Seismic Design Loads from Site-Specific and Aggregate Hazard Analyses

A significant limitation of site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (known as PSHA) is usually overlooked. The seismic design loads derived from PSHA can only be expected to control the risk at individual locations (site-specific risk); they cannot be expected to control the risk at multiple locations simultaneously affected by an earthquake (aggregate risk). This article presents a method of calculating the seismic design loads for controlling both the site-specific and the aggregate risks.

[1]  Arthur Frankel,et al.  Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps , 2000 .

[2]  D. Wells,et al.  New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[3]  S. Harmsen,et al.  Geographic Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard in the United States , 2001 .

[5]  Warwick D. Smith.  Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment in New Zealand by Monte Carlo Methods , 2003 .

[6]  Carl Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic Analysis of Damage to Structures under Seismic Loads , 1971 .

[7]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty and correlation in earthquake loss estimation , 2005 .

[8]  Tsuyoshi Takada,et al.  Macrospatial Correlation Model of Seismic Ground Motions , 2005 .

[9]  Luis Esteva,et al.  SEISMIC RISK AND SEISMIC DESIGN DECISIONS. , 1970 .

[10]  L. Reiter.  Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights , 1991 .

[11]  J. Bommer,et al.  Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance‐based seismic design , 2006 .

[12]  S. Stein,et al.  Comment on “How Can Seismic Hazard in the New Madrid Seismic Zone Be Similar to That in California?” by Arthur Frankel , 2005 .

[13]  K. Campbell.  Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters , 2007 .

[14]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Modelling Seismic Hazard in Earthquake Loss Models with Spatially Distributed Exposure , 2006 .

[15]  N. A. Abrahamson,et al.  A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model , 1992, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[16]  Praveen K. Malhotra.  Seismic Risk and Design Loads , 2006 .

[17]  Peter J. May,et al.  Societal Perspectives about Earthquake Performance: The Fallacy of “Acceptable Risk” , 2001 .

[18]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The Influence of Ground-Motion Variability in Earthquake Loss Modelling , 2006 .

[19]  David M. Perkins,et al.  Spatial Correlation of Probabilistic Earthquake Ground Motion and Loss , 2001 .

[20]  Christine F. Andersen,et al.  The New Orleans hurricane protection system : what went wrong and why , 2007 .

[21]  Stephanie E. Chang,et al.  Probabilistic Earthquake Scenarios: Extending Risk Analysis Methodologies to Spatially Distributed Systems , 2000 .

[22]  Mario Paz,et al.  International Building Code IBC-2000 , 2004 .

[23]  William T. Holmes,et al.  The 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures , 2000 .

[24]  Praveen K. Malhotra.  Return Period of Design Ground Motions , 2005 .

[25]  R. Mcguire.  Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop , 1995, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[26]  David R. Brillinger,et al.  An exploratory analysis of the Joyner-Boore attenuation data , 1984 .

[27]  David A. Rhoades,et al.  Joint Hazard of Earthquake Shaking at Two or More Locations , 2001 .

[28]  C. Cramer,et al.  Predominant seismic source distance and magnitude maps for Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura Counties, California , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[29]  R. Mcguire.  Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis , 2004 .

[30]  Baoping Shi,et al.  Comment on “How Can Seismic Hazard around the New Madrid Seismic Zone Be Similar to That in California?” by Arthur Frankel , 2005 .