Seismic Hazard Analysis — Quo vadis?

Klügel, Jens-Uwe

doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.01.003

Cited by 80 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mualchin (2005) commented that no seismic hazard analysis should be perfect without challenge, given our limited understanding of the random earthquake process. Moreover, Kluegel (2008) considered that the key to a robust seismic hazard study is a transparent and repeatable process, regardless of methodology.…”

Section: Recent Discussion On Seismic Hazard Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A first-order second-moment calculation for seismic hazard assessment with the consideration of uncertain magnitude conversion

Wang

Xie

2013

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Earthquake size can be described with different magnitudes for different purposes. For example, local magnitude M L is usually adopted to compile an earthquake catalog, and moment magnitude M w is often prescribed by a ground motion model. Understandably, when inconsistent units are encountered in an earthquake analysis, magnitude conversion needs to be performed beforehand. However, the conversion is not expected at full certainty owing to the model error of empirical relationships. This paper introduces a novel first-order second-moment (FOSM) calculation to estimate the annual rate of earthquake motion (or seismic hazard) on a probabilistic basis, including the consideration of the uncertain magnitude conversion and three other sources of earthquake uncertainties. In addition to the methodology, this novel FOSM application to engineering seismology is demonstrated in this paper with a case study. With a local ground motion model, magnitude conversion relationship and earthquake catalog, the analysis shows that the best-estimate annual rate of peak ground acceleration (PGA) greater than 0.18 g (induced by earthquakes) is 0.002 per year at a site in Taipei, given the uncertainties of magnitude conversion, earthquake size, earthquake location, and motion attenuation.

show abstract

Section: Recent Discussion On Seismic Hazard Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A first-order second-moment calculation for seismic hazard assessment with the consideration of uncertain magnitude conversion

Wang

Xie

2013

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As mentioned previously, a technical reference (USNRC, 2007) prescribes PSHA as the underlying approach, in contrast to another guideline implemented by California Department of Transportation prescribing DSHA for bridge designs under earthquake loadings (Mualchin, 2011). It is worth noting that extensive discussions over the pros and cons of the two methods have been reported in the literature (e.g., Bommer, 2003;Castanos and Lomnitz, 2002;Krinitzsky, 2003;Klugel, 2008). In general, DSHA is a simple approach that earthquake scenarios are considered logically understandably, but the uncertainties in DSHA may not be well quantified.…”

Section: Dsha Versus Pshamentioning

confidence: 99%

A procedure to select ground-motion time histories for deterministic seismic hazard analysis from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database

Huang

Zhu

2017

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In performance-based seismic design, groundmotion time histories are needed for analyzing dynamic responses of nonlinear structural systems. However, the number of ground-motion data at design level is often limited. In order to analyze seismic performance of structures, ground-motion time histories need to be either selected from recorded strong-motion database or numerically simulated using stochastic approaches. In this paper, a detailed procedure to select proper acceleration time histories from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database for several cities in Taiwan is presented. Target response spectra are initially determined based on a local ground-motion prediction equation under representative deterministic seismic hazard analyses. Then several suites of ground motions are selected for these cities using the Design Ground Motion Library (DGML), a recently proposed interactive ground-motion selection tool. The selected time histories are representatives of the regional seismic hazard and should be beneficial to earthquake studies when comprehensive seismic hazard assessments and site investigations are unavailable. Note that this method is also applicable to site-specific motion selections with the target spectra near the ground surface considering the site effect.

show abstract

“…The most important root cause-the underestimation of the seismic and tsunami hazard-is not addressed at all. Despite the very poor hazard prediction results of traditional PSHA (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis), -nearly all recent large earthquakes (Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, Haiti (2010), Sichuan (2008), L'Aquila (2009) were underestimated in PSHA maps) the method is still in use and widely endorsed internationally although their systematic errors are very well-known as for instance is outlined in Klügel (2007Klügel ( , 2008Klügel ( , 2011. If this important lesson is not learned catastrophes like in Fukushima may repeat.…”

Section: Lessons Not Yet Learned From Fukushimamentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons not yet learned from the Fukushima disaster

Klügel¹

2014

Acta Geod Geophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has led to a wide-spread international discussion on how seismic and tsunami hazards can be better predicted and adverse consequences be prevented. In some countries the event led to the complete phase-out of nuclear energy. The lessons drawn by different organisations including earth scientists, earthquake engineers, non-governmental and governmental organisations will be reviewed from an independent position. This review captures the following areas: (1) Hazard assessment, (2) Engineering design and defence in depth concepts, (3) Emergency preparedness. It is shown that not all important lessons from the catastrophe have been drawn, because some of the root causes of the accident are not yet addressed. Especially the need of a holistic approach towards hazard assessment and the implementation of defence in depth and diversity of design principles for critical infrastructures like nuclear power plants hast to be stronger emphasized to prevent similar disasters.

show abstract

Seismic Hazard Analysis — Quo vadis?

Cited by 80 publications

References 56 publications

A first-order second-moment calculation for seismic hazard assessment with the consideration of uncertain magnitude conversion

A first-order second-moment calculation for seismic hazard assessment with the consideration of uncertain magnitude conversion

A procedure to select ground-motion time histories for deterministic seismic hazard analysis from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) database

Lessons not yet learned from the Fukushima disaster

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About