Seismic Hazard Analysis

1. Introduction
The main purpose of the Seismic Hazard Analysis (SHA) is to quantify the potential damages and
losses due to future earthquakes and their probabilities of occurrence. It is very important for

public safety and mitigation of hazards due to destructions of infrastructures such as

water, road and highway, and electric power systems, etc. Insurance companies routinely
employ estimates of seismic risk in their operations, to determine appropriate insurance
rates, to monitor over-accumulation of policies in a small area, and to purchase
reinsurance. SHA can also be used to prepare macro or micro zoning maps which are
useful for the improvement of earthquake-resistant building design and construction, land
use planning, emergency plans and estimation of possible economical losses.
Minimization of loss of life, property damage and social and economic disruption requires a
reliable seismic hazard assessment. It can be analyzed with deterministic and probabilistic
methods.

2. Deterministic seismic hazard analysis

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) originated in nuclear power industry
applications. In this approach, one or more critical earthquake scenario(s) are developed.
The scenario consists of the postulated occurrence of an earthquake of a specified size
occurring at a specified location. The site ground motions are estimated deterministically,
given the magnitude, source-to-site distance, and site characteristic. A typical DSHA can
be described as a four-step process (Reiter, 1990):
1) Identification and characterization of all seismic sources capable of producing
significant ground motion at the site; 2) selection of source-to-site distance parameter for
each source zone; 3) Use of appropriate attenuation equation of ground motion to select
the controlling earthquake (i.e., the earthquake that is expected to produce the strongest
level of shaking); and 4) definition of hazard in terms of the ground motions produced at
the site by the controlling earthquake.

3. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Probabilistic Seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) provides a framework in which
uncertainties in the size of earthquakes, location and rate of recurrence of earthquakes
and in the variation of ground motion can be identified, quantified and combined in a
rational manner. PSHA can be describes as a procedure of five steps: 1) identification of
earthquake sources and characterization of the distribution of source-to-site distances

associated with potential earthquakes; 2) specification of seismicity or temporal

distribution of earthquake recurrence; 3) determination of the ground motion produced at
the site by earthquakes of any possible size at any point in each source zone; and 5)
calculation of probability that the ground motion parameter will be exceeded during a
particular time period.

3.1. Classical Approach

At its most basic level, PSHA is composed of four steps.
Identification of earthquake sources capable of producing damaging ground
motions and characterization of the distribution of source-to-site distances
associated with potential earthquakes.
Characterize the distribution of earthquake magnitudes at which earthquakes of
various magnitudes are expected to occur.
Predict the resulting distribution of ground motion intensity as a function of
earthquake magnitude, distance, etc.
Determine the maximum magnitude earthquake for seismic sources.
Combine uncertainties in earthquake size, location and ground motion intensity,
using a calculation known as the total probability theorem.
These steps will be explained in more detail below.
3.1.1. Earthquake sources
Seismic sources are modeled as
Point sources
When epicenter of past earthquakes are clustered in a relatively small area and far
away from the site (e.g. volcanoes, distant short faults etc.) they can be considered
as point sources.
Area sources
Area sources are used to model for regions where past seismic activity may not correlate
with any of the active geological structure or the available data are not adequate to
recognize a particular fault system.

Line (fault) sources

Line sources are used to model well defined faults. It is assumed that the
earthquakes occur with equal probability at anywhere along the length of line
source.
A) Distribution of source-to site distances
To predict ground shaking at a site, it is also necessary to model the distribution of
distances from earthquakes to the site of interest. For a given earthquake source, it is
generally assumed that earthquakes will occur with equal probability at any location on
the fault. Given that locations are uniformly distributed, it is generally simple to identify
the distribution of source-to-site distances using only the geometry of the source. The
analysts choice of distance definition will depend upon the required input to the ground
motion prediction model (e.g. distance to the epicenter or hypocenter, distance to the
closest point on the rupture surface, or distance to the closest point on the surface
projection of the rupture) (Baker, 2008).
1) Point source
If earthquake source is considered as a point source the pdf of source to site distance R, is
(1.1)
2) Line source
Earthquake sources are also sometimes quantified as line sources. This is particularly
appropriate for modeling well-defined faults.
R= distance from the site to the epicenter of the source.
L= total length of the fault
x= distance from the site to the center of the fault.
Again assume that earthquake epicenters are equally likely at all locations.

