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: 1676

Review

In many cases, earthquake loss estimation (ELE) studies are conducted by selecting existing seismic vulnerability models (fragility/vulnerability functions) that had been originally derived for similar building typologies in other parts of the world rather than to develop customized functions that address the peculiar structural and non-structural characteristics of the respective building stock. The reasons for this are either to reduce the calculation efforts, especially when studies are conducted for large portions of the building stock, lack of available resources, or lack of information that would allow a detailed survey and data acquisition. The present work illustrates the strength of the fragility/vulnerability functions’ representativeness on the outcomes of ELE studies. Based on a test bed located in a seismically exposed region a comparison study between existing (collected, assigned) and user-defined (generated, customized) vulnerability functions is conducted.

Tags: SECED 2015  
Date insert:
Go to top