JDR Vol.5 No.4 pp. 395-406
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2010.p0395


Adjusting Fragility Analysis to Seismic Hazard Input

Jens-Uwe Klügel*, Richard Attinger*, and Shobha Rao**

*NPP Goesgen-Daeniken, CH 4658 Daeniken, Kraftwerkstrasse, Switzerland

**ABSG Consulting Inc., 300 Commerce Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92602, U.S.A

March 15, 2010
May 20, 2010
August 1, 2010
seismic probabilistic risk assessment, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
This paper shows that the results of contemporary probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), uniform hazard spectra, and hazard curves are inconsistent with the fragilitymethod used for seismic probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The calculation used in PSHA is based on the evaluation of the probability of exceeding specified acceleration levels without considering the damaging effects of earthquakes. Empirical fragility of structures and components derived from field observations or qualification tests is conditioned to model large earthquakes, so fragility analysis must be adjusted to correspond with PSHA hazard estimates. Adjustment based on energy absorption principles is presented in the sections that follow, andmacroseismic information from intensity is used for verification. The procedure suggested was applied in seismic probabilistic risk assessment for the Goesgen, Switzerland, nuclear power plant (NPP).
Cite this article as:
J. Klügel, R. Attinger, and S. Rao, “Adjusting Fragility Analysis to Seismic Hazard Input,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.5 No.4, pp. 395-406, 2010.
Data files:
  1. [1] N. A. Abrahamson, K. J. Coppersmith, M. Koller, P. Roth, C. Sprecher, G. R. Toro, and R. Youngs, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Swiss Nuclear Power Plant Sites (PEGASOS Project),” Vol.1 to 6, NAGRA, Wettingen, 2004.
  2. [2] ABSG Consulting Inc. (formerly EQE International Inc.), Earthquake and Fragility Database, 2008.
  3. [3] Abteilung für die Sicherheit der Kernanlagen (ASK), Erdbebenrisikokarten der Schweiz. Basler& Hofmann, Schweizerischer Erdbebendienst, ASK, Würenlingen, 1977.
  4. [4] F. Bay, “Ground Motion Scaling in Switzerland: Implications for Hazard Assessment,” Zurich : Diss. ETH No.14567, 2002.
  5. [5] P. Bazzuro and C. A. Cornell, “Disaggregation of Seismic Hazard,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82, pp. 501-520, 1999.
  6. [6] V. V. Bertero and C. M. Uang, “Issues and Future Directions in the Use of an Energy Approach for Seismic-Resistant Design of Structures; In Non-linear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler (Eds.), 3-22, 1992.
  7. [7] D. M, Boore, “Stochastic Simulation of High-Frequency Ground Motions Based on Seismological Models of the Radiated Spectra,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73, pp. 1865-1894, 1983.
  8. [8] D. M. Boore, W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal, “Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work,” Seismological Research Letters. 68, pp. 128-153, 1997.
  9. [9] D. M. Boore and J. Boatwright, “Average body-wave radiation coefficients,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 74, pp. 1615-1621, 1984.
  10. [10] J. Braunmiller, N. Deichmann, D. Giardini, S.Wiemer, and the SED Magnitude Working Group, “Homogeneous Moment-Magnitude Calibration in Switzerland, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,” 95(1), pp. 58-74, 2005.
  11. [11] J. Brune, “Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves,” J. Geophys. Res., 75, pp. 4997-5009, 1970.
  12. [12] K. W. Campbell, “Prediction of Strong Ground Motion Using the Hybrid Empirical Method and its Use in the development of Ground-Motion (Attenuation) Relations in Eastern North America,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93, pp. 1012-1033, 2003.
  13. [13] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), “Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities,” TR-103959, 1994.
