Recent Applications of Seismic Hazard Assessment

A special issue of GeoHazards (ISSN 2624-795X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 June 2022) | Viewed by 4472

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Engineering, University Roma III, Rome, Italy
Interests: seismic hazard and risk assessment; GMPEs studies; engineering characterization of seismic input; ground motion simulation

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The forecast of accelerations expected at a site during a future timespan of the order of tens of years plays a basic role in the definition of effective strategies for seismic risk reduction. In the last 20–30 years, the use of probabilistic concepts has allowed for uncertainties in the size, location and occurrence rate of earthquakes and in the variation in ground motion characteristics, to be explicitly considered in the evaluation of seismic hazards. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) provides a framework in which these uncertainties can be quantified and combined, offering a rational context for risk management by considering the exceedance probability of the ground motion against which a structure is designed. This allows the incorporation of PSHA into seismic risk estimates and the quantitative comparison of different options in making decisions. Seismic hazard models continue to be a topic of great importance within the scientific and stakeholder’s community, who use them in the regulatory, insurance, civil protection and territorial planning fields. The following themes are developed in this Special Issue:

  1. Use and integration of probabilistic and deterministic approaches in Seismic Hazard Analysis;
  2. Logic trees, epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in SHA;
  3. Integration of standard methodologies with the contribution, in probabilistic terms, of other types of data (seismic, geological, geodetic) and estimation models;
  4. Computer codes in SHA;
  5. Long-, medium-, and short-term seismic hazard models, dependent on or independent of time, and comparison with experiences at European and international levels;
  6. Dissemination and communication of studies and results to stakeholders and population.

Prof. Dr. Fabio Sabetta
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. GeoHazards is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • PSHA
  • DSHA
  • Earthquake catalogs
  • Seismic sources
  • Recurrence relations
  • GMPEs
  • Return period
  • Time-dependent models
  • Logic trees
  • Epistemic and aleatory uncertainty

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

25 pages, 6711 KiB  
Article
Reduction of Bias and Uncertainty in Regional Seismic Site Amplification Factors for Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis
by Mohammad Kamruzzaman Talukder, Philippe Rosset and Luc Chouinard
GeoHazards 2021, 2(3), 277-301; https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards2030015 - 3 Sep 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3157
Abstract
Site amplification factors in National Building Codes are typically specified as a function of the average shear wave velocity over the first 30 m (Vs30) or site class (A, B, C, D and E) for defined ranges of Vs30 and/or [...] Read more.
Site amplification factors in National Building Codes are typically specified as a function of the average shear wave velocity over the first 30 m (Vs30) or site class (A, B, C, D and E) for defined ranges of Vs30 and/or ranges of depth to bedrock. However, a single set of amplification factors may not be representative of site conditions across the country, introducing a bias in seismic hazard and seismic risk analyses. This is exemplified by significant differences in geological settings between East and West coast locations in North America. Western sites are typically characterized by lower impedance contrasts between recent surface deposits and bedrock in comparison to Eastern sites. In North America, site amplification factors have been derived from a combination of field data on ground motions recorded during West Coast earthquakes and numerical models of site responses that are meant to be representative of a wide variety of soil profiles and ground motions. The bias on amplifications and their impact on seismic hazards is investigated for the Montreal area, which ranks second for seismic risks in Canada in terms of population and hazard (PGA of 0.25 g for a 2475 years return period). Representative soil profiles at several locations in Montreal are analyzed with 1-D site response models for natural and synthetic ground motions scaled between 0.1 to 0.5 g. Since bedrock depths are typically shallow (<30 m) across the island, bedrock shear wave velocities have a significant influence on the impedance contrast and amplifications. Bedrock shear wave velocity is usually very variable due to the differences in rock formations, level of weathering and fracturing. The level of this uncertainty is shown to be greatly decreased when rock quality designation (RQD) data, common information when bore hole data are logged, is available since it is highly correlated with both shear and compression wave velocities. The results are used to derive region-specific site amplification factors as a function of both Vs30 and site fundamental frequency and compared to those of the National Building Code of Canada (2015). The results of the study indicate that there are large uncertainties associated with these parameters due to variability in soil profiles, soil properties and input seismic ground motions. Average and confidence intervals for the mean and for predictions of amplification factors are calculated for each site class to quantify this uncertainty. Amplifications normalized relative to class C are obtained by accounting for the correlation between site class amplifications for given ground motions. Non-linearity in the analysis of equivalent linear 1-D site response is taken into account by introducing the non-linear G/Gmax and damping ratios curves. In this method, it is assumed that the shear strain compatible shear modulus and damping ratio values remains constant throughout the duration of the seismic excitation. This assumption is not fully applicable to a case when loose saturated soil profile undergo heavy shaking (PGA > 0.3 g). In this study, all simulations with input motion PGA >0.3 g have been performed by using the EL method instead of the NL method considering that cohesive soils (clay and silt) at Montreal sites are stiff and cohesionless soils (sand and gravel) are considerably dense. In addition, the field and laboratory data required to perform NL analyses are not currently available and may be investigated in future works. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Applications of Seismic Hazard Assessment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop