Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A universal approach for evaluating earthquake safety level based on societal fatality risk

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Residual risk exists in our buildings even if they were designed in conformance with modern codes of practice. Various approaches have been implemented or proposed in the last decade for setting risk-based performance requirements for seismic design of building structures. However, there is insufficient consideration about the aggregated risk for society, which could be significant especially for a densely populated metropolitan city. This paper introduces a rational and universal approach for evaluating the adequacy of structural safety requirements by comparing societal risk functions based on probabilistic loss assessment with a proposed regulatory requirement that aims to limit the mortality rate to “as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP)”. The proposed approach is then applied to Melbourne, Australia, in a case study, which shows that the earthquake fatality risk for the society appears to be unacceptable. The outcome can be used for justification of a seismic retrofitting policy or a required change of the design code level. The proposed scheme is also applicable to other natural hazards and for safety engineering applications generally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ale BJM, Piers M (2000) The assessment and management of third party risk around a major airport. J Hazard Mater 71(1–3):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander D (2017) Corruption and the governance of disaster risk. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Natural Hazard Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.253

  • Allen TI (2012) Stochastic ground motion prediction equations for southeastern Australian earthquakes using updated source and attenuation parameters. Record 2012/69, GeoCat 74133, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia

  • Ambraseys N, Bilham R (2011) Corruption kills. Nature 469:153–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang AHS, de Leon D (1995) Systematic determination of seismic safety levels for design of R/C buildings. Urban Disaster Mitigation: the Role of Engineering and Technology. Elsevier, Tarrytoen, pp 63–77

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA Publication 273). Prepared by Applied Technology Council (ATC) for the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), Washington, D.C

  • Beattie JR (1967) Risks to the population and the individual from iodine releases. Nucl Saf 8(6):573–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Pinho R (2005) Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(1):39–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottelberghs PH (2000) Risk analysis and safety policy developments in the Netherlands. J Hazard Mater 71(1–3):59–84

    Google Scholar 

  • BSSC (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750). Prepared by Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), Washington, D.C.

  • Chandler AM (1997) Engineering design lessons from Kobe. Nature 387:227–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake Protection, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, 436 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley H, Silva V, Bal IE, Pinho R (2012) Calibration of seismic design codes using loss estimation. In: Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Paper No. 4891

  • Daniell KA (2012) Co-engineering and Participatory Water Management: Organisational Challenges for Water Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 346 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE (2015) Global view of seismic code and building practice factors. Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE, Khazai B, Wenzel F, Vervaeck A (2011) The CATDAT damaging earthquakes database. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2235–2251

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE, Schaefer AM, Wenzel F (2015) A tale of eight cities: earthquake scenario risk assessment for major Australian cities. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney, Australia

  • Daniell JE, Schaefer AM, Wenzel F, Tsang HH (2017) The global role of earthquake fatalities in decision-making: earthquakes versus other causes of fatalities. In: Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, Paper No. 170

  • Daniell JE, Pomonis A, Tsang HH, Wenzel F, Gunasekera R, Schaefer A (2018) The top 100 fatal earthquakes: examining fatality risk reduction globally with respect to seismic code implementation. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece

  • Dolšek M (2015) EAEE Working Group 1: Future Directions for Eurocode 8—Chapter 4: Performance Objectives. University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolšek M, Sinković NL, Žižmond J (2017) IM-based and EDP-based decision models for the verification of the seismic collapse safety of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 46(15):2665–2682

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Gkimprixis A (2018) Risk targeting in seismic design codes: the state of the art, outstanding issues and possible paths forward. In: Vacareanu R, Ionescu C (eds) Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment, Springer Natural Hazards. Springer, Cham, pp 211–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Ulrich T, Negulescu C (2013) Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France. Nat Hazards 65(3):1999–2013

    Google Scholar 

  • DSC-NSW (2006) Risk management policy framework for dam safety. Dams Safety Committee (DSC), New South Wales (NSW) Government, Australia

  • DSC-NSW (2010) Demonstration of safety for dams (DSC2D). Dams Safety Committee (DSC), New South Wales (NSW) Government, Australia

  • Erdik M (2017) Earthquake risk assessment. Bull Earthq Eng 15:5055

    Google Scholar 

  • Escaleras M, Register C (2016) Public sector corruption and natural hazards. Publ Finance Rev 44(6):746–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Escaleras M, Anbarci N, Register CA (2007) Public sector corruption and major earthquakes: a potentially deadly interaction. Public Choice 132:209–230

    Google Scholar 

  • European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2002) EN 1990: Eurocode: Basis of Structural Design. Belgium, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2005) EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings. Belgium, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber MH, Stewart MG (2003) Risk assessment for civil engineering facilities: critical overview and discussion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 80:173–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer FR (1967) Reactor safety and siting: a proposed risk criterion. Nucl Saf 8(6):539–548

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2012) HAZUS®-MH 2.1, Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake model. Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C.

