Refined multivariate return period-based ground motion selection and implications for seismic risk assessment

Seismic risk in the form of impending disaster has been seen from past records that moderate-to-large earthquakes have caused the loss of life and property in all parts of Nepal. Despite the availability of new data, and methodological improvements, the available seismic hazard map of Nepal is about two decades old. So an updated seismic hazard model at the country level is imperative and logical. The seismic hazard and risk model constitute important tools for framing public policies toward land-use planning, building regulations, insurance, and emergency preparedness. In fact, the reliable estimation of seismic hazard and risk eventually minimizes social and economic disruption caused by earthquakes. In this frame of reference, the seismic risk assessment at a country level is elementary in reducing potential losses stemming from future earthquakes. Thus, this study investigates structural vulnerability, seismic risk, and the resulting possible economic losses owing to future earthquakes in Nepal. To this end, seismic risk assessment in Nepal is done using an existing probabilistic seismic hazard, a newly developed structural vulnerability, and recently released exposure data. The OpenQuake-engine, the open-source platform for seismic hazard and risk assessment from the Global Earthquake Model initiative, was used to calculate the seismic hazard and risk in Nepal. The seismic hazard and mean economic loss map were formulated for the 1, 2, 5, and 10 % probability of exceedance in 50 years. Finally, the distribution of building damage and corresponding economic losses due to the recurrence of the historical 1934 earthquake was presented in this study.

지진취약도 분석을 통하여 교량의 지진 위험도를 평가하였다. 지진취약도 분석에서는 교각 하부의 소성힌지의 거동을 주요 손상인자로 분석하였으며, 또한 한반도 지진재해지도를 근거로 하여 지진발생확률을 산정한 후 이들을 이용하여 교량의 성능단계에 따른 손상발생확률을 분석하였다. 이 연구에서는 교각에 직접 전달되는 지진이 아닌 암반노두에서의 지진의 최대지반가속도에 대하여 지진취약도를 분석하였으며, 비선형 지진해석을 위해서는 층상지반의 영향으로 증폭된 지진하중을 고려하였다. 제안된 방법으로 예제교량의 지진위험도를 분석하였으며, 면진받침이 설치된 교량에 대한 지진 위험도의 저감 효과를 정량적으로 분석하였고, 지진재해지도에서의 조건이 다른 지역에 시공되는 경우의 지진위험도를 분석함으로써 현 시방서의 타당성을 간접적으로 검토하였다. Seismic risk assessment of bridge is presented using fragility curves which represent the probability of damage of a structure virsus the peak ground acceleration. In theseismic fragility analysis, the structural damage is defined using the rotational ductility at the base of the bridge pier, which is obtained through nonlinear dynamic analysis for various input earthquakes. For the assessment of seismic risk of bridge, peak ground accelerations are obatined for various return periods from the seismic hazard map of Korea, which enables to calculate the probability density function of peak ground acceleration. Combining the probability density function of peak ground acceleration and the seismic fragility analysis, seismic risk assessment is performed. In this study, seismic fragility analysis is developed as a function of not the surface motion which the bridge actually suffers, but the rock outcrop motion which the aseismic design code is defined on, so that further analysis for the seismic hazard assessment may become available. Besides, the effects of the friction pot bearings and the friction pendulum bearings on the seismic fragility and risk analysis are examined. Lastly, three regions in Korea are considered and compared in the seismic risk assessment.

While earthquakes can have a devastating impact on the economic growth and social welfare of earthquake prone regions, probabilistic seismic risk assessment can be employed to assess and mitigate such risks from future destructive events. In a previous study (Sianko et al. in Bull Earthq Eng 18:2523–2555, 2020), a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) tool based on the Monte-Carlo approach, was developed to predict the seismic hazard for high seismicity areas. In this study, a seismic risk assessment framework is developed incorporating the previously developed PSHA tool, with vulnerability functions based on various damage criteria, exposures and casualty models. Epistemic uncertainty is addressed using logic trees and distribution functions. The developed seismic risk assessment framework can estimate human and economic losses for particular return periods using an event-based stochastic procedure. The framework is applied to a case study area, the city of Adapazari in Turkey. Seismic risk assessment is carried out for different return periods to identify the most vulnerable areas of the city. The verification of the developed seismic risk framework is performed by comparing the predicted seismic losses to those observed during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake that severely affected the city of Adapazari. The results of the study indicate that while overall predictions for extensive and complete damage states demonstrate strong correlation with the observed data, accurate risk predictions at the district level are not achievable without microzonation studies.

Probabilistic seismic risk assessment for spatially distributed lifelines is less straightforward than for individual structures. While procedures such as the ‘PEER framework’ have been developed for risk assessment of individual structures, these are not easily applicable to distributed lifeline systems, due to difficulties in describing ground‐motion intensity (e.g. spectral acceleration) over a region (in contrast to ground‐motion intensity at a single site, which is easily quantified using Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis), and since the link between the ground‐motion intensities and lifeline performance is usually not available in closed form. As a result, Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) and its variants are well suited for characterizing ground motions and computing resulting losses to lifelines. This paper proposes a simulation‐based framework for developing a small but stochastically representative catalog of earthquake ground‐motion intensity maps that can be used for lifeline risk assessment. In this framework, Importance Sampling is used to preferentially sample ‘important’ ground‐motion intensity maps, and K‐Means Clustering is used to identify and combine redundant maps in order to obtain a small catalog. The effects of sampling and clustering are accounted for through a weighting on each remaining map, so that the resulting catalog is still a probabilistically correct representation. The feasibility of the proposed simulation framework is illustrated by using it to assess the seismic risk of a simplified model of the San Francisco Bay Area transportation network. A catalog of just 150 intensity maps is generated to represent hazard at 1038 sites from 10 regional fault segments causing earthquakes with magnitudes between five and eight. The risk estimates obtained using these maps are consistent with those obtained using conventional MCS utilizing many orders of magnitudes more ground‐motion intensity maps. Therefore, the proposed technique can be used to drastically reduce the computational expense of a simulation‐based risk assessment, without compromising the accuracy of the risk estimates. This will facilitate computationally intensive risk analysis of systems such as transportation networks. Finally, the study shows that the uncertainties in the ground‐motion intensities and the spatial correlations between ground‐motion intensities at various sites must be modeled in order to obtain unbiased estimates of lifeline risk. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This article presents an integrated framework for portfolio seismic risk assessment. The framework includes a systematic approach to the collection and categorization of exposed assets, and a robust method that combines vulnerabilities of different levels of resolution, including detailed vulnerabilities based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58 and REDi analyses, to produce efficient portfolio-level assessment. The vulnerability information encodes risk information that directly addresses the decision-support needs of stakeholders, including the benefits of seismic retrofit. The proposed framework is applied to a spatially distributed infrastructure portfolio composed of over 1000 public school buildings across Makati and Quezon City, in the Metro Manila region in Philippines, to demonstrate the value of portfolio-level seismic risk mitigation strategies. This study illustrates that the proposed regional seismic risk assessment approach can provide more reliable regional risk assessments in a computationally efficient manner and is able to quantify different risk contributors and identify cost-drivers that can be targeted for performance-based risk management of large portfolios.

Seismic risk assessment in Montenegro has been a critical concern since the devastating earthquake of 1979, which spurred initial studies for the country's spatial planning. In response, significant efforts were made to mitigate seismic risks and regulate the construction of earthquake-resistant structures. Early vulnerability studies were based on damage observations from the 1979 earthquake. However, since then, seismic risk in Montenegro has risen considerably due to rapid urbanization and increased building construction, particularly in coastal zones with high seismic hazard levels. Unfortunately, Montenegro's seismic risk assessment remained outdated until 2021, when a comprehensive study was conducted as part of a European Commission-funded project to develop a National Risk Assessment (NRA), led by the Department of Civil Protection. This recent seismic risk assessment was carried out in accordance with EU guidelines, ensuring consistency and comparability in terms of prevention, preparedness, and planning with EU member states. The development of the NRA encountered several challenges, primarily due to data gaps, especially in the building exposure modelling. In this paper, the methodology used for the seismic risk assessment is presented, with a focus on the main uncertainties in the available existing exposure model from literature. It introduces a refined exposure model tailored for building typologies in northern Montenegro. Finally, ongoing and future research efforts aimed at continually improving the exposure model are discussed.

