ALBERT

All Library Books, journals and Electronic Records Telegrafenberg

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Monograph available for loan
    Monograph available for loan
    Cambridge, United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press
    Call number: M 23.95135 ; 8/M 23.95382
    Description / Table of Contents: "An overview of the essential principles of seismic hazard and risk analysis, including advanced topics, worked examples and problem sets. (20) An overview of the essential principles and procedures of seismic hazard and risk analysis, of interest to earth scientists and engineers. Coverage includes state-of-the-art procedures, advanced topics, and future research directions. Each chapter includes worked examples and problem sets, with solutions and computer codes provided online. (46/341) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard and Risk Analyses underpin the loadings prescribed by engineering design codes, the decisions by asset owners to retrofit structures, the pricing of insurance policies, and many other activities. This is a comprehensive overview of the principles and procedures behind seismic hazard and risk analysis. It enables readers to understand best practises and future research directions. Early chapters cover the essential elements and concepts of seismic hazard and risk analysis, while later chapters shift focus to more advanced topics. Each chapter includes worked examples and problem sets for which full solutions are provided online. Appendices provide relevant background in probability and statistics. Computer codes are also available online to help replicate specific calculations and demonstrate the implementation of various methods. This is a valuable reference for upper level students and practitioners in civil engineering, and earth scientists interested in engineering seismology. (143)"--
    Type of Medium: Monograph available for loan
    Pages: xii, 581 Seiten , Illustrationen , 27 cm
    ISBN: 9781108425056 , 978-1-108-42505-6
    Language: English
    Note: Contents Preface Introduction 1.1 Hazard and Risk Analysis 1.2 Uses of Hazard and Risk Infonnation 1.3 Detenninistic Analysis 1.4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis 1.5 Probabilistic Risk Analysis 1.6 Benefits of Probabilistic Analysis I. 7 Uncertainties in Probabilistic Analysis 1.8 Validation Part I Hazard Inputs 2 Seismic Source Characterization 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Earth Structure and Plate Tectonics 2.3 Faults 2.4 Earthquake Processes 2.5 Earthquake Size 2.6 Definitions of Seismic Sources 2. 7 Source Characteristics 2.8 Conceptual Development of SSMs Exercises 3 Characterization of Earthquake Rates and Rupture Scenarios 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Approaches to Determining Rupture Rates 3.3 Constraints from Seismicity Data 3.4 Geological Constraints on Activity 3.5 Magnitude-Frequency Distributions 3.6 Rupture Scenarios and Computation of Rates 3.7 Generation of Rupture Scenarios 3.8 Time-Dependent Ruptw-e Rates Exercises 4 Empirical Ground-Motion Characterization 147 4.1 Introduction 147 4.2 Engineering Characterization of Ground Motion 149 4.3 Ground-Motion Databases 161 4.4 Mathematical Representation 166 4.5 General Trends in Empirical Data and Models 170 4.6 Prediction Using Empirical GMMs 179 4.7 Epistemic Uncertainty 186 4.8 Limitations of Empirical GMMs 192 Exercises 193 5 Physics-Based Ground-Motion Characterization 196 5.1 Introduction 196 5.2 Utility of Physics-Based Ground-Motion Simulation 198 5.3 Earthquake Source Representation 200 5.4 Seismic Wave Propagation 205 5.5 Methods for Physics-Based Ground-Motion Simulation 220 5.6 Prediction Using Physics-Based GMMs 233 Exercises Part II Hazard Calculations 247 6 PSHA Calculation 249 6.1 Introduction 249 6.2 The PSHA Calculation 250 6.3 Example Calculations 255 6.4 Hazard Curve Metrics 262 6.5 Sensitivity of Hazard Results to Inputs 266 6.6 Model Uncertainty 269 6.7 Logic Trees 272 6.8 PSHA with Epistemic Uncertainty 276 6.9 Monte Carlo PSHA 279 6.10 Discussion 280 Exercises 7 PSHA Products 286 7.1 Introduction 286 7.2 Disaggregation 287 7.3 Uniform Hazard Spectrum 301 7.4 Hazard Maps 306 7.5 Conditional Spectrum 307 7.6 VectorPSHA 312 7.7 Earthquake Sequences in PSHA 312 7.8 Implementation and Documentation of Hazard Studies 316 Exercises 8 Non-Ergodic Hazard Analysis 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Fundamental Concepts 8.3 Aleatory Variability versus Epistemic Uncertainty 8.4 When Can Non-Ergodic Approaches Be Applied? 8.5 Non-Ergodic Ground-Motion Models 8.6 Non-Ergodic Site Effects 8.7 Non-Ergodic Path Effects 8.8 Non-Ergodic Source Effects 8.9 Non-Ergodic Components in Seismic-Source Models Exercises Part Ill Risk 9 Seismic Risk 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Fragility and Vulnerability Functions 9.3 Calibrating Fragility and Vulnerability Functions 9.4 Risk Metrics 9.5 PEER Framework 9.6 Epistemic Uncertainty 9.7 Risk-Targeted Ground-Motion Intensity Exercises 10 Ground-Motion Selection I 0.1 Introduction I 0.2 Principles of Hazard-Consistent Ground-Motion Selection 10.3 Target Intensity Measure Distributions I 0.4 Selection Algorithms 10.5 Assessing Accuracy and Precision of Seismic Responses 10.6 Application-Specific Decisions 10.7 Design Code and Guideline Requirements 10.8 Documentation Exercises 11 Spatially Distributed Systems 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Parameterization Using Empirical Ground-Motion Models 11.3 Parameterization Using Physics-Based Simulations 11.4 Numerical Implementation 11.5 Coherency 11.6 Risk Exercises 12 Validation 12. l Introduction 12.2 Verification and Validation 12.3 Validation from Limited Observations 12.4 Direct Validation of Seismic Hazard Curves 12.5 Validation of Model Components 12.6 Do Failures of Past Calculations [nvalidate the PSHA Methodology? 12.7 Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis for Decision-Making Exercises Appendix A Basics of Probability A. l Random Events A.2 Conditional Probability A.3 Random Variables A.4 Expectations and Moments A.5 Common Probability Distributions A.6 Random Number Generation Appendix B Basics of Statistics for Model Calibration 1 B.3 Statistical Estimation of m1,,x my,y B.5 Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Seismicity Parameters Estimation ofIM ofSymbols 433 484 486 494 514 519 523 529 533 578 viii Contents 12 Validation 12. l Introduction 12.2 Verification and Validation 12.3 Validation from Limited Observations 12.4 Direct Validation of Seismic Hazard Curves 12.5 Validation of Model Components 12.6 Do Failures of Past Calculations [nvalidate the PSHA Methodology? 12.7 Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis for Decision-Making Exercises Appendix A Basics of Probability A. l Random Events A.2 Conditional Probability A.3 Random Variables A.4 Expectations and Moments A.5 Common Probability Distributions A.6 Random Number Generation Appendix B Basics of Statistics for Model Calibration B. l Confidence Intervals for the Sample Mean and Standard Deviation B.2 Hypothesis Testing for Statistical Significance B.3 Statistical Estimation of mmax B.4 Bayesian Estimation of lnmax B.5 Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Seismicity Parameters B.6 Empirical GMM Calibration B.7 Estimation of JM Correlations from GMMs B.8 Fragility Function Fitting References List of Symbols and Abbreviations Notation Conventions Index
    Location: Reading room
    Branch Library: GFZ Library
    Branch Library: GFZ Library
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2007-01-01
    Print ISSN: 0098-8847
    Electronic ISSN: 1096-9845
    Topics: Architecture, Civil Engineering, Surveying
    Published by Wiley
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Publication Date: 2011-11-01
    Description: Following both the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes, Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) team members from the United States and New Zealand visited the affected areas to assess geotechnical related damage (e.g., Allen et al. 2010a, b). As shown in Figure 1, liquefaction was pervasive in large portions of the region after both earthquakes. The widespread liquefaction caused extensive damage to residential properties, water and wastewater networks, high-rise buildings, and bridges. For example, nearly 15,000 residential houses and properties were severely damaged from liquefaction and lateral spreading. More than 50% of these houses were damaged beyond economic repair. Also, portions of the central business district (CBD) were severely damaged by liquefaction during the Christchurch earthquake. It is estimated that approximately 30% of the buildings in the CBD were damaged beyond repair, although not all of the damage resulted from liquefaction. Among the field tests performed by the GEER team were the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) test (Sowers and Hedges 1966) and spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) test (Stokoe et al. 1994). Both of these tests can provide information about the liquefaction susceptibility of soil and are relatively portable, making them suitable for rapid post-earthquake reconnaissance field studies. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of DCP and SASW tests performed across the Christchurch region and to summarize the comparison of the observed versus predicted liquefaction occurrence during both the Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes...
    Print ISSN: 0895-0695
    Electronic ISSN: 1938-2057
    Topics: Geosciences
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Publication Date: 2011-11-01
    Description: On 22 February 2011 at 12:51 p.m. local time, a moment magnitude Mw 6.3 earthquake occurred beneath the city of Christchurch, New Zealand, causing an level of damage and human casualties unparalleled in the country's history. Compared to the preceding 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield earthquake, which occurred approximately 30 km to the west of Christchurch, the close proximity of the 22 February event led to ground motions of significantly higher amplitude in the densely populated regions of Christchurch. As a result of these significantly larger ground motions, structures in general, and commercial structures in the central business district in particular, were subjected to severe seismic demands and, combined with the event timing, structural collapses accounted for the majority of the 181 casualties (New Zealand Police 2011). This manuscript provides a preliminary assessment of the near-source ground motions recorded in the Christchurch region. Particular attention is given to the observed spatial distribution of ground motions, which is interpreted based on source, path, and site effects. Comparison is also made of the observed ground motion response spectra with those of the 4 September 2010 Darfield earthquake and those used in seismic design in order to emphasize the amplitude of the ground shaking and also elucidate the importance of local geotechnical and deep geologic structure on surface ground motions...
    Print ISSN: 0895-0695
    Electronic ISSN: 1938-2057
    Topics: Geosciences
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Publication Date: 2011-11-01
    Description: During the period between September 2010 and June 2011, the city of Christchurch was strongly shaken by a series of earthquakes that included the 4 September 2010 (Mw = 7.1), 26 December 2010 (Mw = 4.8), 22 February 2011 (Mw = 6.2), and 13 June 2011 (Mw = 5.3 and Mw = 6.0) earthquakes. The moment magnitude (Mw) values adopted in this paper are taken from GNS Science, New Zealand (http://www.geonet.org.nz); they are 0.1 units higher than the corresponding Mw values reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2011/usb0001igm/). These earthquakes produced strong ground motions within the central business district (CBD) of Christchurch, which is the central heart of the city just east of Hagley Park and encompasses approximately 200 ha. Some of the recorded ground motions had 5% damped spectral accelerations that surpassed the 475-year return-period design motions by a factor of two. Ground shaking caused substantial damage to a large number of buildings and significant ground failure in areas with liquefiable soils. The 22 February earthquake was the most devastating. It caused 181 fatalities and widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading in the suburbs to the east of the CBD and in areas within the CBD, particularly along the stretch of the Avon River that runs through the city. There were pockets of heavy damage in the CBD, including the collapse of two multistory reinforced concrete buildings, as well as the collapse and partial collapse of many unreinforced masonry structures including the historic Christchurch Cathedral in the center of the CBD. Soil liquefaction in a substantial part of the CBD adversely affected the performance of many multistory buildings, resulting in global and differential settlements, lateral movement of foundations, tilt of buildings, and bearing failures. The Mw = 6.2, 22 February 2011 earthquake...
    Print ISSN: 0895-0695
    Electronic ISSN: 1938-2057
    Topics: Geosciences
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Publication Date: 2011-11-01
    Description: The region in and around Christchurch, encompassing Christchurch city and the Selwyn and Waimakariri districts, contains more than 800 road, rail, and pedestrian bridges. Most of these bridges are reinforced concrete, symmetric, and have small to moderate spans (15–25 m). The 22 February 2011 moment magnitude (Mw) 6.2 Christchurch earthquake induced high levels of localized ground shaking (Bradley and Cubrinovski 2011, page 853 of this issue; Guidotti et al. 2011, page 767 of this issue; Smyrou et al. 2011, page 882 of this issue), with damage to bridges mainly confined to the central and eastern parts of Christchurch. Liquefaction was evident over much of this part of the city, with lateral spreading affecting bridges spanning both the Avon and Heathcote rivers. The majority of bridge damage was a result of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, with only four bridges suffering significant damage on non-liquefiable sites. Abutments, approaches, and piers suffered varying levels of damage, with very little damage observed in the bridge superstructure. However, bridges suffered only a moderate amount of damage compared to other structural systems. Because some bridges critical to the city infrastructure network sustained substantial damage, extensive traffic disruption occurred immediately following the event. This paper presents a summary of field observations and subsequent analyses on the damage to some of the bridges in the Canterbury region as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. Reference is also made to the performance of bridges following the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield earthquake (Gledhill et al. 2011), and details of damage progression are presented where applicable. The ground motion characteristics for both events and the regional soil conditions are first described. We provide descriptions of the damage at each selected bridge site and compare observations of liquefaction with predicted response using in situ test data...
