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: 1962

Review

Thirty to forty years ago engineers seriously began to address the challenges of understanding and mitigating the seismic risk to nuclear facilities in the UK. As new nuclear power plant construction again seems imminent, this paper considers why practices developed as they did. Furthermore the paper reviews certain of the relevant activities, identifying the successes, the failures, and the techniques that were retained too long:

  • The influence of the regulator on seismic hazard and on earthquake engineering
  • Site specific seismic hazard assessment
  • Ground motion recordings
  • Civil design standards
  • Seismic assessment and strengthening of existing facilities
  • Multi-disciplinary approach
  • Design basis

As an example of potential improvements in the case of seismic hazard assessment, where site specific probabilistic studies have been compromised by the continued use of generic spectra and may have been tarnished by conservatism, new uniform risk spectra are presented.

Date insert:
Go to top