A better seismic design for building and other structures is the most effective way to reduce seismic risk and avoid earthquake disaster. Adoption and implementation of new seismic safety regulations and design standards have caused serious problems in many communities in the New Madrid region, including western Kentucky, however. The main reasons for these problems are (1) misunderstanding of the national seismic hazard maps and (2) confusion between seismic hazard and seismic risk. Both are caused by probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). PSHA is a mathematical formulation derived from a probability analysis on the distribution of earthquake magnitudes, locations, and ground-motion attenuation. Some assumptions and distributions associated with PSHA have been found to be invalid in earth science, however. In addition, PSHA contains a mathematical error: equating a dimensionless quantity (the annual probability of exceedance – exceedance probability in one year) to a dimensional quantity (the annual frequency of exceedance with the unit of per year [1/yr]). Thus, PSHA is scientifically flawed and the resulting seismic hazard and seismic risk estimates are artifacts. The national seismic hazard curves and maps are artifacts because they were produced from PSHA, even though the inputs are scientifically sound. Although seismic hazard and seismic risk have often been used interchangeably, they are two fundamentally different concepts. Seismic hazard describes the natural phenomenon or property of an earthquake, whereas seismic risk describes the probability of loss or damage that could be caused by a seismic hazard. Seismic hazard and seismic risk play different roles in engineering design and other policy considerations. Furthermore, measures for seismic hazard mitigation are different from those for seismic risk reduction. The difficulties in the development of design ground motion for NEHRP provisions are caused by the use of the national seismic hazard maps which are neither seismic hazard nor seismic risk. The resulting design ground motions for building codes and other policy considerations are therefore problematic. California’s experience proves that deterministic/scenario seismic hazard analysis is an appropriate approach for seismic hazard assessment, seismic risk assessment, as well as *Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, 504 Rose Street, Lexington, KY 40506; phone (859) 323-0564; fax (859)257-1147; e-mail: zmwang@uky.edu. 112 Seismic Hazard Design Issues in the Central United States engineering design and other policy considerations. Deterministic/scenario seismic hazard analysis is also appropriate for engineering design and other policy considerations in the New Madrid region, as well as other regions.

Accurately characterizing ground motions is crucial for estimating probabilistic seismic hazard and risk. The growing number of ground-motion models, and increased use of simulations in hazard and risk assessments, warrants a comparison between the different techniques available to predict ground motions. This research aims at investigating how the use of different ground-motion models can affect seismic hazard and risk estimates. For this purpose, a case study is considered with a circular seismic source zone and two line sources. A stochastic ground-motion model is used within a Monte Carlo analysis to create a benchmark hazard output. This approach allows the generation of many records, helping to capture details of the ground-motion median and variability, which a ground motion prediction equation may fail to properly model. A variety of ground-motion models are fitted to the simulated ground motion data, with fixed and magnitude-dependant standard deviations (sigmas) considered. These include classic ground motion prediction equations (with basic and more complex functional forms), and a model using an artificial neural network. Hazard is estimated from these models and then we extend the approach to a risk assessment for an inelastic single-degree-of-freedom-system. Only the artificial neural network produces accurate hazard results below an annual frequency of exceedance of 1 × 10–3 years−1. This has a direct impact on risk estimates—with ground motions from large, close-to-site events having more influence on results than expected. Finally, an alternative to ground-motion modelling is explored through an observational-based hazard assessment which uses recorded strong-motions to directly quantify hazard.

