Vulnerability and Damage Function Analysis
Vulnerability and damage function analysis estimates the expected loss ratio, the repair or replacement cost expressed as a fraction of an asset's value, as a continuous function of hazard intensity. It is the loss-facing counterpart to fragility analysis: where fragility gives the probability of physical damage states, a vulnerability function gives money, translating intensity directly into expected fractional loss together with its uncertainty. Tiziana Rossetto and Amr Elnashai's 2003 derivation of vulnerability functions for European reinforced-concrete buildings from observed damage is a canonical empirical example, while Charles Kircher, Robert Whitman, and William Holmes's 2006 description of HAZUS earthquake methods shows the standard route of combining fragility curves with damage-state loss factors to build them analytically. The output is the per-typology relationship that, multiplied by exposed value, yields scenario and probabilistic loss. Because it bridges engineering damage and economic consequence, it is the single most influential ingredient in catastrophe and loss models. Getting the mean and the spread of the loss ratio right is what makes a risk model usable for insurance, mitigation, and policy.
Kilderegister
Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.
- Rossetto, T., & Elnashai, A. (2003). Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data. Engineering Structures, 25(10), 1241-1263. · DOI 10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00038-2
- Kircher, C. A., Whitman, R. V., & Holmes, W. T. (2006). HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methods. Natural Hazards Review, 7(2), 45-59. · DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2006)7:2(45)
Kuraterte påstander
Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.
Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.
Relaterte metoder
Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.