Model selection and uncertainty in earthquake hazard analysis

According to a recent UN report, seismic risk from large earthquakes continues to increase globally in line with infrastructure and population increase in developing nations. This implies the vulnerability is not decreasing relative to increased exposure. Specific examples include recent devastating earthquakes in Haiti and Sumatra in areas of known seismic hazard, but clearly this is part of a much wider problem. Seismologists and engineers can play a key role in public engagement, in communicating known best practice to local planners and practitioners on appropriate mitigation strategies, and in fundamental research to quantify seismic hazard in a probabilistic way. All probabilistic hazard forecasts are subject to epistemic (systematic) and aleatory (statistical) uncertainty. To date it has been assumed that the major uncertainties in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis are due to uncertainties in ground motion attenuation. As new strong ground motion data become available, and site response is better characterized locally in advance of major earthquakes, this uncertainty will reduce. Here we address uncertainties arising from the first two steps in seismic hazard analysis by quantifying the effect of sampling bias and statistical error in earthquake recurrence rates from finite records of seismic sources. We find even simple parameters such as mean event rate converge to a central limit much more slowly than would be expected for a Gaussian process. The residuals in the frequency-magnitude distribution instead follow a Poisson distribution to a good approximation at all magnitudes. Finite temporal sampling of this slowly-converging system has resulted in a best-fitting distribution for the global earthquake population that can be changed from a tapered G-R law to a pure G-R law by a single large event and its aftershocks. In regional studies of subduction zones it is currently not possible to reject the G-R hypothesis in favour of the characteristic earthquake model within the Poisson error, even when visually a few extreme events appear as significant outliers on a log frequency-magnitude plot. The epistemic and aleatory uncertainties described here must be taken into account in assessing the skill of time-dependent hazard models relative to the uncertainties in time-independent models. in preparedness and in planning for disaster risk reduction in developing nations. A recent UN report concluded that earthquake risk is increasing globally more or less in direct proportion to exposure in terms of growth of the population and the built environment, and that the main barriers to reducing economic and human losses in natural hazard preparedness in general are a combination of ‘poverty and a lack of good governance’ (UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Secretariat, 2009). These two can combine to devastating effect, particularly in the development of ‘informal’ settlements not subject to any building control, and where shelter against more frequent hazards such as hurricanes may be seen as more of a priority. The statistics also highlight the extent to which textbook best practice from the seismological and engineering communities (e.g. Reiter, 1991) are often not yet penetrating

[1]  C. Demets Plate motions and crustal deformation , 1995 .

[2]  A. Bell,et al.  Comment on “Relationship between accelerating seismicity and quiescence, two precursors to large earthquakes” by Arnaud Mignan and Rita Di Giovambattista , 2009 .

[3]  William Menke,et al.  Repeat Times of Large Earthquakes: Implications for Earthquake Mechanics and Long-Term Prediction , 2006 .

[4]  D. P. Schwartz,et al.  Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones , 1984 .

[5]  P. Burton,et al.  Information theory and the earthquake frequency-magnitude distribution , 1984 .

[6]  Ian G. Main,et al.  A Poisson model for identifying characteristic size effects in frequency data: Application to frequency‐size distributions for global earthquakes, “starquakes”, and fault lengths , 2001 .

[7]  David J. Varnes,et al.  Predictive modeling of the seismic cycle of the Greater San Francisco Bay Region , 1993 .

[8]  Jean-Philippe Avouac,et al.  Heterogeneous coupling on the Sumatra megathrust constrained from geodetic and paleogeodetic measurements , 2008 .

[9]  Kaye M. Shedlock,et al.  The GSHAP Global Seismic Hazard Map , 2000 .

[10]  Earthquakes: A hand on the aftershock trigger , 2006, Nature.

[11]  John McCloskey,et al.  Effect of the Sumatran mega-earthquake on the global magnitude cut-off and event rate , 2008 .

[12]  S. S. Zubir,et al.  Architecture for humanity: sharing the experience of MERCY Malaysia Core House Project in Banda Aceh, Indonesia , 2006 .

[13]  Glennda Chui,et al.  Seismology: Shaking up earthquake theory , 2009, Nature.

[14]  I. Main,et al.  A Poisson model for earthquake frequency uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis , 2008, 0807.2396.

[15]  Ian G. Main,et al.  A CHARACTERISTIC EARTHQUAKE MODEL OF THE SEISMICITY PRECEDING THE ERUPTION OF MOUNT ST HELENS ON 18 MAY 1980 , 1987 .

[16]  Mark Naylor,et al.  Entropy production and self-organized (sub)criticality in earthquake dynamics , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[17]  Y. Kagan Is Earthquake Seismology a Hard, Quantitative Science? , 1999 .

[18]  Ian G. Main,et al.  Statistical physics, seismogenesis, and seismic hazard , 1996 .

[19]  I. Main,et al.  Quantifying uncertainty in mean earthquake interevent times for a finite sample , 2009 .

[20]  Ian G. Main,et al.  EARTHQUAKES AS CRITICAL PHENOMENA - IMPLICATIONS FOR PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS , 1995 .

[21]  Yosihiko Ogata,et al.  Statistical Models for Earthquake Occurrences and Residual Analysis for Point Processes , 1988 .

[22]  John McCloskey,et al.  Statistical evaluation of characteristic earthquakes in the frequency‐magnitude distributions of Sumatra and other subduction zone regions , 2009 .

[23]  Olivier Lengliné,et al.  A new estimation of the decay of aftershock density with distance to the mainshock , 2010 .

[24]  Glenn P. Biasi,et al.  Quasi-periodic recurrence of large earthquakes on the southern San Andreas fault , 2010 .

[25]  Y. Kagan Seismic moment distribution revisited: I. Statistical results , 2002 .

[26]  Francesco Mulargia,et al.  Retrospective selection bias (or the benefit of hindsight) , 2001 .

[27]  Yan Y. Kagan,et al.  Earthquakes: Lessons for the Future , 2022 .

[28]  Mark D. Petersen,et al.  Time-independent and Time-dependent Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Model 1.0 , 2007 .

[29]  Shinji Toda,et al.  Decay of aftershock density with distance does not indicate triggering by dynamic stress , 2010, Nature.

[30]  Andrew J. Michael,et al.  Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant , 2008 .

[31]  K. Aki 17. Maximum Likelihood Estimate of b in the Formula logN=a-bM and its Confidence Limits , 1965 .

[32]  K. Felzer,et al.  Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress , 2006, Nature.