Impact of ground motion characterization on conservatism and variability in seismic risk estimates

This study evaluates the impact, on estimates of seismic risk and its uncertainty, of alternative methods in treatment and characterization of earthquake ground motions. The objective of this study is to delineate specific procedures and characterizations that may lead to less biased and more precise seismic risk results. This report focuses on sources of conservatism and variability in risk that may be introduced through the analytical processes and ground-motion descriptions which are commonly implemented at the interface of seismic hazard and fragility assessments. In particular, implication of the common practice of using a single, composite spectral shape to characterize motions of different magnitudes is investigated. Also, the impact of parameterization of ground motion on fragility and hazard assessments is shown. Examination of these results demonstrates the following. (1) There exists significant conservatism in the review spectra (usually, spectra characteristic of western U.S. earthquakes) that have been used in conducting past seismic risk assessments and seismic margin assessments for eastern U.S. nuclear power plants. (2) There is a strong dependence of seismic fragility on earthquake magnitude when PGA is used as the ground-motion characterization. When, however, magnitude-dependent spectra are anchored to a common measure of elastic spectral acceleration averaged over the appropriate frequency range, seismic fragility shows no important nor consistent dependence on either magnitude or strong-motion duration. Use of inelastic spectral acceleration (at the proper frequency) as the ground spectrum anchor demonstrates a very similar result. This study concludes that a single, composite-magnitude spectrum can generally be used to characterize ground motion for fragility assessment without introducing significant bias or uncertainty in seismic risk estimates