Validation of the Probabilistic Seismic

Hazard Assessment by the Taiwan

Earthquake Model through Comparison
with Strong Ground Motion Observations
Jia-Cian Gao1,2, Yi-Hsuan Tseng3, and Chung-Han Chan*1,4

Abstract
To validate the probabilistic hazard assessment proposed by the Taiwan Earthquake
Model (TEM), we compared it with the strong ground motion observations. We
accessed the Taiwan Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (TSMIP) database and
reported the maximum ground shaking of each strong-motion station. Comparing
the TSMIP observations and the TEM hazard model reveals similar spatial patterns.
However, some records indicate significantly higher shaking levels than the model does
due to the occurrence of some large events, for example, the 1999 M w 7.6 Chi-Chi earth-
quake. Such discrepancies cannot be explained by model parameter uncertainties but
by unexpected events in the given short observation period. We have confirmed that,
although each seismogenic structure in Taiwan is unlikely to rupture within a short
period, the summarized earthquake potentials from all of the structures are significant.
In addition, we discuss the impacts of some model parameters, including epistemic Cite this article as Gao, J.-C.,
Y.-H. Tseng, and C.-H. Chan (2022).
uncertainties of source parameters, truncation of standard deviation for ground-motion
Validation of the Probabilistic Seismic
prediction equations, the Gutenberg–Richter law for area source, and the time-depen- Hazard Assessment by the Taiwan
dent seismicity rate model. The outcomes of this study provide not only crucial infor- Earthquake Model through Comparison
with Strong Ground Motion Observations,
mation for urban planning on a city scale and building code legislation on a national Seismol. Res. Lett. XX, 1–15, doi: 10.1785/
scale but also suggestions for the next generation of probabilistic seismic hazard assess- 0220210186.

ment for Taiwan as well as other regions. Supplemental Material

Introduction considering an acceleration threshold at a set of recording sites.

A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) evaluates the
probability of various levels of ground motion during a certain
period. It provides a reference for minimizing the seismic risk,
selecting the sites for infrastructure, developing the legislation
for building safety, and calculating the correlated insurance
premiums. Thus, the Taiwan Earthquake Model (TEM) has
published two versions of the Taiwan seismic hazard maps
(Wang, Chan, et al., 2016; Chan et al., 2020) by implementing
updated databases and state-of-the-art earthquake models.
The credibility of proposed hazard maps must be proven. For
example, Albarello and D’Amico (2008) indicated a significant
mismatch between the PSHA and observations in Italy. One
possible problem is that the seismic hazard computational
model has been parametrized by considering data included in
the control time period. Another reason is the model is time
independent. That assumes time stationarity and ergodicity,
leading to any time interval being equivalent to the other ones.
Tasan et al. (2014) compared the distribution of the expected
number of sites with exceedance with the observed number
The results show that the probabilistic seismic hazard models in
France overestimated the number of sites with exceedance for
low-acceleration levels or short return periods. In Taiwan,
Wang, Lee, et al. (2016) compared the estimated strong ground
motions in a return period of 23 yr and maximal shaking level
for each Taiwan Strong Motion Instrumentation Program
(TSMIP; Shin, 1993) station in an observation period of 23 yr
(between 1993 and 2015). The results showed comparable shak-
ing levels between model and observation, except in central
Taiwan, where the 1999 M w 7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake and sub-
sequent aftershocks took place (fig. 5 of Wang, Lee, et al., 2016).
1. Earthquake-Disaster & Risk Evaluation and Management (E-DREaM) Center,
National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1875-
3652 (C-HC); 2. Graduate Institute of Applied Geology, National Central University,
Taipei, Taiwan; 3. Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan; 4. Department of Earth Sciences, National Central University, Taipei,
Taiwan
*Corresponding author: hantijun@googlemail.com
© Seismological Society of America

Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org Seismological Research Letters 1

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 The occurrence of the 2018 M w 6.3 Hualien earthquake raised
the importance of a time-dependent rupture model (Chan et al.,
2019). This event took place on the Milun fault, which ruptured
in 1951. According to the time-independent Poisson distribu-
tion model, its rupture probability for 50 yr before the event was
53%, whereas a significantly higher probability of 80% would
have been suggested based on the time-dependent Brownian
passage time (BPT) model (Ellsworth et al., 1999). Although
the BPT model has been applied to many seismic hazard assess-
ments, for example, National Seismic Hazard Maps for Japan
(Fujiwara et al., 2009), its forecasting ability is seldom compared
with that of other time-dependent models.
In this study, we aim to evaluate the credibility of the TEM
seismic hazard assessment proposed in 2020 (Chan et al., 2020)
according to strong ground motion observations and paleoseis-
mological observations. We access the strong ground motion
database from the TSMIP seismic network and report the
maximum ground shaking of each station. The observations
are compared with the TEM PSHA to test credibility and indi-
cate limitations of the model. For illustrating the temporal evo-
lution of earthquake probability, we implement several time-
dependent models, including the BPT model, and examine
them by comparing them to paleoseismic data.
Ground-Motion Observations
Starting in 1993, the Central Weather Bureau established more
than 700 seismic stations for the TSMIP network (Shin, 1993).
To obtain its records, we accessed the Geophysical Database
Management System. To unify a fixed observation period, we
implemented only stations operating during 1995 and 2019,
consistent with an observation period of 25 yr. Based on this
criterion, a total of 536 stations were selected for analysis. We
have confirmed that the removed stations are not concentrated
in any specific area.
To obtain the maximum strong ground shaking of each sta-
tion during the observation period, we discarded the records
out of function in some components, calculated the geometric
mean peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the two horizontal
components (east–west and north–south), and reported the
maximum PGA among all of the earthquake records in the
observation period.
The analysis procedure mentioned earlier, however, might
sometimes lead to high peaks in hazard levels. For the case of
the TTN034 station during the 2003 M w 6.8 Chengkung earth-
quake (location shown in Fig. 1a), for example, the record
shows high-PGA peaks in the north–south and vertical com-
ponents (Fig. S1a, available in the supplemental material to this
article), whereas the record in the east–west component has a
similar shaking level to those found in the records of other sta-
tions, for example, TTN043 (Fig. S1b). The recorded spikes
could be attributed to various factors, for example, source,
path, or site effects (Albarello et al., 2015) or station construc-
tion (Wen et al., 2001). Such spikes, however, last for only
2 Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
short periods and therefore might not result in significant
seismic loss; we thus eliminate these cases in our subsequent
analysis. To discover similar cases, we evaluated the ratio
between the two horizontal components through the following
equations:






PGAEW

PGAEW

Ratio



; when



PGA
≤ 1; else; 1
PGANS

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df2;320;678
NS






PGANS

PGANS



Ratio




; when

≤ 1; 2
PGAEW
PGAEW

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;df2;320;626
in which PGAEW represents PGA in the east–west orientation,
and PGANS represents PGA in the north–south orientation.
If the ground shakings in the two components are close to each
other in the maximum shaking level, the ratio will be close to 1.0,
and vice versa. We found that most of the records reported high
ratios, with 85% of them being higher than 0.6. Because the
remaining 15% have a significantly lower ratio, we defined a
ratio of 0.6 as a threshold for examining the reliability of the
waveforms. If a waveform obtained a spike in only one compo-
nent (e.g., the record in the north–south component by
TTN034, Fig. S1a), and it is dissimilar in maximum shaking
level to the observation made by its neighboring station (e.g.,
the record by TTN043, Fig. S1b), we implemented the waveform
in the component without a spike, for example, 532.613 gals
recorded by the east–west component of TTN034 (Fig. S1a).
Based on the analysis mentioned earlier, the maximum PGA
in the observation period for each station is obtained (Fig. 1a). It
shows significantly higher ground-shaking levels in the regions
close to some significant events, for example, the 1994 M 6.2
Nan-Ao earthquake, the 1999 Chi-Chi sequence, the 2003 M 6.4
Chengkung earthquake, the 2006 M 7.0 Pingtung doublet, and
the 2018 M 6.3 Hualien earthquake. For the stations in northern
Taiwan, by contrast, where there was no large earthquake during
the observation period, the maximum ground shaking recorded
during the observed period was relatively low.
The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model
To validate the TEM PSHA proposed in 2020 (TEM
PSHA2020) (Chan et al., 2020), we followed their assessment
procedure, obtained parameter uncertainties, implemented
ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs), and evaluated
hazard level to compare with observed ground shakings.
Seismogenic sources and corresponding
parameters with uncertainties
In the TEM PSHA2020, the seismic sources were divided into
three independent categories: (1) specific seismogenic structure
sources, meaning the earthquakes caused by rupture on a par-
ticular fault or structure; (2) shallow-background sources, mean-
ing the earthquakes that cannot be associated with a specific
www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022
 (a) (b)

Maximum observed PGA PSHA for mean PGA

in 25 yr period for 50% in 25 yr
25°

Max PGA recorded 50 km

by TSMIP stations
from 1995 to 2019
1994
Chelungpu M6.2
fault

2018
M6.3
24°

1999
M7.6

2003
M6.4

Ground shaking
23°
TTN043 in PGA (in g)
TTN034 0.45

0.40

0.35
VS30 (in m/sec)
0.30

180 760 0.25

0.20

0.15 22°
0.10
2006
M7.0 & 7.0 0.05

0.00

120° 121° 122°

structure, illustrated by area source and smoothing models; and
(3) subduction sources, meaning the earthquakes that took place
in a subduction zone. Because the seismic sources of the three
categories are independent of one another, all categories are
implemented for PSHA without a logic tree. Previous studies
(e.g., Wang, Lee, et al., 2016) concluded that the seismic hazards
for most of the Taiwan regions stem mainly from crustal sources
(i.e., either specific seismogenic structure sources or shallow-
background sources). In addition, there is no significant subduc-
tion event during the observation period. We thus incorporated
only the subduction sources into the hazard assessment without
a discussion on their impact. Because the TEM PSHA2020 did
not implement parameter uncertainties, which could provide
a quantitative constraint to compare with the observations, this
study followed the procedure of the TEM PSHA2020 but
included source parameter uncertainties. Chan et al. (2012) con-
cluded a trivial difference in seismicity rates for smoothing mod-
els using different bandwidth functions within one standard
deviation, and the impact of the parameter uncertainties for
the smoothing model might be insignificant. Thus, we obtained
parameters and corresponding uncertainties for the seismogenic
structures and area sources, which are detailed subsequently.
Figure 1. (a) Distribution of Taiwan Strong Motion
Instrumentation Program (TSMIP) stations with maximum
ground-shaking levels recorded during 1995 and 2019 (colored
triangle), the V S30 map (base map), and epicenters of some
significant earthquakes (stars). The distribution of V S30 was
interpolated from the Taiwan region from the Engineering
Geological Database for TSMIP, such that the V S30 at most sites
were obtained from measurements (Kuo et al., 2012). The
alignment of the Chelungpu fault that resulted in the 1999 Chi-
Chi earthquake is illustrated via the black line. The locations of
stations TTN034 and TTN043 are denoted. (b) Seismic hazard
maps in mean value in a return period of 25 yr. The alignments of
the seismogenic structures are presented in black lines, and the
Chelungpu fault is shown in dark red. Geometries of the area
sources are presented via green polygons. The color version of
this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
Seismogenic structure sources. To quantify the uncer-
tainty of the recurrence interval for each seismogenic structure,
we obtained the mean, minimum, and maximum values of slip
rate (shown in Table 1) based on the geomorphological evi-
dence, updated after Shyu et al. (2020). The constraint of
slip-rate deviations could be associated with an understanding

Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org Seismological Research Letters 3

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 of each structure. For some well-investigated faults or struc-
tures, for example, the Chelungpu fault (ID 17), Meishan fault
(ID 20), and Milun fault (ID 32), the ranges of slip rates are
minimal, whereas for some faults or structures with insufficient
geomorphological evidence, for example, the Hukou fault (ID
4), the Tunglo structure (ID 11), and the Sanyi fault (ID 14),
the uncertainties are relatively large.
To evaluate recurrence rates for the seismogenic struc-
tures, we followed the procedure of the TEM PSHA2020.
We first considered the displacement in an earthquake with
a characteristic magnitude and acquired its corresponding
recurrence rate with possible deviation, which is to say, dis-
placement divided by slip rate, shown in Table 1. The hazard
assessment further considered cases of potential multiple-
structure rupture and partial rupture based on historical
records or geological relationships among neighboring struc-
tures. To partition the seismic rate into the cases of single-
and multiple-structure ruptures, we followed the procedure
of the TEM PSHA2020 by implementing the Gutenberg–
Richter law (Gutenberg and Richter, 1944) and rupture
parameters (including rupture area, slip, and magnitude)
to evaluate recurrence rates for each case (Table 2). To quan-
tify time-dependent rupture probabilities for the seismogenic
structures with rupture histories, the TEM PSHA2020
adopted the BPT model (Ellsworth et al., 1999), which incor-
porated the occurrence time of the previous rupture. By
considering multiple-structure rupture and time dependency,
the revised recurrence intervals for corresponding structures
were calculated as shown in parentheses in Table 1. This
model expects a higher rupture probability for a seismogenic
structure that has a longer time elapsed and a shorter recur-
rence interval, for example, the Milun fault (ID 32), whereas
the earthquake probability becomes lower for the structure
that has just recently ruptured, for example, the Chelungpu
fault (ID 17).
Area source models. To obtain parameters for each area
source, we followed the procedure of the TEM PSHA2020.
We acquired the earthquake catalog summarized by Wu et al.
(2008) and implemented the complete part of the catalog (i.e.,
M ≥4.0 from 1973 to 1993 and M ≥3.0 from 1993 to 2016).
Then we removed foreshocks and aftershocks via the Gardner
and Knopoff (1974) declustering approach. Based on the
declustered catalog, we described the seismicity for each area
source based on the Gutenberg–Richter law (Gutenberg and
Richter, 1944) by regression of the catalog. We first followed
the procedure of the TEM PSHA2020 to obtain a unified b-
value of 1.10 for the entire study region. To discuss the impact
of uncertainty, we then determined the a-value with uncer-
tainty for each area (shown in Table 3). The uncertainty could
be associated with either deviation of magnitude determination
or special seismic activity behaviors that do not follow
the Gutenberg–Richter law (e.g., the characteristic earthquake
4 Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
model) (Youngs and Coppersmith, 1985). In addition, we
proposed another parameter set for the area sources, consid-
ering variable a and b values for each area (shown in Table 3)
to compare with the TEM PSHA2020.
GMPEs
For our seismic hazard assessment, ground-motion behaviors
were simulated by GMPEs representing the ground-shaking
level as a function of magnitude, distance, and other factors.
To confirm the credibility of the TEM PSHA2020, we followed
its procedure and implemented GMPEs by Lin et al. (2011)
and Lin and Lee (2008) for the crustal and subduction sources,
respectively. Both GMPE sets were obtained based on the
observations of the Taiwan events. For the seismic hazard
assessment, we first followed the procedure of TEM
PSHA2020 to truncate at two standard deviations (2σ) for
the GMPEs and then discussed the feasibility of various trun-
cations.
PSHA result for 50% probability of exceedance in
25 yr
A proper PSHA using source parameters with their uncertain-
ties requires the application of a logic tree. For the seismic
sources, we considered the mean, minimum, and maximum
slip rate and assumed a weighting of 60%, 20%, and 20%,
respectively. For shallow-background sources, we first followed
the setting of the TEM PSHA2020 model to consider the area
source and smoothing models with equal weightings (50% for
each). In addition, for the area source model, we assumed a
weighting of 60%, 20%, and 20% for the medium, upper, and
lower bounds, respectively, of a-value uncertainties. Based on
the source parameters and the settings of the logic tree, we
could assess the probabilistic seismic hazard in Taiwan.
We presented hazard levels for 50% exceedance in 25 yr to
compare with the same observation period for the TSMIP rec-
ord, that is, 50% of the observations are expected to be higher
than the levels of our model. By considering all of the branches
in the logic tree, we first presented a hazard map at the mean
level (see Fig. 1b). Because a short return period is assumed, the
seismic hazard could be contributed from the regions close to
seismogenic structures with short recurrence intervals, area
sources with large a-values, and large site amplification (i.e.,
low V S30 shown in Fig. 1a), for example, Hualien City with
the Milun fault (ID 32) in area S17A; the Chianan Plain with
the Muchiliao-Liuchia fault (ID 22) and Chungchou structure
(ID 23) in the western part of S07; and the Ilan plain with the
Northern Ilan structure (ID 37) and Southern Ilan structure
(ID 38) in area S14A. By contrast, the hazard levels are rela-
tively lower in areas S04, S05A, and S08A, where the seismo-
genic structures (recurrence intervals significantly longer than
25 yr) and shallow-background sources (low a-values for the
area sources and low seismicity rate for the smoothing model)
are relatively inactive.
www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022
 TABLE 1
Source Parameters for the 44 Seismogenic Structures in the TEM Database

Slip Rate (mm/yr) Recurrence Rate (Per Year)

ID Mw Displacement (m) Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

1 7.01 1.29 1.10 1.66 2.94 0.0008 0.0013 0.0023

2 6.24 0.72 0.06 0.13 0.52 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007

3 6.03 0.60 0.09 0.18 0.72 0.0002 0.0003 0.0012

4 6.77 1.16 0.19 0.46 2.34 0.0002 0.0004 0.0020

5 6.66 0.95 1.80 3.18 10.15 0.0019 0.0033 0.0106

6 6.41 0.83 0.28 0.66 2.91 0.0003 (0.0002) 0.0008 (0.0004) 0.0035 (0.0016)

7 6.91 1.31 0.47 1.12 5.35 0.0004 0.0009 0.0041

8 6.48 0.90 0.62 1.44 6.81 0.0007 (0.0003) 0.0016 (0.0003) 0.0076 (0.0035)

9 6.52 0.80 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.0002 (0.0001) 0.0002 (0.0001) 0.0002 (0.0001)

10 6.84 1.22 0.78 1.84 8.77 0.0006 (0.0003) 0.0015 (0.0007) 0.0072 (0.0034)

11 6.17 0.68 0.19 0.50 2.63 0.0003 0.0007 0.0039

12 6.19 0.69 0.36 0.84 3.89 0.0005 0.0012 0.0056

13 6.61 0.99 0.61 1.38 5.32 0.0006 (0.0000) 0.0014 (0.0000) 0.0054 (0.0001)

14 7.04 1.45 0.29 0.85 4.61 0.0002 0.0006 0.0032

15 6.64 0.94 0.27 0.50 1.70 0.0003 (0.0000) 0.0005 (0.0000) 0.0018 (0.0000)

16 7.57 2.35 0.95 1.87 6.97 0.0004 (0.0006) 0.0008 (0.0011) 0.0030 (0.0041)

17 7.60 2.45 6.94 6.94 6.94 0.0029 (0.0000) 0.0029 (0.0000) 0.0029 (0.0000)

18 6.96 1.38 0.47 1.06 4.88 0.0003 0.0008 0.0035

19 6.95 1.37 1.87 4.66 23.39 0.0014 0.0034 0.0173

20 6.60 0.89 2.50 2.51 2.54 0.0028 (0.0000) 0.0029 (0.0000) 0.0029 (0.0000)

21 7.21 1.71 1.40 3.36 16.12 0.0008 (0.0001) 0.0020 (0.0003) 0.0094 (0.0016)

22 6.85 1.23 4.40 5.75 7.10 0.0036 (0.0065) 0.0048 (0.0085) 0.0059 (0.0105)

23 6.89 1.28 9.02 12.20 18.71 0.0074 0.0100 0.0153

24 6.38 0.69 0.80 2.65 4.50 0.0012 (0.0006) 0.0038 (0.0020) 0.0065 (0.0034)

25 6.07 0.61 6.10 7.07 8.72 0.0096 (0.0000) 0.0111 (0.0000) 0.0137 (0.0000)

26 6.68 0.97 0.72 1.10 1.50 0.0007 0.0011 0.0015

27 6.30 0.75 0.81 1.78 8.04 0.0011 0.0024 0.0108

28 6.66 0.95 0.17 0.32 1.05 0.0002 0.0003 0.0011

29 7.10 1.62 0.57 0.98 3.01 0.0004 (0.0002) 0.0006 (0.0003) 0.0019 (0.0009)

30 6.85 1.20 5.74 6.15 6.62 0.0047 (0.0020) 0.0050 (0.0021) 0.0054 (0.0023)

31 6.31 0.77 1.87 3.22 6.96 0.0024 0.0042 0.0090

32 6.56 0.85 9.92 10.15 10.47 0.0122 (0.0410) 0.0125 (0.0420) 0.0129 (0.0433)

33 7.52 5.60 11.35 17.10 0.0025 (0.0009) 0.0050 (0.0018) 0.0075 (0.0028)

34 7.38 2.00 4.76 7.28 11.16 0.0024 0.0037 0.0057

The recurrence intervals in parentheses were revised according to slip partitioning for multiple-structure ruptures and the time-dependent Brownian passage time (BPT) model.
Note that the mean and deviations for slip rate and recurrence interval of each structure were listed. The alignments of the seismogenic sources are presented in Figure 5. TEM,
Taiwan earthquake model.
(Continued next page.)

Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org Seismological Research Letters 5

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 TABLE 1 (continued)
Source Parameters for the 44 Seismogenic Structures in the TEM Database

Slip Rate (mm/yr) Recurrence Rate (Per Year)

ID Mw Displacement (m) Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

35 6.24 0.71 3.55 5.28 8.02 0.0052 (0.0001) 0.0077 (0.0001) 0.0117 (0.0001)

36 6.73 1.10 5.74 7.32 9.03 0.0052 0.0067 0.0082

37 6.90 1.14 0.96 3.29 6.27 0.0008 0.0029 0.0054

38 6.43 0.64 4.47 5.48 6.92 0.0068 0.0083 0.0105

39 6.00 0.57 2.03 5.01 9.00 0.0037 0.0091 0.0163

40 6.07 0.48 0.56 0.94 2.56 0.0012 0.0020 0.0053

41 7.24 1.74 0.45 0.92 3.50 0.0003 (0.0001) 0.0005 (0.0001) 0.0020 (0.0004)

42 6.58 0.96 0.85 1.73 6.53 0.0009 0.0018 0.0069

43 6.41 0.83 0.92 1.64 5.46 0.0011 0.0020 0.0065

44 6.81 1.19 0.40 0.92 4.24 0.0003 0.0008 0.0036

The recurrence intervals in parentheses were revised according to slip partitioning for multiple-structure ruptures and the time-dependent Brownian passage time (BPT) model.
Note that the mean and deviations for slip rate and recurrence interval of each structure were listed. The alignments of the seismogenic sources are presented in Figure 5. TEM,
Taiwan earthquake model.

TABLE 2
Parameters for the Potential Multiple-Structure Ruptures

Recurrence Rate (Per Year)

ID Seismogenic Structure Name Type Mw Min Mean Max

6, 8 Hsinchu fault, Hsinchu frontal structure R, R 6.65 0.00029 0.00067 0.00313

9, 10 Touhuanping structure, Miaoli frontal structure SS, R 6.92 0.00027 0.00061 0.00284

13, 15 Shihtan fault, Tuntzuchiao fault R, SS 6.83 0.00001 (0.00000) 0.00001 (0.00000) 0.00005 (0.00000)

20, 21 Meishan fault, Chiayi frontal structure SS, R 7.24 0.00023 (0.00045) 0.00034 (0.00066) 0.00106 (0.00203)

21, 41 Chiayi frontal structure, Tainan frontal structure R, R 7.43 0.00032 0.00075 0.00342

25, 41 Houchiali fault, Tainan frontal structure R, R 7.25 0.00022 0.00030 0.00065

29, 30 Chaochou fault, Hengchun fault SS/R, SS/R 7.20 0.00095 0.00090 0.00164

35, 33c Luyeh fault, Longitudinal Valley fault (south) R, R/SS 6.97 0.00065 (0.00056) 0.00112 (0.00096) 0.00169 (0.00145)

33a Longitudinal Valley fault (north) R/SS 6.99 0.00024 0.00048 0.00072

33b Longitudinal Valley fault (central) R/SS 7.26 0.00047 0.00095 0.00143

33c Longitudinal Valley fault (south) R/SS 6.95 0.00021 0.00043 0.00065

33ab Longitudinal Valley fault (north, central) R/SS 7.42 0.00070 0.00143 0.00215

33bc Longitudinal Valley fault (central, south) R/SS 7.40 0.00067 0.00136 0.00205

The recurrence intervals in parentheses were revised according to the time-dependent BPT model. Note that the mean and deviations for the recurrence interval of each case are
listed. The alignments of the seismogenic sources are presented in Figure 5.

Comparison between the Observations
and the Models
To understand the relationship between the observations and
the models under a uniform condition, we analyzed the
TSMIP records during 1995 and 2019 and assessed probabi-
listic seismic hazard for 50% probability of exceedance in
25 yr. We compared the general pattern in the entire
Taiwan region and discussed the credibility of our model,
followed by a detailed discussion on the case of the 1999
Chi-Chi earthquake associated with the Chelungpu fault
and the 2018 Hualien earthquake associated with the
Milun fault.

6 Seismological Research Letters www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 TABLE 3
Parameters for the 28 Area Sources

Area a-Value a-Value Uncertainty b-Value a-Value a-Value Uncertainty b-Value

S01 4.090 0.092 1.100 3.670 0.009 1.000

S02 4.480 0.122 4.010 0.014 0.990

S03 4.010 0.151 3.240 0.017 0.920

S04 3.450 0.236 2.250 0.052 0.810

S05A 3.960 0.094 4.560 0.008 1.250

S05B 4.750 0.082 5.000 0.008 1.160

S06 5.470 0.281 4.550 0.022 0.920

S07 5.260 0.157 4.740 0.015 0.990

S08A 4.710 0.259 3.810 0.038 0.910

S08B 4.050 0.208 3.040 0.022 0.870

S09 4.940 0.172 4.290 0.014 0.960

S10 5.230 0.291 4.160 0.023 0.880

S11 5.120 0.142 5.260 0.022 1.130

S12 5.230 0.086 5.180 0.009 1.090

S13 4.950 0.144 4.910 0.031 1.090

S14A 4.830 0.244 3.740 0.025 0.860

S14B 5.420 0.109 5.570 0.012 1.130

S14C 5.240 0.132 5.100 0.022 1.070

S15 5.730 0.142 5.280 0.011 1.010

S16 5.940 0.235 5.070 0.021 0.920

S17A 5.630 0.112 5.580 0.014 1.090

S17B 4.720 0.175 4.720 0.047 1.100

S18A 5.420 0.094 5.420 0.01 1.100

S18B 4.890 0.115 4.400 0.009 0.990

S19A 5.500 0.244 4.550 0.006 0.910

S19B 4.880 0.137 4.470 0.018 1.010

S20 4.910 0.137 4.910 0.025 1.100

S21 5.380 0.299 4.280 0.018 0.880

The geometries of the area sources are presented in Figure 1b.

General patterns
Comparing the observed ground shakings (see Fig. 1a) and
probabilistic seismic hazard model (see Fig. 1b) shows similar
spatial patterns in both, that is, high hazard levels in the
Chianan Plain and in Hualien City and low hazard levels in
northern (areas S04 and S05A) and southwestern (area S08A)
Taiwan. However, there are some discrepancies between the
observations and the models. For example, some stations in cen-
tral Taiwan recorded large ground-shaking levels during the
Chi-Chi mainshock and subsequent aftershocks; some signifi-
cantly higher shakings were observed during large events, such
as the 1994 M 6.2 Nan-Ao event, the 2003 M 6.4 Chengkung
event, and the 2006 M 7.0 Pingtung doublet. Although high
ground shakings were recorded in Hualien City (during the
2018 M 6.3 Hualien earthquake), the modeled shaking levels
are even higher due to the hazard contribution from both
the Milun fault (ID 32) and the area source (S17A). Although
the Milun fault had just ruptured in 2018, considering its short
recurrence interval, its probability of rupture in the near future
remains high (see Table 1). In addition, the ratio of the stations
with observed ground-shaking levels higher than the modeled
ones is 41.9% and therefore lower than the median (because

Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org Seismological Research Letters 7

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 we presented hazard levels for 50% probability of exceedance,
the expected percentage of stations with higher observations
is 50%). Several studies also obtained overpredicted shaking lev-
els relative to the observations, for example, the cases of France
(Tasan et al., 2014), Italy (Stein et al., 2017), Japan (Brooks et al.,
2016), and California (Salditch et al., 2020). We explain the
overpredictions in our case in the following.
Epistemic uncertainty in PSHA
Our model, presented earlier, is based on the hazard at the mean
hazard of a logic-tree approach (Fig. 1b). Here, we will confirm
whether a PSHA has a wider coverage of the possible ground-
shaking levels by implementing uncertainty from parameter
deviations. The uncertainties from the slip rate (see Table 1)
and a-value (see Table 3) for each seismogenic structure source
and area source were implemented, respectively. Through imple-
menting a logic tree, different percentiles of hazard levels could
be assessed, that is, we quantified the deviation of modeled shak-
ing levels attributed from epistemic uncertainties of the seismic
sources. Here, we present ground-shaking levels for the 50th,
15th, and 85th percentiles, shown in Figure 2c, respectively.
The higher the percentiles are assumed to be, the larger the
ground-shaking levels are expected to be, and vice versa. The
pattern of the shaking map for the 50th percentile (see
Fig. 2a) is similar to that of the mean level (see Fig. 1b), which
infers no extreme seismic hazard levels, considering the param-
eter deviations. The percentage of stations with observations
higher than those of the 50th percentile shaking levels is
42.6%. In addition, 50.5% and 31.8% of observations obtain
higher levels than the 15th and 85th percentile models, respec-
tively. This range covers our model setting (50% exceedance) and
suggests that our assessment is accepted by the observations
when epistemic uncertainty is incorporated.
PSHA for various probabilities of exceedance
We have validated our model in the form of 50% exceedance in
25 yr (i.e., about 36 yr recurrence interval). To evaluate the
model for various recurrence intervals, we assessed seismic
hazard at each station for several probabilities of exceedance
in 25 yr (Table 4). For each probability of exceedance, we
reported the percentage of stations with higher ground-shak-
ing observation than that of the model. That is, if the model is
perfect, the percentage would be identical to the probability of
exceedance; a lower percentage suggests that the model over-
predicts the observations, whereas a higher percentage suggests
that the model generally underpredicts the observations.
When we truncated at two standard deviations (2σ, corre-
sponding to a confidence interval of 95%) for the GMPEs for
our PSHA, the performance for long recurrence intervals was
good, that is, the reported percentages for the models for 1%
(recurrence interval of 2487 yr) and 2% (recurrence interval of
1237 yr) of exceedance are 0.6% and 1.7%, respectively.
However, the models significantly overpredicted the shaking
8 Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
levels for the cases of short recurrence intervals (in the cases
for the probabilities of exceedance higher than 20%, corre-
sponding to a recurrence interval of 112 yr). The result infers
that this model might not be acceptable for short recurrence
intervals, although the deviation could be covered by epistemic
uncertainty of seismic sources (Fig. 2).
Sigma truncation for GMPEs
The analysis mentioned earlier were based on truncation at 2σ
for GMPEs, based on the setting of the TEM PSHA2020.
Because the outcomes overpredict the observations for short
recurrence intervals (the lower ratios for high probabilities
of exceedance for 2σ in Table 4), we further assessed the shak-
ing levels considering truncation at 1.5 and 1:0σ, respectively,
and reported their performance (Table 4). The outcomes
suggest that the overpredictions for high probabilities of
exceedance were minimized and the performance for low
probabilities of exceedance were good. The performances of
1:5σ are always better than those of 2:0σ, regardless of recur-
rence interval.
Traditional GMPEs are usually ergodic (Anderson and Brune,
1999), that is, ground-motion variability from different earth-
quake sources recorded by various sites are included in the analy-
sis. Because an application of PSHA focuses on one source for
one site, only the aleatory variability or the single-path variability
should be in the integration. However, application of global or
regional GMPEs obtained by ground-motion data recorded at
different sites in different areas results in a large sigma and over-
estimation in PSHAs. One possible solution is implementing
nonergodic GMPEs based on different approaches for specific
regions (Dawood and Rodriguez-Marek, 2013; Landwehr et al.,
2016; Lanzano et al., 2016; Ameri et al., 2017; Kuehn et al., 2019;
Kuehn and Scherbaum, 2016; Kuehn and Abrahamson, 2020;
Gao et al., 2021). A site-dependent GMPE set obtains a signifi-
cantly smaller scattering of residuals compared with the existing
regional GMPEs.
For engineering application, safety evaluation of infrastruc-
tures is expected through a conservative PSHA, that is, trun-
cation at a large standard deviation (e.g., 3 or even 5σ) for
GMPEs for a long recurrence interval (e.g., 2475 yr). The out-
comes of PSHA are influenced by the number of sigma trun-
cations and sigma in GMPE. A suitable truncation is important
when we incorporate GMPEs with large ground-motion vari-
ability. Our analyses suggest overpredictions if GMPEs were
truncated at a large standard deviation, providing insights into
the application of PSHAs.
Impacts of the Gutenberg–Richter law for area
source
The TEM PSHA2020 obtained a unified b-value for the entire
study region and then determined the a-value for each area by
regression of the catalog. Such a procedure could obtain a stable
b-value, especially for a region with a small number of events for
www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022
 50th percentile 15th percentile 85th percentile

(a) (b) (c)

observation (station)

Seismic
Model (map) and

hazard
(in g)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

(d) (e) (f)

model and observation
Residual between

Residual (in g)
(model-obs)
+0.10

+0.05

0.00

−0.05

−0.10

regression (Fujiwara, 2014; Wang, Chan, et al., 2016). However, Figure 2. Comparisons between the seismic hazard maps for the
these area source parameters with a unified b-value might not (a) 50th, (b) 15th, and (c) 85th percentiles and the TSMIP
be able to represent the details of the seismic behavior of observations (colored triangles in a–c) and the differences among
them (colored triangles in d–f). The alignment of the seismogenic
each individual area. Thus, this study proposed another area
structures is presented via black lines. The color version of this
source model, considering variable a- and b-values for each area figure is available only in the electronic edition.
(shown in Table 3). In this model, lower b-values (lower than
1.1, obtained for the entire study region) were obtained for many
of the areas, suggesting higher seismic rates for large magni-
tudes. Based on this model, a higher hazard level was expected

Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org Seismological Research Letters 9

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 TABLE 4
Percentages of Stations with Higher Ground-Shaking Observation than the Modeled Shaking Level for Several
Probabilities of Exceedance in 25 Yr for Various Truncation Thresholds for GMPEs

Probability of
Exceedance 1.0% 2.0% 5.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%

2.0 sigma 0.6% 1.7% 3.4% 8.2% 15.9% 23.7% 33.6% 41.9% 48.8% 55.0% 62.4% 71.8%

1.5 sigma 1.3% 2.1% 5.6% 10.5% 18.3% 28.8% 37.8% 45.4% 52.3% 59.6% 68.2% 76.8%

1.0 sigma 2.1% 3.7% 7.1% 13.8% 23.0% 33.8% 42.8% 50.8% 57.4% 66.5% 72.9% 81.5%

TABLE 5
Percentages of Stations with Higher Ground-Shaking Observations than the Modeled Shaking Levels for Several
Probabilities of Exceedance in 25 Yr for the Models Considering the Variable b-Value for Each Area and a Unified
b-Value for the Entire Study Region

Exceed Percentage for Average

Model 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Deviation

Fixed b-value (obs > model) 8.20% 15.90% 23.70% 33.60% 42.00% 48.90% 55.00% 62.50% 71.80% 9.8%

Variable b-value (obs > 4.85% 8.58% 15.11% 22.76% 33.02% 45.90% 59.33% 68.66% 81.16% 12.3%
model)

The average deviations from each probability of exceedance for the two models are reported. Note that a smaller average deviation suggests a better fit with observations.