  • Geoscience Australia (2019) Neotectonic features. Earthquakes@GA. https://earthquakes.ga.gov.au/. Accessed 3 Oct 2019

  • Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Report No. 156, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, U.S., 281 p

  • Hashemi MJ, Tsang HH, Al-Ogaidi Y, Wilson JL, Al-Mahaidi R (2017) Collapse assessment of reinforced concrete building columns through multi-axis hybrid simulation. ACI Struct J 114(2):437–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2001) Reducing risks, protecting people—HSE’s decision making process. UK HSE Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Planning Department (2008) Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, Chapter 12: Miscellaneous, 12.4: Potentially hazardous installations. The Government of the Hong Kong SAR, 2008

  • International Building Code (IBC) (2012) International Code Council (ICC). Country Club Hill, Illinois

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 2394 (1998) General Principles on Reliability for Structures. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman SN, van Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling JK (2003) An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J Hazard Mater 99(1):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2008) Assessing the collapse risk of california’s existing reinforced concrete frame structures: metrics for seismic safety decisions. Report No. 166, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, U.S., 293 p

  • Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2012) Using collapse risk assessments to inform seismic safety policy for older concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1495–1521

    Google Scholar 

  • Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO, Hooper JD, Kimball JK, Kircher CA (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States. In: SEAOC 2007 Convention Proceedings

  • Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36(3):257–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter KA (2014) Safe enough? How building codes protect our lives but not our cities. In: Proceedings of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.

  • Ryu H, Wehner M, Maqsood T, Edwards M (2013) An enhancement of earthquake vulnerability models for Australian residential buildings using historical building damage. In: Proceedings of Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2013 Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

  • SEAOC (1995) Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Vision 2000 Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, California, U.S.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEAOC (1999) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, 7th edn. Seismology Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, California, U.S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva V (2017) Critical issues on probabilistic earthquake loss assessment. J Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1297264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2016) Exploring risk-targeted hazard maps for Europe. Earthq Spectra 32(2):1165–1186

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinković NL, Brozovič M, Dolšek M (2016) Risk-based seismic design for collapse safety. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:1451–1471

    Google Scholar 

  • So E (2016) Estimating Fatality Rates for Earthquake Loss Models. Springer, Cham, 62 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Somerville P, Graves R, Collins N, Song SG, Ni S, Cummins P (2009) Source and ground motion models for Australian earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Australian Earthquake Engineering Conference, Newcastle, Australia

  • Somerville P, Bayless J, Skarlatoudis A, Thio HK (2013) Assessment of seismic design motions at low probabilities: comparing Australia and New Zealand. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Australian Earthquake Engineering Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

  • Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165(3899):1232–1238

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr C (1972) Benefit-cost studies in sociotechnical systems. Perspectives on benefit-risk decision making. Report of a Colloquium conducted by the Committee on Public Engineering Policy, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. U.S., pp 17–42

  • Tanner P, Hingorani R (2015) Acceptable risks to persons associated with building structures. Struct Concr 16(3):314–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Trbojevic VM (2005) Risk criteria in EU. In: Proceedings of the Conference on European Safety and Reliability (ESREL’05), Tri-city, Poland

  • Tsang HH (2008) Lessons learnt from the 512 Wenchuan earthquake: perception of seismic risks. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Australian Earthquake Engineering Conference, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia

  • Tsang HH (2011) Should we design buildings for lower-probability earthquake motion? Nat Hazards 58(3):853–857

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang HH, Wenzel F (2016) Setting structural safety requirement for controlling earthquake mortality risk. Saf Sci 86:174–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang HH, Lumantarna E, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Gad EF (2016) Annualised collapse risk of soft-storey building with precast RC columns in Australia. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Perth, Australia

  • Tsang HH, Daniell JE, Wenzel F, Werner AC (2018) A semi-probabilistic procedure for developing societal risk function. Nat Hazards 92(2):943–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3233-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNISDR (2009) 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 30 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Craciun I, Coliba V, Arion C, Aldea A, Neagu C (2018) Risk-targeted maps for Romania. J Seismol 22(2):407–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill G, Crowley H, Pinho R (2010) Report on seismic hazard definitions needed for structural design applications. Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe Project (SHARE) Deliverable D2.2. www.share-eu.org

  • Werner AC (2016) Estimating FN-curves for earthquake risk assessment—the Melbourne case. Master Thesis, Geophysical Institute, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

  • Wiggins JH Jr. (1972) Earthquake safety in the City of Long Beach based on the concept of balanced risk. Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, Report of a Colloquium conducted by the Committee on Public Engineering Policy, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. U.S., pp 87–95

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Ms. Amelie Werner to the results presented in this paper. The first author would like to express his gratitude for the invitations of visiting professorship and the associated financial support offered by the Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, for the periods January-June 2013 and June-July 2016. The financial support from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre of the Australian Government is also acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, 3122, Australia

    Hing-Ho Tsang & John L. Wilson

  2. Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Hertzstraße 16, 76187, Karlsruhe, Germany

    James E. Daniell & Friedemann Wenzel

Authors
  1. Hing-Ho Tsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. Daniell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Friedemann Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John L. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hing-Ho Tsang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsang, HH., Daniell, J.E., Wenzel, F. et al. A universal approach for evaluating earthquake safety level based on societal fatality risk. Bull Earthquake Eng 18, 273–296 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00727-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00727-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation