Effects of different empirical ground motion models on seismic hazard maps for North Iceland

2021 ◽  
pp. 106513
Author(s):  
Milad Kowsari ◽  
Benedikt Halldorsson ◽  
Jónas þ. Snæbjörnsson ◽  
Sigurjón Jónsson
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Maps ◽  
Seismic Hazard Maps ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Empirical Ground ◽  
Ground Motion Models

Ground Motion Models Used in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. S59-S84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanaz Rezaeian ◽  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazard Maps ◽  
Source Characterization ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Seismic Hazard Maps ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

The National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) are an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States. This paper compares hazard using the new suite of ground motion models (GMMs) relative to hazard using the suite of GMMs applied in the previous version of the maps. The new source characterization models are used for both cases. A previous paper ( Rezaeian et al. 2014 ) discussed the five NGA-West2 GMMs used for shallow crustal earthquakes in the Western United States (WUS), which are also summarized here. Our focus in this paper is on GMMs for earthquakes in stable continental regions in the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS), as well as subduction interface and deep intraslab earthquakes. We consider building code hazard levels for peak ground acceleration (PGA), 0.2-s, and 1.0-s spectral accelerations (SAs) on uniform firm-rock site conditions. The GMM modifications in the updated version of the maps created changes in hazard within 5% to 20% in WUS; decreases within 5% to 20% in CEUS; changes within 5% to 15% for subduction interface earthquakes; and changes involving decreases of up to 50% and increases of up to 30% for deep intraslab earthquakes for most U.S. sites. These modifications were combined with changes resulting from modifications in the source characterization models to obtain the new hazard maps.

Implementation of NGA-West2 Ground Motion Models in the 2014 U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1319-1333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanaz Rezaeian ◽  
Mark D. Petersen ◽  
Morgan P. Moschetti ◽  
Peter Powers ◽  
Stephen C. Harmsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hazard Maps ◽  
Seismic Hazard Maps ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Seismic Source Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHMs) have been an important component of seismic design regulations in the United States for the past several decades. These maps present earthquake ground shaking intensities at specified probabilities of being exceeded over a 50-year time period. The previous version of the NSHMs was developed in 2008; during 2012 and 2013, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey have been updating the maps based on their assessment of the “best available science,” resulting in the 2014 NSHMs. The update includes modifications to the seismic source models and the ground motion models (GMMs) for sites across the conterminous United States. This paper focuses on updates in the Western United States (WUS) due to the use of new GMMs for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions developed by the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA-West2) project. Individual GMMs, their weighted combination, and their impact on the hazard maps relative to 2008 are discussed. In general, the combined effects of lower medians and increased standard deviations in the new GMMs have caused only small changes, within 5–20%, in the probabilistic ground motions for most sites across the WUS compared to the 2008 NSHMs.

A Suite of Alternative Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for Israel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soumya Kanti Maiti ◽  
Gony Yagoda-Biran ◽  
Ronnie Kamai
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Plate Boundary ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Engineering Applications ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT Models for estimating earthquake ground motions are a key component in seismic hazard analysis. In data-rich regions, these models are mostly empirical, relying on the ever-increasing ground-motion databases. However, in areas in which strong-motion data are scarce, other approaches for ground-motion estimates are sought, including, but not limited to, the use of simulations to replace empirical data. In Israel, despite a clear seismic hazard posed by the active plate boundary on its eastern border, the instrumental record is sparse and poor, leading to the use of global models for hazard estimation in the building code and all other engineering applications. In this study, we develop a suite of alternative ground-motion models for Israel, based on an empirical database from Israel as well as on four data-calibrated synthetic databases. Two host models are used to constrain model behavior, such that the epistemic uncertainty is captured and characterized. Despite the lack of empirical data at large magnitudes and short distances, constraints based on the host models or on the physical grounds provided by simulations ensure these models are appropriate for engineering applications. The models presented herein are cast in terms of the Fourier amplitude spectra, which is a linear, physical representation of ground motions. The models are suitable for shallow crustal earthquakes; they include an estimate of the median and the aleatory variability, and are applicable in the magnitude range of 3–8 and distance range of 1–300 km.

scholarly journals Seismic hazard evaluation

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Somerville
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Earthquake Source ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ground Motion Models

This paper reviews concepts and trends in seismic hazard characterization that have emerged in the past decade, and identifies trends and concepts that are anticipated during the coming decade. New methods have been developed for characterizing potential earthquake sources that use geological and geodetic data in conjunction with historical seismicity data. Scaling relationships among earthquake source parameters have been developed to provide a more detailed representation of the earthquake source for ground motion prediction. Improved empirical ground motion models have been derived from a strong motion data set that has grown markedly over the past decade. However, these empirical models have a large degree of uncertainty because the magnitude - distance - soil category parameterization of these models often oversimplifies reality. This reflects the fact that other conditions that are known to have an important influence on strong ground motions, such as near- fault rupture directivity effects, crustal waveguide effects, and basin response effects, are not treated as parameters of these simple models. Numerical ground motion models based on seismological theory that include these additional effects have been developed and extensively validated against recorded ground motions, and used to estimate the ground motions of past earthquakes and predict the ground motions of future scenario earthquakes. The probabilistic approach to characterizing the ground motion that a given site will experience in the future is very compatible with current trends in earthquake engineering and the development of building codes. Performance based design requires a more comprehensive representation of ground motions than has conventionally been used. Ground motions estimates are needed at multiple annual probability levels, and may need to be specified not only by response spectra but also by suites of strong motion time histories for input into time-domain non-linear analyses of structures.

Probabilistic seismic hazard maps for California do not perform better relative to historical shaking data when site-specific VS30 is considered

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Gallahue ◽  
Leah Salditch ◽  
Madeleine Lucas ◽  
James Neely ◽  
Susan Hough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Tall Buildings ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ◽  
Hazard Maps ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Seismic Hazard Maps ◽  
Intensity Mapping ◽  
Aleatory Variability

<div> <p>Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments forecast levels of earthquake shaking that should be exceeded with only a certain probability over a given period of time are important for earthquake hazard mitigation. These rely on assumptions about when and where earthquakes will occur, their size, and the resulting shaking as a function of distance as described by ground-motion models (GMMs) that cover broad geologic regions. Seismic hazard maps are used to develop building codes.</p> </div><div> <p>To explore the robustness of maps’ shaking forecasts, we consider how maps hindcast past shaking. We have compiled the California Historical Intensity Mapping Project (CHIMP) dataset of the maximum observed seismic intensity of shaking from the largest Californian earthquakes over the past 162 years. Previous comparisons between the maps for a constant V<sub>S30</sub> (shear-wave velcoity in the top 30 m of soil) of 760 m/s and CHIMP based on several metrics suggested that current maps overpredict shaking.</p> <p>The differences between the V<sub>S30</sub> at the CHIMP sites and the reference value of 760 m/s could amplify or deamplify the ground motions relative to the mapped values. We evaluate whether the V<sub>S30 </sub>at the CHIMP sites could cause a possible bias in the models. By comparison with the intensity data in CHIMP, we find that using site-specific V<sub>S30</sub> does not improve map performance, because the site corrections cause only minor differences from the original 2018 USGS hazard maps at the short periods (high frequencies) relevant to peak ground acceleration and hence MMI. The minimal differences reflect the fact that the nonlinear deamplification due to increased soil damping largely offsets the linear amplification due to low V<sub>S30</sub>. The net effects will be larger for longer periods relevant to tall buildings, where net amplification occurs. </p> <div> <p>Possible reasons for this discrepancy include limitations of the dataset, a bias in the hazard models, an over-estimation of the aleatory variability of the ground motion or that seismicity throughout the historical period has been lower than the long-term average, perhaps by chance due to the variability of earthquake recurrence. Resolving this discrepancy, which is also observed in Italy and Japan, could improve the performance of seismic hazard maps and thus earthquake safety for California and, by extension, worldwide. We also explore whether new nonergodic GMMs, with reduced aleatory variability, perform better than presently used ergodic GMMs compared to historical data.</p> </div> </div>

A Bayesian model for truncated regression for the estimation of empirical ground-motion models

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 6149-6179
Author(s):  
Nicolas Martin Kuehn ◽  
Tadahiro Kishida ◽  
Mohammad AlHamaydeh ◽  
Grigorios Lavrentiadis ◽  
Yousef Bozorgnia
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Bayesian Model ◽  
Truncated Regression ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Empirical Ground ◽  
Ground Motion Models

Ranking of Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for Use in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Iran Based on an Independent Data Set

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoya Farajpour ◽  
Milad Kowsari ◽  
Shahram Pezeshk ◽  
Benedikt Halldorsson
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT We apply three data-driven selection methods, log-likelihood (LLH), Euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR), and deviance information criterion (DIC), to objectively evaluate the predictive capability of 10 ground-motion models (GMMs) developed from Iranian and worldwide data sets against a new and independent Iranian strong-motion data set. The data set includes, for example, the 12 November 2017 Mw 7.3 Ezgaleh earthquake and the 25 November 2018 Mw 6.3 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake and includes a total of 201 records from 29 recent events with moment magnitudes 4.5≤Mw≤7.3 with distances up to 275 km. The results of this study show that the prior sigma of the GMMs acts as the key measure used by the LLH and EDR methods in the ranking against the data set. In some cases, this leads to the resulting model bias being ignored. In contrast, the DIC method is free from such ambiguity as it uses the posterior sigma as the basis for the ranking. Thus, the DIC method offers a clear advantage of partially removing the ergodic assumption from the GMM selection process and allows a more objective representation of the expected ground motion at a specific site when the ground-motion recordings are homogeneously distributed in terms of magnitudes and distances. The ranking results thus show that the local models that were exclusively developed from Iranian strong motions perform better than GMMs from other regions for use in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Iran. Among the Next Generation Attenuation-West2 models, the GMMs by Boore et al. (2014) and Abrahamson et al. (2014) perform better. The GMMs proposed by Darzi et al. (2019) and Farajpour et al. (2019) fit the recorded data well at short periods (peak ground acceleration and pseudoacceleration spectra at T=0.2  s). However, at long periods, the models developed by Zafarani et al. (2018), Sedaghati and Pezeshk (2017), and Kale et al. (2015) are preferable.

scholarly journals A New Procedure for Evaluating Ground-Motion Models, with Application to Hydraulic-Fracture-Induced Seismicity in the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 2380-2397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Cremen ◽  
Maximilian J. Werner ◽  
Brian Baptie
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Hydraulic Fracture ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Statistical Tool ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT An essential component of seismic hazard analysis is the prediction of ground shaking (and its uncertainty), using ground-motion models (GMMs). This article proposes a new method to evaluate (i.e., rank) the suitability of GMMs for modeling ground motions in a given region. The method leverages a statistical tool from sensitivity analysis to quantitatively compare predictions of a GMM with underlying observations. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed method relative to several other popular GMM ranking procedures and highlight its advantages, which include its intuitive scoring system and its ability to account for the hierarchical structure of GMMs. We use the proposed method to evaluate the applicability of several GMMs for modeling ground motions from induced earthquakes due to U.K. shale gas development. The data consist of 195 recordings at hypocentral distances (R) less than 10 km for 29 events with local magnitude (ML) greater than 0 that relate to 2018/2019 hydraulic-fracture operations at the Preston New Road shale gas site in Lancashire and 192 R<10  km recordings for 48 ML>0 events induced—within the same geologic formation—by coal mining near New Ollerton, North Nottinghamshire. We examine: (1) the Akkar, Sandikkaya, and Bommer (2014) models for European seismicity; (2) the Douglas et al. (2013) model for geothermal-induced seismicity; and (3) the Atkinson (2015) model for central and eastern North America induced seismicity. We find the Douglas et al. (2013) model to be the most suitable for almost all of the considered ground-motion intensity measures. We modify this model by recomputing its coefficients in line with the observed data, to further improve its accuracy for future analyses of the seismic hazard of interest. This study both advances the state of the art in GMM evaluation and enhances understanding of the seismic hazard related to U.K. shale gas development.

scholarly journals Seismic hazard maps of Peshawar District for various return periods

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 1639-1661
Author(s):  
Khalid Mahmood ◽  
Naveed Ahmad ◽  
Usman Khan ◽  
Qaiser Iqbal
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Target Location ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Source Parameters ◽  
Seismic Source ◽  
Return Periods ◽  
Hazard Maps ◽  
Seismic Hazard Maps

Abstract. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of Peshawar District has been performed for a grid size of 0.01∘. The seismic sources for the target location are defined as the area polygon with uniform seismicity. The earthquake catalogue was developed based on the earthquake data obtained from different worldwide seismological networks and historical records. The earthquake events obtained at different magnitude scales were converted into moment magnitude using indigenous catalogue-specific regression relationships. The homogenized catalogue was subdivided into shallow crustal and deep-subduction-zone earthquake events. The seismic source parameters were obtained using the bounded Gutenberg–Richter recurrence law. Seismic hazard maps were prepared for peak horizontal acceleration at bedrock level using different ground motion attenuation relationships. The study revealed the selection of an appropriate ground motion prediction equation is crucial for defining the seismic hazard of Peshawar District. The inclusion of deep subduction earthquakes does not add significantly to the seismic hazard for design base ground motions. The seismic hazard map developed for shallow crustal earthquakes, including also the epistemic uncertainty, was in close agreement with the map given in the Building Code of Pakistan Seismic Provisions (2007) for a return period of 475 years on bedrock. The seismic hazard maps for other return periods i.e., 50, 100, 250, 475 and 2500 years, are also presented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document