Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment

  • Junbo Jia


Hazard is defined as inherent physical characteristics that pose potential threats to people, property, or the environment.


Ground Motion Probability Density functionProbability Density Function Return Period Seismic Hazard Peak Ground Acceleration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin T, Haselton CB, Baker JW (2013) Conditional spectrum-based ground motion selection, part I: hazard consistency for risk-based assessments. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(12):1847–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2012) Confirmatory analysis of seismic hazard at the Diablo Canyon power plant from the shoreline fault zoneGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DR Baker (2015) PG&E: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant can withstand 10,000-year quake. SFGATE, 12 March 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abrahamson NA (2006) Seismic hazard assessment: problems with current practice and future developments. In: Keynote paper, first European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abrahamson NA (2006) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis—an overview. Rose School, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker JW (2008) An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). US Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO19901-2 (2004) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteriaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954) Seismicity of the earth and associated phenomena. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    PC Marrow (1992) Seismic monitoring of the North Sea. Prepared by Global Seismology for the Health and Safety Executive, Health & Safety Executive, OTH, vol 90, p 323Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz DP, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas fault zones. J Geophys Res 89(B7):5681–5698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1985) Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(4):939–964Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Der Kiureghian A, Ang AHS (1977) A fault rupture model for seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67(4):1173–1194Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bungum H, Selnes PB (1988) Earthquake loading on the norwegian continental shelf—summary report. NORSAR, NGI and Principia Mechanica Ltd, OsloGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang Z (2006) Understanding seismic hazard and risk assessments: an example in the New Madrid Seismic Zone of the central United States. In: Proceedings of the eighth national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, Paper 416Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang Z (2007) Seismic hazard and risk assessment in the intraplate environment: the New Madrid Seismic Zone of the central United States. In: Stein S, Mazzotti S (eds) Continental intraplate earthquakes: science, hazard, and policy issues. Geological Society of America Special Paper 425, pp 363–373Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srbulov Milutin (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering—simplified analyses with case studies and examples. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ritsema AR (1981) On the assessment of seismic risk in the North Sea area. Koninklijk Nederlands Meterologisch Instituut ReportGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gumbel EJ (1958) Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marrow PC (1992) Seismic monitoring of the North Sea. Prepared by Global Seismology for the Health and Safety Executive, Health & Safety ExecutiveGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ellsworth WL (1999) A physically-based earthquake recurrence model for estimation of long-term earthquake probabilities. In: workshop on earthquake recurrence: state of the art and directions for the future, Institute Nazionale de Geofisica, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nishenko SP, Buland R (1987) A generic recurrence interval distribution for earthquake forecasting. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1382–1399Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kameda H, Takagi H (1981) Seismic hazard estimation based on non-Poisson earthquake occurrences, Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kyoto University, v. XLIII, Pt. 3, July, KyotoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anagnos T, Kiremidjian AS (1984) Temporal dependence in earthquake occurrence. In: Proceedings of the eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp 255–262Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen WF, Lui EM (2006) Earthquake engineering for structural design, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bungum Hilmar (2012) Recent advances in earthquake hazard assessment. NORSRA, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    ISO19901-2 (2016) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteria, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pinto AV (2003) Earthquake performance of structures—behavioural, safety and economical aspects. Special Publication No. I.98.111, EC Joint Research Center, ISPRA, October, 2003Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    McGuire RK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    National Research Council (1988) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, report of the panel on seismic hazard analysis. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGuire RK (1978) FRISK: computer program for seismic risk analysis using faults as earthquake sources. US Geological Survey, Reports, United States Geological Survey Open-file 78-1007, p 71Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yule DE, Kala R, Matheu EE (2005) DEQAS-R: standard response spectra and effective peak ground accelerations for seismic design and evaluation (computer program) version 1.0. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Molina S, Lang DH, Meslem A, Lindholm CD (2015) User manual for the earthquake loss estimation tool, SELENA v6.5, user and technical manual v6.5Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sahin C (2014) Seismic retrofitting of existing structures. Portland State University, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis, vol 221. Report MNO-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Publication, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In: Proceedings of the eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 1. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Coppersmith KJ, Youngs RR (1986) Capturing uncertainty in probabilistic seismic hazard assessments with intraplate tectonic environments. In: Proceedings of the third US national conference on earthquake engineering, Charleston, South Carolina, vol 1, pp. 301–312Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker E, Dickman N, Hanson S, Hopper M (1996) National seismic hazard maps—documentation June 1996. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-532, vol 110Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kafka AL (2002) Statistical analysis of the hypothesis that seismicity delineates areas where future large earthquakes are likely to occur in the Central and Eastern United States. Seismol Res Lett 73(6):992–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    US Geological Survey (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps, Open-File Report 2008-1128Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Anderson JG, Trifunac MD (1977) Uniform risk absolute acceleration spectra, advances in civil engineering through engineering mechanics. In: Proceedings of the second annual engineering mechanics division specialty conference. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp 332–335Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mcguire RK (1999) Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mutlu Sumer B (2014) Liquefaction around marine structures. World Scientific Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Matheu EE, Yule DE, Kala RV (2005) Determination of standard response spectra and effective peak ground accelerations for seismic design and evaluation. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Frankel AD, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker EV, Hanson S, Hopper M (1996) National seismic hazard maps, June 1996 documentation. Open-File Report 96-532, US Geological Survey, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frankel AD, Petersen MD, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Leyendecker EV, Wesson RL, Harmsen SC, Cramer CH, Perkins D, Rukstales S (2002) Documentation for the 2002 update of the national seismic hazard maps. Open-File Report 02-420, US Geological Survey, Golden, CO, 2002Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mutlu Sumer B, Ansal A, Onder Cetin K, Damgaard J, Riza Gunbak A, Ottesen Hansen N-E, Sawicki A, Synolakis CE, Yalciner AC, Yuksel Y, Zen K (2007) Earthquake-induced liquefaction around marine structures. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng ASCE 133(1):55–82Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cornell CA (1996) Reliability-based earthquake-resistant design: the future. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 2166Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Popov EP, Yang TS, Grigorion CE (1994) New directions in structural seismic designs. Earthq Spectra 9(4):845–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    US DOE (Department of Energy) (1994) Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for DOE facilities. DOE-STD-1020-94, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cornell CA (1996) Calculating building seismic performance reliability: a basis for multi-level design norms. In: Proceedings of 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    NORSOK Standard N-003 (2004) Actions and action effects, Rev. 2Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2014) Reliability of offshore structures: current design and potential inconsistencies. OGP Report No. 486Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    NORSAR (1998) Seismic zonation for Norway. Prepared for Norwegian Council for Building Standardization by NORSAR and Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang G (2011) A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:611–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Correlation of response spectral values for multi-component ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Baker JW (2007) Evaluation of ground motion selection and scaling techniques for long period structures. USGS Award No. 07HQAG0129Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Somerville PG, Thio HK (2011) Development of ground motion time histories for seismic design. In: Proceedings of the ninth Pacific conference on earthquake engineering: building an earthquake-resilient society, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mousavi M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Azarbakht A (2011) A new indicator of elastic spectral shape for the reliable selection of ground motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(12):1403–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mousavi M, Shahri M, Azarbakht A (2012) E-CMS: a new design spectrum for nuclear structures in high levels of seismic hazard. Nucl Eng Des 252:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bak P (1996) How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. Copernicus Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sornette D, Ouillon G (2012) Dragon-kings: mechanisms, statistical methods and empirical evidence. Eur Phys J Spec Top 205(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sornette D, Woodard R, Zhou WX (2009) The 2006–2008 oil bubble: evidence of speculation, and prediction. Phys A 388:1571–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rundle JB, Holliday JR, Graves W, Turcotte DL, Tiampo KF, Klein W (2012) Probabilities for large events in driven threshold systems. Phys Rev E 86:021106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Xie LL (2000) Some challenges to earthquake engineering in new century. In: Proceedings of the China–US millennium symposium of earthquake engineering: earthquake engineering frontiers in the new millennium, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yang XJ, Li J (2012) Advances in mapping from remote sensor imagery: techniques and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Reiter L (1990) Earthquake hazard analysis. Columbia University Press, New York, p 254Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Smith W (2005) The challenge of earthquake risk assessment. Seismol Res Lett 76:415–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sacks P (1978) Wind forces in engineering, 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, p 400Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gupta RS (1989) Hydrology and hydraulic system. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 739Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wang Z (2008) Understanding seismic hazard and risk: a gap between engineers and seismologists. In: 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bachmann H (2003) Seismic conceptual design of buildings: basic principles for engineers, architects, building owners, and authorities. Swiss Federal Office for Water and Geology and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, BWG, BernGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Solomos G, Pinto A, Dimova S (2008) A review of the seimsic hazard zonation in national building codes in the context of Eurocode 8, EUR 23563 EN. European Commission, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ilki A, Karadogan F, Pala S, Yuksel E (2009) Seismic risk assessment and retrofitting: with special emphasis on existing low rise structures (geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering), 1st edn. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mulargia F, Geller RJ (eds) (2004) Earthquake science and seismic risk reduction (NATO science series: IV: earth and environmental science)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aker SolutionsBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations