Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World

9 - 10 July 2015, Homerton College, Cambridge, UK

Overview

SECED 2015 was a two-day conference on Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics that took place on 9-10th July 2015 at Homerton College, Cambridge.

This was the first major conference to be held in the UK on this topic since SECED hosted the 2002 European Conference on Earthquake Engineering in London.

The conference brought together experts from a broad range of disciplines, including structural engineering, nuclear engineering, seismology, geology, geotechnical engineering, urban development, social sciences, business and insurance; all focused on risk, mitigation and recovery.

Conference themes

  • Geotechnical earthquake engineering
  • Seismic design for nuclear facilities
  • Seismic hazard and engineering seismology
  • Masonry structures
  • Risk and catastrophe modelling
  • Vibrations, blast and civil engineering dynamics
  • Dams and hydropower
  • Seismic assessment and retrofit of engineered and non-engineered structures
  • Social impacts and community recovery

Keynote speakers

SECED 2015 featured the following keynote speakers (affiliations correct at the time of the conference):

  • Peter Ford and Tim Allmark, Office for Nuclear Regulation, UK
  • Don Anderson, CH2M HILL, Seattle, USA
  • Bernard Dost, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands
  • Anne Kiremidjian, Stanford University, USA
  • Rob May, Golder Associates, Australia
  • Tiziana Rossetto, University College London, UK
  • Andrew Whittaker, University at Buffalo, USA
  • Mike Willford, Arup, The Netherlands

Hits: 2781

Review

Seismic hazard assessment (SHA), or analysis, plays a crucial role in building design and informing decision making for the mitigation of seismic risk. In the last decades a large number of studies in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment have been published where different criteria have been used for characterizing the source zone model, for selecting the most suitable ground motion models in the study area, for computing hazard itself, etc. Therefore, it is important to check whether the output of a seismic hazard study is compatible with the input, and to compare approaches and software packages used in SHA. The aim of the present study is to analyse three approaches for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment and their associated software packages: OpenQuake, the most recent software for seismic hazard and risk assessment (Crowley et al, 2013; Pagani at al., 2014); M3C (Musson, 1999; Musson et al., 2009) and EqHaz (Assatourians & Atkinson, 2013), based both on Monte Carlo simulations to calculate the hazard. The comparison is made in terms of methodology, computer performance of the software packages and hazard results, including hazard curves and maps.

The main conclusion from the present work is that if the input parameters are identical, the outputs from any type of approach for seismic hazard analysis have an excellent agreement. Results computed from M3C and OpenQuake are very similar to each other; whereas, the discrepancies between EqHaz and the other two software packages are explained by inherent features of the code EqHaz.

Tags: SECED 2015  
Date insert:
Go to top