    Print ISSN: 0895-0695
    Electronic ISSN: 1938-2057
    Topics: Geosciences
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Publication Date: 2011-11-01
    Description: The objective of this paper is to summarize the performance of the levees (or stopbanks) along the Waimakariri and Kaiapoi rivers during the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquakes. Shortly after their arrival in the Canterbury area in the mid-nineteenth century European settlers started constructing drainage systems and levees along rivers (Larned et al. 2008). In particular, flooding of the Waimakariri River and its tributaries posed a constant threat to the Christchurch and Kaiapoi areas. The current levee system is a culmination of several coordinated efforts that started in earnest in the 1930s and is composed of both primary and secondary levee systems. The primary levee system is designed for a 450-year flood. Damage estimates for scenarios where the flood protection system is breached have been assessed at approximately NZ$5 billion (van Kalken et al. 2007). As a result, the performance of the levee system during seismic events is of critical importance to the flood hazard in Christchurch and surrounding areas. During the 2010 Darfield and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes, stretches of levees were subjected to motions with peak horizontal ground accelerations (PGAs) of approximately 0.32 g and 0.20 g, respectively. Consequently, in areas where the levees were founded on loose, saturated fluvial sandy deposits, liquefaction-related damage occurred (i.e., lateral spreading, slumping, and settlement). The performance summary presented herein is the result of field observations and analysis of aerial images (New Zealand Aerial Mapping 2010, 2011), with particular focus on the performance of the levees along the eastern reach of the Waimakariri River and along the Kaiapoi River. In the sections that follow, we first present background information about the levee system. This is followed by an overview of the performance of the levees during the Darfield...
    Print ISSN: 0895-0695
    Electronic ISSN: 1938-2057
    Topics: Geosciences
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Publication Date: 2011-03-31
    Description: Earthquake-resistant design guidelines commonly prescribe that when conducting seismic response analyses: (i) a minimum of three ground motions can be used; (ii) if less than seven ground motions are considered, the maximum of the responses should be used in design; and (iii) if seven or more ground motions are considered the average of the responses should be used in design. Such guidelines attempt to predict the mean seismic response from a limited number of analyses, but are based on judgment without a sound, yet pragmatic, theoretical basis. This paper presents a rational approach for determining design seismic demands based on the results of seismic response analyses. The proposed method uses the 84th percentile of the distribution of the sample mean seismic demand as the design seismic demand. This approach takes into account: (i) the number of ground motions considered; (ii) how the ground motions are selected and scaled; and (iii) the differing variability in estimating different types of seismic response parameters. A simple analytic function gives a ratio which, when multiplied by the mean response obtained from the seismic response analyses, gives the value to be used in design, thus making the proposed approach suitable for routine design implementation.
    Keywords: design engineering ; earthquake engineering ; probability ; structural engineering
    Print ISSN: 8755-2930
    Topics: Architecture, Civil Engineering, Surveying , Geosciences
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Publication Date: 2011-12-01
    Description: We present a preliminary probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) of a site in the Otway basin, Victoria, Australia, as part of the CO2CRC Otway Project for CO2 storage risk. The study involves estimating the likelihood of future strong earthquake shaking at the site and utilizes three datasets: (1) active faults, (2) historical seismicity, and (3) geodetic surface velocities. Our analysis of geodetic data reveals strain rates at the limit of detectability and not significantly different from zero. Consequently, we do not develop a geodetic-based source model for this Otway model.We construct logic trees to capture epistemic uncertainty in both the fault and seismicity source parameters and in the ground-motion prediction. A new feature for seismic hazard modeling in Australia, and rarely dealt with in low-seismicity regions elsewhere, is the treatment of fault episodicity (long-term activity versus inactivity) in our Otway model. Seismic hazard curves for the combined (fault and distributed seismicity) source model show that hazard is generally low, with peak ground acceleration estimates of less than 0.1g at annual probabilities of 10-3-10-4/yr. Our preliminary analysis therefore indicates that the site is exposed to a low seismic hazard that is consistent with the intraplate tectonic setting of the region and unlikely to pose a significant hazard for CO2 containment and infrastructure.
    Print ISSN: 0037-1106
    Electronic ISSN: 1943-3573
    Topics: Geosciences , Physics
    Location Call Number Expected Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...