, in Reconstruction Following Disaster, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17.
JohnsonL. and MahinS.2016. The Mw 6.0 South Napa Earthquake of August 24, 2014, PEER Report No. 2016/04, Sacramento, CA.
18.
KangD. and LanseyK.2013. Post-earthquake restoration of water supply infrastructure, in Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, May 19–23, 2013, Cincinnati, OH.
19.
KozinF. and ZhouH.1990. System study of urban response and reconstruction due to earthquake, Journal of Engineering Mechanics116(9), 1959–1972.
20.
MasseyF. J.Jr.1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit, Journal of the American Statistical Association46(253), 68–78.
21.
MilesS. B. and ChangS. E.2003. Urban Disaster Recovery: A Framework and Simulation Model, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
22.
MishalaniR. G. and MadanatS. M.2002. Computation of infrastructure transition probabilities using stochastic duration models, Journal of Infrastructure Systems8(4), 139–148.
23.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2010. Disaster Resilience: A Guide to the Literature, NIST Special Publication 1117, Gaithersburg, MD.
24.
NejatA. and DamnjanovicI.2012. Modeling dynamics of post-disaster recovery, in Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World, May 21–23, 2012, West Lafayette, IN.
25.
NejatA. and GhoshS.2016. LASSO model of postdisaster housing recovery: Case study of Hurricane Sandy, Natural Hazards Review17(3), 04016007.
26.
NojimaN. and KamedaH.1992. Optimal strategy by use of tree structure for post-earthquake restoration of lifeline network systems, in Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 19–24 July, Madrid, Spain.
27.
RaileanuL. E. and StoffelK.2004. Theoretical comparison between the Gini index and information gain criteria, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence41(1), 77–93.
28.
WuJ. Y. and LindellM. K.2004. Housing reconstruction after two major earthquakes: The 1994 Northridge earthquake in the United States and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, Disasters28(1), 63–81.
29.
ZhangY. and PeacockW. G.2009. Planning for housing recovery? Lessons learned from Hurricane Andrew, Journal of the American Planning Association76(1), 5–24.