  14. [14] P. Fajfar, “Equivalent Ductility Factors: Taking into account Lowcycle fatigue,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 21, pp. 837-848, 1992.
  15. [15] P. Fajfar and T. Vidic, “Consistent Inelastic Design Spectra: Hysteretic and Input Energy,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23, pp. 523-537, 1994.
  16. [16] “FEMA 302 – NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures – Part 1- Provisions,” NEHRP, 1997.
  17. [17] G. Grünthal, “Eurpoean Macroseismic Scale 1998,” Cahiers du Centre Europèèn de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, Volume 15, Luxembourg, 1998.
  18. [18] T. C. Hanks and W. H. Bakun, “A bilinear source-scaling model for M-log A observations of continental earthquakes,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 92, p. 1841, 2002.
  19. [19] T. C. Hanks and H. Kanamori, “A moment magnitude scale,” JGR, 84, B5, pp. 2348-2350, 1979,
  20. [20] IAEA, “Determining the Quality of Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) for Applications in Nuclear Power Plants,” IAEA TECDOC 1511, Viennam 2006.
  21. [21] Int. Conf. of Building Officials (ICBO), “Uniform Building Code 1997 Edition,” ICBO, Whittier, CA, 1997.
  22. [22] J.-U. Klügel, “Problems in the Application of the SSHAC Probability Method for Assessing Earthquake Hazards at Swiss Nuclear Power Plants. Engineering Geology,” 78, pp. 285-307, 2005a.
  23. [23] J.-U. Klügel, “How To Eliminate Non-Damaging Earthquakes from the Results Of a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) – A Comprehensive Procedure with Site Specific Application,” SMIRT 19, Toronto, Paper No.1142, 2007.
  24. [24] J.-U. Klügel, “Seismic Hazard Analysis – Quo vadis? Earth-Science Reviews,” 88, pp. 1-32, 2008.
  25. [25] J.-U. Klügel, “On the Treatment of Dependency of Seismically Induced Component failures in Seismic PRA,” Paper 1581. Trans. of SMiRT-20. Div. VII., Espoo, Finland, 2009a.
  26. [26] J.-U. Klügel, “Comment on, Sigma: Issues, Insights and Challenges” by F. O. Strasser, N. A. Abrahamson, and J. J. Bommer, Seismological Research Letters, 80, pp. 413-417, 2009b.
  27. [27] J.-U. Klügel, R. Attinger, S. B. Rao, and N. Vaidya, “Adjusting the Fragility Analysis Method to the Seismic Hazard Input, Part I: The Intensity-based method,” Paper 1567. Trans. of SMiRT-20. Div. VII., Espoo, Finland, 2009a.
  28. [28] J.-U. Klügel, R. Attinger, S. B. Rao, and N. Vaidya, “Adjusting the Fragility Analysis Method to the Seismic Hazard Input, Part II: The Energy absorption method,” Paper 1568. Trans. of SMiRT-20. Div. VII., Espoo, Finland, 2009b.
  29. [29] NRC, “Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear regulatory Activities; Final Policy Statement,” 60 FR 42622, NRC, 8p, 1995.
  30. [30] NRC, “Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion,” RG 1.165, 1997.
  31. [31] K. Porter, R. Kennedy, and R. Bachman, “Creating Fragility Functions for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Spectra,” 23, (2), pp. 471-489, 2007.
  32. [32] F. Scherbaum, F. Cotton, and H. Staedtke, “The Estimation of Minimum-Misfit Stochastic Models from Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 96, pp. 427-445, 2006.
  33. [33] C. H. Scholz, “The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting,” 2end edition, Cambridge, 2002.
  34. [34] Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC), “Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts,” NUREG/CR-6372, 1997.
  35. [35] T. Travasarou, J. D. Bray, and N. A. Abrahamson, “Empirical Attenuation Relationship for Arias Intensity,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32, pp. 1133-1155, 2003.
  36. [36] D. L. Wells and K. J. Coppersmith, “New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, and surface displacements: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,” v.84, pp. 974-1002, 1994.
  37. [37] A. Yamaguchi, R. D. Campbell, and M. K. Ravindra, 1991., “Bayesian Methodology for Generic Seismic Fragility Evaluation of Components in Nuclear Power Plants,” Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology 11, Tokyo, paper Mo4/3, August 1991.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 12, 2024