Vulnerability Analysis and GIS Based Seismic Risk Assessment Georgia Case

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.

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.

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.

Seismic hazard assessment (SHA) and evaluation of seismic risks (SRs) require an adequate understanding of the actual distribution of earthquakes over magnitude, space, and time ranges. The standard probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has never been subjected to unbiased scrutiny before publication of the final maps, which are misleading to unacceptable human and economic losses; this has been proven on many occasions, including the most recent cases – 6 February 2023 (Turkey), 8 September 2023 (Morocco), and 1 January 2024 (Japan).  Neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment (NDSHA) methodologies have been developed to improve the reliability and accuracy of reproducible seismic hazard maps. In the last decade, the application of NDSHA in many regions of the world has confirmed the availability of reliable and effective input for mitigating earthquake risks (Panza et al., 2021). NDSHA results have passed intensive testing by historical evidence and realistic modelling of scenario earthquakes.We used two agents of the NDSHA synergy, i.e. Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes (USLE) and anisotropic propagation of seismic effect, to evaluate SRs for the Lake Baikal regional railroad system on the basis of seismic hazard maps of maximum macroseismic intensity expected in 50 years with 10%, 5%, and 1% chance of exceedance. Specifically, we employed the regional layers from the widely used crowdsourced dataset, Open Street Map, which features global coverage. These layers include infrastructure elements such as tracks, bridges, and tunnels.We have extended our analysis of seismic risk assessment for the Lake Baikal Region railway system presented earlier (Nekrasova et al., 2024) and compare our results with the SR evaluations based on the General Seismic Zonation 2016 and Global Earthquake Model 2018 final hazard maps at identical levels of probability of exceedance.A comparison of PSHA and NDSHA approaches in application to the Lake Baikal railway system disclose significant overestimation of the reconstruction costs for expected state of extreme damage (Hazus state standard ds5 - Complete) due to earthquakes, if GSZ2016 or GEM2018 and not USLE modelling is used. In particular, the significant discrepancy in the area of expected ground shaking of macroseismic intensity VIII or higher that may damage the railroad tracks, bridges, and tunnels leads to a dramatic difference in the seismic risk values measured in arbitrary units of currency.Our results are presented for academic purposes only. Evidently, more adequate though significantly more complex procedures involving more complicated procedures of convolution of seismic hazard, exposures, and their vulnerability are required when addressing realistic and practical assessment of seismic risks. Such assessments should involve experts in seismology, earthquake engineering, social sciences, and economics.ReferencesNekrasova A, Kossobokov V, Podolskaia E (2024) Regional seismic risk assessment based on the Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes: The Lake Baikal railway system. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 177, 108402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108402Panza G, Kossobokov V, De Vivo B, Laor E (Eds) (2021) Earthquakes and Sustainable Infrastructure: neo-deterministic (NDSHA) approach guarantees prevention rather than cure. Elsevier. Paperback ISBN: 9780128235034, eBook ISBN: 9780128235416, xxv, 672 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2020-0-00052-

Knowledge of seismic hazard at engineered facilities evolves with the growth in related technical fields. This presents challenges to stability and decision-making concerning safety that require effective assessment tools. Updated mean hazard estimates were developed at nuclear power plant (NPP) sites in Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) using the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-East ground motion model (GMM) and the latest available site amplification data. These estimates indicated that seismic hazard increases at several CEUS NPP sites, especially for spectral frequencies below 5 Hz. To assess the safety implications, updated mean seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) estimates were developed for the CEUS NPP fleet using the updated mean hazard estimates and updated plant-level fragilities (PLFs). The PLFs were developed from plant-specific information compiled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and recent seismic probabilistic risk assessments (SPRAs) completed by some NPPs. The SCDF quantification followed a method defined by the USNRC to combine risk contributions from different spectral frequencies. While not intended to provide a precise quantification of risk, such as that provided by a full SPRA, when the results are compared against other estimates using the same approach, this process provides valuable insight into the overall change in risk as the understanding of hazard changes. The assessment indicated no significant change in estimated risk for the majority of the CEUS fleet compared to the 2010 USNRC estimates—about 90% of the fleet risk distribution was lower, equal, or slightly higher. A few NPPs had SCDF estimates significantly larger than the 2010 estimates. The SCDF increases at these few NPPs have larger contributions from updated PLFs than updated hazard estimates. The majority of these NPPs have recently completed detailed SPRAs and have tools to develop more accurate estimates of the updated risk than can be achieved in this fleet-level study.

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.

Seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) methods and approaches at nuclear power plants (NPP) were first developed in the 1970s and aspects of them have matured over time as they were applied and incrementally improved. SPRA provides information on risk and risk insights and allows for some accounting for uncertainty and variability. As a result, SPRA is now used as an important basis for risk-informed decision making for both new and operating NPPs in the US and in an increasing number of countries globally. SPRAs are intended to provide best estimates of the various combinations of structural and equipment failures that can lead to a seismic induced core damage event. However, in some instances the current SPRA approach contains large uncertainties, and potentially masks other important events (for instance, it was not the seismic motions that caused the Fukushima core melt events, but the tsunami ingress into the facility). INL has an advanced SPRA research and development (R&D) activity that will identify areas in the calculation process that contain significant uncertainties. One current area of focus is the use of nonlinear soil-structure interaction (NLSSI) analysis methods to accurately capture: 1) nonlinear soil behavior and 2) gapping and sliding between the NPP and soil. The goal of this study is to compare numerical NLSSI analysis results with recorded earthquake ground motions at Fukushima Daichii (Great Tohuku Earthquake) and evaluate the sources of nonlinearity contributing to the observed reduction in peak acceleration. Comparisons are made using recorded data in the free-field (soil column with no structural influence) and recorded data on the NPP basemat (in-structure response). Results presented in this study should identify areas of focus for future R&D activities with the goal of minimizing uncertainty in SPRA calculations. This is not a validation activity since there are too many sources of uncertainty that a numerical analysis would need to consider (variability in soil material properties, structural material properties, etc.). Rather the report will determine if the NLSSI calculations are following similar trends observed in the recorded data (i.e. reductions in maximum acceleration between the free-field and basemat) Numerical NLSSI results presented show maximum accelerations between the free field and basemat were reduced the EW and NS directions. The maximum acceleration in the UD direction increased slightly. The largest reduction in maximum accelerations between the modeled free-field and the NPP basemat resulted in nearly 50% reduction. The observation in reduction of numerical maximum accelerations in the EW and NS directions follows the observed trend in the recorded data. The maximum reductions observed in these NLSSI studies were due to soil nonlinearities, not gapping and sliding (although additional R&D is needed to develop an appropriate approach to model gapping and sliding). This exploratory study highlights the need for additional R&D on developing: (i) improved modeling of soil nonlinearities (soil constitutive models that appropriately capture cyclic soil behavior), (ii) improved modeling of gapping and sliding at the soil-structure interface (to appropriately capture the dissipation of energy at this interface), and (iii) experimental laboratory test data to calibrate the items (i) and (ii).

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.

The seismic performance and safety of major European industrial facilities have a global interest for the whole of Europe and its citizens. However, the seismic design of these facilities is based on national, sometimes outdated seismic hazard analyses. The results of the commonly developed, fully harmonized newly released European Seismic Hazard Model ESHM20 provide a pertinent reference for seismic hazard at European scale and have been officially adopted as an “acceptable representation of the seismic hazard in Europe” in the ongoing revision of Eurocode 8. This study presents a large-scale investigation of the impact of the potential adoption of ESHM20 on the design of new industrial facilities as well as on the potential seismic risk of existing facilities at European level with respect to the current seismic codes. The horizontal elastic response spectra using ESHM20 in combination with the revised Eurocode 8 for selected industrial sites are compared with the respective response spectra of the national regulations for return periods of 475, 2500 and 5000 years. In addition, a single containment LNG tank is analysed for an industrial site in Germany using the design approach for liquid filled tanks according to the revised Eurocode 8. Furthermore, a deterministic and probabilistic seismic risk assessment of a vessel installed in a five-storey frame is performed for industrial sites in Greece and Germany. The examples show that a consistent procedure all over Europe would be desirable and a benefit for engineers in terms of comparability and achievement of the same safety targets. Based on the conducted illustrative studies, the consequences of a potential adoption of the revised Eurocode 8 and ESHM20 hazard maps are discussed and summarized with respect to the standard harmonisation process in Europe.

Rapid seismic risk assessment

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.

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.

Seismic probabilistic risk assessment for seismically isolated safety-related nuclear facilities

Seismic hazard and risk are two very important concepts in engineering design and other policy considerations. Although seismic hazard and risk have often been used interchangeably, they are fundamentally different. Furthermore, seismic risk is more important in engineering design and other policy considerations. Seismic hazard assessment is an effort by earth scientists to quantify seismic hazard and its associated uncertainty in time and space and to provide seismic hazard estimates for seismic risk assessment and other applications. Although seismic hazard assessment is more a scientific issue, it deserves special attention because of its significant implication to society. Two approaches, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA), are commonly used for seismic hazard assessment. Although PSHA has been proclaimed as the best approach for seismic hazard assessment, it is scientifically flawed (i.e., the physics and mathematics that PSHA is based on are not valid). Use of PSHA could lead to either unsafe or overly conservative engineering design or public policy, each of which has dire consequences to society. On the other hand, DSHA is a viable approach for seismic hazard assessment even though it has been labeled as unreliable. The biggest drawback of DSHA is that the temporal characteristics (i.e., earthquake frequency of occurrence and the associated uncertainty) are often neglected. An alternative, seismic hazard analysis (SHA), utilizes earthquake science and statistics directly and provides a seismic hazard estimate that can be readily used for seismic risk assessment and other applications.

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