Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On-site structure-specific real-time risk assessment: perspectives from the REAKT project

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

Abstract

The availability of computationally powerful and energy-efficient wireless sensing units or WSUs (one or more arranged in the form of a network in the vicinity and/or within a structure of interest) has led to new developments in the field of building and seismic strong motion monitoring. These WSUs can serve several functions. Those of largest earthquake engineering and engineering seismology interest are the recording of ground shaking the building is subjected to, as well as its response, and the capability of running rapid seismic risk analyses on the basis of vulnerability models of the structure, possibly coupled with recorded data. The REAKT project has shed light on a number of prospective applications of the last generation of monitoring devices for seismic risk management of critical structures. These applications refer to real-time and near-real-time risk assessment, that is: earthquake early warning, immediate post-event response evaluations based on recorded shaking, and short-term aftershock risk management for automated building tagging. This paper summarizes these perspectives that, despite still presenting some challenges that may limit readiness to date, have potential for scientific innovation in the field.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the case of non-linear structural response, ground motion recording at the site of the building may be used as an input to a non-linear model to gather information on the inelastic response (see the Sect. 3.3).

  2. In fact, it has been shown that if at a given time t from the earthquake’s origin, the seismic network can provide a vector of measures that are informative about the magnitude, then \(f_{M} \left( {m|\tau_{1} ,\tau_{2} , \ldots ,\tau_{n} } \right)\) may be obtained in an analytical form via the Bayes’ theorem. Likewise, because of rapid earthquake localization procedures, a probabilistic estimate of the epicenter may be available based on the sequence at which the stations trigger.

  3. The referenced studies consider the general case of vector-valued EDP and IM, as well the PDF of a damage measure given EDP (Eq. 3). It is easy to recognize that the representation given herein for the expected loss is equivalent. Note also that there are some conditional independency assumptions in the integrals of the equations; the interested reader is referred to the given references for details.

  4. The system declares an event (M larger than 3) only if at least three stations trigger within the same 2 s time interval.

References

  • Aki K (1957) Space and time spectra of stationary stochastic waves with special reference to microtremors. Bull Earthq Res Inst 35:415–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Behr Y, Clinton J, Kästli P, Cauzzi C, Racine R, Meier MA (2015) Anatomy of an Earthquake Early Warning (EEW) Alert: predicting time delays for an end‐to‐end EEW system. Seismol Res Lett 86:830–840. doi:10.1785/0220140179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Menahem A (1995) A concise history of mainstream seismology: origins, legacy, and perspectives. Bull Seismol Soc Am 4:1202–1225

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder RW (1952) Engineering aspects of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. In: Proceeding of symposium on earthquake and blast effects on structures, EERI and University of California, pp 187–221

  • Bindi D, Petrovic B, Karapetrou S, Manakou M, Boxberger T, Raptakis D, Pitilakis KD, Parolai S (2015a) Seismic response of an 8-story RC-building from ambient vibration analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 13(7):2095–2120. doi:10.1007/s10518-014-9713-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Boxberger T, Orunbaev S, Pilz M, Stankiewicz J, Pittore M, Iervolino I, Ellguth E, Parolai S (2015b) On-site early-warning system for Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan). Ann Geophys 58:S0112. doi:10.4401/ag-6664

    Google Scholar 

  • Biot MA (1933) Theory of elastic systems vibrating under transient impulse with an application to earthquake-proof buildings. Proc Natl Acad Sci 19:262–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blume JA (1935) A machine for setting structures and ground forced vibration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 5:361–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M, Hauksson E, Solanki S, Kanamori H, Wu Y-M, Heaton TH (2009) A new trigger criterion for improved real-time performance of onsite earthquake early warning in Southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:897–905. doi:10.1785/0120080034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownjohn JMW (2007) Structural health monitoring of civil infrastructure. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 365:589–622. doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byerly P, Hester J, Marshall K (1931) The natural periods of vibration of some tall buildings in San Francisco. Bull Seismol Soc Am 21:268–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Carder DS (1936) Observed vibrations of buildings. Bull Seismol Soc Am 26:245–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Carder DS (1937) Observed vibrations of bridges. Bull Seismol Soc Am 27:267–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauzzi C, Behr Y, Le Guenan T, Douglas J, Auclair S, Woessner J, Clinton J, Wiemer S (2016) Earthquake early warning and operational earthquake forecasting as real-time hazard information to mitigate seismic risk at nuclear facilities. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-016-9864-0 (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng M, Heaton TH (2015) Simulating building motions using ratios of the building’s natural frequencies and Timoshenko beam model. Earthq Spectra 31:403–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng MH, Kohler MD, Heaton TH (2015) Prediction of wave propagation in buildings using data from a single seismometer. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:107–119. doi:10.1785/0120140037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clearbout JF (1968) Synthesis of a layered medium from its acoustic transmission response. Geophys 33:264–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloud WK (1964) The cooperative program of earthquake investigation. In: Carder DS (ed) Earthquake investigation in the Western United States 1931–1964. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., pp 3–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloud WK, Carder DS (1956) The strong motion program of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. In: Proceedings of the World conference of Earthquake Engineering, vol 2. Berkeley, California, pp 1–10

