Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A semi-probabilistic procedure for developing societal risk function

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seismic risk is typically quantified probabilistically for a single asset or evaluated through regional loss assessment for selected earthquake events. Ideally, a recurrence relationship for a loss quantity, economic loss or casualty, can be obtained for risk-informed decision-making. This can be achieved by a fully stochastic approach, for which a large amount of input information is required, whilst there is usually a lack of transparency that might hinder repeatability of the outputs. Hence, the objective of this paper is to introduce a simple and unambiguous procedure for developing parametric societal risk function based on rigorous loss modelling of response-specific probabilistic scenarios. This is then illustrated for the Greater Melbourne Region with fatality as the loss quantity. The proposed semi-probabilistic procedure can be extended to other loss quantities, as well as evaluating societal risk of other natural hazards or multiple hazards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

(reproduced from Geoscience Australia 2017 based on Google Maps)

Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aki K (1965) Maximum Likelihood Estimate of b in the Formula log N=a–bM and its Confidence Limits. Bull. Earthquake Res Inst 43:237–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Ale BJM (2005) Tolerable or acceptable: a comparison of risk regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands. Risk Anal 25(2):231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen TI (2012) Stochastic ground-motion prediction equations for southeastern Australian earthquakes using updated source and attenuation parameters. Record 2012/69, GeoCat 74133, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 66 p

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC (1997) NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA Publication 273). Prepared by Applied Technology Council (ATC) for the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), Washington, D.C., U.S

  • Burrough SM, Tebbens SF (2002) The upper-truncated power law applied to earthquake cumulative frequency-magnitude distributions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:2983–2993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2004) EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2005) EN 1998-3: Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang S, Shinozuka M, Moore J (2000) Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems. Earthq Spectra 16(3):557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra AK, Goel RK (1999) Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthq Spectra 15(4):637–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark D, Leonard M (2014) Regional variations in neotectonic fault behaviour in Australia, as they pertain to the seismic hazard in capital cities. In: Proceedings of Australian Earthquake Engineering Society 2014 Conference, Lorne, Victoria, Australia, 21–23 Nov 2014

  • Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn AW, Spence RJS, Pomonis A (1992) Factors determining human casualty levels in earthquakes: mortality prediction in building collapse. In: Proceedings of the 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain

  • Crowley H, Bommer JJ, Pinho R, Bird J (2005) The impact of epistemic uncertainty on an earthquake loss model. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(14):1653–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE (2011) Open source procedure for assessment of loss using global earthquake modelling software (OPAL). Nat Hazards Earth System Sciences 11:1885–1899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE (2014) The development of socio-economic fragility functions for use in worldwide rapid earthquake loss estimation procedures. Doctoral Thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany

  • Daniell JE, Simpson A, Murnane R, Tijssen A, Nunez A, Deparday V, Gunasekera R, Baca A, Ishizawa O, Schäfer AM (2014) Understanding risk: review of open source and open access software packages available to quantify risk from natural hazards, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) report. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniell JE, Schäfer AM, Wenzel F (2015) A tale of eight cities: earthquake scenario risk assessment for major Australia cities. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney, Australia, 6–8 Nov 2015

  • Daniell JE, Schäfer AM, Wenzel F, Tsang HH (2017) The global role of earthquake fatalities in decision-making: earthquakes versus other causes of fatalities. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 Jan 2017

  • Dolšek M (2015) EAEE working group 1: future directions for Eurocode 8—chapter 4: performance objectives. University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolšek M, Sinković NL, Žižmond J (2017) IM-based and EDP-based decision models for the verification of the seismic collapse safety of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46(15):2665–2682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Ulrich T, Negulescu C (2013) Risk-targeted seismic design maps for mainland France. Nat Hazards 65(3):1999–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(9):979–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FEMA (2012) Hazus®-MH 2.1, multi-hazard loss estimation methodology—earthquake model, Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, D.C., U.S

  • Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV (1975) Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk—a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. In: Proceedings of U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, Berkeley, U.S., pp 113–122

  • Gaull BA, Michael-Leiba MO, Rynn JMW (1990) Probabilistic earthquake risk maps of Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 37:169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geoscience Australia (2012) The 2012 Australian earthquake hazard map. In: Burbridge DR (ed) Record 2012/71, GeoCat 74811. Geoscience Australia, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoscience Australia (2017) Neotectonic Features. Earthquakes@GA. http://www.ga.gov.au/earthquakes/staticPageController.do?page=neotectonics. Accessed 14 July 2017

  • ICC (1997) Uniform Building Code (UBC). International Code Council (ICC) Country Club Hill, Illinois, US

  • ICC (2012) International Building Code (IBC). International Code Council (ICC), Country Club Hill, Illinois, US

  • ISO (1998) ISO 2394:1998. General Principles on Reliability for Structures. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones DA (1992) Nomenclature for hazard and risk assessment in the process industries. Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), Rugby

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkman SN, van Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling JK (2003) An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J Hazard Mater 99(1):1–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laheij GMH, Post JG, Ale BJM (2000) Standard methods for land-use planning to determine the effects on societal risk. J Hazard Mater 71(1–3):269–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam NTK, Tsang HH, Lumantarna E, Wilson JL (2016) Minimum loading requirements for areas of low seismicity. Earthq Struct 11(4):539–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legg M, Nozick L, Davidson R (2010) Optimizing the selection of hazard-consistent probabilistic scenarios for long-term regional hurricane loss estimation. Struct Saf 32(1):90–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard M (2010) Earthquake fault scaling: self-consistent relating of rupture length, width, average displacement, and moment release. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(5A):1971–1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard M, Ripper ID, Yue L (2002) Australian earthquake fault plane solutions. Geoscience Australia, Department of Industry, Tourism & Resources, Australian Government

  • Liel AB, Deierlein GG (2012) Using collapse risk assessments to inform seismic safety policy for older concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1495–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne WG, Davenport AG (1969) Distribution of earthquake risk in Canada. Bull Seismol Soc Am 59:729–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina S, Lindholm CD (2007) Estimating the confidence of earthquake damage scenarios: examples from a logic tree approach. J Seismol 11(3):299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina S, Lang DH, Lindholm CD (2010) SELENA—an open-source tool for seismic risk and loss assessment using a logic tree computation procedure. Comput Geosci 36(3):257–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina-Palacios S, Lang DH, Meslem A, Lindholm CD, Agea-Medina N (2017) A next-generation open-source tool for earthquake loss estimation. Int J Saf Secur Eng 7(4):585–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulargia F, Stark PB, Geller RJ (2017) Why is probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) still used? Phys Earth Planet Inter 264:63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEAOC (1995) Vision 2000: Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Vision 2000 Committee, Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, California, U.S

  • Schäfer AM, Daniell JE, Wenzel F (2015) The seismic hazard of Australia—a venture into an uncertain future. In: Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Sydney, Australia, 6–8 Nov 2015

  • Shiraki N, Shinozuka M, Hon M, Moore J II, Chang S, Kameda H, Tanaka S (2007) System risk curves: probabilistic performance scenarios for highway networks subject to earthquake damage. J Infrastruct Syst 13(1):43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Bazzurro P (2014a) Risk-targeted hazard maps for Europe. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 Aug 2014

  • Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M, Monelli D, Pinho R (2014b) Development of the openquake engine, the global earthquake model’s open-source software for seismic risk assessment. Nat Haz 72(3):1409–1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinković NL, Brozovič M, Dolšek M (2016) Risk-based seismic design for collapse safety. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:1451–1471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokolov V, Wenzel F (2011) Influence of ground-motion correlation on probabilistic assessments of seismic hazard and loss sensitivity analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5):1339–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerville P, Graves R, Collins N, Song SG, Ni S, Cummins P (2009) Source and ground motion models for Australian earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Australian earthquake engineering conference, Newcastle, Australia, 11–13 Dec 2009

  • Somerville P, Bayless J, Skarlatoudis A, Thio HK (2013) Assessment of seismic design motions at low probabilities: comparing Australia and New Zealand. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Australian earthquake engineering conference, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 15–17 Nov 2013

  • Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165(3899):1232–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein S, Geller RJ, Liu M (2012) Why earthquake hazard maps often fail and what to do about it. Tectonophysics 562–563:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strasser F, Bommer J, Abrahamson N (2008) Estimating ground-motion variability: issues, insights & challenges. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China

  • Tanner P, Hingorani R (2015) Acceptable risks to persons associated with building structures. Struct Concr 16(3):314–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang HH, Chandler AM (2006) Site-specific probabilistic seismic-hazard assessment: direct amplitude-based approach. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):392–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang HH, Wenzel F (2016) Setting structural safety requirement for controlling earthquake mortality risk. Saf Sci 86:174–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang HH, Wenzel F, Daniell JE (2017) Residual fatality risk estimates for setting earthquake safety requirement. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, 9–13 Jan 2017

  • Vaziri P, Davidson R, Apivatanagul P, Nozick L (2012) Identification of optimization-based probabilistic earthquake scenarios for regional loss estimation. J Earthq Eng 16(2):296–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner AC (2016) Estimating FN-curves for earthquake risk assessment—the Melbourne case, Master Thesis. Geophysical Institute, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

  • Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Pham L (2008) Development of the new Australian earthquake loading standard. Special Issue: Earthquake engineering in the low and moderate seismic regions of Southeast Asia and Australia. Electron J Struct Eng 8(S1):25–30

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author gratefully acknowledges the invitations of visiting professorship and the associated financial support offered by the Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany, for the periods January–June 2013 and June–July 2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, 3122, Australia

    Hing-Ho Tsang

  2. Center for Disaster Management and Risk Reduction Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76187, Karlsruhe, Germany

    James E. Daniell, Friedemann Wenzel & Amelie C. Werner

Authors
  1. Hing-Ho Tsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. Daniell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Friedemann Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amelie C. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hing-Ho Tsang.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsang, HH., Daniell, J.E., Wenzel, F. et al. A semi-probabilistic procedure for developing societal risk function. Nat Hazards 92, 943–969 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3233-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3233-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation