Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Integrated Earthquake Simulation

  • Lalith WijerathneEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_65


End-to-end earthquake simulations; Large-scale earthquake simulations


A major earthquake in a commercial metropolis can inflict catastrophic disasters, crippling economy, causing loss of lives, and damaging infrastructure and properties. Even though the earthquake itself cannot be predicted, it is a possibility that the associated catastrophic losses can be prevented by implementing sound disaster mitigation plans; retrofitting the infrastructures, implementing good crisis management and recovery plans, etc. (NEES report 2004). This requires reliable predictions of damages due to anticipating earthquake scenarios. The conventional predictions are based on empirical relations which are obtained by statistical analysis of past earthquake disasters. These empirical predictions are less reliable since the conditions during the recorded major earthquakes, which are rare and have return periods of half a century or more, are significantly different from the conditions...

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


  1. Bielak J, Ghattas O, Kim EJ (2005) Parallel octree-based finite element method for large-scale earthquake ground motion simulation. Comput Model Eng Sci 10–2:99–112MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Committee to develop a long-term research agenda for the network for earthquake engineering simulation (NEES), National research council (2004) Preventing earthquake disasters: the grand challenge in earthquake engineering: a research agenda for the network for earthquake engineering simulation. The National Academic Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10799.html. Accessed 15 July 2013
  3. Cui Y, Moore R, Olsen K, Chourasia A, Maechling P, Minster B, Day S, Hu Y, Zhu J, Jordan T (2009) Toward petascale earthquake simulations. Acta Geotech 4–2:79–93Google Scholar
  4. Datta TK (2010) Seismic analysis of structures. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  5. Goto C, Ogawa Y, Shuto N, Imamura F (1997) IUGG/IOC time project, numerical method of tsunami simulation with the leap-frog scheme, IOC manuals and guides. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Hans S, Boutin C (2008) Dynamics of discrete framed structures: a unified homogenized description. J Mech Mater Struct 3–9:1709–1739Google Scholar
  7. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Lange ST, Deierlein GG (2008) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. PEER report 2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Hori M (2011) Introduction to computational earthquake engineering. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Hori M, Ichimura T (2008) Current state of integrated earthquake simulation for earthquake hazard and disaster. J Seismol 12:307–321Google Scholar
  10. Käser M, Hermann V, Puente J (2008) Quantitative accuracy analysis of the discontinuous Galerkin method for seismic wave propagation. Geophys J Int 173(3):990–999Google Scholar
  11. Koketsu K, Fujiwara H, Ikegami Y (2004) Finite-element Simulation of Seismic Ground Motion with a Voxel Mesh. Pure Appl Geophys 161(11–12):2183–2198Google Scholar
  12. Mader CL (2004) Numerical modeling of water waves. CRC press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Moczo P, Kristeka J, Galisb M, Pazaka P, Balazovjech M (2007) The finite-difference and finite-element modeling of seismic wave propagation and earthquake motion. Acta Physica Slovaca 57–2:177–406Google Scholar
  14. Muto M, Krishnan S, Beck JL, Mitrani-Reiser J (2008) Seismic loss estimation based on end-to-end simulation, life-cycle civil engineering. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on life-cycle civil engineering. Varenna/Lake Como, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 10–14 June 2008. ISBN 0415468574Google Scholar
  15. Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley JN (2003) Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual deformations part II: multi-degree of freedom systems. J Earthq Eng 7(1):119–147Google Scholar
  16. Sobhaninejad G, Hori M, Kabeyasawa T (2011) Enhancing integrated earthquake simulation with high performance computing. Adv Eng Softw 42:286–292Google Scholar
  17. Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF (1996a) Fibre beam-column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part I. Formulation. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25–7:711–725Google Scholar
  18. Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF (1996b) Fibre beam–column model for non-linear analysis of R/C frames: part II. Applications. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25–7:727–742Google Scholar
  19. Taborda R, Bielak J (2011) Large-scale earthquake simulation: computational seismology and complex engineering systems. Comput Sci Eng 13–4:14–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Earthquake Research InstituteUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan