OpenQuake Engine: An Open Hazard (and Risk) Software for the Global Earthquake Model

Pagani, Marco; Monelli, Damiano; Weatherill, Graeme; Danciu, Laurentiu; Crowley, Helen; Silva, Vítor; Henshaw, Paul; Butler, L.; Nastasi, Matteo; Panzeri, Luigi; Simionato, Michele; Viganò, Daniele

doi:10.1785/0220130087

Cited by 599 publications

(349 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

306

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data and results are available from the European Facility for Earthquake Hazard and Risk at www.efehr.org. Hazard was computed with the GEM OpenQuake engine with the intention that results be and remain reproducible (Pagani et al 2014). We are confident that this effort will leave a legacy of scientific rigor in PSHA, both at the European level and worldwide.…”

Section: Discussion and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within one background zone we assume that all fault sources capable of generating M W ≥ 6.5 earthquakes are known and dominate the seismic moment release. Events with magnitudes M W ≥ 6.5 are modelled on the 3D geometry of the fault sources; their exact location varies depending on the modelled hypocentral location (Pagani et al 2014), magnitude, and determined area, however, never extends beyond the mapped structures. Earthquakes in the magnitude range 4.5 ≤ M W ≤ 6.4 can occur throughout the background source and are homogeneously distributed.…”

Section: Fault Sources and Background (Fsbg) Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Modern PSHAs generate a wide range of results due to the growing understanding of the earthquake source processes, to the improved abilities for modelling ground motion attenuation, to an improved characterisation of uncertainties, and to enhanced computational capabilities (Pagani et al 2014). Thus, the results of this comprehensive PSHA are hosted in a database accessible online via a web-portal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This document supplies a comprehensive scientific overview for the ESHM13. The reader may refer to further documentation on the SHARE/EFEHR websites (see ESHM13 data and resources) for further details such as the computational implementation of the model in OpenQuake (Pagani et al 2014). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

486

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13) results from a community-based probabilistic seismic hazard assessment supported by the EU-FP7 project "Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe" (SHARE, 2009(SHARE, -2013. The ESHM13 is a consistent seismic hazard model for Europe and Turkey which overcomes the limitation of national borders and includes a through quantification of the uncertainties. It is the first completed regional effort contributing to the "Global Earthquake Model" initiative. It might serve as a reference model for various applications, from earthquake preparedness to earthquake risk mitigation strategies, including the update of the European seismic regulations for building design (Eurocode 8), and thus it is useful for future safety assessment and improvement of private and public buildings. Although its results constitute a reference for Europe, they do not replace the existing national design regulations that are in place for seismic design and construction of buildings. The ESHM13 represents a significant improvement compared to previous efforts as it is based on (1) the compilation of updated and harmonised versions of the databases required for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (2) the adoption of standard procedures and robust methods, especially for expert elicitation and consensus building among hundreds of European experts, (3) the multi-disciplinary input from all branches of earthquake science and engineering, (4) the direct involvement of the CEN/TC250/SC8 committee in defining output specifications relevant for Eurocode 8 and (5)

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Outlookmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fault Sources and Background (Fsbg) Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

486

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lagos), was considered in this study, both for design and seismic performance assessment purposes. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) was performed for the site in question, using the open source software OpenQuake (Pagani et al [13] and the seismic hazard model developed in SHARE (Woessner et al [14]), whilst also including additional hazard sources (Vilanova and Fonseca [15]) and employing the ground motion prediction equations from Atkinson and Boore [16] and Akkar and Bommer [17], with a weight of 70% and 30%, respectively (Silva et al [18]). Disaggregation of the seismic hazard (Bazurro and Cornell [19]) on magnitude, distance and  was performed.…”

Section: Site Hazard and Ground Motion Record Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic performance assessment of conventional steel and steel-concrete composite moment frames using CFST columns

Silva

Jiang

Macedo

et al. 2018

Proceedings 12th International Conference on Advances in Steel-Concrete Composite Structures - ASCCS 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research reported in this paper focuses on the assessment of the seismic performance of conventional steel moment-resisting frames (MRFs) and steel-concrete composite moment-resisting frames employing circular Concrete-Filled Steel Tube (CFST) columns. Two comparable archetypes (i.e. one steel MRF, with steel columns and steel beams; and one composite MRF, with circular CFST columns and steel beams) are designed, and used as the basis for comparison between the seismic performance associated with each typology. Both structures are designed against earthquake loads following the recommendations of Eurocode 8. The comparison of the obtained design solutions allows concluding that the amount of steel associated with the main structural members is higher for the steel-only archetype, even though the composite MRF has the higher level of lateral stiffness. This aspect is particularly relevant when one considers that a minimum level of lateral stiffness (associated with the P-Δ inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient, θ), is imposed by the European code, which may ultimately govern the design process. The two case-studies are then numerically modelled in OpenSees, and their seismic performance is assessed through fragility assessment for a number of relevant limit states, and, finally, earthquake-induced loss estimation. In general, the results obtained clearly indicate that the composite MRF with circular CFST columns exhibits better seismic performance than the equivalent steel-only archetype. This is noticeably shown in the comparison of the fragility curves associated with the collapse limit state, which tend to show substantially higher probabilities of exceedance, at similar levels of 1 st -mode spectral acceleration, for the steelonly case. Furthermore, seismic losses at several seismic intensity levels of interest tend to be higher for the steel MRF.

show abstract