Risk Targeting in Seismic Design Codes: The State of the Art, Outstanding Issues and Possible Paths Forward

Conference paper
Part of the Springer Natural Hazards book series (SPRINGERNAT)

Abstract

Over the past decade there have been various studies on the development of seismic design maps using the principle of “risk-targeting”. The basis of these studies is the calculation of the seismic risk by convolution of a seismic hazard curve for a given location (derived using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis) with a fragility curve for a code-designed structure (ideally derived from structural modelling). The ground-motion level that the structure is designed for is chosen so that the structure has a pre-defined probability of achieving a certain performance level (e.g. non-collapse). At present, seismic design maps developed using this approach are only widely applied in practice in the US but studies have also been conducted on a national basis for France, Romania, Canada and Indonesia, as well as for the whole of Europe using the European Seismic Hazard Model. This short article presents a review of the state of the art of this technique, highlighting efforts to constrain better some of the input parameters. In addition, we discuss the difficulties of applying this method in practice as well as possible paths forward, including an empirical method to estimate an upper bound for the acceptable collapse and yield risk.

Keywords

Seismic hazard Earthquake engineering Fragility curves Risk targeting Design Acceptable risk 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The second author of this article is undertaking a PhD funded by a University of Strathclyde “Engineering The Future” studentship, for which we are grateful. We thank Florin Pavel for sharing the submitted version of Vacareanu et al. (2017). We thank Roberto Paolucci for discussions concerning empirical estimates of collapse risk.

References

  1. Allen TI, Adams J, Halchuk S (2015) The seismic hazard model for Canada: past, present and future. In: Proceedings of the tenth pacific conference on earthquake engineering building an earthquake-resilient pacific, Sydney, Australia (Paper number 100)Google Scholar
  2. ASCE (2005) Seismic design criteria for structures, systems and components in nuclear facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Standard 43-05Google Scholar
  3. ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE Standard 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. Braverman JI, Xu J, Ellingwood BR, Costantino CJ, Morante RJ, Hofmayer CH (2007) Evaluation of the seismic design criteria in ASCE/SEI standard 43-05 for application to nuclear power plants. Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)—USNRCGoogle Scholar
  5. Carydis PG, Tilford NR, Brandow GE, Jirsa JO (1982) The central Greece earthquakes of February–March 1981. Report No. CETS-CND-018 of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. CEN (2004a) EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. CEN (2004b) EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. Colombi M, Borzi B, Crowley H, Onida M, Meroni F, Pinho R (2008) Deriving vulnerability curves using Italian earthquake damage data. Bull Earthq Eng 6(3):485–504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-008-9073-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowley H, Weatherill G, Pinho R (2013) Suggestions for updates to the European seismic design regulations. SHARE Deliverable 2.6. Universita degli Studi di PaviaGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas J, Ulrich T, Negulescu C (2013) Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France. Nat Hazards 65(3):1999–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EPISCOPE (2014) Inclusion of new buildings in residential building typologies: steps towards NZEBs exemplified for different European countries. EPISCOPE Synthesis Report no. 1 (Deliverable D2.4). Contract N°: IEE/12/695/SI2.644739. ISBN 978-3-941140-42-4Google Scholar
  12. Fajfar P, Dolšek M (2012) A practice-oriented estimation of the failure probability of building structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 41:531–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FEMA (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P750). Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  14. Formichi P, Danciu L, Akkar S, Kale O, Malakatas N, Croce P, Nikolov D, Gocheva A, Luechinger P, Fardis M, Yakut A, Apostolska R, Sousa ML, Dimova S, Pinto A (2016) Eurocodes: background and applications: elaboration of maps for climatic and seismic actions for structural design with the Eurocodes. EUR,  https://doi.org/10.2788/534912
  15. Goulet C, Haselton C, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck J, Deierlein G, Porter K, Stewart J (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 36:1973–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ICC IBC (2003) International building code (IBC), international code council (ICC), IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. ICC IBC (2012) International building code (IBC), international code council (ICC), IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Iervolino I, Spillatura A, Bazzurro P (2017) RINTC project: Assessing the (implicit) seismic risk of code-conforming structures in Italy. In: Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M (eds) COMPDYN 2017, 6th ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods in structural dynamics and earthquake engineering, Rhodes, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  19. Judd JP, Charney FA (2014) Earthquake risk analysis of structures. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural dynamics, EURODYN 2014, pp 2929–2938Google Scholar
  20. Karababa FS, Pomonis A (2011) Damage data analysis and vulnerability estimation following the August 14, 2003 Lefkada Island, Greece, earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1015–1046.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9231-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 241:648–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Labbé PB (2010) PSHA outputs versus historical seismicity: example of France. In: Proceedings of fourteenth European conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  23. Liel AB, Luco N, Raghunandan M, Champion CP (2015) Modifications to risk-targeted seismic design maps for subduction and near-fault hazards. In: 12th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, ICASP12, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Martins L, Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P, Marques M (2015) Investigation of structural fragility for risk-targeted hazard assessment. In: 12th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, ICASP12, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramirez CM, Liel AB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Haselton CB, Spear AD, Steiner J, Deierlein GG, Miranda E (2012) Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 41:1455–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. RELUIS and EUCENTRE (2014–2018) Research project DPC—RELUIS/EUCENTRE, technical report and deliverablesGoogle Scholar
  28. Sengara IW, Sidi ID, Mulia A, Muhammad A, Daniel H (2016) Development of risk coefficient for input to new Indonesian seismic building codes. J Eng Technol Sci 48(1):49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2016) Exploring risk-targeted hazard maps for Europe. Earthq Spectra 32(2):1165–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SNI (2012) Tata cara perencanaan ketahanan gempa untuk struktur bangunan gedung dan non gedung. Badan Standardisasi Nasional, ICS 91.120.25; 91.080.01. Report 1726:2012 (In Indonesian)Google Scholar
  31. Tsang HH, Wenzel F (2016) Setting structural safety requirement for controlling earthquake mortality risk. Saf Sci 86:174–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tsang HH, Lumantarna E, Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Gad E (2017) Annualised collapse risk of soft-storey building with precast RC columns in Australia. Advancements and Challenges, Mechanics of Structures and Materials, pp 1681–1686Google Scholar
  33. Ulrich T, Negulescu C, Douglas J (2014a) Fragility curves for risk-targeted seismic design maps. Bull Earthq Eng 12(4):1479–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulrich T, Douglas J, Negulescu C (2014b) Seismic risk maps for Eurocode-8 designed buildings. In: Proceedings of the second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismologyGoogle Scholar
  35. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2007) A performance-based approach to define the site specific earthquake ground motion. Tech report 1:208Google Scholar
  36. Vacareanu R, Pavel F, Craciun I, Coliba V, Arion C, Aldea A, Neagu C (2017) Risk-targeted maps for Romania. J Seismolog.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9713-x Google Scholar
  37. Žižmond J, Dolšek M (2017) The formulation of risk-targeted behaviour factor and its application to reinforced concrete buildings. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 January (Paper no. 1659)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations