Natural Hazards

, Volume 65, Issue 3, pp 1999–2013 | Cite as

Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France

Original Paper

Abstract

In this article, the recently proposed approach known as ‘risk targeting’ for the development of national seismic design maps is investigated for mainland France. Risk targeting leads to ground-motion maps that, if used for design purposes, would lead to a uniform level of risk nationally. The Eurocode 8 design loads currently in force for France are used as the basis of this study. Because risk targeting requires various choices on, for example, the level of acceptable risk to be made a priori and these choices are not solely engineering decisions but involve input from decision makers we undertake sensitivity tests to study their influence. It is found that, in contrast to applications of this methodology for US cities, risk targeting does not lead to large modifications with respect to the national seismic hazard map nor to changes in the relative ranking of cities with respect to their design ground motions. This is because the hazard curves for French cities are almost parallel. In addition, we find that using a target annual collapse probability of about 10−5 for seismically designed buildings and a probability of collapse when subjected to the design PGA of 10−5 leads to reasonable results. This is again in contrast to US studies that have adopted much higher values for both these probabilities.

Keywords

Seismic hazard maps Earthquake risk France Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment Fragility curves Risk targeting Collapse rate Acceptable risk 

References

  1. Bommer JJ, Pinho R (2006) Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 35(1):39–55. doi:10.1002/eqe.530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Crowley H (2005a) Using displacement-based earthquake loss assessment in the selection of seismic code design levels. In: Proceedings of international conference on structural safety and reliability (ICOSSAR ’05), pp 3567–3574Google Scholar
  3. Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Bungum H, Cotton F, Sabetta F, Abrahamson NA (2005b) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):377–389. doi:10.1785/0120040073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BRGM-IRSN-EDF (2011) SisFrance : Histoire et caractéristiques des séismes ressentis en France. On Internet at http://www.sisfrance.net/
  5. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  6. Crowley H, Colombi M, Silva V, Ahmad N, Fardis M, Tsionis G, Papailia A, Taucer F, Hancilar U, Yakut A, Erberik MA (2011) D3.1—fragility functions for common RC building types in European technical report, systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain (SYNER-G), project of the EC framework programme 7Google Scholar
  7. Duckett W (2004) Risk analysis and the acceptable probability of failure. In: Henderson Colloquium (British Group of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering)Google Scholar
  8. Ellingwood BR, Kinali K (2009) Quantifying and communicating uncertainty in seismic risk assessment. Struct Saf 31:179–187. doi:10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fajfar P, Dolšek M (2012) A practice-oriented estimation of the failure probability of building structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 41(3):531–547. doi:10.1002/eqe.1143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Technical reprt FEMA P695, prepared by Applied Technology CouncilGoogle Scholar
  11. Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP (2007) Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36:1973–1997. doi:10.1002/eqe.694 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grünthal G (2001) European Macroseismic Scale 1998, vol 19. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. Hadjian AH (2002) A general framework for risk-consistent seismic design. Earth Eng Struct Dynam 31:601–626. doi:10.1002/eqe.145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Code Council, Inc: (2012) 2012 International building code. International Code Council, Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy RP (2011) Performance-goal based (risk informed) approach for establishing the SSE site specific response spectrum for future nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des 241:648–656. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konno T (2003) A developing risk-informed design basis earthquake ground motion methodology. In: Transactions of the 17th international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT 17), Paper #K11-1Google Scholar
  17. Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In: Proceedings of eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  18. Labbé PB (2010) PSHA outputs versus historical seismicity: Example of France. In: Proceedings of fourteenth European conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  19. LeBrun B, Imbault M, Mouroux P (2004) Participation du BRGM au sous groupe zonage sismique du GEPP: Activité 2003–2004. Rapport intermédiaire BRGM/RP-52970-FR, BRGM, France, in FrenchGoogle Scholar
  20. Luco N (2009) Preparation of new seismic design maps for building codes. In: 2009 COSMOS Technical sessionGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin C, Combes P, R S, Lignon G, Fioravanti A, Carbon D, Monge O, Grellet B (2002) Revision du zonage sismique de la France: Etude probabiliste. Technical report. Rapport de Phase 3, GEO-TER, France, report GTR/MATE/0701-150, Affaire no. 1601, in FrenchGoogle Scholar
  23. McGuire RK (1976) FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis. Open-File Report 76-67, United States Department of the Interior Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  24. Ministère de l’Écologie, de l’Énergie, du Développement durable et de l’Aménagement du territoire (2005) Aléa sismique de la France. Poster and on internet at: http://www.planseisme.fr/La-nouvelle-carte-d-alea-sismique.html
  25. Seyedi DM, Gehl P, Douglas J, Davenne L, Mezher N, Ghavamian S (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 39(1):91–108. doi:10.1002/eqe.939 Google Scholar
  26. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2007) A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion. Technical repot. 1.208Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Douglas
    • 1
  • Thomas Ulrich
    • 1
  • Caterina Negulescu
    • 1
  1. 1.DRP/RSV, BRGMOrléans Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations