Abstract
AbstractThe fundamental objective of earthquake engineering is to protect lives and livelihoods through the reduction of seismic risk. Directly or indirectly, this generally requires quantification of the risk, for which quantification of the seismic hazard is required as a basic input. Over the last several decades, the practice of seismic hazard analysis has evolved enormously, firstly with the introduction of a rational framework for handling the apparent randomness in earthquake processes, which also enabled risk assessments to consider both the severity and likelihood of earthquake effects. The next major evolutionary step was the identification of epistemic uncertainties related to incomplete knowledge, and the formulation of frameworks for both their quantification and their incorporation into hazard assessments. Despite these advances in the practice of seismic hazard analysis, it is not uncommon for the acceptance of seismic hazard estimates to be hindered by invalid comparisons, resistance to new information that challenges prevailing views, and attachment to previous estimates of the hazard. The challenge of achieving impartial acceptance of seismic hazard and risk estimates becomes even more acute in the case of earthquakes attributed to human activities. A more rational evaluation of seismic hazard and risk due to induced earthquakes may be facilitated by adopting, with appropriate adaptations, the advances in risk quantification and risk mitigation developed for natural seismicity. While such practices may provide an impartial starting point for decision making regarding risk mitigation measures, the most promising avenue to achieve broad societal acceptance of the risks associated with induced earthquakes is through effective regulation, which needs to be transparent, independent, and informed by risk considerations based on both sound seismological science and reliable earthquake engineering.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geophysics,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology,Building and Construction,Civil and Structural Engineering
Reference618 articles.
1. Abercrombie RE, Trugman DT, Shearer PM, Chen X, Zhang J, Pennington CN, Hardebeck JL, Goebel TH, Ruhl CJ (2021) Does earthquake stress drop increase with depth in the crust? J Geophys Res: Solid Earth 126(10):e2021JB022314. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB022314
2. Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ (2005) Probability and uncertainty in seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 21(2):603–607. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1899158
3. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1025–1055. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS198M
4. Abrahamson NA, Kuehn NM, Walling M, Landwehr N (2019) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in California using nonergodic ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109(4):1235–1249. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190030
5. Abrahamson NA, Birkhauser P, Koller M, Mayer-Rosa D, Smit P, Sprecher C, Tinic S, Graf R (2002) PEGASOS—a comprehensive probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for nuclear power plants in Switzerland. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, September
Cited by
36 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献