Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by MCGUIRE, R. K. Articles by SHEDLOCK, K. M. Search for Related Content

Statistical uncertainties in seismic hazard evaluations in the United States

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, BOX 25046, MAIL STOP 966
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER, DENVER, COLORADO 80225

Abstract

Efficient and accurate methods of estimating the sensitivity of seismic hazard calculations to statistical uncertainties in models and parameters are demonstrated. These models require knowledge of the earthquake magnitude and distance that contribute most to the probability of exceedence of a chosen acceleration level; the methods estimate sensitivities using point-source seismic-hazard approximations for which closed-form solutions are available. An additional result is that the use of Bayesian estimates for seismicity and ground motion parameters in the hazard analysis produces unbiased Bayesian estimates of the seismic ground motion hazard, due to the almost linear relationship between ground motion amplitudes at a given probability level, and parameter uncertainties. Application of these methods to the San Francisco, California, Bay area indicates a coefficient of variation (cov) of the 500-yr acceleration of about 0.4 at sites close to major faults, and a cov of about 0.2 at sites 50 km to the east of the major east bay faults. These cov's result from statistical uncertainty in the depth of energy release, the activity rate and Richter b value for each fault, and the mean acceleration-attenuation relationship. A similar analysis in the central Mississippi Valley area indicates a cov in 500-yr acceleration of 0.4 near the major faults, with a value of about 0.3 at distances greater than 50 km. The sources of statistical uncertainty in this region are the depth of energy release as well as its location, the activity rate and Richter b value for each fault, and the mean acceleration-attenuation function.

Footnotes

^* Present address: Ertec Rocky Mountain Inc., 1746 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Barani, D. Spallarossa, and P. Bazzurro Disaggregation of Probabilistic Ground-Motion Hazard in Italy Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2009; 99(5): 2638 - 2661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Pagani and A. Marcellini Seismic-Hazard Disaggregation: A Fully Probabilistic Methodology Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2007; 97(5): 1688 - 1701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H.-H. Tsang and A. M. Chandler Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Assessment: Direct Amplitude-Based Approach Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 2006; 96(2): 392 - 403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Cao, M. D. Petersen, and A. D. Frankel Model Uncertainties of the 2002 Update of California Seismic Hazard Maps Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2005; 95(6): 2040 - 2057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Seismic Hazard Maps for Cuba and Surrounding Areas Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2003; 93(6): 2563 - 2590.

				E. H. Field and the SCEC Phase III Working Group Accounting for Site Effects in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses of Southern California: Overview of the SCEC Phase III Report Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2000; 90(6B): S1 - S31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. H. Field and M. D. Petersen A Test of Various Site-Effect Parameterizations in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses of Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2000; 90(6B): S222 - S244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Bazzurro and C. Allin Cornell Disaggregation of seismic hazard Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1999; 89(2): 501 - 520. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. H. Cramer, M. D. Petersen, and M. S. Reichle A Monte Carlo approach in estimating uncertainty for a seismic hazard assessment of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties, California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1996; 86(6): 1681 - 1691. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. K. McGuire Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: Closing the loop Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1995; 85(5): 1275 - 1284. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. RABINOWITZ and D. M. STEINBERG Seismic hazard sensitivity analysis: A multi-parameter approach Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1991; 81(3): 796 - 817. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. RABINOWITZ and T. VAN ECK A note on the fuzzy set theory concept, with an application to seismic hazard analysis Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1988; 78(4): 1603 - 1610. [PDF]

				B. BENDER Seismic hazard estimation using a finite-fault rupture model Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1984; 74(5): 1899 - 1923. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I-C. LIN and C. C. TUNG A preliminary investigation of tsunami hazard Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1982; 72(6A): 2323 - 2337. [Abstract] [PDF]