Seismic Hazard Analysis — Quo vadis?

Abstract The paper is dedicated to the review of methods of seismic hazard analysis currently in use, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. The review is performed from the perspective of a user of the results of seismic hazard analysis for different applications such as the design of critical and general (non-critical) civil infrastructures, technical and financial risk analysis. A set of criteria is developed for and applied to an objective assessment of the capabilities of different analysis methods. It is demonstrated that traditional probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) methods have significant deficiencies, thus limiting their practical applications. These deficiencies have their roots in the use of inadequate probabilistic models and insufficient understanding of modern concepts of risk analysis, as have been revealed in some recent large scale studies. These deficiencies result in the lack of ability of a correct treatment of dependencies between physical parameters and finally, in an incorrect treatment of uncertainties. As a consequence, results of PSHA studies have been found to be unrealistic in comparison with empirical information from the real world. The attempt to compensate these problems by a systematic use of expert elicitation has, so far, not resulted in any improvement of the situation. It is also shown that scenario-earthquakes developed by disaggregation from the results of a traditional PSHA may not be conservative with respect to energy conservation and should not be used for the design of critical infrastructures without validation. Because the assessment of technical as well as of financial risks associated with potential damages of earthquakes need a risk analysis, current method is based on a probabilistic approach with its unsolved deficiencies. Traditional deterministic or scenario-based seismic hazard analysis methods provide a reliable and in general robust design basis for applications such as the design of critical infrastructures, especially with systematic sensitivity analyses based on validated phenomenological models. Deterministic seismic hazard analysis incorporates uncertainties in the safety factors. These factors are derived from experience as well as from expert judgment. Deterministic methods associated with high safety factors may lead to too conservative results, especially if applied for generally short-lived civil structures. Scenarios used in deterministic seismic hazard analysis have a clear physical basis. They are related to seismic sources discovered by geological, geomorphologic, geodetic and seismological investigations or derived from historical references. Scenario-based methods can be expanded for risk analysis applications with an extended data analysis providing the frequency of seismic events. Such an extension provides a better informed risk model that is suitable for risk-informed decision making.

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

[2]  Jens-Uwe Klügel,et al.  Comment on “Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson , 2007 .

[3]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  Earthquake probability in engineering — Part 1: The use and misuse of expert opinion. The Third Richard H. Jahns Distinguished Lecture in Engineering Geology , 1993 .

[4]  Carl Allin Cornell,et al.  Probabilistic Analysis of Damage to Structures under Seismic Loads , 1971 .

[5]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Empirical Prediction Equations for Peak Ground Velocity Derived from Strong-Motion Records from Europe and the Middle East , 2007 .

[6]  Robert J. Hansen,et al.  Seismic design for nuclear power plants , 1970 .

[7]  David M. Boore,et al.  Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake , 1981 .

[8]  Kenneth W. Campbell,et al.  Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration , 1981 .

[9]  G. Woo The Mathematics of Natural Catastrophes , 1999 .

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

[11]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  Problems with logic trees in earthquake hazard evaluation , 1995 .

[12]  Giuliano F. Panza,et al.  Multi-scale seismicity model for seismic risk , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[13]  Vitelmo V. Bertero,et al.  Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology To Performance-Based Engineering , 2020 .

[14]  M. Fisz Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und mathematische Statistik , 1962 .

[15]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes , 1997 .

[16]  Zhenming Wang,et al.  Comment on “Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates?” by Julian J. Bommer and Norman A. Abrahamson , 2007 .

[17]  D. Applebaum Lévy Processes—From Probability to Finance and Quantum Groups , 2004 .

[18]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Hazard-consistent earthquake scenarios , 2000 .

[19]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  Deterministic versus probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for critical structures , 1995 .

[20]  Terje Aven,et al.  Foundations of risk analysis : a knowledge and decision-oriented perspective , 2003 .

[21]  Robin K. McGuire,et al.  FORTRAN computer program for seismic risk analysis , 1976 .

[22]  Franco Vaccari,et al.  Seismogenic potential and earthquake hazard assessment in the Tell Atlas of Algeria , 2000 .

[23]  Kevin R. Collins A Reliability-Based Dual Level Seismic Design Procedure for Building Structures , 1995 .

[24]  Y. Fukushima,et al.  Scaling relations for strong ground motion prediction models with M2 terms , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[25]  Silvia Dimova,et al.  Corrigendum to “An earthquake scenario for the microzonation of Sofia and the vulnerability of structures designed by use of the Eurocodes”: [Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 27 (2007) 1028–1041] , 2007 .

[26]  A. Arias A measure of earthquake intensity , 1970 .

[27]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work , 1997 .

[28]  Robin K. McGuire,et al.  New seismic design spectra for nuclear power plants , 2001 .

[29]  Edward H. Field,et al.  Accounting for Site Effects in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses of Southern California: Overview of the SCEC Phase III Report , 2000 .

[30]  Jens-Uwe Klügel,et al.  Error inflation in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis , 2007 .

[31]  John A. Lepore Book reviewDynamic waves in civil engineering : D. A. Howells, I. P. Haigh and G. Taylor (Eds.). 575 pages, diagrams, 6 x 9 in. New York, John Wiley, 1971. Price $28.50 (approx. £10·95). , 1973 .

[32]  David M. Boore,et al.  Estimated Ground Motion From the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake at the Site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard Bridge Collapse, West Los Angeles, California , 2003 .

[33]  Erik H. Vanmarcke,et al.  Strong-motion duration and RMS amplitude of earthquake records , 1980 .

[34]  Lalliana Mualchin Development of the Caltrans deterministic fault and earthquake hazard map of California , 1996 .

[35]  Renner B. Hofmann,et al.  Individual faults can't produce a Gutenberg-Richter earthquake recurrence , 1996 .

[36]  James N. Brune,et al.  Precarious Rocks along the Mojave Section of the San Andreas Fault, California: Constraints on Ground Motion from Great Earthquakes , 1999 .

[37]  P. Bak,et al.  Unified scaling law for earthquakes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Timothy J. Sullivan,et al.  Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Ground Motions and Fault Displacement at Yucca Mountain, Nevada , 2001 .

[39]  K. Shimazaki,et al.  Earthquake frequency distribution and the mechanics of faulting , 1983 .

[40]  L. Reiter Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights , 1991 .

[41]  Kuo-Wan Lin,et al.  Quantifying CISN shakemap uncertainty , 2005 .

[42]  G. Panza,et al.  FORMALISED REPRESENTATION OF ISOSEIMAL UNCERTAINTY FOR ITALIAN EARTHQUAKES , 2002 .

[43]  F. Vaccari,et al.  Estimates of 1 Hz maximum acceleration in Bulgaria for seismic risk reduction purposes , 1996 .

[44]  F. Bendimerad,et al.  Loss estimation: a powerful tool for risk assessment and mitigation , 2001 .

[45]  Mang Zhen-ming Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis:Problem and Correction , 2006 .

[46]  Corwin L. Atwood,et al.  Constrained noninformative priors in risk assessment , 1996 .

[47]  Ram B. Kulkarni,et al.  A semi-Markov model for characterizing recurrence of great earthquakes , 1980 .

[48]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  How to obtain earthquake ground motions for engineering design , 2002 .

[49]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Evaluating hazard results for Switzerland and how not to do it: A discussion of “Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants” by J-U Klügel , 2005 .

[50]  G. Woo Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area source modeling , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[51]  Andrzej Kijko,et al.  Parametric-historic Procedure for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Part I: Estimation of Maximum Regional Magnitude mmax , 1998 .

[52]  George W. Housner,et al.  The Continuing Challenge: Report on the Performance of State Bridges in the Northridge Earthquake , 1995 .

[53]  J.-U. Klügel,et al.  Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants , 2005 .

[54]  K. Campbell PREDICTION OF STRONG GROUND MOTION USING THE HYBRID EMPIRICAL METHOD AND ITS USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROUND-MOTION (ATTENUATION) RELATIONS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA , 2003 .

[55]  F. Vaccari,et al.  A deterministic seismic hazard map of India and adjacent areas. , 2003 .

[56]  M. Fardis,et al.  Designer's guide to EN 1998-1 and en 1998-5 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance; general rules, seismic actions, design rules for buildings, foundations and retaining structures/ M.Fardis[et al.] , 2005 .

[57]  Yi-Kwei Wen Probabilistic Aspects of Earthquake Engineering , 2004 .

[58]  Steven G. Wesnousky,et al.  Earthquake size as a function of fault slip rate , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[59]  John G. Anderson Benefits of scenario ground motion maps , 1997 .

[60]  C. Scholz The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting , 1990 .

[61]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Why Do Modern Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Analyses Often Lead to Increased Hazard Estimates? , 2006 .

[62]  E. L. Krinitzsky,et al.  Fundamentals of earthquake-resistant construction , 1992 .

[63]  Zhenming Wang,et al.  Comment on J.U. Klügel's ¿Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants¿, in Engineering Geology, vol. 78, pp. 285¿307 , 2005 .

[64]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Magnitude-dependent variance of peak ground acceleration , 1995, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[65]  Christopher H. Scholz,et al.  A further note on earthquake size distributions , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[66]  Steven G. Wesnousky,et al.  The Gutenberg-Richter or characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it? , 1994 .

[67]  Roger N. Anderson,et al.  Magnetic and Petrologic Variations along the Galapagos Spreading Center and Their Relation to the Galapagos Melting Anomaly , 1975 .

[68]  J. Klügel,et al.  Reply to the comment on J.U. Klügel's: “Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants,” Eng. Geol. Vol. 78, pp. 285–307, by Musson et al. , 2005 .

[69]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[70]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  THE HAZARD IN USING PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS , 1993 .

[71]  J.-U. Klügel,et al.  Reply to the comment on J.U. Klügel's: Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants, in Engineering Geology, Vol. 78, pp. 285–307, by Wang, by J.U, Klügel , 2005 .

[72]  Ellis L. Krinitzsky,et al.  Earthquake probability in engineering—Part 2: Earthquake recurrence and limitations of Gutenberg-Richter b-values for the engineering of critical structures: The third Richard H. Jahns distinguished lecture in engineering geology , 1993 .

[73]  Giuliano F. Panza,et al.  Beno Gutenberg contribution to seismic hazard assessment and recent progress in the European-Mediterranean region , 2001 .

[74]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  Uncertainty modeling: Examples and issues , 1997 .

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

[76]  James N. Brune,et al.  Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis without the Ergodic Assumption , 1999 .

[77]  T. Modis,et al.  Experts in uncertainty , 1993 .

[78]  Daryl J. Daley,et al.  An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes , 2013 .

[79]  David D. Jackson,et al.  Seismic hazards in southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 , 1996 .

[80]  D. Vere-Jones,et al.  Elementary theory and methods , 2003 .

[81]  Dimova Silvia,et al.  An earthquake scenario for the microzonation of Sofia and the vulnerability of structures designed by use of the Eurocodes , 2007 .

[82]  O. Heinisch Fisz, M.: Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung und mathematische Statistik. 3. Aufl. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1965. × + 551 S., Kld. Preis M 36,‐ , 1968 .

[83]  J.-U. Klügel,et al.  A Scenario-Based Procedure for Seismic Risk Analysis , 2006 .

[84]  Robert J. Budnitz,et al.  Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts , 1997 .

[85]  A. Khintchine Asymptotische Gesetze der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung , 1933 .

[86]  J. B. Berrill,et al.  Maximum entropy and the magnitude distribution , 1980 .