Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk-adjusted design basis earthquake: a case study of Tehran megacity

  • Case Study Reports
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The basic goal of earthquake resistant building design codes is to provide life safety in the event of extreme earthquake loading and to reduce the seismic risk in the long run. In the most building codes including Iranian building code (Standard No. 2800), design basis earthquake is defined as an earthquake with 10% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years. Such an approach leads to buildings with unknown reliability, meaning that the probability of exceedance from the specified limit states in the service lifetime is not known. Furthermore, the regions with the same mapped peak ground acceleration (PGADBE) and different hazard curves, may have different seismic risks. Therefore, life safety is not uniformly provided across the entire region. Here, an attempt is made to estimate PGADBEs based on the uniform collapse risk approach for Tehran megacity. The building capacity and PGA hazard curve for 354 grids in Tehran are computed. Then, the risk-adjusted design PGA at different grid points are calculated by optimizing risk integral using the acceptance criteria of 1% in 50 years for ordinary usage buildings (risk category II). The computed risk-adjusted design PGAs vary from 0.33 g in the east to about 0.45 g toward west, south, and north. Meanwhile, the proposed mapped PGADBE in standard 2800 is a constant value of 0.35 g for the whole region. To preserve a uniform collapse risk, risk-adjustment factors to modify the mapped PGADBE are introduced. Furthermore, the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) required to evaluate the acceptance criteria is found to be in the range of 1.5% to 2.5% PE in 50 years. The PGAs with 2% PE in 50 years provide nearly uniform acceptable probability of collapse for buildings classified in risk category II. In addition, it is found that the buildings’ seismic importance factor (I) also needs to be revised from 1.2 to 1.3 for seismic risk category III, and from 1.4 to 1.6 for seismic risk category IV to preserve the 0.5% and 0.25% collapse risk in 50 years, respectively. The outcomes also revealed that the sensitivity analysis with regard to the uncertainty of buildings’ collapse fragility curve can be ignored for buildings in risk categories I and II, while it needs to be performed for buildings in risk categories III, and especially IV. Finally, the estimated PGA hazard curves of the Tehran megacity are approximated by the cubic functions to expedite the future risk assessment studies in Tehran megacity.

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
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Notes

  1. Incremental Dynamic Analysis.

  2. Statistical Center of Iran.

References

  • Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV, and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region, and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 81:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 7 (2003) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 7 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 7 (2017) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC (2007) Recommended methodology for quantification of building system performance and response parameters, ATC-63 (75% Draft). Applied Technology Council, Redwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Atik LA, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81:794–801. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker JW (2015) Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 31:579–599. https://doi.org/10.1193/021113EQS025M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender B (1983) Maximum likelihood estimation of b values for magnitude grouped data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:831–851

    Google Scholar 

  • BHRC (2014) Iranian code of practice for seismic resistance design of buildings, standard No. 2800, 4th edition

  • Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24:99–138. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Estimation of response spectra and peak acceleration from Western North America earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seism Res Lett 68:128–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Atkinson GM, Eeri M (2014) NGA-West 2 Equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% -damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthq Spectra 24:139–171. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2857546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BS, Youngs RR, Eeri M (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24:173–215. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell CA (1964) Stochastic processes in civil engineering. Dissertation, University of Stanford, Palo Alto

  • Crowley H, Colombi M, Silva V, Ahmad N, Fardis M, Tsionis G, et al (2011) D3.1—Fragility functions for common RC building types in European technical report. In: Systemic seismic vulnerability and risk analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety gain (SYNER-G)

  • Delavaud E, Cotton F, Akkar S, Scherbaum F, Danciu L, Beauval C et al (2012) Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe. J Seismol 16:451–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Gkimprixis A (2018) Risk targeting in seismic design codes: the state of the art, outstanding issues and possible paths forward. 211–223. 10.1007/978-3-319-74724-8_14

  • Douglas J, Ulrich T, Negulescu C (2013) Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France. Nat Hazards 65:1999–2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0460-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DTDATM (2017) Tehran geotechnical zoning maps report. In: Deputy of technical and development affair, Tehran municipality, Tehran, Iran

  • EN 1998-1 (2004) Ec8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1 -General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings

  • Esteva L (1963) Regionalizacion sismica de la Republica Mexicana. Dissertation, Universidad Autonoma Nacional de Mexico

  • FEMA P-1050 (2015) NEHRP Recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures. Building Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

  • FEMA P-750 (2009) NEHRP Recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures

  • FEMA P-695 (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner JK, Knopoff L (1974) Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:1363–1367

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardoni P, Der Kiureghian A, Mosalam KM (2002) Probabilistic capacity models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete columns based on experimental observations. J Eng Mech 128:1024–1038. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:10(1024)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehl P, Seyedi DM, Douglas J (2013) Vector-valued fragility functions for seismic risk evaluation. Bull Earthq Eng 11:365–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9402-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghasemi H, Zare M, Fukushima Y, Koketsu K (2009) An empirical spectral ground-motion model for Iran. J Seismol 13:499–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-008-9143-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giardini D, Danciu L, Erdik M, Şeşetyan K, Demircioğlu Tümsa MB, Akkar S, Gülen L, Zare M (2018) Seismic hazard map of the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 16:3567–3570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0347-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkimprixis A, Douglas J, Tubaldi E, Zonta D (2018) Development of fragility curves for use in seismic risk targeting. In: 16th European conference on earthquake engineering. pp 1–9

  • Hesami K, Jamali F, Tabasi H (2003) Active faults map of Iran. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), Tehran

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisada Y, Shibayama A, Ghayamghamian MR (2005) Building damage and seismic intensity in Bam city from the 2003 Iran, Bam, earthquake. Bull Earthq Res Institute Univ Tokyo 79:81–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra LF, Krawinkler H (2005) Global collapse of frame structures underseismic excitations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, California

    Google Scholar 

  • IIEES Search earthquakecatalog (2018). http://www.iiees.ac.ir/en/eqcatalog/. Accessed 23 June 2018

  • IRSC bulletin Search (2018). http://irsc.ut.ac.ir/bulletin.php. Accessed 23 June 2018

  • ISC Event catalogue (2018). http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscbulletin/search/catalogue/. Accessed 23 June 2018

  • Jaiswal K, Wald D, D’Ayala D (2011) Developing empirical collapse fragility functions for global building types. Earthq Spectra 27:775–795. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3606398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karimiparidari S, Zaré M, Memarian H, Kijko A (2013) Iranian earthquakes, a uniform catalog with moment magnitudes. J Seismol 17:897–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-013-9360-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kijko A, Smit A (2012) Extension of the Aki-Utsu b-Value estimator for incomplete catalogs. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:1283–1287. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luco N, Ellingwood BR, Hamburger RO, Hooper JD, Kimball JK, Kircher C a. (2007) Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous united states. In: Structural engineering Association of California 2007 convention proceedings. pp 1–13

  • Marano KD, Wald DJ, Allen TI (2010) Global earthquake casualties due to secondary effects: a quantitative analysis for improving rapid loss analyses. Nat Hazards 52:319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9372-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEHRP (2003) Commentary appendix A: Development of maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps

  • NIST (2012) Tentative framework for development of advanced seismic design criteria for new buildings. NIST GCR 12-917-20, prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers

  • Porter K, Kennedy R, Bachman R (2007) Creating fragility functions for performance-based earthquake engineering. Earthq Spectra 23:471–489. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2720892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA (2005) Composite ground-motion models and logic trees: methodology, sensitivities, and uncertainties. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1575–1593. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SCI Statistical Center of Iran (2016). https://www.amar.org.ir/english. Accessed 23 June 2018

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2016) Exploring risk-targeted hazard maps for Europe. Earthq Spectra 32:1165–1186. https://doi.org/10.1193/112514EQS198M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tchalenko JS (1975) Seismotectonic framework of the North Tehran fault. Tectonophysics 29:411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(75)90169-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobita T, Miyajima M, Fallahi A, Alaghebandian R, Ghayamghamian MR (2007) Seismic intensity estimation through questionnaire survey and collapse rates of various building types in the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 23:841–865. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2790490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich T, Negulescu C, Douglas J (2014) Fragility curves for risk-targeted seismic design maps. Bull Earthq Eng 12:1479–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9572-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS Search earthquake catalog (2018). https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. Accessed 23 June 2018

  • Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2004) Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Spectra 20:523–553. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weichert DH (1980) Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1337–1346. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesnousky SG (1994) The Gutenberg-Richter or characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it? Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:1940–1959

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer S, Wyss M (2000) Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:859–869. https://doi.org/10.1785/0119990114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamazaki F, Nishimura A, Ueno Y (1996) Estimation of human casualties due to urban earthquakes. In: 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd

  • Zafarani H, Luzi L, Lanzano G, Soghrat MR (2017) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA and pseudo spectral accelerations using Iranian strong-motion data. J Seismol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9704-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Zare M (1995) Relevant equations between magnitude, intensity and peak ground acceleration based on iranian earthquakes. Res Bull Seismol Earthq Eng 6:12–14

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express sincere gratitude to associate editor of Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (John Douglas) and two anonymous reviewers whose comments lead to substantial quality improvement of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earthquake Risk Management Research Center, IIEES, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Zaman & Mohammad Reza Ghayamghamian

Authors
  1. Mohammad Zaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Reza Ghayamghamian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Reza Ghayamghamian.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaman, M., Ghayamghamian, M.R. Risk-adjusted design basis earthquake: a case study of Tehran megacity. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 3777–3799 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00625-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00625-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation