Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Time Histories
Scaling Spectrum compatible
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Probabilistic approach
Probability of ground motion selected
Return period defines rare
Performance approach
Probability of damage states of structure
Structural fragility needed
Risk approach
Probability of consequence
Loss of life Dollars
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Deterministic vs Probabilistic
Deterministic
Consider of small number of scenarios (Mag, dist, number of standard deviation of ground motion) Choose the largest ground motion from cases considered
Probabilistic
Consider all possible scenarios (all mag, dist, and number of std dev) Compute the rate of each scenario Combine the rates of scenarios with ground motion above a threshold to determine probability of exceedance
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Deterministic Approach
0.85 QuickTime and a Photo - JPEG decompressor 0.43 are needed to see this picture. 0.25
0.11
0.08
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
What is Reasonable
The same number of standard deviation of ground motion may not be reasonable for all sources
Median may be reasonable for low activity sources, but higher value may be needed for high activity sources
Need to consider both the rate of the earthquake and the chance of the ground motion
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Components of PSHA
Source Characterization
Size, location, mechanism, and rates of earthquakes
Site Response
Amplification of ground motion at a site
Hazard Analysis
Hazard calculation Select representative scenarios
Earthquake scenario and ground motion
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Common Misunderstandings
Distance Measures
Different distance metrics for ground motion models often used interchangeably
Rupture distance JB distance Rx (new for NGA models) Hypocentral distance Epicentral distance
Common Misunderstandings
Standard ground motion models thought to give the larger component
Most ground motion models give the average horizontal component
Average is more robust for regression Scale factors have been available to compute the larger component
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Proper Use
Clear hand-off between ground motion and site response
Consistent definition of rock
Misuse
Replace site-specific analysis for any profile (not typical as contained in GM data base) Use ground motion with VS30 for shallow soil sites (CA models)
Need to select a deeper layer and conduct site response study Or use models with soil depth and VS30
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Zones
Maximum magnitude, usually applied to exponential model
Faults
Mean magnitude for full rupture, usually applied to characteristic type models Allows for earthquake larger than Mmax Called mean characteristic earthquake
Issue
Some analyses use exp model for faults or characteristic models for regions Not clear how to interpret Mmax
Improve practice
Define both Mmax and Mchar in hazard reports
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Terminology
Aleatory Variability (random)
Randomness in M, location, ground motion () Incorporated in hazard calculation directly Refined as knowledge improves
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Source characterization
Common to see some aleatory variability in logic tree (treated as epistemic uncertanity)
Rupture behavior (segmentation, clustering)
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Epistemic Uncertainty
Less data/knowledge implies greater epistemic uncertainty In practice, this is often not the case
Tend to consider only available (e.g. published) models More data/studies leads to more available models Greater epistemic uncertainty included in PSHA
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Standard Practice: If no data on time of last eqk, assume Poisson only Good Practice: Scale the Poisson rates to capture the range from the renewal model
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Epistemic Uncertainty
Good Practice
Consider alternative credible models
Use minimum uncertainty for regions with few available models
Check that observations are not inconsistent with each alternative model
Poor Practice
Models included because they were used in the past Trouble comes from applying models in ways not consistent with their original development
E.g. exponential model intended to fit observed rates of earthquakes, not to be scaled to fit paleo-seismic recurrence intervals
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Epistemic
Standard practice to use alternative available models (median and standard deviation) Do the available models cover the epistemic uncertainty
Issue with use of NGA models
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
No empirical basis for truncation at less than 3. Physical limits of material will truncate the distribution
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Example of GM Variability
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
GM Variability Example
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
2004 Parkfield
1 F F F
0.1
FF F F F FF F F F F F F F F F F F F FH F F F F 2 H F F H F F F F F F F F F F FH FF F F F F FF F F 2 F H F H H
Median (Vs=380) 16th Percentile - intraevent 84th Percentile intraevent
H HF F H F F
0.01
H 2 F
0.001 0.1
10
H F F H 2 FF F H H F F H F F H H H HF F H H 2 H H HH H 2 HH H HH H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 100
1000
Ergodic Assumption
Trade space for time
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Chen&Ts ai (2002)
Taiwan
0.73
0.62
0.37
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Hazard Example
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Some use of reduced standard deviations (reduced aleatory), but without the increased epistemic
Underestimates the mean hazard Bad practice
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Hazard Reports
Uniform Hazard Spectra
The UHS is an envelope of the spectra from a suite of earthquakes
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Correlation of Epsilons
T=1.5 T=0.3
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Correlation of Variability
Correlation decreases away from reference period Increase at short period results from nature of Sa
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
slope
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
The decision to envelope the scenarios to reduce the number of engineering analyses required should be made on the structural analysis side based on the structure, not on the hazard analysis side.
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Activity rate
Usually from observed seismicity
Smoothing Approaches
Uniform within a zone Zoneless, based on a smoothing distance
Key Issue
Smoothing for the Host zone (R<50 km) In most cases, too much smoothing is applied
Observation
M>3, R<50 km: 40 earthquakes M>3, R<17 km: 0 earthquakes
Simple Tests
If Poisson, what is the chance of >=40 eqk
P= < 0.0001 For R<50 km region, Rate is too low
Too much smoothing
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
If rejected with high confidence (e.g. 95% or 99%) then reduce the smoothing and repeat In general, US practice leads to too much smoothing.
Standard practice does not apply checks of the smoothing Beginning to see checks in some PSHA studies
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
1000
2000
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Changes to practice
Reduce the variability of the rock ground motion
Remove average variability for linear response
About 0.3 ln units
EERIDISTINGUISHEDLECTURESERIES2009
Time Histories
Scaled recordings include peak-to-trough variability
Summary
Large variation in the state of practice of seismic hazard analysis around the world
Poor to very good Significant misunderstandings of hazard basics remain
Testing of models for consistency with available data is beginning for source characterization Common mixing of aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty make it difficult to assess the actual epistemic part
For sources, avoid modeling aleatory variability as branches on logic tree Move toward removing ergodic assumption for ground motion Good practice currently removes ergodic for fault rupture