Risk targeting in seismic design codes: the state of the art, outstanding issues and possible paths forward

Over the past decade there have been various studies on the development of seismic design maps using the principle of “risk-targeting”. The basis of these studies is the calculation of the seismic risk by convolution of a seismic hazard curve for a given location (derived using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis) with a fragility curve for a code-designed structure (ideally derived from structural modelling). The ground-motion level that the structure is designed for is chosen so that the structure has a pre-defined probability of achieving a certain performance level (e.g. non-collapse). At present, seismic design maps developed using this approach are only widely applied in practice in the US but studies have also been conducted on a national basis for France, Romania, Canada and Indonesia, as well as for the whole of Europe using the European Seismic Hazard Model. This short article presents a review of the state of the art of this technique, highlighting efforts to constrain better some of the input parameters. In addition, we discuss the difficulties of applying this method in practice as well as possible paths forward, including an empirical method to estimate an upper bound for the acceptable collapse and yield risk.

[1]  P. Bazzurro,et al.  RINTC project: Assessing the (Implicit) Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures in Italy , 2017 .

[2]  Andri Mulia,et al.  Development of Risk Coefficient for Input to New Indonesian Seismic Building Codes , 2016 .

[3]  A Pomonis,et al.  Damage data analysis and vulnerability estimation following the August 14, 2003 Lefkada Island, Greece, Earthquake , 2011 .

[4]  Elisa Lumantarna,et al.  Annualised collapse risk of soft-storey building with precast RC columns in Australia , 2016 .

[5]  Thomas Ulrich,et al.  Fragility curves for risk-targeted seismic design maps , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[6]  Thomas Ulrich,et al.  Seismic risk maps for Eurocode-8 designed buildings , 2014 .

[7]  Pinto Vieira Artur,et al.  EUROCODES: BACKGROUND & APPLICATIONS: Elaboration of maps for climatic and seismic actions for structural design with the Eurocodes , 2016 .

[8]  Curt B. Haselton,et al.  Expected earthquake damage and repair costs in reinforced concrete frame buildings , 2012 .

[9]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code‐conforming reinforced‐concrete frame building—from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses , 2007 .

[10]  N. Null Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities , 2005 .

[11]  N. Null Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures , 2003 .

[12]  Paolo Bazzurro,et al.  Exploring Risk-Targeted Hazard Maps for Europe , 2016 .

[13]  Alexandru Aldea,et al.  Risk-targeted maps for Romania , 2017, Journal of Seismology.

[14]  Robert P. Kennedy Performance-goal based (risk informed) approach for establishing the SSE site specific response spectrum for future nuclear power plants ☆ , 2011 .

[15]  Rui Pinho,et al.  Deriving vulnerability curves using Italian earthquake damage data , 2008 .

[16]  Peter Fajfar,et al.  A practice‐oriented estimation of the failure probability of building structures , 2012 .

[17]  Friedemann Wenzel,et al.  Setting structural safety requirement for controlling earthquake mortality risk , 2016 .

[18]  Thomas Ulrich,et al.  Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France , 2013, Natural Hazards.

[19]  Bruce R. Ellingwood,et al.  Risk-Targeted versus Current Seismic Design Maps for the Conterminous United States , 2007 .