Incorporating Site Response into Seismic Hazard Assessments for Critical Facilities: A Probabilistic Approach

Rathje, Ellen M.; Pehlivan, Menzer; Gilbert, Robert B.; Rodríguez-Marek, Adrián

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10786-8_4

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is referred to as a hybrid analysis, due to its combination of probabilistic and deterministic methods, which produces a result with an unknown hazard level (e.g., Cramer 2003, Goulet and Stewart 2009). Convolution approaches (Bazzurro and Cornell 2004a, Rathje et al 2015) provide a more sophisticated modification of the rock hazard, but do not consider changes in standard deviation associated with non-ergodic site response nor differences in controlling sources that occur as site conditions are modified. The aforementioned projects in which non-ergodic site response was considered used convolution with simulation-based site amplification models; as such, this approach effectively represents the state-of-practice for non-ergodic PSHA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Ergodic Site Response in Seismic Hazard Analysis

Stewart¹,

Afshari²,

Goulet

2017

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses are usually performed with semi-empirical ground motion models (GMMs) following the ergodic assumption whereby average source, path, and site effects from global databases apply for a specific site of interest. Site-specific site response is likely to differ from the global average conditional on site parameters used in GMMs (typically V S30 and basin depth). Non-ergodic site response can be evaluated using on-site ground motion recordings and/or one-dimensional wave propagation analyses, and allows site-to-site variability to be removed from the within-event standard deviation. Relative to ergodic, non-ergodic hazard analyses often reduce ground motions at long return periods. We describe procedures for replacing the site term in GMMs with a non-ergodic nonlinear mean over its appropriate range of periods (returning to the ergodic mean outside that range). We also present procedures for computing non-ergodic standard deviation by removing site-to-site variability while considering effects of soil nonlinearity. We illustrate application of these procedures, and their effect on hazard curves and uniform hazard spectra, as implemented in OpenSHA.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Ergodic Site Response in Seismic Hazard Analysis

Stewart¹,

Afshari²,

Goulet

2017

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We should mention that, as f 0 is in close connection to the site transfer function under ground motion shaking, its reliability increases when earthquake data are used (e.g. Cultrera et al 2014;Régnier et al 2018). In case of areas of low-seismicity, however, the ground motion acquisition can be expensive and time-consuming, that is why it is often replaced by noise measurements.…”

Section: Most Recommended Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To facilitate practical engineering design, site conditions are often characterized by a small number of site attributes (or proxies) or their combinations, aimed at describing their effects on seismic ground motion (Trifunac 2016;Bergamo et al 2021). This simplified approach is adopted in many research fields: evaluation of local amplification and ground response analysis (Derras et al 2017;Priolo et al 2019), calibration of strong-motion records for realistic ground shaking estimates (Cauzzi et al 2014;Michelini et al 2020 and references therein), assessment of site-specific hazard for critical infrastructures (Bazzurro and Cornell 2004a, b;Rathje et al 2015;Pecker et al 2017;Aristizabal et al 2018), estimation of ground motion models (Bozorgnia et al 2014;Douglas 2016;Bindi et al 2019;Kotha et al 2020), soil classification following the building code prescriptions (NEHRP, BSSC 2015;Eurocode 8, EC8 2004;NTC18 Italian code, NTC 2018). Most existing strong motion databases actually include some information on the V S30 proxy, which was the first one to be proposed in the nineties as a continuous, quantitative alternative to the binary (or ternary) classification soil/rock or soft soil/stiff soil/rock (Borcherdt 1992(Borcherdt , 1994Boore et al 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators for site characterization at seismic station: recommendation from a dedicated survey

Cultrera

Cornou

Giulio

et al. 2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the permanent seismic networks worldwide have largely increased, raising the amount of earthquake signals and the applications using seismic records. Although characterization of the soil properties at recording stations has a large impact on hazard estimates, it has not been implemented so far in a standardized way for reaching high-level metadata. To address this issue, we built an online questionnaire for the identification of the indicators useful for a reliable site characterization at a seismic station. We analysed the answers of a large number of experts in different fields, which allowed us to rank 24 different indicators and to identify the most relevant ones: fundamental frequency (f0), shear-wave velocity profile (VS), time-averaged Vs over 30 m (VS30), depth of seismological and engineering bedrock (Hseis_bed and Heng_bed), surface geology and soil class. Moreover, the questionnaire proposed two additional indices in terms of cost and difficulty to obtain a reliable value of each indicator, showing that the selection of the most relevant indicators results from a complex balance between physical relevancy, average cost and reliability. For each indicator we propose a summary report, provided as editable pdf, containing the background information of data acquisition and processing details, with the aim to homogenize site metadata information at European level and to define the quality of the site characterization (see companion paper Di Giulio et al. 2021). The selected indicators and the summary reports have been shared within European and worldwide scientific community and discussed in a dedicated international workshop. They represent a first attempt to reach a homogeneous set of high-level metadata for site characterization.

show abstract

“…Recent earthquakes, such as the Athens (Greece, 1999) [9], the Kocaeli (Turkey, 1999) [10], the Haiti (2010) [11], and the Gorkha (Nepal, 2015) [12][13][14] earthquakes, showed the importance of taking into account soil amplifications. In the literature, several approaches have been applied to perform ground motion analyses including site effects: hybrid analyses that consist of a combination of probabilistic and deterministic methods (e.g., [15,16]), convolution approaches that provide modifications of the rocking hazard (e.g., [17,18]), and 1D seismic site response analyses (e.g., [19,20]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil–Structure Interaction Assessment of the 23 November 1980 Irpinia-Basilicata Earthquake

Mina

Forcellini

2020

Geosciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aimed to present a systematic study of the effects caused by the strong earthquake that struck southern Italy on 23 November 1980 (Ms = 6.9) and affected the Campania and Basilicata regions. Two aspects are discussed here: The broadening of the knowledge of the response site effects by considering several soil free-field conditions and the assessment of the role of the soil–structure interaction (SSI) on a representative benchmark structure. This research study, based on the state-of-the-art knowledge, may be applied to assess future seismic events and to propose new original code provisions. The numerical simulations were herein performed with the advanced platform OpenSees, which can consider non-linear models for both the structure and the soil. The results show the importance of considering the SSI in the seismic assessment of soil amplifications and its consequences on the structural performance.

show abstract

Incorporating Site Response into Seismic Hazard Assessments for Critical Facilities: A Probabilistic Approach

Cited by 12 publications

References 4 publications

Non-Ergodic Site Response in Seismic Hazard Analysis

Non-Ergodic Site Response in Seismic Hazard Analysis

Indicators for site characterization at seismic station: recommendation from a dedicated survey

Soil–Structure Interaction Assessment of the 23 November 1980 Irpinia-Basilicata Earthquake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About