Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Modern Earthquake Engineering

  • 1945 Accesses

Abstract

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

There is always going to be an element of doubt, as one is extrapolating into areas one doesn’t know about.

Richar Smith

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  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):1847–1865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. www.pge.com/diabloseismic

  4. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2012) Confirmatory analysis of seismic hazard at the Diablo Canyon power plant from the shoreline fault zone

    Google Scholar 

  5. DR Baker (2015) PG&E: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant can withstand 10,000-year quake. SFGATE, 12 March 2015

    Google Scholar 

  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, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  7. Abrahamson NA (2006) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis—an overview. Rose School, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baker JW (2008) An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606

    Google Scholar 

  10. ISO19901-2 (2004) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteria

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1954) Seismicity of the earth and associated phenomena. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  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 323

    Google Scholar 

  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):5681–5698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):939–964

    Google Scholar 

  15. Der Kiureghian A, Ang AHS (1977) A fault rupture model for seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67(4):1173–1194

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bungum H, Selnes PB (1988) Earthquake loading on the norwegian continental shelf—summary report. NORSAR, NGI and Principia Mechanica Ltd, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  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 416

    Google Scholar 

  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 363–373

    Google Scholar 

  19. Baker JW (2011) Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection. J Struct Eng 137(3):322–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Srbulov Milutin (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering—simplified analyses with case studies and examples. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ritsema AR (1981) On the assessment of seismic risk in the North Sea area. Koninklijk Nederlands Meterologisch Instituut Report

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gumbel EJ (1958) Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Marrow PC (1992) Seismic monitoring of the North Sea. Prepared by Global Seismology for the Health and Safety Executive, Health & Safety Executive

    Google Scholar 

  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, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nishenko SP, Buland R (1987) A generic recurrence interval distribution for earthquake forecasting. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1382–1399

    Google Scholar 

  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, Kyoto

    Google Scholar 

  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 255–262

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chen WF, Lui EM (2006) Earthquake engineering for structural design, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bungum Hilmar (2012) Recent advances in earthquake hazard assessment. NORSRA, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  30. ISO19901-2 (2016) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteria, 2nd edn

    Google Scholar 

  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, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  32. McGuire RK (1995) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1275–1284

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Research Council (1988) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, report of the panel on seismic hazard analysis. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  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 71

    Google Scholar 

  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, MS

    Google Scholar 

  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 v6.5

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sahin C (2014) Seismic retrofitting of existing structures. Portland State University, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520

    Google Scholar 

  39. McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis, vol 221. Report MNO-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Publication, Oakland, CA

    Google Scholar 

  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 263–270

    Google Scholar 

  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. 301–312

    Google Scholar 

  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 110

    Google Scholar 

  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):992–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. US Geological Survey (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps, Open-File Report 2008-1128

    Google Scholar 

  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 332–335

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mcguire RK (1999) Deterministic vs. probabilistic earthquake hazards and risks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21:377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mutlu Sumer B (2014) Liquefaction around marine structures. World Scientific Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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, MS

    Google Scholar 

  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, CO

    Google Scholar 

  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, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  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):55–82

    Google Scholar 

  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. 2166

    Google Scholar 

  53. Popov EP, Yang TS, Grigorion CE (1994) New directions in structural seismic designs. Earthq Spectra 9(4):845–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. US DOE (Department of Energy) (1994) Natural phenomena hazards design and evaluation criteria for DOE facilities. DOE-STD-1020-94, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  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, Mexico

    Google Scholar 

  56. NORSOK Standard N-003 (2004) Actions and action effects, Rev. 2

    Google Scholar 

  57. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2014) Reliability of offshore structures: current design and potential inconsistencies. OGP Report No. 486

    Google Scholar 

  58. NORSAR (1998) Seismic zonation for Norway. Prepared for Norwegian Council for Building Standardization by NORSAR and Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wang G (2011) A ground motion selection and modification method capturing response spectrum characteristics and variability of scenario earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:611–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Correlation of response spectral values for multi-component ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(1):215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Baker JW, Jayaram N (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthq Spectra 24(1):299–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Baker JW (2007) Evaluation of ground motion selection and scaling techniques for long period structures. USGS Award No. 07HQAG0129

    Google Scholar 

  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 Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  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):1403–1416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 252:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bak P (1996) How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. Copernicus Press, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  68. Sornette D, Ouillon G (2012) Dragon-kings: mechanisms, statistical methods and empirical evidence. Eur Phys J Spec Top 205(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sornette D, Woodard R, Zhou WX (2009) The 2006–2008 oil bubble: evidence of speculation, and prediction. Phys A 388:1571–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 86:021106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  72. Yang XJ, Li J (2012) Advances in mapping from remote sensor imagery: techniques and applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  73. Reiter L (1990) Earthquake hazard analysis. Columbia University Press, New York, p 254

    Google Scholar 

  74. Smith W (2005) The challenge of earthquake risk assessment. Seismol Res Lett 76:415–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sacks P (1978) Wind forces in engineering, 2nd edn. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, p 400

    Google Scholar 

  76. Gupta RS (1989) Hydrology and hydraulic system. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p 739

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wang Z (2008) Understanding seismic hazard and risk: a gap between engineers and seismologists. In: 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  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, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  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, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  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, Dordrecht

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  81. Mulargia F, Geller RJ (eds) (2004) Earthquake science and seismic risk reduction (NATO science series: IV: earth and environmental science)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aker Solutions, Bergen, Norway

    Junbo Jia

Authors
  1. Junbo Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junbo Jia .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jia, J. (2017). Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment. In: Modern Earthquake Engineering . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31854-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31854-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31853-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31854-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation