D-A-CH TAGUNG 2011 - SGEB

characterised by a relatively rapid decrease of correlation with separation distance, resulted inlarger median loss values, smaller standard deviations, and smaller values of loss for certainprobabilities of not being exceeded than Wang & Takada’s model. The difference may reach23% for the median values, 14% for the standard deviation, and 15% for the 0.99 probability ofnot being exceeded. The influence of the shape of the spatial correlation function oncharacteristics of loss decreases with the increase of between-earthquake correlation. Therelation between the results of applying these two models is not surprising. The high rate ofdecrease in the site-to-site correlation with the separation distance would increase the influenceof within-earthquake variability, which in turn increases the possibility of large losses atparticular locations.Reference0.10(0.09)2 2R BW 0.20(0.17)0.30(0.23)( 20.45(0.31)Median loss2T)0.75(0.43)1.00(0.50)Goda & Hong [25] 118 116 113 108 102 98Wang & Takada [11] 96 94 92 88 84 82Ratio 1.229 1.234 1.228 1.227 1.214 1.195Standard deviationGoda & Hong [25] 230 240 250 260 265 280Wang & Takada [11] 275 280 290 295 298 300Ratio 0.836 0.857 0.862 0.881 0.889 0.933Loss for probability P < 90 %Goda & Hong [25] 470 480 490 500 510 515Wang & Takada [11] 507 510 515 520 525 525Ratio 0.927 0.941 0.951 0.962 0.971 0.981Loss for probability P < 99 %Goda & Hong [25] 1100 1170 1210 1250 1320 1380Wang & Takada [11] 1340 1380 1400 1430 1470 1490Ratio 0.821 0.848 0.864 0.874 0.898 0.926Table 5. Characteristics of total loss distribution evaluated using two models of spatial correlation with similarcorrelation distances (see Figure 1b).Now let us analyse the case when several critical elements (bridges) are located within theconsidered territory (Figure 4b). The classification of typical bridges in Taiwan is given byLiao and Loh [50], and we used two types of bridges, namely, Types 4C and 6C (Table 1 inRef. [50]). Note that here we did not consider uncertainties arising from the damage factor [52]and correlated damage states conditioned in ground motion [53].Figure 7 shows the probabilities of joint damage that are equal to or greater than 20% of thereplacement cost (damage ratio 0.2) and the probabilities that at least one bridge will be17171