A scenario-based procedure for seismic risk analysis

Klügel, Jens-Uwe; Mualchin, Lalliana; Panza, G. F.

doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.07.006

Cited by 66 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the risk analysis can be effectively done by a scenario-based DSHA procedure (KLÜ GEL et al, 2006).…”

Section: Nuclear Power Plant Siting Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

History of Modern Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Assessment in California Using a Deterministic or Scenario Approach

Mualchin

2010

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern earthquake ground motion hazard mapping in California began following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan area of southern California. Earthquake hazard assessment followed a traditional approach, later called Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) in order to distinguish it from the newer Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). In DSHA, seismic hazard in the event of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) magnitude from each of the known seismogenic faults within and near the state are assessed. The likely occurrence of the MCE has been assumed qualitatively by using late Quaternary and younger faults that are presumed to be seismogenic, but not when or within what time intervals MCE may occur. MCE is the largest or upper-bound potential earthquake in moment magnitude, and it supersedes and automatically considers all other possible earthquakes on that fault. That moment magnitude is used for estimating ground motions by applying it to empirical attenuation relationships, and for calculating ground motions as in neo-DSHA (ZUCCOLO et al., 2008). The first deterministic California earthquake hazard map was published in 1974 by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) which has been called the California Geological Survey (CGS) since 2002, using the best available fault information and ground motion attenuation relationships at that time. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) later assumed responsibility for printing the refined and updated peak acceleration contour maps which were heavily utilized by geologists, seismologists, and engineers for many years. Some engineers involved in the siting process of large important projects, for example, dams and nuclear power plants, continued to challenge the map(s). The second edition map was completed in 1985 incorporating more faults, improving MCE's estimation method, and using new ground motion attenuation relationships from the latest published results at that time. CDMG eventually published the second edition map in 1992 following the Governor's Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and at the demand of Caltrans. The third edition map was published by Caltrans in 1996 utilizing GIS technology to manage data that includes a simplified three-dimension geometry of faults and to facilitate efficient corrections and revisions of data and the map.The spatial relationship of fault hazards with highways, bridges or any other attribute can be efficiently managed and analyzed now in GIS at Caltrans. There has been great confidence in using DSHA in bridge engineering and other applications in California, and it can be confidently applied in any other earthquake-prone region. Earthquake hazards defined by DSHA are: (1) transparent and stable with robust MCE moment magnitudes; (2) flexible in their application to design considerations; (3) can easily incorporate advances in ground motion simulations; and (4) economical. DSHA and neo-DSHA have the same approach and applicability. The accuracy ...

show abstract

“…However, the risk analysis can be effectively done by a scenario-based DSHA procedure (KLÜ GEL et al, 2006).…”

Section: Nuclear Power Plant Siting Regulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

History of Modern Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Assessment in California Using a Deterministic or Scenario Approach

Mualchin

2010

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is intended to capture people's awareness, as a possible, about prevention measures without disorientating public opinion and the media. The goal is to enable the public to accept a negative event without under-or overestimating it, in the most effective way to mitigate risk [11]. It must be able to attract attention without generating irrational panic.…”

Section: The Abruzzi Case Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing seismic risk by understanding its cultural roots: Inference from an Italian case history

Stoppa

Berti²

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses how to approach the problem of the social mitigation of seismic risk, in order to reduce damage and grief consequent to earthquakes. An alert protocol, intended as a working hypothesis, is proposed based on the experience gained from analysis of the behaviour and social response to the threat before and after the great disaster of the L'Aquila earthquake on 6th April 2009. Authors propose a protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake preparation and social concerns. In this sense, it works as an intensity scale and does not strictly relate to earthquake size (magnitude) or seismic hazard. The proposed alert protocol provides sensible measures for reducing vulnerability, which is the only factor that can be more or less efficiently controlled, based on structural and behavioural adjustments. Factors indicating the difficult relationship between politicians, scientific community and citizens are considered: 1) a serious gap between researchers and citizens; 2) measures adopted by local administrators and the National Civil Protection Service not agreed by the population; 3) misunderstanding originated from a lack of clarity of communication about scientific terminology; and 4) the lack of an alert procedure protocol. In the current situation, all these problems are crucial and contribute to the unpreparedness to face a seismic event, and thus greatly increase the risk. The adoption and implementation of an alert procedure protocol requires a preliminary assessment of the context and should be adapted to the local sensibility and culture. The application of a protocol may reduce the contrasts between preventive measures and individual responsibilities, making mitigation measures more feasible and socially acceptable. In this paper, risk evaluation is not strictly related to probabilistic or deterministic predictions. In fact, this is a result of a project that comes from the general analysis of risk and is not intended to give an alternative hazard estimate method. This paper proposes an alert protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake generating preparation and social concerns. Finally, there is a suggestion on how to gradually communicate the threat and get citizens involved in the risk mitigation process.

show abstract

“…Because the seismic activity is not stationary -the Poisson assumption is in general not applicable to seismic activity (see discussion in [8] and [17]), a time-dependent model has to be applied for the assessment of instantaneous risk. Different time-dependent models have been suggested in the past for site-specific analysis [12] or for the development of time-dependent seismic hazard maps and an intermediate-term earthquake prediction [23].…”

Section: Risk Analysis: Loss Of Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These methods are based on incorporating advanced and realistic seismic waveform modelling. Frequently they are summarized under the name of neo-deterministic seismic hazard analysis method (NDSHA) [11] or in case of site evaluations for critical infrastructures as scenario-based method [12]. They provide a meaningful alternative or complementary method to the currently used seismic design procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquake engineering needs and seismic hazard assessment

Klügel¹,

Mualchin²

2013

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a detailed discussion on the needs of hazard assessment for different applications of earthquake engineering and risk assessment. This discussion includes design and risk assessment issues. We define the requested information from seismic hazard analysis as an input to a meaningful and economical engineering analysis. This provides the basis for a detailed review of the main methods of contemporary seismic hazard analysis: (1) traditional Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) as used in building codes of many countries, (2) scenario-based seismic hazard analysis or neo-deterministic seismic hazard analysis (NDSHA) as the principal alternative, and (3) the state of the art physics-based deterministic method.We demonstrate that only the physics-and scenario-based seismic hazard analysis method that combines (a) contemporary seismic waveform modelling, (b) an in-depth geological and seismo-tectonic analysis of the region of interest, and (c) empirical information is able to provide the complete set of input information for economical earthquake engineering analysis that allows to combine improved seismic performance of both the structures and components with reasonable design costs. We show that the scenario-based seismic hazard method can easily be adapted/extended for risk assessment as required in assurance applications by developing state of the art probabilistic data models that are in compliance with observational data assembled in earthquake catalogues.The paper includes a practical example of the scenario-based approach for the development of the design basis of a critical infrastructure and the risk assessment for a seismically induced production loss of a nuclear power plant located in Switzerland.We recommend that DSHA and NDSHA must be used for engineering design. When/if PSHA is required based on national regulations, it is highly recommended to compare the results/output of PSHA results with that of physics-and scenario-based analysis or NDSHA maps.

show abstract

A scenario-based procedure for seismic risk analysis

Cited by 66 publications

References 22 publications

History of Modern Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Assessment in California Using a Deterministic or Scenario Approach

History of Modern Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Assessment in California Using a Deterministic or Scenario Approach

Reducing seismic risk by understanding its cultural roots: Inference from an Italian case history

Earthquake engineering needs and seismic hazard assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About