Comparative earthquake loss estimations for high-code buildings in Istanbul

The paper presents the probabilistic and scenario based earthquake loss estimations for the case that the hazard and building inventory inputs are kept the same whereas the damage functions as well as the seismic demand estimation method are changed in an earthquake loss model. Spectral acceleration-displacement based damage assessments by alternating damage functions and inelastic demand evaluation methods are performed for high-code buildings in Istanbul. The buildings are mid- and high-rise, reinforced concrete, moment-resisting frames that are assumed to be designed in accordance with the provisions of Turkish Earthquake Resistant Design Code (1998). Three damage models, i.e. structural capacity and fragility curves, are employed for each building class: Expert judgment based capacity and fragility functions; HAZUS's high-code seismic design level capacity and fragility functions; and Capacity and fragility functions derived based on nonlinear analyses of code complying RC frames. Inelastic spectral displacement demands are computed with three methods: Capacity Spectrum Method, Modified Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum Method, and Displacement Coefficient Method. Analyses are realized under site-specific ground motions based on a state-of-the-art hazard model for eight return periods ranging from 100 to 2475 years as well as for an Mw = 7.5 scenario earthquake. Probabilistic loss curves for each case are developed. Estimated average annual losses (AAL) and loss ratios (AALR) are compared. Grid and district based maps illustrating the spatial distributions of estimated long term average losses per year and the loss ratios are presented. The estimated annualized loss ratios at district level in the city are compared to the earthquake insurance premium rates. •Sensitivity of earthquake loss models to uncertainty in the treatment of the vulnerability component is studied.•The same building inventory under the same ground motion inputs is analyzed by making use of three different damage models and three inelastic displacement demand evaluation methods.•Loss estimates produced by different combinations of these vulnerability modeling elements can vary by a factor of x4.•Annualized loss ratio estimations are compared to earthquake insurance premium rates.