A Brief History of Seismic Risk Assessment

Scawthorn, Charles

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71158-2_2

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Monte Carlo method is used to implement the model. The PSHA methodology has been further developed since its inception in the 1960s (Calvi et al, 2006;Scawthorn, 2007Scawthorn, , 2008Bommer et al, 2015), and forms the basis of seismic risk assessments developed in the USA under the auspices of regulators like the National Research Council (NRC) and US Geological Survey (USGS). Also, the HAZUS risk assessment method and tools of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are based on a similar probabilistic method for seismic risk assessment.…”

Section: Research Into Induced Seismicity In Groningenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen

Elk¹,

Doornhof²,

Bommer

et al. 2017

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquakes associated with gas production have been recorded in the northern part of the Netherlands since 1986. The Huizinge earthquake of 16 August 2012, the strongest so far with a magnitude of M L = 3.6, prompted reassessment of the seismicity induced by production from the Groningen gas field. An international research programme was initiated, with the participation of many Dutch and international universities, knowledge institutes and recognised experts.The prime aim of the programme was to assess the hazard and risk resulting from the induced seismicity. Classic probabilistic seismic hazard and risk assessment (PSHA) was implemented using a Monte Carlo method. The scope of the research programme extended from the cause (production of gas from the underground reservoir) to the effects (risk to people and damage to buildings). Data acquisition through field measurements and laboratory experiments was a substantial element of the research programme. The existing geophone and accelerometer monitoring network was extended, a new network of accelerometers in building foundations was installed, geophones were placed at reservoir level in deep wells, GPS stations were installed and a gravity survey was conducted.Results of the probabilistic seismic hazard and risk assessment have been published in production plans submitted to the Minister of Economic Affairs, Winningsplan Groningen 2013 and 2016 and several intermediate updates. The studies and data acquisition further constrained the uncertainties and resulted in a reduction of the initially assessed hazard and risk.

show abstract

Section: Research Into Induced Seismicity In Groningenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen

Elk¹,

Doornhof²,

Bommer

et al. 2017

Netherlands Journal of Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So, seismic risk analysis is not enough but needs to be supported by social, economic, and cultural norms as well. This risk assessment is also not the end of the analysis but can be continued with an analysis of management and allocation of appropriate and efficient resources to reduce risk to a level that is acceptable to all parties, especially the community [12].…”

Section: Methods For Risk and Loss Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the art of seismic risk and loss assessment in structures

Aryanti

Masrilayanti

2021

E3S Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquakes are known as one of the disasters that have fatal consequences for human safety. However, inevitably, the earthquake itself is not the leading cause of the losses suffered by humans, both material and soul. The most powerful thing in human safety is infrastructure such as buildings, bridges, and houses. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of the risk factors that the infrastructure will experience in a natural disaster is needed. There is a variable seismic hazard in the Southeast Asia region, ranging from high seismic hazard allied with the underneath of the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos to moderate and low seismic tremors associated with a sizeable stable region on the Sunda Shelf. This paper describes the history of seismic risk and loss assessment of infrastructures. The method used is by doing literature reviews of the most recent research relating to seismic risk and assessment around the world. More than fifteen research results are studied and discussed to get a deep knowledge about seismic risk and the assessment of loss due to seismic disaster.

show abstract

“…Scawthorn (2008) indicates how to assess assets at risk in risk areas and in particular, the impact of an earthquake on social cohesion and peace; public confidence; political unity; education; and the mental health of the population affected. He includes physical assets and non-physical assets that can be given a monetary value.…”

Section: Natural Hazardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional Risk Analysis

Almeida

Cavalcante

Alencar

et al. 2015

International Series in Operations Research &Amp; Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accidents involve critical consequences that require an appropriate and efficient form of risk management. A multidimensional risk analysis allows a broader view. MCDM/A approaches enable more consistent decision-making, taking into account the DM's rationality (compensatory or non-compensatory), DM's behavior regarding risk (prone, neutral or averse) and the uncertainties inherent in the risk context. This chapter presents numerical applications illustrating the use of multicriteria models in two different contexts: a natural gas pipeline and an underground electricity distribution system. Two different MCDM/A approaches are considered: MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory) and the ELECTRE TRI outranking method. In the numerical applications, MCDM/A approach steps for building decision models are presented: identifying hazard scenarios, estimating the set of payoffs, eliciting the MAU function (Multi-attribute Utility function), computing the probability function of consequences and estimating multidimensional risk. Loss functions are introduced in the models to calculate the probability distribution functions over the multiple criteria such as impact on humans, and environmental and financial losses. Therefore, Decision Theory concepts are applied to estimate risk in industrial plants and modes of transportation. Finally, other decision problems related to multidimensional risk analysis, using MCDM/A, are considered in different contexts, such as: power electricity systems, natural hazards, risk analysis on counter-terrorism, nuclear power plant. Justifying the Use of the Multidimensional RiskThe perceived level of risk is directly linked to the perceived intensity of consequences to people and society as well as to issues related to the level of probability. These consequences are multidimensional and are associated to the objectives, represented by criteria and can be approached with an MCDM/A or a multiobjective method (see Chap. 2). Many studies show that using a single dimension of risk may not be realistic (Morgan et al.

show abstract

A Brief History of Seismic Risk Assessment

Cited by 14 publications

References 42 publications

Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen

Hazard and risk assessments for induced seismicity in Groningen

State of the art of seismic risk and loss assessment in structures

Multidimensional Risk Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About