Earthquake risk assessment

Because it was the first systematic attempt to develop VFs, ATC-13 quickly became the standard for assessing earthquake risk of buildings. 

Carlos, S. O., Antoni, R., Xavier, G. 2006). Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Springer. 

Anon. 1978. The Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk. UNESCO, Paris. 

Oliveira, C.S. and A.R.X. Goula. 2005. Assessing and Managing Earthquake Risk. Springer, Heidelburg. 

Kubo, K. and Katayama, T. 1978. Earthquake resistant properties and design of public utilities. In The Assessment and Mitigation of Earthquake Risk, UNESCO, Paris, 171-184. 

Sari and Kubat (2012) describe a model that provides an index of intervention designed to save maximum life within shortest term and with limited economic resources in case of an earthquake. In the first phase of the model, the definition of the vulnerability and calculations of the number and locations of people in danger are provided. The second phase of the process is the evaluation of the blockage risks of the roads within a network because of the collapsed buildings. Afterwards, predictions of the major routes that people use frequently to reach the city main road network and major destinations in the urban configuration are estimated with space syntax theory. The outputs of the model are the road risk and the index of intervention . Each value provides information for total risk assessment and intervention priorities against the earthquake risk. The model is applied to a case study from Istanbul, Turkey. 

Yeats, Robert S., Kerry Sieh, and Clarence R. Allen. The Geology of Earthquakes. New W>rk Oxford University Press, 1997. A comprehensive analysis of the types of earthquakes, with a chapter on assessing the risk of future movement on a fault. Usefiil diagrams and photographs. 

Erdik, M., Aydmoglu, M.N., Barka, A., Yuzugiillii, O., Siyahi, B., Durukal, E., Fahjan, Y., Akman, H., Birgoren, G., Biro, Y., Demircioglu, M., Ozbey, C. Sesetyan, K. 2002. BU-ARC, Earthquake Risk Assessment for Istanbul Metropolitan Area, Project Report, Bogazici University Publication. 

Earthquake risk assessment of building structures requires the calculation of limit-state probabilities for a series of limit-states of monotonically increasing severity. The target is to obtain the limit-state probabilities of exceedance that serve as a hazard curve for structural damage. The mean annual frequency of maximum interstory drift 0max exceeding a value y is obtained as ... 

BU-ARC, Earthquake Risk Assessment for Istanbul Metropolitan Area, Project Report, Bogazici University Publication. 

To work closely with the Focus Group, in evaluating the indicators, such that they are relevant to the megacity scale of analysis, represent the conditions and reality of socioeconomic vulnerability in the city, and reflect the outcomes of the various studies xmder-taken as part of the DRMMP (e.g., earthquake risk assessment, transportation study, housing and shelter, land use planning, construction codes and standards, water supply and water treatment analysis, etc.)... 

Fig. 2 Procedure for assessing the risk to a single infrastructure system due to a single earthquake...

Earthquake Risk Mitigation of Lifelines and Critical Facilities, Fig. 2 Risk assessment and examples of mitigation... 

Uses risk assessments in benchmarking exercises to monitor trends in earthquake risk over time... 

Analysis of earthquake risk, including estimates of likely impact and, particularly in relation to critical infrastructure and vulnerabilities of particular and interrelated infrastmcture, can greatly assist rapid impact assessment. Knowledge of quake likelihoods and consequences can change relatively rapidly as aspects of earthquake science and knowledge improve. 

Biiham R (2013) Societal and observational problems in earthquake risk assessments and their delivery to those most at risk. Tectonophysics 584 166-173... 

Ellingwood BR (2001) Earthquake risk assessment of building structures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 74(3) 251-262 Ellingwood BR, Krnali K (2009) Quantifying and cran-municating uncertainty in seismic risk assessment. Struct Saf 31(2) 179-187... 

Mouroux P, Le Brun B (2006) Risk-UE project an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with application to different European towns. In Oliveira CS, Roca A, Goula X (eds) Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Springer, Netherlands, pp 479-508. doi 10.1007/978-1 20-3608-8 23 NCEER (1995) The Hanshin-Awaji earthquake of January 17, 1995 performance of lifelines, technical report NCEER-95-0015 (ed Shinozuka M), State University of New York, Buffalo... 

Hazard management Earthquake waste generally includes numerous environmental and public health hazards, including rotten food, asbestos, fecal-contaminated material, treated timber, and household and industrial hazardous materials. These hazards need to be assessed and risks mitigated as soon as possible... 

WASH-1400 did not analyze seismic events, but if they had, the risk they assessed would have been larger. Earthquake analysis was part of the FSAR for licensing a plant and had been practiced for some time before the RSS. This analysis included earthquake frequencies from historical records, ground-coupling models to estimate the intensity and frequency spectrum of the acceleration, and spring-mass models to estimate the forces on plant components under the... 

Another important reason for using multiple scenarios is to represent major sources of variability, or what-if scenarios to examine alternative assumptions about major uncertainties. This can be less unwieldy than including them in the model. Also, the distribution of outputs for each separate scenario will be narrower than when they are combined, which may aid interpretation and credibility. A special case of this occurs when it is desired to model the consequences of extreme or rare events or situations, for example, earthquakes. An example relevant to pesticides might be exposure of endangered species on migration. This use of multiple scenarios in ecological risk assessment has been termed scenario analysis, and is described in more detail in Ferenc and Foran (2000). 

Lindell, M.K. Perry, R.W. Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthquake implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Anal. 1997, 17, 147-156. 

The Army s risk assessment for TOCDF and its associated storage facility was reviewed by the NRC and found to be sound (NRC, 1997). Even in the event of an earthquake or plane crash that damages the disposal plant, the risk of pubhc fatalities due to release of agent from the disposal facility is calculated to be about 5 percent of the expected risk of fatality due to releases of agent from the storage yard (U.S. Army, 1996a NRC, 1997). A more detailed discussion of the TOCDF QRA and of advances incorporated in subsequent QRAs is presented in Appendix E. 

The simultaneous occurrence of pipe break and either safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) or operating basis earthquake (QBE) as in Section 2.6, is considered too improbable to be incorporated in the plant design basis. This is reflected in the loading combinations for structures in Section 3.8. It is expected that the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) will confirm the above, and additional revisions to load factors and load combinations may be made if they are supported by the results of probabilistic analyses. (Ref. 1) The current design is based on the following ... 

---