Decision Making of Seismic Performance Management Using Seismic Risk Assessment

지진위험도평가 방법을 이용한 내진성능관리 의사결정

  • Kim, Dong Joo (Korea Infrastructure Safety & Technology Corporation) ;
  • Choi, Ji Hye (Korea Infrastructure Safety & Technology Corporation) ;
  • Kim, Byeong Hwa (Department of Civil Engineering, Kyungnam University)
  • Received : 2019.08.13
  • Accepted : 2019.10.16
  • Published : 2019.11.01


The strategy for the management of earthquakes is shifting from post recovery to prevention; therefore, seismic performance management requires quantitative predictions of damage and the establishment of strategies for initial responses to earthquakes. Currently, seismic performance evaluation for seismic management in Korea consists of two stages: preliminary evaluation and detailed evaluation. Also, the priority of seismic performance management is determined in accordance with the preliminary evaluation. As a deterministic method, preliminary evaluation quantifies the physical condition and socio-economic importance of a facility by various predetermined indices, and the priority is decided by the relative value of the indices; however, with the deterministic method it is difficult to consider any uncertainty related to the return-year, epicenter, and propagation of seismic energy. Also this method cannot support tasks such as quantitative socio-economic damage and the provision of data for initial responses to earthquakes. Moreover, indirect damage is often greater than direct damage; therefore, a method to quantify damage is needed to enhance accuracy. In this paper, a Seismic Risk Assessment is used to quantify the cost of damage of road facilities in Pohang city and to support decision making.


Supported by : 국토교통부


  1. Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation. Guidelines for Evaluating and Improving Seismic Performance of Existing Road facility (Stayed Bridges). c2011.
  2. FHWA. Seismic Retrofitting Manual for Highway Structures: Part I, Part II. c2006.
  3. FEMA. Hazus Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United State. c2017.
  4. Kaynia AM. Guidelines for Deriving Seismic Fragility Functions of Elements at Risk. c2013.
  5. Sextos A, Kilanitis I. Integrated Seismic Risk and Resilience Assessment of Roadway Networks in Earthquake Prone Area. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 2019 Jan;17(1):181-210.