All Issue

2026 Vol.22, Issue 3 Preview Page

Original Article

A Review of Fault-Information Integration into Seismic Design through a Comparison of U.S. Design Cases and Korean Design Standards(KDS)

미국 내진설계 사례와 국가건설기준(KDS) 비교를 통한 단층정보의 내진설계 연계 절차 고찰

노경도1ㆍ김기림2ㆍ김찬동3ㆍ백용4ㆍ황성필5ㆍ김우석6*

Gyeong-Do Noh1, Ki-Rim Kim2, Chan-Dong Kim3, Yong Baek4, Sung-Pil Hwang5, Woo-Seok Kim6*

1Senior Manager, Geotechnical & Tunnel Engineering Division, Yooshin Engineering Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2Senior Managing Director, Geotechnical & Tunnel Engineering Division, Yooshin Engineering Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Director, Geotechnical & Tunnel Engineering Division, Yooshin Engineering Corporation, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4Senior Research Fellow, Department of Geotechnical Engineering Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Goyang, Republic of Korea
5Senior Researcher, Department of Geotechnical Engineering Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Goyang, Republic of Korea
6Senior Researcher, Department of Geotechnical Engineering Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Goyang, Republic of Korea
30 September 2026. pp. 1072-1091
PDF Citation
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines how fault information is incorporated into seismic hazard assessment, design inputs, and facility-specific design responses in U.S. seismic design cases and functionally compares these practices with relevant provisions of the Korean Design Standards(KDS), with the aim of reviewing a systematic framework for integrating fault information into seismic design in Korea. Method: Five U.S. design cases involving a building, high-speed railway and tunnel, bridge, pipeline, and water conveyance facility were selected considering facility type, facility-fault relationship, major seismic hazards, and the availability of official documents. Fault and seismic-source information, facility-fault spatial relationships, assessment methods for ground motion, fault displacement, and other permanent ground deformation(PGD), design inputs, and facility-specific design responses were analyzed and functionally compared with relevant KDS provisions. Result: The U.S. cases showed that fault information was utilized differently depending on the facility-fault relationship and expected hazard type. Ground-motion, fault-displacement, and other PGD assessments were linked to design response spectra, time histories, design fault displacements, and facility-specific design measures. Although the KDS contains provisions related to fault investigation and definition, design ground motion, fault-zone avoidance and reinforcement, ground deformation, and seismic performance evaluation, a common review process linking fault-data uncertainty and facility-fault relationships to the need for additional hazard assessments, design inputs, and facility-specific performance requirements was not clearly identified within the scope of this study. Conclusion: Based on the functional comparison of the U.S. cases and the KDS, the fault-information linkage process was structured into six review stages: data review, assessment of facility-fault spatial relationships, selection of additional hazard assessments, hazard assessment and determination of design inputs, facility-specific performance evaluation, and review of project-specific design conditions. This process is not intended to directly adopt quantitative criteria from foreign practices, but rather represents a conceptual framework for linking fault information with seismic design under the current KDS. Further studies are required to validate its applicability through improvements in domestic fault databases and seismic-source models, comparisons with design practices in comparable intraplate regions, and facility-specific pilot designs.
Keywords
Active Fault
Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis
Site-specific Ground Motion
Permanent Ground Deformation
National Seismic Hazard Map
Korean Design Standards
연구목적: 본 연구는 미국의 내진설계 사례에서 단층정보가 지진재해평가, 설계 입력값 및 시설물별 설계 대응으로 연계되는 과정을 분석하고, 이를 국내 국가건설기준(KDS)의 관련 규정과 기능적으로 비교하여 단층정보의 국내 내진설계 연계를 위한 검토체계를 고찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 연구방법: 시설물 형식, 시설물과 단층의 위치관계, 주요 지진재해요인 및 공식자료의 확보 가능성을 고려하여 미국의 건축물, 고속철도·터널, 교량, 송유관 및 수자원 이송시설 등 5개 설계사례를 선정하였다. 각 사례에 대해 단층·지진원 정보, 시설물과 단층의 위치관계, 지진동·단층변위·기타 영구지반변형(PGD)의 평가방법, 설계 입력값 및 시설물별 설계 대응을 분석하고, 이를 KDS의 단층조사·정의, 설계지반운동, 단층대 회피·보강, 지반변형 및 내진성능 관련 조항과 기능적으로 비교하였다. 연구결과: 미국 설계사례에서는 시설물과 단층의 위치관계 및 예상되는 재해유형에 따라 단층정보를 지진동, 단층변위 및 기타 PGD 평가에 활용하고, 그 결과를 설계응답스펙트럼, 시간이력, 설계단층변위 등의 설계 입력값과 시설물별 설계 대응으로 연계하고 있었다. KDS에도 단층조사·정의·회피·보강, 설계지반운동, 지반변형 및 내진성능평가 관련 규정이 존재하나, 본 연구의 검토범위에서는 단층자료의 불확실성과 시설물과 단층의 위치관계를 바탕으로 추가 재해평가의 필요성을 판단하고 그 결과를 설계 입력값 및 시설물별 성능조건으로 연계하는 공통의 검토 흐름은 명확하게 확인되지 않았다. 결론: 미국 사례와 KDS의 기능적 비교결과를 바탕으로 단층정보의 내진설계 연계과정을 자료 검토, 시설물과 단층의 위치관계 판단, 추가 재해평가 항목 선정, 재해평가 및 설계 입력값 산정, 시설물별 성능평가, 사업별 설계조건 검토의 6단계 검토과정으로 구성하였다. 본 검토과정은 해외의 정량적 설계조건을 국내에 직접 적용하기 위한 기준이 아니라 KDS 내에서 단층정보의 활용과 관련 규정을 연계하기 위한 개념적 검토체계이다. 향후 국내 단층정보 및 지진원 모델의 고도화와 함께 비교 가능한 판내부 국가의 설계사례 검토 및 시설물별 시범설계를 통해 적용성과 적정성을 검증할 필요가 있다.
키워드
활성단층
단층변위재해해석
부지고유 지진동
영구지반변형
국가지진위험지도
국가건설기준
References
  1. Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., Kamai, R. (2014). “Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1025-1055. 10.1193/070913EQS198M
  2. ASCE/SEI (2017). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  3. ASCE/SEI (2022). Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-22, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
  4. Baker, J.W. (2007). “Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 1486-1501. 10.1785/0120060255
  5. Bray, J.D., Rodriguez-Marek, A. (2004). “Characterization of forward-directivity ground motions in the near-fault region.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 11, pp. 815-828. 10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.05.001
  6. California Building Standards Commission (2019). 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  7. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (2025). Seismic Design Criteria, Version 2.1, Sacramento, CA.
  8. California Geological Survey (CGS) (2018). Earthquake Fault Zones: A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California. California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  9. California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) (2009). Technical Memorandum 2.10.4: Interim Seismic Design Criteria, California High-Speed Train Project, Revision 0. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  10. California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) (2014). Fault Hazard Analysis and Mitigation Guidelines, Technical Memorandum 2.10.6, Revision 1. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  11. California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) (2022). Palmdale to Burbank Project Section Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Section 3.9: Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  12. California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) (2024). Palmdale to Burbank Project Section Final EIR/EIS, Appendix 2-D: Design Baseline Report, PEPD Record Set REV02. California High-Speed Rail Authority, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  13. Chiou, B.S.-J., Youngs, R.R. (2014). “Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra.” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 1117-1153. 10.1193/072813EQS219M
  14. Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority (DCA) (2022). Conceptual-Level Seismic Design and Geohazard Evaluation Criteria. Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, Technical Memorandum, Final Draft, Version 04, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  15. Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority (DCA) (2024). Appendix G1: Concept Seismic Design and Geohazard Criteria (Final Draft), Delta Conveyance Project Concept Engineering Report. Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  16. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2003). Preliminary Observations on the November 3, 2002 Denali Fault, Alaska, Earthquake. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERI Special Earthquake Report, Oakland, CA, USA.
  17. Eidinger, J., Yashinsky, M. (2004). Oil and Water System Performance - Denali M 7.9 Earthquake of November 3, 2002. G&E Engineering Systems, Inc., Rev. F, Olympic Valley, CA, USA.
  18. Fuis, G.S., Wald, L.A. (compilers) (2003). Rupture in South-Central Alaska - The Denali Fault Earthquake of 2002. U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 014-03, Menlo Park, CA, USA. 10.3133/fs01403
  19. Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (2021). Addendum Geotechnical Investigation: Ground Motion Hazard Evaluation, Rady Children's Hospital Main Campus Master Plan. Group Delta Consultants, Inc., Project No. SD689, San Diego, CA, USA.
  20. Kim, D.-S., Yoon, J.-K. (2007). “Development of Site classification system and modification of design response spectra considering geotechnical characteristics in Korea.” Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 65-77. 10.5000/EESK.2007.11.4.065
  21. Kim, K.-H., Ree, J.-H., Kim, Y., Kim, S., Kang, S.Y., Seo, W. (2018). “Assessing whether the 2017 Mw 5.4 Pohang earthquake in South Korea was an induced event.” Science, Vol. 360, No. 6392, pp. 1007-1009. 10.1126/science.aat6081
  22. Kim, Y.-S., Son, M., Choi, J.-H., Choi, J.-H., Seong, Y.B., Lee, J.H. (2020). “Processes and challenges for the production of Korean active faults map.” Journal of the Geological Society of Korea, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 113-134. 10.14770/jgsk.2020.56.2.113
  23. Korean Government Commission on the Cause of the Pohang Earthquake (2019). Summary Report of the Korean Government Commission on Relations between the 2017 Pohang Earthquake and EGS Project. The Geological Society of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  24. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2021). KDS 29 17 00 Seismic Design for Utility Tunnels, Korea Construction Standards Center, Republic of Korea. (in Korean)
  25. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2022). KDS 41 17 00 Seismic Design Standard for Buildings, Korea Construction Standards Center, Republic of Korea. (in Korean)
  26. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2023a). KDS 24 17 12 Seismic Design Standard for Bridges (Cable-Supported Bridges), Korea Construction Standards Center, Republic of Korea. (in Korean)
  27. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2023b). KDS 27 17 00 Seismic Design for Tunnels, Korea Construction Standards Center, Republic of Korea. (in Korean)
  28. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2024). KDS 17 10 00 General Seismic Design, Korea Construction Standards Center, Republic of Korea. (in Korean)
  29. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2025). KDS 11 10 10 Geotechnical Investigation, Korea Construction Standards Center, Republic of Korea. (in Korean)
  30. Nader, M., Manzanarez, R., Maroney, B. (2000). “Seismic design strategy of the new east bay bridge suspension span.” Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 0911, pp. 1-8.
  31. Page, R.A., Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., Coulter, H.W. (1972). Ground Motion Values for Use in the Seismic Design of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 672, Washington, DC, USA. 10.3133/cir672
  32. Petersen, M.D., Dawson, T.E., Chen, R., Cao, T., Wills, C.J., Schwartz, D.P., Frankel, A.D. (2011). “Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 101, No. 2, pp. 805-825. 10.1785/0120100035
  33. Somerville, P.G., Smith, N.F., Graves, R.W., Abrahamson, N.A. (1997). “Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity.” Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 199-222. 10.1785/gssrl.68.1.199
  34. Sun, C.-G., Kim, H.-S., Cho, H.-I. (2018). “Geo-proxy-based site classification for regional zonation of seismic site effects in South Korea.” Applied Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 2, 314. 10.3390/app8020314
  35. Uchide, T., Song, S.G. (2018). “Fault rupture model of the 2016 Gyeongju, South Korea, earthquake and its implication for the underground fault system.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 2257-2264. 10.1002/2017GL076960
  36. Wong, I., Thomas, P., Zandieh, A., Lewandowski, N., Smith, S., Unruh, J. (2021). Seismic Hazard Analyses and Development of Conceptual Seismic Design Ground Motions for the Delta Conveyance. Delta Conveyance Design & Construction Authority, Final Report, Rev. 1, Sacramento, CA, USA.
  37. Woo, J.-U., Rhie, J., Kim, S., Kang, T.-S., Kim, K.-H., Kim, Y. (2019). “The 2016 Gyeongju earthquake sequence revisited: Aftershock interactions within a complex fault system.” Geophysical Journal International, Vol. 217, No. 1, pp. 58-74. 10.1093/gji/ggz009
  38. Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Jr., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F. III, Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., Stokoe, K.H. II (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-833. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)
  39. Youngs, R.R., Arabasz, W.J., Anderson, R.E., Ramelli, A.R., Ake, J.P., Slemmons, D.B., McCalpin, J.P., Doser, D.I., Fridrich, C.J., Swan, F.H. III, Rogers, A.M., Yount, J.C., Anderson, L.W., Smith, K.D., Bruhn, R.L., Knuepfer, P.L.K., Smith, R.B., dePolo, C.M., O'Leary, D.W., Coppersmith, K.J., Pezzopane, S.K., Schwartz, D.P., Whitney, J.W., Olig, S.S., Toro, G.R. (2003). “A methodology for probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA).” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 191-219. 10.1193/1.1542891
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Disaster Information
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국재난정보학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국재난정보학회논문집
  • Volume : 22
  • No :3
  • Pages :1072-1091
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15683/kosdi.2026.9.30.1072
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Society of Disaster Information Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close