Abstract
Abstract. France has a moderate level of seismic activity, characterized by diffuse seismicity, sometimes experiencing earthquakes of a magnitude of more than 5 in the most active zones. In this seismicity context, Grenoble is a city of major economic and social importance. However, earthquakes being rare, public authorities and the decision makers are only vaguely committed to reducing seismic risk: return periods are long and local policy makers do not have much information available. Over the past 25 yr, a large number of studies have been conducted to improve our knowledge of seismic hazard in this region. One of the decision-making concerns of Grenoble's public authorities, as managers of a large number of public buildings, is to know not only the seismic-prone regions, the variability of seismic hazard due to site effects and the city's overall vulnerability, but also the level of seismic risk and exposure for the entire city, also compared to other natural or/and domestic hazards. Our seismic risk analysis uses a probabilistic approach for regional and local hazards and the vulnerability assessment of buildings. Its applicability to Grenoble offers the advantage of being based on knowledge acquired by previous projects conducted over the years. This paper aims to compare the level of seismic risk with that of other risks and to introduce the notion of risk acceptability in order to offer guidance in the management of seismic risk. This notion of acceptability, which is now part of seismic risk consideration for existing buildings in Switzerland, is relevant in moderately seismic-prone countries like France.
Highlights
In the summary of risk levels for different dangers proposed by Breysse (2009), two types of risk are identified: (1) voluntary risk, i.e. the risk taken voluntarily by a person in order to obtain a certain benefit
This paper proposes an analysis of seismic risk using a probabilistic approach, including regional and local hazards, and the vulnerability assessment of buildings
Which require an evaluation of seismic risk
Summary
In the summary of risk levels for different dangers proposed by Breysse (2009), two types of risk are identified: (1) voluntary risk, i.e. the risk taken voluntarily by a person in order to obtain a certain benefit (e.g. parachuting or helicopter flight). The level of acceptability may be high for this type of risk due to its voluntary nature. (2) involuntary risk, i.e. the risk suffered by the population or a company and not chosen freely (e.g. exposure to an earthquake or fire) For this type of risk, the level of acceptability is low, since it is often perceived as being inevitable. Public authorities responsible for public safety make rules to reduce the levels of both voluntary and involuntary risks. They rely on precise knowledge of the risk levels to enable the risk reduction schemes available (from an economic or legislation point of view) to be triggered. Actions may be taken and justified according to their efficiency and cost
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