Figure 1: Line Source

The cumulative distribution function (cdf) of R is

FR (r )

P (R

length

r)

of fault with

total lenght

in distance

of the fault

(1.2)
0

if r
r

if x

L/2

L
1

if

L/2

The Probability density function (pdf) can be obtained from the derivative of the cdf
r
f R (r)

(L/2)

r
0

3) Area source

if x
2

L/2

(1.3)

L
otherwise

Figure 2: Area source

The probability of an epicenter of an earthquake located at a distance of less than r:

FR ( r )

P (R

area

r)

area

of circle
of circle

with

radius

with

radius

r
Ra

(1.4)
0
r

if r

if 0

if

Ra

( Ra )

Ra

The pdf for the distance:

2r
f R (r)

( Ra )
0

if

Ra

(1.5)
otherwise

In our research, first seismic sources are divided into overlapping cells of appropriate
size, then each of these cells is considered as a point source.

3.1.2. The distribution of earthquake magnitudes

Three basic distributions for earthquake magnitudes used in this study are given as follows:

1. Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law

Gutenberg and Richter (1944) noted that the distribution of earthquake magnitudes in a region
generally follows a particular distribution, given as follows
log

(2.1)

bm

where

m: Richter magnitude;
m: the rate of earthquakes with magnitudes greater than m;
a: indicates the overall rate of earthquakes in a region;
b: indicates the relative ratio of small and large magnitudes.
Cumulative distribution function for the magnitudes of earthquakes that are larger than
some minimum magnitude mmin (earthquakes smaller than m can be ignored due to their
lack of engineering importance):
Rate of earthquake
FM ( m )

s with

Rate of earthquake
P (M

m M

m min

s with

m min

m
M

m min )

(2.2)
m

m min
m min

1 - 10

- b(m - m min )

m min

Probability density function (pdf) for M:

f M (m )

b ln( 10 )10

-b(m - m min )
,

m min

(2.3)

There is generally some limit on the upper bound of earthquake magnitudes in a region,
due to the finite size of the source faults. If a maximum earthquake magnitude, mmax, that
a given source can produce is determined, Equations 2.1 and 2.2 become

FM ( m )

1 - 10
1 - 10

-b(m - m min )

- b(m max

- m min )

m min

m max

(2.4)

and
f M (m )

1 - 10

2.

-b(m - m min )

bln(10)10

- b(m max

- m min )

m min

m max .

(2.5)

Bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law

Equation (2.4) is known as Bounded Gutenberg-Richter recurrence law.

3.

Characteristic Earthquake model

Schwarz and Coppersmith (1984) suggested that some individual faults and fault
segments have a tendency to repeatedly generate characteristic earthquakes.
Characteristic Earthquake is the event where magnitude is approximately equal to the
maximum magnitude that a particular fault can generate and it scatters in only a fairly
narrow range (i.e., 0.5 magnitude units).
Young and Coppersmith (1985) derived a density function for magnitudes corresponding
to the characteristic magnitude model:
k e

(m

m0)

m0

m1

0 .5

(2.6)

f M (m )
k e

(m 1

3/2

m0)

m1

0 .5

m1

where
b ln 10

m0 = minimum earthquake magnitude (usually 4.0)

m1 = characteristic earthquake magnitude
k = normalizing constant =

(m 1

0 .5

m0)

(m 1

3/2

m0)

0 .5

3.1.3. The distribution of ground motion intensity

Ground motion prediction models (attenuation models, attenuation relationships):
These models predict the probability distribution of ground motion intensity Y, as a
function of many predictor variables such as the earthquakes magnitude, distance,

faulting mechanism, the near-surface site conditions, the potential presence of directivity
effects, etc. Ground motion prediction models are generally developed using statistical
regression on observations from large libraries of observed ground motion intensities.
To describe this probability distribution, ground motion prediction models take the
following general form:
ln Y

ln Y ( M , R , )

InY

(M , R , )

where
lnY: natural log of the ground motion intensity measure of interest; is modeled as
a random variable, and has been seen to be well-represented by a normal
distribution.
: predicted mean
( M , R , ) : standard deviation
ln Y
(these terms are both functions of the earthquakes magnitude (M), distance (R) and
other parameters ().
ln Y ( M , R , )

is a standard normal random variable that represents the observed variability

in lnY.

Most widely used measures for ground motion intensity are

PGA peak ground acceleration

(PHA peak horizontal ground acceleration)

(PVA peak vertical ground acceleration)
PGV peak ground velocity
(PVV peak vertical ground velocity)
(PHV peak horizontal velocity)
SA - 5% damped elastic spectral acceleration at various frequencies at a given site
(SHA horizontal spectral acceleration)
(SVA vertical spectral acceleration).
Prediction models for

ln Y ( M , R , )

and

ln Y

(M , R , )

Prediction models for ln Y ( M , R , ) and ln Y ( M , R , ) became complex, consisting of

many terms and tables containing many coefficients. The simplest one is given by
Cornell et al. (1979).
A) CORNELL et al. (1979)
ln PGA

where

0 ,152

0 , 859 M

1 , 803 ln( R

25 )

(3.1)

(constant for all M and R)

0 , 57

ln PGA

Here, Y=PGA (in g) and

ln PGA

~ Normal

(ln PGA ,

ln PGA

B) Modern prediction models (attenuation relationships)

Some of the attenuation relationships most widely used in seismic hazard studies are
summarized as follows:
Attenuation relationships derived for North America:
1) ABRAHAMSON & SILVA (1997)
The functional form adopted by Abrahamson and Silva for spectral ordinates at rock sites
is the following:
ln y

f 1 ( M , r rup )

Ff

(M )

HW f 4 ( M , r rup )

where,
y is the median spectral acceleration in g (5% damping), or peak ground
acceleration (PGA), in g's;
M is moment magnitude;
r
is the closest distance to the rupture plane in km;
F is the fault type (1 for reverse, 0.5 for reverse/oblique, and 0 otherwise);
HW is a dummy variable for sites located on the hanging wall (1 for sites over the
hanging wall, 0 otherwise).
ru p

The function

f 1 ( M , r rup )

which is the basic functional form of the attenuation for strike-

slip events is given by

for M c1
f 1 ( M , r rup )

a1

a 2 (M

c1 )

a 12 ( 8 . 5

M)

a3

a 13 ( M

c 1 ) ln R

for M c1

(3.2)

f 1 ( M , r rup )

a1

a 4 (M

c1 )

a 12 ( 8 . 5

M)

a3

a 13 ( M

c 1 ) ln R

where
R

r rup

c4

The function f 3 ( M ) which allows magnitude and period dependence of the style of
faulting factor is described below:

a5
f 3 (M )

for
(a 6

a5

a5)

c1

5.8

for

5.8

for

c1

f 4 ( M , r rup )

(3.3)

c1

5 .8

a6

The function

which takes into account the hanging wall effect is assumed to

consist of the product of the following two functions, namely:

f 4 ( M , r rup )

f HW ( M ) f HW ( r rup )

where
0
f HW ( M )

5 .5

for

5.5

for

5.5

for

(3.4)

6 .5

6 .5

r rup

and
0

a9

f HW ( r rup )

for
r rup

4
for

r rup

r rup

18

a9

for

a9 1

r rup

(3.5)

18
for

18

r rup

r rup

25

for

24

The standard error terms are given by the following equations:

b5
total

(M )

b5

b 6 (M

b5

2b 6

5)

for

for

for

5
M
M

(3.6)

Values of the coefficients a1, ..., a6, a9, ..., a13, c1, c4, c5, c6 and n are listed in Table 1 for
periods ranging from T = 0.01 sec (representing zpa) to T = 5 sec. Values of the
coefficients b5 and b6 are listed in Table -2 for the same periods.

Table 1. Coefficients for the Median Spectral Ordinates Using Equations Derived by Abrahamson and Silva (1997)
Period

c4

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

a9

a10

a11

a12

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.075
0.09
0.1
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.2
0.24
0.3
0.36
0.4
0.46
0.5
0.6
0.75
0.85
1
1.5
2
3
4
5

5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.58
5.54
5.50
5.39
5.27
5.19
5.10
4.97
4.80
4.62
4.52
4.38
4.30
4.12
3.90
3.81
3.70
3.55
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50

1.640
1.640
1.690
1.780
1.870
1.940
2.037
2.100
2.160
2.272
2.407
2.430
2.406
2.293
2.114
1.955
1.860
1.717
1.615
1.428
1.160
1.020
0.828
0.260
-0.150
-0.690
-1.130
-1.460

0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512
0.512

-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1450
-1.1350
-1.1150
-1.0790
-1.0350
-1.0052
-0.9880
-0.9652
-0.9515
-0.9218
-0.8852
-0.8648
-0.8383
-0.7721
-0.7250
-0.7250
-0.7250
-0.7250

-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144
-0.144

0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.610
0.592
0.581
0.557
0.528
0.512
0.490
0.438
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400

0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.232
0.198
0.170
0.154
0.132
0.119
0.091
0.057
0.038
0.013
-0.049
-0.094
-0.156
-0.200
-0.200

0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.331
0.309
0.281
0.210
0.160
0.089
0.039
0.000

-0.417
-0.417
-0.470
-0.555
-0.620
-0.665
-0.628
-0.609
-0.598
-0.591
-0.577
-0.522
-0.445
-0.350
-0.219
-0.123
-0.065
0.020
0.085
0.194
0.320
0.370
0.423
0.600
0.610
0.630
0.640
0.664

-0.230
-0.230
-0.230
-0.251
-0.267
-0.280
-0.280
-0.280
-0.280
-0.280
-0.280
-0.265
-0.245
-0.223
-0.195
-0.173
-0.160
-0.136
-0.121
-0.089
-0.050
-0.028
0.000
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040

0.0000
0.0000
0.0143
0.0245
0.0280
0.0300
0.0300
0.0300
0.0280
0.0180
0.0050
-0.0040
-0.0138
-0.0238
-0.0360
-0.0460
-0.0518
-0.0594
-0.0635
-0.0740
-0.0862
-0.0927
-0.1020
-0.1200
-0.1400
-0.1726
-0.1956
-0.2150

The coefficients

a13

= 0.17,

c1

= 6.4,

c5

= 0.03, and

= 2 for all periods.

Table 2. Coefficients for Standard Error Terms Using Equations Derived by Abrahamson and Silva
(1997)
Period sec

b5

b6

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.075
0.09
0.1
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.2
0.24
0.3
0.36
0.4
0.46
0.5
0.6
0.75
0.85
1
1.5
2
3
4
5

0.70
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.89

0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.132
0.130
0.127
0.123
0.121
0.118
0.110
0.105
0.097
0.092
0.087

2) BOORE, JOYNER AND FUMAL (1997)

The following equation was derived by Boore et al. for spectral ordinates at rock sites:

ln y

b1

b 2 (M

6)

b 3 (M

6)

b 5 ln( r )

b V ln

VS

(3.7)

VA

where
r

2
jb

b 1 SS
b1

for strike

- slip earthquake

b 1RV

for reverse

b 1ALL

if mechanism

- slip earthquake

is not specified

12

y is spectral acceleration (5% damping) in gs;

M is moment magnitude;
VS is the average shear wave velocity (in m/sec) in the upper 30 m of the profile
under consideration;
VA is reference shear wave velocity (in m/sec);
rjb is the closest horizontal distance (in km) from the site to the surface projection of
the source.
Values of the coefficients b1SS, b1RV, b1ALL, b2, b3, b5, bV, VA, and h (in km) are listed in
Table 3. Also listed in Table 4 are the values of the standard error terms.

13

Table 3. Coefficients Derived by Boore, Fumal and Joyner (1997)

Period

b1 ss

b1R V

b1 A LL

b2

b3

b5

bV

0
0.10
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00

-0.313
1.006
1.072
1.109
1.128
1.135
1.128
1.112
1.090
1.063
1.032
0.999
0.925
0.847
0.764
0.681
0.598
0.518
0.439
0.361
0.286
0.212
0.140
0.073
0.005
-0.058
-0.122
-0.268
-0.401
-0.523
-0.634
-0.737
-0.829
-0.915
-0.993
-1.066
-1.133
-1.249
-1.345
-1.428
-1.495
-1.552
-1.598
-1.634
-1.663
-1.685
-1.699

-0.117
1.087
1.164
1.215
1.246
1.261
1.264
1.257
1.242
1.222
1.198
1.170
1.104
1.033
0.958
0.881
0.803
0.725
0.648
0.570
0.495
0.423
0.352
0.282
0.217
0.151
0.087
-0.063
-0.203
-0.331
-0.452
-0.562
-0.666
-0.761
-0.848
-0.932
-1.009
-1.145
-1.265
-1.370
-1.460
-1.538
-1.608
-1.668
-1.718
-1.763
-1.801

