另一种思考地震风险的方式

J. Hare
{"title":"另一种思考地震风险的方式","authors":"J. Hare","doi":"10.5459/bnzsee.52.3.141-149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Seismic risk has traditionally been approached using probabilistic analysis. This dilutes the potential impact of low probability, extreme events that may lead to severe consequences including excessive land damage, building damage, injuries and death. The communication of risk in probabilistic terms is also not clearly understood by most audiences. Further, it is evident that few building developers, owners and users have a good understanding the implications of this and the capacity design of buildings, which may not be repairable after a severe event. \nThere is also an adverse impact on planning and land use, where decisions that may affect many people are based on a limited view of adverse outcomes such as liquefaction, lateral spread and slope stability in severe earthquakes. \nA different way of thinking about seismic risk is proposed. An approach of using scenarios derived from a combination of deterministic as well as probabilistic thinking would prompt consideration of impacts over a range of events. This would allow full consideration of which outcomes are clearly not acceptable and which are. This may facilitate planning for both private and public sector, with a common understanding that is relatively easily communicated to both experts and lay people. \nThis risk evaluation framework would also facilitate consideration of mitigation, by bringing focus on unacceptable outcomes of severe events that are currently obscured by pure probabilistic analysis. This was missing in Christchurch, which experienced the sort of event we can readily anticipate and should actively plan for in other parts of New Zealand. \nThis would help us avoid future red zones and excessive damage and demolition. It will inform development of building codes and standards and will help us evaluate risk and provide resilience and redundancy across the range of interconnected infrastructure networks. \nInformed debate is needed with key decision makers to discuss the underlying objectives of our regulation and how these may be better met by such an approach, without engineers allowing themselves to be trapped in past thinking and assumptions.","PeriodicalId":46396,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A different way of thinking about seismic risk\",\"authors\":\"J. Hare\",\"doi\":\"10.5459/bnzsee.52.3.141-149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Seismic risk has traditionally been approached using probabilistic analysis. This dilutes the potential impact of low probability, extreme events that may lead to severe consequences including excessive land damage, building damage, injuries and death. The communication of risk in probabilistic terms is also not clearly understood by most audiences. Further, it is evident that few building developers, owners and users have a good understanding the implications of this and the capacity design of buildings, which may not be repairable after a severe event. \\nThere is also an adverse impact on planning and land use, where decisions that may affect many people are based on a limited view of adverse outcomes such as liquefaction, lateral spread and slope stability in severe earthquakes. \\nA different way of thinking about seismic risk is proposed. An approach of using scenarios derived from a combination of deterministic as well as probabilistic thinking would prompt consideration of impacts over a range of events. This would allow full consideration of which outcomes are clearly not acceptable and which are. This may facilitate planning for both private and public sector, with a common understanding that is relatively easily communicated to both experts and lay people. \\nThis risk evaluation framework would also facilitate consideration of mitigation, by bringing focus on unacceptable outcomes of severe events that are currently obscured by pure probabilistic analysis. This was missing in Christchurch, which experienced the sort of event we can readily anticipate and should actively plan for in other parts of New Zealand. \\nThis would help us avoid future red zones and excessive damage and demolition. It will inform development of building codes and standards and will help us evaluate risk and provide resilience and redundancy across the range of interconnected infrastructure networks. \\nInformed debate is needed with key decision makers to discuss the underlying objectives of our regulation and how these may be better met by such an approach, without engineers allowing themselves to be trapped in past thinking and assumptions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.52.3.141-149\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.52.3.141-149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

地震风险传统上采用概率分析方法。这削弱了低概率极端事件的潜在影响,这些事件可能导致严重后果,包括过度的土地破坏、建筑物损坏、人员伤亡。大多数受众也不清楚概率术语中的风险沟通。此外,很明显,很少有建筑开发商、业主和用户能很好地理解这一点的含义以及建筑的容量设计,这些建筑在严重事件后可能无法修复。对规划和土地利用也有不利影响,可能影响许多人的决策是基于对严重地震中液化、横向扩展和边坡稳定性等不利结果的有限看法。提出了一种不同的地震风险思考方式。使用确定性和概率性思维相结合的情景的方法将促使考虑对一系列事件的影响。这将允许充分考虑哪些结果显然是不可接受的,哪些是可接受的。这可能有助于私营和公共部门的规划,有一个相对容易传达给专家和非专业人员的共同理解。该风险评估框架还将通过关注目前被纯粹的概率分析所掩盖的严重事件的不可接受的结果,促进对缓解措施的考虑。这在克赖斯特彻奇是缺失的,它经历了我们可以很容易预测的事件,应该在新西兰其他地区积极计划。这将有助于我们避免未来的红色区域以及过度的破坏和拆除。它将为建筑规范和标准的制定提供信息,并将帮助我们评估风险,在一系列互连的基础设施网络中提供弹性和冗余。需要与关键决策者进行知情的辩论,讨论我们监管的基本目标,以及如何通过这种方法更好地实现这些目标,而不让工程师陷入过去的思维和假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A different way of thinking about seismic risk
Seismic risk has traditionally been approached using probabilistic analysis. This dilutes the potential impact of low probability, extreme events that may lead to severe consequences including excessive land damage, building damage, injuries and death. The communication of risk in probabilistic terms is also not clearly understood by most audiences. Further, it is evident that few building developers, owners and users have a good understanding the implications of this and the capacity design of buildings, which may not be repairable after a severe event. There is also an adverse impact on planning and land use, where decisions that may affect many people are based on a limited view of adverse outcomes such as liquefaction, lateral spread and slope stability in severe earthquakes. A different way of thinking about seismic risk is proposed. An approach of using scenarios derived from a combination of deterministic as well as probabilistic thinking would prompt consideration of impacts over a range of events. This would allow full consideration of which outcomes are clearly not acceptable and which are. This may facilitate planning for both private and public sector, with a common understanding that is relatively easily communicated to both experts and lay people. This risk evaluation framework would also facilitate consideration of mitigation, by bringing focus on unacceptable outcomes of severe events that are currently obscured by pure probabilistic analysis. This was missing in Christchurch, which experienced the sort of event we can readily anticipate and should actively plan for in other parts of New Zealand. This would help us avoid future red zones and excessive damage and demolition. It will inform development of building codes and standards and will help us evaluate risk and provide resilience and redundancy across the range of interconnected infrastructure networks. Informed debate is needed with key decision makers to discuss the underlying objectives of our regulation and how these may be better met by such an approach, without engineers allowing themselves to be trapped in past thinking and assumptions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
17.60%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Method to identify if torsional mode of a building is its first mode Earthquake design loads for retaining walls Infrastructure planning emergency levels of service for the Wellington region, Aotearoa New Zealand – An operationalised framework Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete buildings with hollow-core flooring systems Evaluation of the Inter-frequency Correlation of New Zealand CyberShake Crustal Earthquake Simulations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1