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

Information for authors

SECED allows the self-archiving of the Author Accepted Manuscripts (AAM) from the SECED 2015 Conference. This means that all authors can make their conference paper available via a green open access route. The full text of your paper may become visible within your personal website, your institutional repository, a subject repository or a scholarly collaboration network signed up to the voluntary STM sharing principles. It may also be shared with interested individuals, for teaching and training purposes at your own institution and for grant applications (please refer to the terms of your own institution to ensure full compliance).

To deposit your AAM, please adhere to the following conditions:

  • You should include a link back to the SECED website.
  • You should include all of the relevant metadata (article title, conference name, conference location, conference dates etc.).
  • You should include a clear licensing statement (see below).

SECED allows authors to deposit their AAM under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial International Licence 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0). The deposit must clearly state that the AAM is deposited under this licence and that any reuse is allowed in accordance with the terms outlined by the licence. To reuse the AAM for commercial purposes, permission must be sought by contacting seced@ice.org.uk. For the sake of clarity, commercial usage would be considered as, but not limited to:

  • Copying or downloading AAMs for further distribution for a fee.
  • Any use of the AAM in conjunction with advertising.
  • Any use of the AAM by for promotional purposes by for-profit organisations.
  • Any use that would confer monetary reward, commercial gain or commercial exploitation.

Should you have any questions about our licensing policies, please contact seced@ice.org.uk.

Hits: 4251

Review

This paper explores the accuracy of simplified methods based on direct displacement based assessment (DDBA) for the derivation of fragility curves for typical highway bridges. Two variants of the DDBA procedure are implemented: Effective Modal Analysis (EMA), setting a given target deformation level and computing the corresponding seismic level, and Direct Effective Modal Analysis (dirEMA), computing directly the structural response from an input ground motion. These are applied to 16 bridge models, differing for the level of continuity of their deck and the type of pier-to-deck connections. The results obtained with this two simplified analysis approaches are used to derive component- and system-level fragility curves, which are then compared to fragility functions obtained from nonlinear dynamic analyses. While significant discrepancies are observed for some of the component fragility curves, it is found that good agreement can still be found at the system level, possibly due to the existence of minor failure modes that have a negligible impact on the global damage probability. Therefore these simplified methods could be helpful for the efficient derivation of fragility curves for a larger number of bridge typologies.

Date insert:
Go to top