A Bayesian parameter estimation methodology for updating the distributions of the duration-based variables used in post-earthquake building recovery modeling is presented. The distributions of the recovery-related parameters specified in the resilience-based earthquake design initiative (REDi) and HAZUS are used as the basis of the priors. A data set of observed building damage and recovery following the 2014 South Napa earthquake is assembled and used to illustrate the proposed methodology. The recovery data set includes the permit acquisition and repair time for over 800 buildings affected by the earthquake. With this data, the conjugate prior (CP) and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are implemented to update the probability distribution parameters for the duration-based recovery variables. While the CP approach is easier to implement because it offers an analytical solution, the MCMC provides more flexibility in terms of the types of prior and sampling distributions that can be accommodated. Moreover, the results from a comparative implementation on the Napa data set shows that the MCMC method provides a reasonable approximation of the posterior marginal distribution of the duration-based recovery variables relative to the CP analytical solution.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1985) Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. ATC-13 Report. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
3.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1995) Addendum to the ATC-20 post earthquake building safety evaluation procedures. ATC-20-2 Report. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
4.
BeckJLAKiremidjianSAWilkieMasonTJSalmoGoltzRJOlsonAWorkmanPorterIrfanoglu KA (1999) Decision support tools for earthquake recovery of business. Final Report for CUREe-Kajima Phase III Project, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. Richmond, CA.
5.
BuchananAHBullDDhakalRMacRaeGPalermoAPampaninS (2011) Base isolation and damage-resistant technologies for improved seismic performance of buildings. Research Report, 2011-02. Christchurch: Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury.
6.
ChibSGreenbergE (1995) Understanding the metropolis-hastings algorithm. The American Statistician49(4): 327–335.
7.
ChoeD-EGardoniPRosowskyD (2007.) Closed-form fragility estimates, parameter sensitivity, and Bayesian updating for RC columns. Journal of Engineering Mechanics133: 833–843.
8.
ComerioMC (2006) Estimating downtime in loss modeling. Earthquake Spectra22(2): 349–365.
9.
Der KiureghianA (1999a) Fragility estimates for electrical substation equipment. In: Proceedings of 5th U.S. conference on lifeline earthquake engineering (WElliottPMcDonough, eds), Seattle, WA, August, pp. 643–652. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
10.
Der KiureghianA (1999b) A Bayesian framework for fragility assessment. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on applications of statistics and probability (ICASP) in civil engineering reliability and risk analysis (MelchersREMGStewart, eds), Sydney, NSW, Australia, July 15, pp. 219–226. Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability Association, CERRA.
11.
Der KiureghianA (2002.) Bayesian methods for seismic fragility assessment of lifeline components. In: TaylorCVanMarckeE (eds) Acceptable Risk Processes: Lifelines and Natural Hazards (ASCE Council on Disaster Reduction and Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph No. 21), March. Reston, VA: ASCE, pp. 61–77.
12.
FEMA (2003) Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—Earthquake model. HAZUS MH-MR4 Technical Manual. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security.
13.
FEMA (2012) Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.
14.
GardoniPDer KiureghianAMosalamKM (2002) Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics128: 1024–1038.
15.
GardoniPMosalamKMDer KiureghianAD (2003) Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for RC bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering7: 79–106.
16.
Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) (2014) Geotechnical engineering reconnaissance of the August 24, 2014 M6 South Napa Earthquake. Report No. GEER-037. Berkeley, CA: University of California—Berkeley.
17.
HaseltonCBDeBockDJAlmeterEWadeK (2019) Resilient design for functional recovery expectations for current California buildings and possible approaches to more resilient design. In: Proceedings of the 2019 SEAOC convention, Squaw Creek, CA, 28–31August.
18.
HuangQGardoniPHurlebausS (2010.) Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete highway bridge with one single-column bent. Journal of Engineering Mechanics136: 1340–1353.
19.
KangHBurtonHVMiaoH (2018) Replicating the recovery following the 2014 South Napa Earthquake using stochastic process models. Earthquake Spectra34(3): 1247–1266.
20.
KoutsourelakisPS (2010) Assessing structural vulnerability against earthquakes using multi- dimensional fragility surfaces: A Bayesian framework. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics25: 49–60.
21.
LielAB (2008) Assessing the collapse risk of California’s existing reinforced concrete frame structures: Metrics for seismic safety decisions. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
22.
LielABDeierleinGG (2013) Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthquake Spectra29(4): 1391–1411.
23.
MasoomiHBurtonHTomarAMoslehA (2020) Simulation-based assessment of postearthquake functionality of buildings with disruptions to cross-dependent utility networks. Journal of Structural Engineering146(5). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002555.
24.
MasseyFJ (1951) The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Goodness of Fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association46(253): 68–78.
25.
Mitrani-ReiserJ (2007) An Ounce of Prevention: Probabilistic Loss Estimation for Performance-based Earthquake Engineering. Doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Technology.
26.
MetropolisNRosenbluthAWRosenbluthMNTellerAHTellerE (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The Journal of Chemical Physics21: 1087–1092.
27.
MilesSBBurtonHVKangH (2019) Community of practice for modeling disaster recovery. Natural Hazards Review20(1): 04018023.
28.
Molina HuttCAlmuftiIWillfordMDeierleinG (2016) Seismic loss and downtime assessment of existing tall steel-framed buildings and strategies for increased resilience. Journal of Structural Engineering142(8): C4015005.
29.
NohH-YKiremidjianACeferinoLSoE (2017) Bayesian updating of earthquake vulnerability functions with application to mortality rates. Earthquake Spectra33(3): 1173–1189.
30.
OmoyaMEroIEsteghamatiMBurtonHVBrandenbergSNwekeC (2021) Relational database for post-earthquake damage and recovery assessment: 2014 South Napa earthquake. DesignSafe-CI. December 2021. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-3nvj-4127
31.
PaulNAlmuftiIMielerMLeeJS (2018) Estimation of post-earthquake recovery on a university campus using REDi methodology. In: Proceedings of the 11th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, June.
32.
RathjeEMDawsonCPadgettJEPinelliJPStanzioneDAdairAEstevaM (2017) DesignSafe: New cyberinfrastructure for natural hazards engineering. Natural Hazards Review18(3): 06017001.
33.
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) (2003) Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP). SEAONC. December 2021. Available at: http://www.seaonc.org/public/all/borp.html
34.
SinghalAKiremidjianAS (1998) Bayesian updating of fragilities with application to RC frames. Journal of Structural Engineering124(8): 922–929.
35.
TerzicVYooDAryanAH (2016) Repair time model for buildings considering the earthquake hazard. In: Proceedings of the 2016 SEAOC convention, Maui, HI. October 2021.