  • Convertito V, Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Zollo A (2008) Prediction of response spectra via real-time earthquake measurements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:492–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER Center News 3(2):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison C (1924) Fusakichi Omori and his work on earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 14:240–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey JW, Byerly P (1969) The early history of seismometry. Bull Seism Soc Am 59:183–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Doebling SW, Farrar CR, Prime MB, Shevitz DW (1996) Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: a literature review. Los Alamos, National Laboratory, LA-13070-MS

  • Esposito S, Emolo A (2014) REAKT, Strategies and tools for Real-time Earthquake Risk Reduction, EU FP7/2007–2013, Deliverable D 7.4: Final report for Feasibility studies on EEW: application to the Circumvesuviana Napoli railway and at schools, http://www.reaktproject.eu/deliverables/REAKT-D7.4.pdf

  • Farrar CR, Worden K (2007) An introduction to structural health monitoring. Philos Trans R Soc A 365:303–315. doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Redlich JP, Zschau J, Milkereit C, Picozzi M, Fleming K, Brumbulli M, Lichtblau B, Eveslage I (2012) A wireless mesh sensing network for early warning. J Netw Comput Appl 35:538–547. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2011.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming K, Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Kühnlenz F, Lichtblau B, Fischer J, Zulfikar C, Ozel O (2009) The self-organizing seismic early warning information network (SOSEWIN). Seismol Res Lett 80:755–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JR (1930) Engineering data needed on earthquake motion for use in the design of earthquake resistant structures (and discussions). Seismol Res Lett 2:25–42. doi:10.1785/gssrl.2.1-2.25

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JR (1932) Earthquake damage and earthquake insurance. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauksson E, Gross S (1991) Source parameters of the 1933 long beach earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81:81–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck NH (1930) The earthquake, a joint problem of the seismologist and engineer. Seismol Res Lett 2:42–46. doi:10.1785/gssrl.2.1-2.42

    Google Scholar 

  • Housner GW (1941) Calculating the response of an oscillator to arbitrary ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 31:143–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Housner GW (1983) Earthquake engineering- some early history. In: Proceedings of the Golden Anniversary Workshop on strong motion seismometry. University of Southern California, pp 7–16

  • Hsu TY, Huang SK, Lu KC, Loh CH (2011) A damage detection algorithm integrated with a wireless sensing system. J Phys: Conf Ser. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/305/1/012042

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson DE (1992) A history of earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings IDNDR International Symposium on Earthquake Disaster Reduction Technology, Japan, pp 3–13

  • Iervolino I (2011) Performance-based earthquake early warning. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:209–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Chioccarelli E (2014) D4.8 EW for structural control and feasibility of using random field ground motion for real-time risk. Deliverable to the Strategies and tools for Real-Time Earthquake Risk Reduction project (REAKT) project. http://www.reaktproject.eu/. Accessed 27 Aug 2015

  • Iervolino I, Convertito V, Giorgio M, Manfredi G, Zollo A (2006) Real-time risk analysis for hybrid earthquake early warning systems. J Earthq Eng 10(6):867–885

    Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Manfredi G (2007) Expected loss-based alarm threshold set for earthquake early warning systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1151–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Galasso G, Manfredi G (2009) Uncertainty in early warning predictions of engineering ground motion parameters: What really matters? Geophys Res Lett 36:L00B06. doi:10.1029/2008GL036644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Chioccarelli E (2014a) Closed-form aftershock reliability of damage-cumulating elastic-perfectly-plastic systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43:613–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iervolino I, Parolai S, Bindi D (2014b) Industrial Seismic Loss Assessment and Reduction (ISLAR +), Project Executive Summary Report, AXA Research Foundation, p 9, https://axa-research.org/project/iunio-iervolino. Accessed July 2015

  • Jacobsen LS (1930) Motion of a soil subject to a simple harmonic ground vibration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 20:160–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanai K (1965) Some new problems of seismic vibrations of a structure, In: Proceedings of the 3rd world conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand

  • Kanamori H (2005) Real-time seismology and earthquake damage mitigation. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 33:195–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karapetrou S, Roumelioti Z, Manakou M, Fotopoulou S, Argiroudis S, Tsinidis G, Karatzetzou A, Pitilakis K, Bindi D, Boxberger T, Milkereit C (2014) REAKT, Strategies and tools for Real-time Earthquake Risk Reduction, EU FP7/2007-2013, Deliverable D7.7: Final report for Risk assessment and initial implementation efforts for using EEW to protect the Thessaloniki Port and the AHEPA hospital. http://www.reaktproject.eu/deliverables/REAKT-D7.7.pdf

  • Karapetrou S, Manakou M, Bindi D, Petrovic B, Pitilakis K (2016) “Time-building specific” seismic vulnerability assessment of a hospital RC building using field monitoring data. Eng Struct 112:114–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler MD, Heaton TH, Bradford SC (2007) Propagating waves in the steel, moment-frame factor building recorded during earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1334–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler MD, Heaton TH, Cheng MH (2013) The Community Seismic Network and Quake-Catcher Network: enabling structural health monitoring through instrumentation by community participants. In: Proceedings of SPIE: Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, San Diego, California, 10–14 Mar 2013

  • LeConte JN, Younger JE (1932) Stresses in a vertical elastic rod when subjected to a harmonic motion of one end. Bull Seismol Soc Am 22:1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23(2):357–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch JP, Loh KJ (2006) A summary review of wireless sensors and sensor networks for structural health monitoring. Shock Vib Dig 38:91–128. doi:10.1177/0583102406061499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch JP, Law KH, Kiremidjian AS, Kenny TW, Carryer E, Partridge A (2001) The design of a wireless sensing unit for structural health monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, 12–14 Sept

  • Lynch JP, Sundararajan A, Law KH, Kiremidjian AS, Kenny T, Carryer E (2003) Embedment of structural monitoring algorithms in a wireless sensing unit. J Struct Eng Mech 15:285–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch JP, Sundararajan A, Sohn H, Park G, Farrar C, Law K (2004) Embedding actuation functionalities in a wireless structural health monitoring system. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Smart Materials and Structures Technology, Honolulu, HI, 12–14 Jan

  • Maher TJ (1964) The early work for earthquake research in California. In: Carder DS (ed) Earthquake investigation in the Western United States 1931–1964. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., pp 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallet R (1862) The first principles of observational seismology: The Great Neapolitan earthquake of 1857. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakata N, Snieder R, Kuroda S, Ito S, Aizawa T, Kunimi T (2013) Monitoring a building using deconvolution interferometry, I: earthquake-data analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1662–1678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odaka T, Ashiya K, Tsukada S, Sato S, Ohtake K, Nozaka D (2003) A new method of quickly estimating epicentral distance and magnitude from a single seismic record. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:526–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parolai S, Bindi D, Pittore M, Fleming F (2014) REAKT, Strategies and tools for Real-time Earthquake Risk Reduction, EU FP7/2007-2013, Deliverable: D4.4 Development of a prototype seismic array combined with camera for monitoring purposes. http://www.reaktproject.eu/deliverables/REAKT-D4.4.pdf

  • Parolai S, Bindi D, Boxberger T, Milkereit C, Fleming K, Pittore M (2015) On-site early warning and rapid damage forecasting using single stations: outcomes from the REAKT Project. Seismol Res Lett 86:1393–1404. doi:10.1785/0220140205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picozzi M, Milkereit C, Parolai S, Jaeckel K-H, Veit I, Fischer J, Zschau J (2010) GFZ wireless seismic array (GFZ-WISE), a wireless mesh network of seismic sensors: new perspectives for seismic noise array investigations and site monitoring. Sensors 10:3280–3304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picozzi M, Parolai S, Mucciarelli M, Milkereit C, Bindi D, Ditommaso R, Vona MM, Gallipoli MR, Zschau J (2011) Interferometric analysis of strong ground motion for structural health monitoring: the example of the L’Aquila, Italy, seismic sequence of 2009. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:635–651. doi:10.1785/0120100070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmani MT, Todorovska MI (2013) 1D system identification of buildings from earthquake response by seismic interferometry with waveform inversion of impulse responses—method and application to Millikan Library. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 47:157–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranieri C, Fabbrocino G, Cosenza E (2010) Integrated seismic early warning and structural health monitoring of critical civil infrastructures in seismically prone areas. Struct Health Monit 10(3):291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitherman R (2006) The effects of the 1906 earthquake in California on research and education. Earthq Spectra S2:S207–S236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitherman R (2012) Earthquake and engineers, an international history. ASCE Press, Reston, Virginia. ISBN 978-0-7844-1071-4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riddell R (2008) Inelastic response spectrum: early history. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 37(8):1175–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers FJ (1930) Experiments with a shaking machine. Bull Seismol Soc Am 20:147–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruge AC (1936) A machine for reproducing earthquake motions direct from a shadowgraph of the earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 26:201–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Rytter A (1993) Vibration based inspection of civil engineering structures. PhD Department of Building Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark

  • Satriano C, Wu Y-M, Zollo A, Kanamori H (2011) Earthquake early warning: concepts, methods and physical grounds. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(2):106–118. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snieder R, Safak E (2006) Extracting the building response using interferometry: theory and applications to the Millikan Library in Pasadena, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:586–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn H, Farrar C (2001) Damage diagnosis using time-series analysis of vibrating signals. Smart Mater Struct 10(3):446–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn H, Farrar CR, Hunter NF, Worden W (2001) Structural health monitoring using statistical pattern recognition techniques. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 123:706–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straser EG, Kiremidjian AS (1998) A modular, wireless damage monitoring system for structures, Report no. 128, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA

  • Suyehiro K (1931) Notes on lecture presented by Professor K. Suyehiro—Earthquake Research Institute, Tokyo. Seismol Res Lett 3:7–8. doi:10.1785/gssrl.3.3.7

    Google Scholar 

  • Takahasi R (1956) The SMAC strong motion accelerograph and other latest instruments for measuring earthquakes and building vibrations. In: World conference on earthquake engineering Proceedins, Berkeley, California, pp 3–11

  • Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2008) Impulse response analysis of the Van Nuys 7-storey hotel during 11 earthquakes and earthquake damage detection. Struct Control Health Monit 15:90–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trifunac MD (2009) 75th Anniversary of strong motion observation—a historical review. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:591–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Lynch JP, Law KH (2007) A wireless structural health monitoring system with multithreaded sensing: design and validation. Struct Infrastruct Eng 3:103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber E, Convertito V, Iannaccone G, Zollo A, Bobbio A, Cantore L, Corciulo M, Di Crosta M, Elia L, Martino C, Romeo A, Satriano C (2007) An advanced seismic network in the southern Apennines (Italy) for seismicity investigations and experimentation with earthquake early warning. Seismol Res Lett 78:622–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenner F (1930) A proposed accelerometer for use in a seismic region. Seismol Res Lett 2:46–54. doi:10.1785/gssrl.2.1-2.46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenner F (1932) Development of seismological instruments at the Bureau of Standards. Bull Seismol Soc Am 22:60–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Y-M, Kanamori H (2005) Rapid assessment of damage potential of earthquakes in Taiwan from the beginning of P waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1181–1185. doi:10.1785/0120040193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2005) Stochastic characterization and decision bases under time-dependent aftershock risk in performance-based earthquake engineering. PEER Report 2005/13, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California

  • Yeo GL, Cornell CA (2009) A probabilistic framework for quantification of aftershock ground-motion hazard in California: methodology and parametric study. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann AT, Shiraishi M, Swartz A, Lynch JP (2008) Automated modal parameter estimation by parallel processing within wireless monitoring systems. J Infrastruct Syst 14:102–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo A, Amoroso O, Lancieri M, Wu Y-M, Kanamori H (2010) A threshold-based earthquake early warning using dense accelerometer networks. Geophys J Int 183:963–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partially developed within the Strategies and tools for Real-Time Earthquake Risk Reduction project (REAKT; http://www.reaktproject.eu), funded by the European Commission via the FP7 programme (Grant No. 282862). Partial support was also provided by the ISLAR project (https://www.axa-research.org/project/iunio-iervolino) granted by the AXA Research Fund in 2011 and the work benefitted from the collaboration with AMRA, Analisi e Monitoraggio dei Rischi Ambientali (http://www.amracenter.com). The installations in Thessaloniki were performed as collaboration between the Helmholtz Centre Potsdam–GFZ and the Department of Civil Engineering of the Aristotle University, in the framework of the REAKT work package “Strategic Applications and Capacity Building”. The authors thank B Petrovic, M Pittore, T Boxberger, C Milkereit for useful discussions and K Fleming for helping us in the preparation of the manuscript. Finally, the comments by an anonymous reviewer, Prof. Sinan Akkar, and the guest Editors are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Helmholtzstraße 7, 14467, Potsdam, Germany

    D. Bindi & S. Parolai

  2. Dipartimento di Strutture per l’Ingegneria e l’Architettura, Universitá degli studi di Napoli Federico II, via Claudio 21, 80125, Naples, Italy

    I. Iervolino

Authors
  1. D. Bindi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. Iervolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Parolai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Bindi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bindi, D., Iervolino, I. & Parolai, S. On-site structure-specific real-time risk assessment: perspectives from the REAKT project. Bull Earthquake Eng 14, 2471–2493 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9889-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9889-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation