Benefits of scenario ground motion maps

Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance-based seismic design

“…There is no way to prescribe a procedure for drafting such maps, since they would need to be adapted to the characteristics of the seismicity of each region. Such maps di er from the scenario ground motion maps proposed by Anderson [36] in that rather than presenting a single ground-motion parameter on each map, two maps (one of magnitudes, one of distances) provide the information required to determine all the required features of the design ground motions. At this point it is important to make a clariÿcation: to represent the hazard from a given seismic source by a single M-D pair, coupled with a constant value of , is an approximation, since the hazard at di erent response periods will be dominated by di erent M-D combinations and di erent degrees of aleatory variability.…”

Selection of the appropriate methodology for the deterministic seismic hazard assessment on the territory of the Republic of Serbia

“…First of all, it is important to say that no matter whether the PSHA or the DSHA approach is going to be used for a seismic hazard analysis, the basic input data that must be collected are practically the same (the data on all past earthquakes within an area of a several hundred km radius around the site of a structure of interest, the seismotectonic and geological features of the region, the local soil conditions for different sites, and the ground motion attenuation characteristics), and before any further step in the analysis, the seismic source zones and their properties must be defined on the base of the available data. Then, the DSHA approach can be aimed either at finding the maximum possible strong earthquake ground motion at a site of interest [1,2,3], or at finding the values of the selected ground motion parameter that are compatible with the results of the corresponding probabilistic seismic hazard analysis [4,5].…”

“…The underlying philosophy behind such approach, also termed as the "scenario" ground motions procedure [2], is that "scenario" earthquake is both scientifically reasonable and estimated to produce most severe strong ground motion at the site, so that the public can be educated about the earthquake hazards and a wide audience can be fully assured to the safety of important structures and critical facilities even for the largest possible seismic events. The most important issue of such approach is obviously the reliable estimation of the so-called "maximum credible" earthquake, for each of the identified seismic source zones, on the base of the available data on past earthquakes and the seismotectonic and geological features of a source zone.…”

“…In fact, these two approaches have shown to be inherently complementary [2,3,23], if the probabilistic analysis is allowed to guide the choice of the maximum credible and/or the hazard-consistent seismic events, and if the DSHA estimates are used to refine the probabilistic ones, or to asses the economic losses during the "worst-scenario" earthquakes, or, e.g., to educate the public about the earthquake hazards in the considered region.…”

“…Although there is no generally accepted deterministic approach for all parts of the world and all application areas, in its most commonly used forms, the DSHA approach proposes design either for the so-called "scenario" earthquakes [1,2,3], i.e., for the earthquakes that are estimated to produce most severe ground motion at a site, or for the strong earthquake ground motion that is compatible with the results of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis [4,5]. The PSHA approach, on the other hand, estimates the probability that a particular level of the strong earthquake ground motion will be experi-enced or exceeded during the life period of a structure.…”