Seismic Hazard Analysis

Revised 2/28/04

Seismic Hazard Analysis

Deterministic Procedures
Probabilistic Procedures
USGS Hazard Mapping
ASCE 7 Hazard Mapping
Site Amplification
IBC/ASCE 7 Response Spectrum

Revised 2/28/04

Hazard vs Risk
Seismic Hazard Analysis
describes the potential for dangerous,
earthquake related natural phenomena
such as ground shaking, fault rupture,
or soil liquefaction.

Seismic Risk Analysis

assesses the probability of occurrence of losses
(human, social, economic) associated with
the seismic hazards.
Hazard Analysis 3

How does CEUS and WUS Seismic

Risk Compare?
Large
earthquakes
frequent

vs.

Large
earthquakes less
frequent

Hazard Analysis 4

Example of inadequately reinforced,

non-ductile structure 1989 LP EQ:
Cypress Overpass

Hazard Analysis 5

Following photo sequence from I. Idriss

This Type of Non-Ductile Infrastructure

is Common in CEUS!

Hazard Analysis 12

WUS and CEUS Risk Comparison Summary:

CEUS has potential for recurring large EQs
Attenuation lower in CEUS
Abundance of weak, non-ductile structures in
CEUS; weakest not weeded out
Immature seismic practice in CEUS
Human inertia in CEUS; little awareness
Much more uncertainty in CEUS
Areas with poor soils in CEUS
Bottom line seismic risk in CEUS and WUS
is comparable!
Hazard Analysis 13

Issues to Think About

Good analogy Kobe is to Tokyo, as CEUS is to
the WUS
Kobe M6.9 (> $140 billion losses); costliest natural
disaster in world history; infrastructure weak and
old, poor soil conditions
Remember before Katrina, most expensive US
natural disaster (Northridge, EQ $30 billion) was
moderate EQ on minor fault on fringe of LA
Since 1800: CA has had 11 EQs > M7.3, CEUS
has had 4 EQs > M7.3.
Hazard Analysis 14

Approaches to Seismic Hazard Analysis

Deterministic
The earthquake hazard for the site is a peak ground
acceleration of 0.35 g resulting from an earthquake
of magnitude 6.0 on the Balcones Fault at a distance of
12 miles from the site.
Probabilistic
The earthquake hazard for the site is a peak ground
acceleration of 0.28 g, with a 2 percent probability of being
exceeded in a 50 year period.

Hazard Analysis 15

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

C. Allin Cornell
Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis
Bulletin of the Seismological Society
Vol. 58, No. 5, October, 1968

Hazard Analysis 16

Steps in Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis

2) Controlling Earthquake

1) Sources
Site

F1

Balcones
Fault

Fixed Distance R
Fixed Magnitude M

Area
Source

3) Ground Motion
Peak Acceleration

Magnitude M

Distance

4) Hazard at Site
The earthquake hazard for
the site is a peak ground
acceleration of 0.35 g
resulting from an earthquake
of magnitude 6.0 on the
Balcones Fault at a distance
of 12 miles from the site.
Hazard Analysis 17

SOURCE TYPES

Fault

Fault

Site
Fault

Localizing
Structure
Area
Source

Seismotectonic
Province

Hazard Analysis 18

Maximum Earthquake
Maximum Possible Earthquake
An upper bound to size (however unlikely) determined
by earthquake processes (e.g. Maximum Seismic Moment)

Maximum Credible Earthquake

The maximum reasonable earthquake size based
on earthquake processes (but does not imply likely
occurrence.

Maximum Historic Earthquake

The maximum historic or instrumented earthquake. Often is a
lower bound on Maximum Possible or Maximum Credible
Earthquake

Maximum Considered Earthquake (Described later)

Hazard Analysis 19

Ground Motion Parameter

Ground Motion Attenuation

Magnitude M

Reasons:
Geometric Spreading
Absorption (Damping)

Distance

Hazard Analysis 20

Attenuation with Distance

Hazard Analysis 21

Comparison of Attenuation for Four Earthquakes

Hazard Analysis 22

Ground Motion Attenuation

Steps to Obtain Empirical Relationship
1) Obtain Catalog of Appropriate Ground Motion Records
2) Correct for Aftershocks, Foreshocks
3) Correct for Consistent Magnitude Measure
4) Fit Data to Empirical Relationship of Type:

ln Y = ln b1 + f1 ( M ) + ln f 2 ( R ) + ln f 3 ( M , R ) + ln f 4 ( Pi ) + ln

Hazard Analysis 23

Ground Motion Attenuation

Basic Empirical Relationships
ln Y = ln b1 + f1 ( M ) + ln f 2 ( R ) + ln f 3 ( M , R ) + ln f 4 ( Pi ) + ln
Y Ground Motion Parameter (e.g. PGA)
b1 Scaling factor

f1 ( M ) Function of Magnitude
f 2 ( R) Function of Distance

f 3 ( M , R) Function of Magnitude and Distance

f 4 ( Pi ) Other Variables
Error Term
Hazard Analysis 24

Ground Motion Attenuation

Relationships for Different Conditions

Central and Eastern US

Subduction Zone Earthquakes
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes
Near-Source Attenuation
Extensional Tectonic Regions
Many Others
May be Developed for Any Desired Quantity
(PGA, PGV, Spectral Response)
Hazard Analysis 25

Ground Motion Attenuation

Relationships

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 68, Number 1
January/February, 1997

Hazard Analysis 26

Earthquake Catalog for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

(Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs)

Hazard Analysis 27

PGA Attenuation 1989 Loma Prieta EQ

soft soil sites

Hazard Analysis 28

Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

(Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs)

Hazard Analysis 29

Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

(Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs)

ln( y ) = C1 + C2 M + C3 (8.5 M ) + C4 ln(rrup + exp(C5 + C6 M )) + C7 (rrup + 2)

T
PGA
0.07
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
3
4

C1
-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

C2
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000

C3
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

C4
-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

C5
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296
1.296

C6
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

C7
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

Table for Magnitude <= 6.5

Hazard Analysis 30

Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

(Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs)

Peak Ground Acceleration, G

Magnitude

0.1

4
5
6
7
8

0.01

0.001
1

10

100

1000

Distance, KM
Hazard Analysis 31

Attenuation Relation for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

(Sadigh, Chang, Egan, Makdisi, and Youngs)
1.0 Second Acceleration

0.2 Second Acceleration

10

Magnitude
1
4
5
6
7
8

0.1

0.01

0.001

1.0 Sec. Spectral Acceleration, G

0.2 Sec. Spectral Acceleration, G

10

Magnitude
1
4
5
6
7
8

0.1

0.01

0.001
1

10

100
Distance, KM

1000

10

100

1000

Distance, KM

Hazard Analysis 32

Example Deterministic Analysis (Kramer)

Source 3
Source 2
D3
D2

Source 1

D1

Site

Source M
1
2
3

7.3
7.7
5.0

D
(km)
23.7
25.0
60.0

PGA
(g)
0.42
0.57
0.02

Maximum on Source
Closest Distance
From Attenuation Relationship
Hazard Analysis 33

Steps in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Site

F1

Balcones
Fault

Area
Source

Log # Quakes > M

2) Recurrence

1) Sources

Magnitude M

4) Probability of Exceedance
Uncertainty
M1

M3
Distance

M2

Probability of Exceedance

Peak Acceleration

3) Ground Motion

Ground Motion Parameter

Hazard Analysis 34

Empirical Gutenberg-Richter
Recurrence Relationship
1000

log m = a bm

Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance

100

10
1

0.1

= mean rate of
recurrence
(events/year)

1 / m =

0.01

return period

0.001
0.0001
0

Magnitude

10

a and b to be determined from data

Hazard Analysis 35

Uncertainties Included in
Probabilistic Analysis

Attenuation Laws
Recurrence Relationship
Distance to Site

NS NM NR

y* = vi P[Y > y * m j , rk ] P[ M = m j ] P[ R = rk ]
i =1 j =1 k =1

Hazard Analysis 36

Poisson Distribution (for one event)

PE = 1 - e-t
where = rate of exceedance (events/year) key!!
t = exposure interval (50 years typical)
1/ = return period

Hazard Analysis 37

Common Probabilistic Design Levels

(1) 10% PE in 50 years, a.k.a.500-year motion* (actually is
475-yr. event; rate is 1/475 or 0.0021 events/yr.).
(2) 5% PE in 50 years, a.k.a. 1000-year motion (actually is
975-yr. event; rate is 1/975 or events/year or 0.001 events/yr).
(3) 2% PE in 50 years a.k.a. 2500-year earthquake (actually
is 2475-yr. event; rate is1/2,475 or 0.0004 events/yr).
_______
*Does not mean EQ occurs once every 500 yrs., etc.!
Rather, the EQ with chance of 1/500 of occurring in 1 year.

Hazard Analysis 38

Acceleration, g

10% Probability in 50 years

Return Period = 475 years
Rate of Exceedance = 1/475=0.0021

0.8
0.6

10% in 50 Year
Elastic Response
Spectrum

Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance

Use of PGA Seismic Hazard Curve

SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE
10-1
10-0
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Peak Horizontal Acceleration (g)

0.4

PGA=0.33g

0.2
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Period, T (sec)
Hazard Analysis 39

Acceleration, g

10% Probability in 50 years

Return Period = 475 years
Rate of Exceedance = 1/475=0.0021

0.8
0.6

10% in 50 year
Elastic Response
Spectrum

Mean Annual Rate of Exceedance

Use of 0.2 Sec. Seismic Hazard Curve

SEISMIC HAZARD CURVE
10-1
10-0
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2 Sec Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.4

.2 Sec accn = 0.55g

0.2
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Period, T (sec)
Hazard Analysis 40

10% in 50 year
Elastic Response Spectrum (UHS)
UHS is envelope of
maximums
Each point on curve
could be from a
different earthquake
sources

Acceleration, g

0.8
0.6

0.4

0.2
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Period, T (sec)

Hazard Analysis 41

Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)

Response
Uniform Hazard Spectrum

Large Distant
Earthquake
Small Nearby
Earthquake
Period
Hazard Analysis 42

Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)

Developed from Probabilistic Analysis
All ordinates have equal probability of exceedance
Represents contributions from small local,
large distant earthquakes
May be overly conservative for modal response
spectrum analysis
May not be appropriate for artificial ground motion
generation

Hazard Analysis 43

Probabilistic vs Deterministic
Seismic Hazard Analysis
The deterministic approach provides a clear and
trackable method of computing seismic hazard whose
assumptions are easily discerned. It provides
understandable scenarios that can be related to the
problem at hand.
However, it has no way for accounting for uncertainty.
Conclusions based on deterministic analysis can easily
be upset by the occurrence of new earthquakes.

Hazard Analysis 44

Probabilistic vs Deterministic
Seismic Hazard Analysis
The probabilistic approach is capable of integrating
a wide range of information and uncertainties into
a flexible framework .
Unfortunately, its highly integrated framework can
obscure those elements which drive the results, and its
highly quantitative nature can lead to false impressions
of accuracy.

Hazard Analysis 45

U.S.G.S. PROBABILISTIC HAZARD MAPS

(Project 97)

Spectral Response Acceleration (g)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Period (sec)
2% in 50 years

HAZARD MAP

10% in 50 years

RESPONSE SPECTRA
Hazard Analysis 46

U.S.G.S. PROBABILISTIC HAZARD MAPS

(and NEHRP MAPS)

Earthquake Spectra
Theme Issue : Seismic Design Provisions and Guidelines
Volume 16, Number 1
February, 2000

Hazard Analysis 47

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)

The MCE Ground Motions are defined as

the maximum level of earthquake shaking
that is considered as reasonable to design
normal structures to resist.

Hazard Analysis 48

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD REGIONS

Note: Different attenuation relationships used for different regions

Hazard Analysis 49

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD SOURCE ZONES

Hazard Analysis 50

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD WUS FAULTS

Hazard Analysis 51

USGS Seismic Hazard Curves for Various Cities

Hazard Analysis 52

Uniform Hazard Spectra for San Francisco, CA

Spectral Response Acceleration (g)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Period (sec)
2% in 50 years

10% in 50 years

Hazard Analysis 53

Uniform Hazard Spectra for Charleston, S.C.

Spectral Response Acceleration (g)

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Period (sec)
2% in 50 years

10% in 50 years

Hazard Analysis 54

USGS SEISMIC HAZARD MAP (PGA)

http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/2002April03/US/USpga2500v4.gif

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 55

USGS SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF US (0.2 sec)

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 56

USGS SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF US (1.0 sec)

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 57

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF U.S.A. [PGA]

http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/zipcode.shtml

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 58

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF U.S.A. [0.2 sec]

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 59

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD MAP OF U.S.A. [1.0 sec]

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 60

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD MAP of

Southern California [PGA]

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 61

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD MAP

of Southern California [0.2 sec]

2% in 50 years
Hazard Analysis 62

U.S.G.S. SEISMIC HAZARD MAP

of Southern California [1.0 sec]

2% in 50 years

Hazard Analysis 63

USGS Web Site: Zip Code Lookup

http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/zipcode.html

Hazard Analysis 64

USGS Seismic Hazard Maps

Probabilistic analysis used for maps
Most recent published versions: April 2003
Hazard in some areas increased in new maps
relative to older-generation maps (i.e., 1996)
Maps developed for motions on B-C boundary
rock)
Maps developed for 2%, 5%, and 10% PE
Maps adopted by ASCE 7 and used as basis for
building code maps; USGS and ASCE 7
identical in all US areas other than CA and AK
Maps do not account for regional geological
effects such as deep sediment profiles
Hazard Analysis 65

A key point to remember.

Relative PGAs in the US

Hazard Analysis 66

Soil is the great equalizer:

Many CEUS
areas with
poor soils

Hazard Analysis 67

ASCE 7-05 Seismic Hazard Maps

5% Damped, 2% in 50 Years, Site Class B (Firm Rock)
0.2 Second and 1.0 Second Spectral Ordinates Provided
On certain faults in California, Alaska, and Hawaii,
ASCE 7 values are deterministic cap times 1.5. Outside
of deterministic areas, NEHRP maps are the same
as the USGS maps.
USGS Zip Code and Longitude/Latitude Values are
Probabilistic MCE. To Avoid Confusion, ALWAYS
Use ASCE-7 Maps for Design Purposes

Hazard Analysis 68

NEHRP Seismic Hazard Maps

0.2 Second Spectral Response (SS)

Hazard Analysis 69

NEHRP Seismic Hazard Maps

1.0 Second Spectral Response (S1)

Hazard Analysis 70

Deterministic Cap
Applies only where probabilistic values exceed
highest design values from old (Algermissen & Perkins)
maps.
Deterministic Procedure for Mapping:
applies for known active faults
uses characteristic largest earthquake on fault
uses 150% of value from median attenuation
Use deterministic value if lower than 2% in 50 year value

Hazard Analysis 71

2% in 50 Year 5% Damped MCE Elastic Spectra

Site Class B (Firm Rock)

Spectral Acceleration, g.

1.00

Ss=0.75g

0.80

Curve is
S1/T

0.60

S1=0.30g

0.40
0.20

PGA
0.00

Not Mapped

Period, sec.

Hazard Analysis 72

Acceleration

Site Amplification Effects

B
A
Time

Sand

Shale
Rock
A
Hazard Analysis 73

Site Amplification Effects

Amplification of Ground motion

Longer Duration of Motion
Change in Frequency Content of Motion
Not the Same as Soil-Structure Interaction

Hazard Analysis 74

Site Amplification; Seed et al

Hazard Analysis 75

Site Amplification; Loma Prieta Earthquake

Soft
Rock

Hazard Analysis 76

Site Effects on Ground Motions

Conservation of energy drives amplification

Hazard Analysis 77

Soft Soils Commonly Amplify

Motions Relative To Bedrock
(1989 Loma Prieta EQ)

Hazard Analysis 78

Site Amplification; Loma Prieta

& Mexico City Earthquakes

Hazard Analysis 79

Cypress Structure Collapse

Hazard Analysis 80

Hazard Analysis 81

Cypress Structure Collapse

Hazard Analysis 82

ASCE 7 SITE CLASSES (based on top 30 m)

A

Hard Rock vs > 5000 ft/sec

Rock: 2500 < vs < 5000 ft/sec

Very Dense Soil or Soft Rock: 1200 < vs < 5000 ft/sec

Stiff Soil : 600 < vs < 1200 ft/sec

Vs < 600 ft/sec

Soft Clays or Liquefiable sands -- Site Specific Requirements

Hazard Analysis 83

NEHRP/IBC General Procedure

Determine Fa & Fv values from Ss, S1 and site class:

Hazard Analysis 84

NEHRP Site Amplification

for Site Classes A through E
Site Class

3.00

A
B
C
D
E

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50

Site Class

4.00

0.00
0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Short Period Ss (sec)

1.25

A
B
C
D
E

3.50

1.50
Amplification Fv

Amplification Fa

2.50

3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

Long Period S1 (sec)

Hazard Analysis 85

2% in 50 Year 5% Damped MCE Elastic Spectra

Modified for Site Class D

Spectral Acceleration, g.

1.05
0.84

SMS=FASS=1.2(0.75)=0.9g
Basic

SM1=FVS1=1.8(0.30)=0.54g

0.63
0.42
0.21

Site Amplified

0.00
0

Period, sec.

Hazard Analysis 86

Scaling of NEHRP Spectra by 2/3

for Margin of Performance
Buildings designed according to current procedures
assumed to have margin of collapse of 1.5
Judgement of lower bound margin of
collapse given by current design procedures
Design with current maps (2% in 50 year) but
scale motions by 2/3
Results in 2/3 x 1.5 = 1.0 deterministic earthquake
(where applicable)
Hazard Analysis 87

2% in 50 Year 5% Damped Elastic

Design Spectra (Scaled by 2/3)
1.00
Spectral Aceleration, g.

Site Amplified

0.80

SDS=(2/3)(0.90)=0.60g

Basic

0.60

SD1=(2/3)(0.54)=0.36g

0.40
0.20

Scaled

0.00
0

Period, sec.

Hazard Analysis 88

Basis for Reduction of

Elastic Spectrum by R
Inelastic Behavior of Structures
Methods for obtaining acceptable
inelastic response are presented in
later topics

Hazard Analysis 89

Effect of Scaling, Western U.S.

Spectral Response Acceleration (g)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Period (sec)
2% in 50 years

10% in 50 years

2/3 of 2% in 50 years

Hazard Analysis 90

Effect of Scaling, Eastern U.S.

Spectral Response Acceleration (g)

2.5
2.0
1.5

1.0
0.5
0.0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Period (sec)
2% in 50 years

10% in 50 years

2/3 of 2% in 50 years

Hazard Analysis 91

Old Maps vs New Maps

Charleston, S.C.
1.20
94 Site B
00 Site B

Seismic Coefficient, Cs(g)

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Period, T, sec
Hazard Analysis 92

3.5

Directionality and Killer Pulse Earthquakes

For sites relatively close to the fault, the
direction of fault rupture can have an amplifying
effect on ground motion amplitude

Hazard Analysis 93

Forward directivity
Rupture direction
To Receiver

Backward directivity

Ground Displacement

Rupture direction
To Receiver

The areas under the far-field displacement

pulses are equal, but the amplitudes
and durations differ. This has major
effects on the ground velocity and acceleration.
Hazard Analysis 94

Effect of Directionality on Response Spectra

Towards

Away

Hazard Analysis 95

Effect of Directionality on Ground Motion

Hazard Analysis 96