Following U.S. Department of Energy Order 420.1 C for the mitigation of natural phenomena hazards, such as earthquakes, to nuclear facilities through periodic reassessments, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has developed the Seismic Hazard Periodic Re-Evaluation Methodology (SHPRM). The SHPRM involves seven criteria that evaluate changes to the seismic hazard at a site due to changes in the input models/data over time. Should these changes to the seismic hazard result in an increase in the design or licensing-basis ground motion of the facility from that which the facility was designed for, the SHPRM includes a criterion for reevaluating the facility risk objectives. While the criteria corresponding to the reevaluation of the seismic hazard and the design basis have been previously demonstrated and published, there is currently no guidance on reevaluating seismic risk for the purpose of SHPRM. This paper complements the published reports and papers on the application of SHPRM by demonstrating the risk objectives criterion for a generic nuclear facility (GNF), thereby closing the loop on the application of the SHPRM. The GNF is assumed to be located at the INL site and designated as a Seismic Design Category-3 facility as per American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) 43-05. The demonstration includes a risk assessment for a baseline seismic hazard calculated in 2006 and an updated seismic hazard calculated in 2015. After presenting the baseline and the updated seismic hazard curves at this site, the state-of-practice methodology for calculating fragility functions for the facility is presented, along with the fragilities calculated for the GNF. Employing a fault tree analysis using the INL in-house seismic analysis and risk assessment software MASTODON, the seismic risks of collapse of the GNF for the baseline and updated seismic hazards are computed to be 5.27E−05 and 5.2E−06, respectively. The results show that not only the reevaluated seismic risk is smaller, but more importantly, that it meets the risk objectives set by ASCE/SEI 43-05.

This work investigates the effect of the level of detailing of site conditions as well as the selection of the fragility and vulnerability models on large scale seismic risk assessment. For this we consider the application of selected components of the recent European Seismic Hazard (ESHM20) and Risk (ESRM20) Models and we focus on Thessaloniki, Greece, a city which is very well documented in terms of local site conditions and exposure. Seismic risk results are compared in terms of expected damages and economic losses for a seismic hazard with a 475-year return period. The results indicate that the level of site conditions modelling does not significantly affect the estimated aggregate damages and economic losses at city scale, however significant discrepancies may occur at local scale. On the other hand, the selection of the vulnerability model for the building stock may considerably affect the intensity and the spatial distribution of damages, resulting in a considerable differentiation in the economic losses estimate.KeywordsESHM20ESRM20Site modellingSite amplificationFragility and vulnerability modelsSeismic risk model

SummaryThis paper develops a procedure to select unscaled ground motions for estimating seismic demand hazard curves (SDHCs) in performance‐based earthquake engineering. Currently, SDHCs are estimated from a probabilistic seismic demand analysis, where several ensembles of ground motions are selected and scaled to a user‐specified scalar conditioning intensity measure (IM). In contrast, the procedure developed herein provides a way to select a single ensemble of unscaled ground motions for estimating the SDHC. In the context of unscaled motions, the proposed procedure requires three inputs: (i) database of unscaled ground motions, (ii) IM, the vector of IMs for selecting ground motions, and (iii) sample size, n; in the context of scaled motions, two additional inputs are needed: (i) a maximum acceptable scale factor, SFmax, and (ii) a target fraction of scaled ground motions, γ. Using a recently developed approach for evaluating ground motion selection and modification procedures, the proposed procedure is evaluated for a variety of inputs and is demonstrated to provide accurate estimates of the SDHC when the vector of IMs chosen to select ground motions is sufficient for the response quantity of interest. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A common goal of dynamic structural analysis is to predict the response of a structure subjected to ground motions having a specified spectral acceleration at a given period. This is important, for example, when coupling ground-motion hazard curves from probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) with results from dynamic structural analysis. The prediction is often obtained by selecting ground motions that match a target response spectrum and using those ground motions as input to dynamic analysis. The commonly used uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) is shown here to be an unsuitable target for this purpose, as it conservatively implies that large-amplitude spectral values will occur at all periods within a single ground motion. An alternative, termed a conditional mean spectrum (CMS), is presented here. The CMS provides the expected (i.e., mean) response spectrum, conditioned on occurrence of a target spectral acceleration value at the period of interest. It is argued that this is the appropriate target response spectrum for the goal described above and is thus a useful tool for selecting ground motions as input to dynamic analysis. The CMS is described, its advantages relative to the UHS are explained, and practical guidelines for use in ground-motion selection are presented. Recent work illustrating the impact of this change in target spectrum on resulting structural response is briefly summarized.

