Damage and loss got exaggerated due to liquefaction effects as this has been witnessed in several large magnitude earthquakes in India and Abroad. In NatCat modeling for Insurance/ reinsurance purpose, would you suggest to consider its effects in earthquake hazard ground notion or in loss assessment through additional vulnerability functions.
We should differentiate between "Hazard" and "Risk" as terms. Risk is the economical, financial, and human losses due to seismic hazard "Liquefaction as example" impact on human life and infrastructures.
If we know the differences now we can includes all needed parameters for Liquefaction hazard assessment or Liquefaction risk assessment.
Let us ask what are the major parameters that can control the occurrence of Liquefaction phenomena?
Dear Raed Ahmad,
Thanks for your response.
I know the difference between hazard and risk being a NatCat risk modeling expert having 25 years of experience. Perhaps you could not understood the question.
My question is: would you convolute Liquefaction impact in hazard (earthquake ground motion) or in Vulnerability assessment stage, while estimating carrying out loss assessment.
In earthquake hazard ground notion.
And I agree with Ahmad, and the difference between hazar, vulnerability and risk
Dear Ana
Thanks for the response. If i assume you are right! then at location of liquifaction site there should be higher ground motion recorded, for example, PGA or Spectral acceleration. So far, i have not come across any strong ground motion measurement records having higher recorded ground motion at the liquifaction site than at the same distance another non-liquifaction site.
While it is well known and observed that a building on liquifiable soil suffers higher damage and loss.
Looking forward to hear more views, especially of earthquake risk modeling experts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science
- International History and Politics
- Globalization