Methodology for seismic risk screening of existing buildings in Canada: Non-structural component scoring system

Abstract

The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) has recently developed a Semi-Quantitative Seismic Risk Screening Tool (SQST) to supersede the 1993 NRC Manual for Screening of Buildings for Seismic Investigation. The proposed screening tool incorporates a methodology for estimating global seismic risk of existing buildings associated with failure of their non-structural components. The methodology assesses global seismic risk using a qualitative yet comprehensive scoring system. The scoring system consists of a global non-structural component score and acceptable threshold scores. The global score is based on the most critical components. It combines a basic score with score modifiers for key parameters affecting the seismic response of non-structural components. The acceptable threshold score is based on the building’s consequence of failure, the building’s importance category, and the component factor. The scoring system is calibrated to be consistent with the seismic risk acceptance criteria previously developed for preliminary seismic risk screening of existing buildings, based on Canadian seismicity, building age, remaining occupancy time, and consequences of failure.

Exploring acceptable risk in engineering and operations research and management science by bibliometric analysis

“…Theoretical research related to acceptable risk is constantly developing in the fields of engineering and operations research and management science, including the influencing factors of risk acceptability (Ale, 2005; Baybutt, 2016; S. Bhandari & Hallowell, 2021; Hartford, 2009; Huang et al., 2013; C. Murphy & Gardoni, 2008; Rundmo, 1996; Rodriguez‐Garzon et al., 2021; Vinnem, 2010), the determination principles and frameworks of risk acceptance criteria (Abrahamsen & Aven, 2008; Ditlevsen, 2003; Fischer et al., 2013; Lind, 2002a, 2002b; Kirchsteiger, 2002; Vrijling et al., 1995; Vrijling, 1998), requirements for risk acceptance criteria definers (Abrahamsen & Aven, 2012; Melchers, 2001), engineering ethics and the morality of risk acceptance criteria (Aven, 2007; Vanem, 2012), and overviews and outlooks (Aven, 2016; Ale et al., 2015; Jonkman et al., 2003). The applied research of acceptable risk theory is also developing in various subdisciplines of engineering and operations research and management science, and an increasing number of subdisciplines are trying to establish and apply risk acceptance criteria in their own fields, such as geological engineering (Corominas et al., 2005; Cortes‐Puentes et al., 2021; Fell, 1994; Finlay & Fell, 1997; Tsang et al., 2020; Strouth & McDougall, 2021; X. L. Wang et al., 2014), oil and gas engineering (Aven, 1994; Aven & Pitblado, 1998; Bajcar et al., 2014; Vinnem, 2021; Wu et al., 2019), nuclear engineering and technology (Silva & Okamoto, 2018; Hayns, 1999; Huang et al., 2010), bridge and tunnel engineering (Arends et al., 2005; Pedersen et al., 2020; VanWeyenberge et al., 2016), construction engineering (Faber & Stewart, 2003; Hingorani et al., 2019; Huang et al.,…”