A Comparison of Seismic-Hazard and Risk Deaggregation

The deaggregation of seismic hazard is an effective way to identify scenario events that contribute to a selected seismic-hazard level. Depending on the use of the deaggregation results, the contribution may be defined as equal to or exceeding the selected hazard level. The deaggregation of seismic hazard should consider all uncertainty, aleatory uncertainty, and epistemic uncertainty. The identified scenario events can be used to check the responses of structures such as buildings. However, structures are constructed to provide service rather than just sustain environmental disturbances, and the seismic-risk assessment is at least as important and valuable as the seismic-hazard assessment for emergency preparedness planning and for the financial industry. Therefore, the notion of the deaggregation of seismic hazard is extended to that of seismic risk in the present study. Other issues investigated in this study are the impact of approximate treatment of epistemic uncertainty and the Cascadia subduction events on the deaggregation, and the differences in the identified scenario events from the deaggregation of seismic hazard and seismic risk. Numerical results suggest that the contribution of the uncertainty in attenuation relations to the deaggregation results can be very significant, and that the identified scenario events by deaggregating seismic hazard and seismic risk are somewhat different. Also, the elapsed time since the last major event for source zones whose earthquake occurrence is modeled as a renewal process can affect the deaggregation results significantly.

[1]  C. Allin Cornell,et al.  The Case for Using Mean Seismic Hazard , 2005 .

[2]  C. Cornell.  Engineering seismic risk analysis , 1968 .

[3]  Katsu Goda,et al.  Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information , 2006 .

[4]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  ESTIMATION OF RESPONSE SPECTRA AND PEAK ACCELERATIONS FROM WESTERN NORTH AMERICAN EARTHQUAKES: AN INTERIM REPORT PART 2 , 1993 .

[5]  R. Mcguire.  Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop , 1995, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[6]  H. Hong.  An efficient point estimate method for probabilistic analysis , 1998 .

[7]  E. Rosenblueth.  Point estimates for probability moments. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Arthur C. Heidebrecht.  Overview of seismic provisions of the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada , 2003 .

[9]  Katsu Goda,et al.  Seismic hazard analysis: a comparative study , 2006 .

[10]  Emilio Rosenblueth,et al.  Optimum Design for Infrequent Disturbances , 1976 .

[11]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Probability and Uncertainty in Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2005 .

[12]  Kenji Satake,et al.  Time and size of a giant earthquake in Cascadia inferred from Japanese tsunami records of January 1700 , 1996, Nature.

[13]  S Halchuk,et al.  Deaggregation of seismic hazard for selected Canadian cities , 2004 .

[14]  John Adams,et al.  Fourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: values for over 650 Canadian localities intended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada , 2003 .

[15]  Rüdiger Rackwitz,et al.  Optimization — the basis of code-making and reliability verification , 2000 .

[16]  C. Cornell,et al.  Disaggregation of seismic hazard , 1999 .

[17]  W. Silva,et al.  Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relationships for Subduction Zone Earthquakes , 1997 .

[18]  H. P. Hong,et al.  Reliability Of Bilinear SDOF Systems Subjected to Earthquake Loading , 2006 .

[19]  S. Harmsen,et al.  Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States , 1999 .

[20]  Emilio Rosenblueth,et al.  Two-point estimates in probabilities , 1981 .

[21]  Means,et al.  Building construction cost data , 1943 .

[22]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Ground-motion relations for eastern North America , 1995, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[23]  Robert Tremblay,et al.  Seismic force modification factors for the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada , 2003 .