-0.242
1.059
1.130
1.174
1.200
1.208
1.204
1.192
1.173
1.151
1.122
1.089
1.019
0.941
0.861
0.780
0.700
0.619
0.540
0.462
0.385
0.311
0.239
0.169
0.102
0.036
-0.025
-0.176
-0.314
-0.440
-0.555
-0.661
-0.760
-0.851
-0.933
-1.010
-1.080
-1.208
-1.315
-1.407
-1.483
-1.550
-1.605
-1.652
-1.689
-1.720
-1.743

0.527
0.753
0.732
0.721
0.711
0.707
0.702
0.702
0.702
0.705
0.709
0.711
0.721
0.732
0.744
0.758
0.769
0.783
0.794
0.806
0.820
0.831
0.840
0.852
0.863
0.873
0.884
0.907
0.928
0.946
0.962
0.979
0.992
1.006
1.018
1.027
1.036
1.052
1.064
1.073
1.080
1.085
1.087
1.089
1.087
1.087
1.085

0.000
-0.226
-0.230
-0.233
-0.233
-0.230
-0.228
-0.226
-0.221
-0.216
-0.212
-0.207
-0.198
-0.189
-0.180
-0.168
-0.161
-0.152
-0.143
-0.136
-0.127
-0.120
-0.113
-0.108
-0.101
-0.097
-0.090
-0.078
-0.069
-0.060
-0.053
-0.046
-0.041
-0.037
-0.035
-0.032
-0.032
-0.030
-0.032
-0.035
-0.039
-0.044
-0.051
-0.058
-0.067
-0.074
-0.085

-0.778
-0.934
-0.937
-0.939
-0.939
-0.938
-0.937
-0.935
-0.933
-0.930
-0.927
-0.924
-0.918
-0.912
-0.906
-0.899
-0.893
-0.888
-0.882
-0.877
-0.872
-0.867
-0.862
-0.858
-0.854
-0.850
-0.846
-0.837
-0.830
-0.823
-0.818
-0,813
-0.809
-0.805
-0.802
-0.800
-0.798
-0.795
-0.794
-0.793
-0.794
-0.796
-0.798
-0.801
-0.804
-0.808
-0.812

-0.371
-0.212
-0.211
-0.215
-0.221
-0.228
-0.238
-0.248
-0.258
-0.270
-0.281
-0.292
-0.315
-0.338
-0.360
-0.381
-0.401
-0.420
-0.438
-0.456
-0.472
-0.487
-0.502
-0.516
-0.529
-0.541
-0.553
-0.579
-0.602
-0.622
-0.639
-0.653
-0.666
-0.676
-0.685
-0.692
-0.698
-0.706
-0.710
-0.711
-0.709
-0.704
-0.697
-0.689
-0.679
-0.667
-0.655

1396
1112
1291
1452
1596
1718
1820
1910
1977
2037
2080
2118
2158
2178
2173
2158
2133
2104
2070
2032
1995
1954
1919
1884
1849
1816
1782
1710
1644
1592
1545
1507
1476
1452
1432
1416
1406
1396
1400
1416
1442
1479
1524
1581
1644
1714
1795

SE

5.57
6.27
6.65
6.91
7.08
7.18
7.23
7.24
7.21
7.16
7.10
7.02
6.83
6.62
6.39
6.17
5.94
5.72
5.50
5.30
5.10
4.91
4.74
4.57
4.41
4.26
4.13
3.82
3.57
3.36
3.20
3.07
2.98
2.92
2.89
2.88
2.90
2.99
3.14
3.36
3.62
3.92
4.26
4.62
5.01
5.42
5.85

0.520
0.479
0.481
0.485
0.486
0.489
0.492
0.495
0.497
0.499
0.501
0.502
0.508
0.511
0.514
0.518
0.522
0.525
0.530
0.532
0.536
0.538
0.542
0.545
0.549
0.551
0.556
0.562
0.569
0.575
0.582
0.587
0.593
0.598
0.604
0.609
0.613
0.622
0.629
0.637
0.643
0.649
0.654
0.660
0.664
0.669
0.672

14

Table 4. Coefficients for Standard Error Terms Using Equations Derived by Abrahamson and Silva
(1997)
Period sec

b5

b6

0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.075
0.09
0.1
0.12
0.15
0.17
0.2
0.24
0.3
0.36
0.4
0.46
0.5
0.6
0.75
0.85
1
1.5
2
3
4
5

0.70
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.79
0.79
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.89

0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.135
0.132
0.130
0.127
0.123
0.121
0.118
0.110
0.105
0.097
0.092
0.087

3) SADIGH, CHANG, EGAN, MAKDISI, AND YOUNGS (1997)

The following equation was derived by Sadigh et al for spectral ordinates at rock sites:
ln y

C1

C 2M

C 3 (8 .5

M)

2 .5

C 4 ln r rup

exp( C 5

C 6M )

C 7 ln( r rup

2)

(3.8)

where
y is the median spectral acceleration in g (5% damping), or peak ground acceleration
(pga), in g's;
M is moment magnitude;
rrup is the closest distance to the rupture plane in km, and
C . . .C
are coefficients.
1

The values of the standard error terms are listed in Table 5. The values of the coefficients
C . . .C
are provided in Table 6.
1

15

Table 5. Coefficients for Standard Error Terms Using Equations Derived by Sadigh et al (1997)
Standard Error
Term

Period sec
Zpa
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.75
1.00

1 .3 9

0 .1 4 M

1 .4 0

0 .1 4 M

1 .4 1

0 .1 4 M

1 .4 3

0 .1 4 M

1 .4 5

0 .1 4 M

1 .4 8

0 .1 4 M

1 .5 0

0 .1 4 M

1 .5 2

0 .1 4 M

1 .5 3

0 .1 4 M

Minimum Value for

M

7 .2 1

0.38
0.39
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.47
0.49
0.51
0.52

Table 6. Coefficients for the Median Spectral Ordinates Using Equations Derived by Sadigh et al
(1997)
Period

C1

C2

Zpa
0.03
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
3
4

-0.624
-0.624
0.110
0.275
0.153
-0.057
-0.298
-0.588
-1.208
-1.705
-2.407
-2.945
-3.700
-4.230

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0.000
0.000
0.006
0.006
-0.004
-0.017
-0.028
-0.040
-0.050
-0.055
-0.065
-0.070
-0.080
-0.100

Zpa
0.03
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
3
4

-1.237
-1.237
-0.540
-0.375
-0.497
-0.707
-0.948
-1.238
-1.858
-2.355
-3.057
-3.595
-4.350
-4.880

1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1

0.000
0.000
0.006
0.006
-0.004
-0.017
-0.028
-0.040
-0.050
-0.055
-0.065
-0.070
-0.080
-0.100

C5

C6

C7

1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649

0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250

0.000
0.000
-0.082
-0.041
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451
-0.48451

0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524
0.524

0.000
0.000
-0.082
-0.041
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

6 .5

-2.100
-2.100
-2.128
-2.148
-2.080
-2.028
-1.990
-1.945
-1.865
-1.800
-1.725
-1.670
-1.610
-1.570
6 .5

-2.100
-2.100
-2.128
-2.148
-2.080
-2.028
-1.990
-1.945
-1.865
-1.800
-1.725
-1.670
-1.610
-1.570

16

The above coefficients are applicable to ground motions generated by a strike slip event.
Sadigh et al suggest that the calculated spectral ordinates be multiplied by a factor of 1.2
for reverse / thrust events.
Attenuation relationships derived for Central and Eastern North America:
4) ATKINSON AND BOORE (1997)
The following functional form was used by Atkinson & Boore (1997) to calculate the
median spectral acceleration
ln y

C1

C 2 (M

6)

C 3 (M

6)

ln( R )

(3.9)

C 4R

where
y is the median spectral acceleration in g (5% damping) or peak ground acceleration
(pga) in g's; M is moment magnitude;
are coefficients that depend on frequency;
C through C
R is the hypocentral distance in km.
1

The coefficients

C 1 ... C 4

for various frequencies and for pga are listed in Table7.

Table 7. Coefficients of Attenuation Equations Derived by Atkinson & Boore (1997)

Frequency
(Hz)

C1

C2

Coefficient

0.5
0.8
1.0
1.3
2.0
3.2
5.0
7.9
10
13
20
pga

-1.660
-0.900
-0.508
-0.094
0.620
1.265
1.749
2.140
2.301
2.463
2.762
1.841

1.460
1.462
1.428
1.391
1.267
1.094
0.963
0.864
0.829
0.797
0.755
0.686

-0.039
-0.071
-0.094
-0.118
-0.147
-0.165
-0.148
-0.129
-0.121
-0.113
-0.110
-0.123

0
0
0
0
0
0.00024
0.00105
0.00207
0.00279
0.00352
0.00520
0.00311

Attenuation relationships derived for Europe:

5) AMBRASSEYS ET AL. (1996)
ln y

1 , 39

0 , 266 M s

0 , 922 log( r )

1 , 52

0 , 261 M s

0 , 0004 ( r )

0 , 25 P

or
ln y

(3.10)
0 , 815 log( r )

0 , 25 P

17

where
y is peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHA) (in g);
M s is surface wave magnitude;
r

and

h0

h0

3 .5

is the shortest distance in km from the station to the surface projection of the fault
rupture (km).
d

for mean value

s of log(y)

for 84 percentile

(%50)

Valid for

M s

4 .0

8 .5

values

of log (y)

and for source distance of up to 200 km.

6) AMBRASSEYS and BOMMER (1995)

ln y

1 , 43

0 , 245 M s

0 , 0010 ( r )

0 , 786 log( r )

0 , 24 P

(3.11)

where
y is the peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHA) (in g)
M s is surface wave magnitude;
r

h0

and

h0

2 .7

d is the shortest distance in km from the station to the surface projection of the fault
rupture (km).
0

for mean value

for 84 percentile

s of log(y)

(%50)

P
values

of log (y)

3.1.4. Determination of maximum magnitude earthquake for seismic

sources
Although no standard method exists for assigning a maximum magnitude to a given fault
empirical correlation are used based on the length of rupture of the fault, the total length of
the fault trace or the area of the fault rupture zone. The general assumption, based on
world wide data, is that 1/3 to 1/2 of the total length of fault would rupture when it
generates the maximum earthquake (Mark, 1977). Wells and Coppersmith (1994)
proposed relationships between the fault rupture length at surface and the earthquake
magnitude for strike slip, reverse and normal faults, respectively, as follows:

18

5 . 16

1 . 12 log L

(Strike slip)

5 . 00

1 . 22 log L

4 . 86

1 . 32 log L

(Reverse)
(Normal)

(3.12)

where
Mw: moment magnitude,
L : fault rupture length (in km).
When the faults can not be clearly recognized, maximum magnitude can be found
from the earthquake catalog by increasing it by some magnitude unit (e.g., 0.5).

3.1.5. Calculation of probabilities

The ground motion prediction model(s) of above allows us to compute the probability of
exceeding that intensity measure (Y) level for a given magnitude and distance.
The magnitude and distance of the future earthquake are not yet known, but we can find
their probability distributions using part 1 and 2. We then combine this information using
the total probability theorem
m

max

r max

P (Y
m

min

y M , R ) f M ( m ) f R ( r ) dmdr

(3.13)

where
P(Y >y|M, R)=

P ( PGA

y | M ,R )

ln y

ln P G A
ln PGA

( ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and

fM(M) and fR(M) are pdfs for magnitude and distance.

The integration operation adds up the conditional probabilities of exceedance associated
with all possible magnitudes and distances.
To have information about how often earthquakes occur on the source of interest. We can
make a simple modification to that equation, to compute the rate of Y >y, rather than the
probability of Y > y given occurrence of an earthquake.
m

(Y

y)

(M

min

max

r max

P (Y
m

min

y m , r ) f M ( m ) f R ( r ) dmdr

(3.14)

19

where
(M

m min )

is rate of occurrence of earthquakes greater than m min from the

source;
(Y >y) is the rate of Y >y.
To generalize the analysis further, we would like to consider cases with more than one
source.
Recognizing that the rate of Y >y when considering all sources is simply the sum of the
rates of Y >y from each individual source. It is practical to discretize our continuous
distributions for M and R, and convert the integrals into discrete summations, as follows
n

(Y

sources

y)

(M

min

i 1

j 1

P (Y

y m j , rk ) P ( M

m j )P (R

rk )

(3.15)

where the range of possible Mi and Ri have been discretized into nM and nR intervals,
respectively.

3.1.6 Probabilities, rates, and return periods

Sometimes, PSHA results are also formulated in terms of probabilities or return periods of
exceedance. The return period (or mean return period) is defined as the reciprocal of the
rate of occurrence.
For a given rate of exceedance, one can also compute a probability of exceeding a given
ground motion intensity within a given window of time. This calculation requires further
information regarding the probability distribution of time between occurrences of
earthquakes.
This distribution is nearly always assumed to be Poissonian, for three reasons:
It results in simple mathematical equations,
It appears to match observations in most cases,
More complicated models typically do not impact the final results
significantly.
The Poisson model assumes that occurrences of earthquakes are independent in time and
that the probability of more than one occurrence in a very short interval is negligible.
Under the assumption of Poissonian occurrences, the probability of observing at least one
event in a period of time t is equal to
P ( at least

one event

in time

t)

(3.16)

20

where
is the rate of occurrence of events.
If t is small (less than approximately 0.1), then the probability can also be approximated
by
t
P ( at least one event in time t ) 1 e
t
(3.17)
Using the above calculations, PSHA results are converted between rates of exceedance,
probabilities of exceedance, and return periods. There are two important caveats to these
conversions that should be kept in mind:
The conversion between rates of exceedance and probabilities of exceedance is
almost always made by assuming a Poissonian occurrence of earthquakes (whether
or not this has been stated explicitly by the analyst).
Probabilities of exceedance and rates of exceedance are only equivalent if the
probability level of interest is small (i.e., less than 0.1).

4. Extensions to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Some extensions to PSHA are also considered in this study.

4.1. De-aggregation
In PASHA calculations all earthquake scenarios have been aggregated together. The
procedure used to determine the relative contribution of different earthquake sources and
magnitudes to the rate of exceedance of a given ground motion is called de-aggregation.
Both magnitude and distance de-aggregations are used in this study.

4.2. Uniform hazard spectrum

Uniform hazard spectrum is widely used in structural and geotechnical analysis. It is
developed by first performing PSHA calculations for SA at a range of periods. Then a
target rate of exceedance is chosen, and for each period the SA amplitude corresponding
to that rate is identified. Finally these amplitudes are plotted versus their periods.

21

References:
Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. (1997). "Empirical response spectral attenuation
relations for shallow crustal earthquakes." Seismological Research Letters, 68(1), 94-126.
Ambraseys N.N. and Bommer J.J. (1995), Attenuation relations for use in Europe: an
overview. In: A.S. Elnashai, Editor, Proceedings of Fifth SECED Conference on
European Seismic Design Practice, pp. 6774
Ambraseys N. N., Simpson K. A. And Bommer J. J. (1996). Prediction of Horizontal
Spectra in Europe, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 25, pp.371400.
Atkinson, G.M. and D.M. Boore (1997), "Some Comparisons Between Recent GroundMotion Relations," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Baker J. W. (2008). An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA),
White Paper, Version 1.3, 72 pp.
Boore D. M., Joyner W. B. And Fumal T. E. (1997). Equations for Estimating Horizontal
Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A
Summary of Recent Work, Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153.
Cornell, C. A., Banon, H., and Shakal, A. F. (1979). "Seismic motion and response
prediction alternatives." Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 7(4), 295-315.
Gutenberg B., and Richter, C. F. (1944). Frequency of Earthquakes in California, Bulletin
of Seismological Society of America, 78(4), 1522-1537
Mark, R. K. (1997). Application of linear statistical models of earthquake magnitude
versus fault length in estimating maximum expectable earthquakes. Geology 5, 464-466.
Reiter L. (1990). Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights, Columbia University
Press, New York.
Sadigh K., Chang C.-Y., Egan J. A., and Youngs R. R. (1997). Attenuation Relationships
for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data, Seismological
Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 180-189.
Schwartz, D. P., and Coppersmith, K. J. (1984), Fault behavior and characteristic
earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas fault zones, Journal of
geophysical research, 89(B7), 5681-5698.

22

Wells D. L. and Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New empirical relations among magnitude,

rupture length, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 84(4) 974-1002.
Young, R. R., and Coppersmith, K. J. (1985). Implications of fault slip rates and
earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Bulletin of
Seismological Society of America, 75(4), 939-964.

23