OPEN ACCESS
The objective of earthquake-resistant design of critical infrastructures like nuclear power plants or lifelines is to ensure the prevention of catastrophic disasters. Experience from recent past like the earthquake of Amatrice (2016) or the Napa earthquake of 2014 have shown that traditional code requirements based on probabilistic seismic hazard maps are not able to prevent disasters. The purpose of probabilistic hazard assessment is to support risk analysis. The latter is used to separate tolerated residual risks from non-tolerable, more frequent risks. Therefore, these methods do not intend to provide protection against extreme events. Additionally, it is proven that the traditional hazard parameter used in probabilistic seismic hazard maps, peak ground acceleration (PGA), is not very suitable for the description of the physical impact of earthquakes on structures, systems and components. The only hazard parameter describing physical effects of earthquakes at least on macroseismic scale is intensity or in engineering units, intensity factors. The actual EMS-98 scale correlates reasonably well with the damage of structures classified into vulnerability classes.
The availability of large databases of registered earthquake time-histories covering a wide range of site intensity values allows to model earthquake impact directly using dynamic time-history analysis methods. On this basis a methodology was developed that allows to design critical infrastructures for certain levels of seismic intensity directly.
The methodology and some applications are presented.
disaster prevention, earthquake engineering, performance-based design, seismic hazard analysis
[1] FEMA-273, NEHRP guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. building seismic safety council. FEMA, Washington, DC, 1997.
[2] FEMA-445, Next-generation performance-based seismic design guidelines. program plan for new and existing buildings. FEMA, Washington, DC, 2006.
[3] Elnashai, A.S. & Di Sarno, L., Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. from source to fragility. Second Edition., John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom, 2015.
[4] Budnitz, R.J., Opportunities for advancing Technology-neutral and performance-based design methods for the seismic design and Regulation of Nuclear Power Plant Struc-tures, Systems and Components. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 2010.
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Seismic design criteria for structures, systems, and components in nuclear facilities, ASCE/SEI 43-05. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
[6] Klügel, J.-U. & Mualchin, L., Earthquake engineering needs and seismic hazard assess-ment, ERES 2013. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 132, pp. 47–67, 2013.
[7] Klügel, J.-U., Uncertainty analysis and expert judgment in seismic hazard analysis. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168, pp. 27–53, 2011.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0155-4
[8] Klügel, J.-U., Error inflation in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Engineering Geology, 90, pp. 186–192, 2007.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.01.003
[9] Bommer, J.J. & Abrahamson, N.A., Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates. BSSA, 96(6), pp. 1967–1977, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060043
[10] Conseil de L’Europe, G. Grünthal., (Ed.)., European Macroseismic Scale 1998. Luxembourg, 1998.
[11] European-Mediterranean Seismological Center. Resorce reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe. EMSC, France, 2013.
[12] Renault, P., Abrahamson, N.A., Coppersmith, K.J., Koller, M., Roth, P. & Hölker, A., PEGASOS Refinment Project, Rev. 1. swissnuclear, Olten, 2014.
[13] Hassan, H.M., Romanelli, F., Panza, G.F. & ElGabry, M.N., Update and sensitivity analysis of the neo-deterministic seismic hazard assessment for Egypt. Engineering Geology, 218, pp. 77–89, 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2017.01.006
[14] Irikura, K. & Miyake, H., Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios. PAGEOPH, 168, pp. 85–104, 2011.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9
[15] Abrahamson, N.A., Coppersmith, K. & Sprecher, C., Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for swiss nuclear power plant sites (PEGASOS project), vol. 1–6. Nagra, Wettingen, 2004.
[16] Klügel, J-U., Understanding site-specific PSHA results by hazard deaggregation into site intensities, Poster. EGU General Assembly Meeting, Natural Hazards, Vienna, 2016.
[17] Klügel, J-U., Attinger, R., Rao, S. & Vaidya, N., Adjusting the fragility analysis method to the seismic hazard input, Part I. The intensity-based method, paper 1567. 20th Inter-national Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SmiRT 20), Espoo, Finland August 9–14, 2009, Espoo, 2009.
[18] EPRI, Methodology for developing seismic fragilities, TR-103959. EPRI, Palo Alto, 1994.