In recent years, the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have made a tremendous effort to assess the safety of nuclear power plants as advances in seismology have led to the perception that the potential earthquake hazard in the United States may be higher than originally assumed. The Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (S-PRA) is a systematic approach used in the nuclear power plants in the U.S. to realistically quantify the seismic risk as by performing an S-PRA, the dominant contributors to seismic risk and core damage can be identified. The assessment of component fragility is a crucial task in the S-PRA and because of the conservatism in the design process imposed by stringent codes and regulations for safety related structures, structures and safety related items are capable of withstanding earthquakes larger than the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). One major aspect of conservatism in the design is neglecting the effect of Soil-Structure-Interaction (SSI), from which conservative estimates of In-Structure Response Spectra (ISRS) are calculated resulting in conservative seismic demands for plant equipment. In this paper, a typical Reactor Building is chosen for a case study by discretizing the building into a lumped mass stick model (LMSM) taking into account model eccentricities and concrete cracking for higher demand. The model is first analyzed for a fixed base condition using the free field ground motion imposed at the foundation level from which ISRS are calculated at different elevations. Computations taking into account the SSI effects are then performed using the subtraction method accounting for inertial interactions by using frequency dependent foundation impedance functions depicting the flexibility of the foundation as well as the damping associated with foundation-soil interaction. Kinematic interactions are also taken into account in the SSI analysis by using frequency dependent transfer functions relating the free-field motion to the motion that would occur at the foundation level as the presence of foundation elements in soil causes foundation motions to deviate from free-field motions as a result of ground motion incoherence and foundation embedment. Comparing the results of the seismic response analyses, the effects of the SSI is quantified on the overall seismic risk and the SSI margin is calculated. A family of realistic seismic fragility curves of the structure are then developed using common industry safety factors (capacity, ductility, response, and strength factors), and also variability estimates for randomness and uncertainty. Realistic fragility estimates for structures directly enhances the component fragilities from which enhanced values of Core Damage Frequency (CDF) and Large Energy Release Frequency (LERF) are quantified as a final S-PRA deliverable.

This study evaluates the impact, on estimates of seismic risk and its uncertainty, of alternative methods in treatment and characterization of earthquake ground motions. The objective of this study is to delineate specific procedures and characterizations that may lead to less biased and more precise seismic risk results. This report focuses on sources of conservatism and variability in risk that may be introduced through the analytical processes and ground-motion descriptions which are commonly implemented at the interface of seismic hazard and fragility assessments. In particular, implication of the common practice of using a single, composite spectral shape to characterize motions of different magnitudes is investigated. Also, the impact of parameterization of ground motion on fragility and hazard assessments is shown. Examination of these results demonstrates the following. (1) There exists significant conservatism in the review spectra (usually, spectra characteristic of western U.S. earthquakes) that have been used in conducting past seismic risk assessments and seismic margin assessments for eastern U.S. nuclear power plants. (2) There is a strong dependence of seismic fragility on earthquake magnitude when PGA is used as the ground-motion characterization. When, however, magnitude-dependent spectra are anchored to a common measure of elastic spectral acceleration averaged over the appropriate frequency range, seismic fragility shows no important nor consistent dependence on either magnitude or strong-motion duration. Use of inelastic spectral acceleration (at the proper frequency) as the ground spectrum anchor demonstrates a very similar result. This study concludes that a single, composite-magnitude spectrum can generally be used to characterize ground motion for fragility assessment without introducing significant bias or uncertainty in seismic risk estimates.

Soil types and depth of bedrock are not available for the majority of bridge embankments to allow detailed seismic analysis and risk assessment. The accompanying paper provides a quick methodology for preliminary seismic risk assessment, ranking, and prioritization of bridge embankments along priority routes. The objective of this paper is to apply the methodology to identify the seismic risk of 127 bridge embankments along I-24 in western Kentucky. The variables of each embankment including the geometry, type and properties of underlying soil, elevation of the natural ground line, and level of bedrock are estimated. The seismic slope stability capacity/demand ratio, displacement, and liquefaction potential of each bridge embankment are calculated. Three categories are presented to identify the failure risk of the embankments. A priority list of the embankments with the highest seismic risk of failure is generated for I-24 bridge embankments in western Kentucky during designated seismic events. The priority list will enable decision makers to decide on either carrying out further detailed evaluation or considering other appropriate actions for the embankments with the highest failure risk.