for the regions with lower b-values, including area S14A (Fig. 3).
In this region, the TEM PSHA2020 predicted higher hazard
levels than the observations at most stations (Fig. 2), whereas
the model with variable b-values further deviated from the
observations (Fig. 3).
To further validate the two models quantitatively, we com-
pared the observations with different probabilities of exceedance
for the two models (see Table 5). Both models overpredict
the observations, regardless of probabilities of exceedance (as
discussed in the Sigma truncation for GMPEs section). In
addition, the model with variable b-values has obtained an
even lower ratio for observations than predictions, especially
for long return periods (i.e., low probabilities of exceedance).
This result could be associated with the lower b-values for
several areas, resulting in higher modeled ground shakings
for long return periods (because higher rates are expected for
large events) but lower modeled ground shakings for shorter
return periods (because lower rates are expected for small
events). The outcome of this validation not only confirmed
the credibility of the TEM PSHA2020 procedure for the area
source but also inferred that proposing a single b-value for a
larger region could more accurately illustrate the seismic activity
behavior.
Impacts of significant earthquakes
We further quantified the differences in shaking levels between
the observations and the model (Fig. 4). Most stations have an
insignificant difference between the observation and the model,
whereas our model does not properly cover some observa-
tions with either extremely low or extremely high ground-
shaking levels. The overpredictions (red triangles in Fig. 2f)
might be associated with no significant events in the vicinity
of the seismogenic structures with a short recurrence rate,
for example, the Ilan Plain. This includes the Northern
Ilan structure (ID 37) and Southern Ilan structure (ID 38).
Considering their lower bound of recurrence rates (0.0008
and 0.0068 per year, respectively) and a Poisson distribution
model, the probability that at least one structure ruptures in a
25 yr period is 17.3%. Because no large earthquake took place
during the observation period, our model presented signifi-
cantly higher levels. The underpredictions (blue triangles
in Fig. 2f) could be attributed to some events, for example,
the 1994 Nan-Ao, 1999 Chi-Chi, 2003 Chengkung, and
2006 Pingtung events (stars in Fig. 1a). We discuss each of
the cases in the following section.
The 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake and the Chelungpu
fault. The Chi-Chi earthquake is attributed to the rupture
along the Chelungpu fault (ID 17). Considering the inverse
of its recurrence rate (shown in Table 1), its expected recurrence
period is 345 yr. According to a Poisson distribution model, its
rupture probability in 25 yr is ∼7.0% (1-EXP(–25/345)).
We further implemented the BPT model by considering
that the time elapse of the Chelungpu fault before 1999 was
415 yr (Chan et al., 2017). The density function (DF) of the
BPT model is expressed as follows:

10 Seismological Research Letters www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
 1.0

Shaking level difference Observation > model

(model-observation) 42.0%
25° 0.8
el
od
m

Observed ground shaking (in g)

=
S14A
n
tio
rva
b se
0.6 O

0.4

24°
0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Modeled ground shaking for 50% in 25 yr (in g)

Figure 4. Corresponding maximum observed ground shaking in

23° 25 yr and modeled ground shaking for 50% in 25 yr for each
station. Of the stations, 42% have higher observed ground
shaking than the predicted levels.

the 25 yr rupture probability of the Chelungpu fault before the

Chi-Chi event is 13.2%.
Although the BPT model was widely implemented in vari-
22°
ous PSHA studies, its credibility has seldom been compared
with that of other time-dependent models. Thus, we input sev-
120° 121° 122° eral statistical distributions into our model and compared it
with the observed earthquake recurrence intervals. We intro-
Difference in hazard level for 50% in 25 yr (in g)
duced three additional commonly used statistical distributions,
(Fixed b) - (variable b) −0.010 0.000 0.010 that is, the log-normal, gamma, and Poisson distribution mod-
els, described subsequently.
Model - observation −0.10 0.00 0.10
Log-normal model: The 1988 Working Group on California
Earthquake Probabilities implemented this model as a density
Figure 3. (Map view) The difference between the models con- function (DF) that is expressed as follows:
sidering the variable b-value for each area and a unified b-value
for the entire study region and (colored triangles) the differences  
p log t−2
between the model with the variable b-value and the TSMIP −1
DF
 2π σt exp − ;
2σ 2
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;;308;236

observations. Note that the map view and the triangles are not
on the same scale. The color version of this figure is available only
in the electronic edition. in which μ is the mean recurrence interval, t is the time since
last earthquake, and σ is the standard deviation.
Gamma model: With this model, Hakimhashemi (2009)
 1=2  
μ t − μ2 calculated the occurrence rate evolution along the Dead Sea
DF
exp − ; fault zone. Based on the model, DF is expressed as follows:
2πα2 t 3 2α2 μt
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;;41;142

in which μ is the mean recurrence interval, t is the time elapsed 1

t α−1 e−β ;
t
DF

βα Γα
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;;308;119

since last earthquake, and α is the aperiodicity, which is usually

in between 0.3 and 0.7. We followed the procedure of Chan in which Γα is a Gamma function and α and β are constants
et al. (2019) and assumed a fixed α of 0.5. Based on this model, that are obtained by trial and error.

Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org Seismological Research Letters 11

Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf

by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin

100
Recurrence interval of the Chelunpu
fault observation and model
80
Observation and deviation
BPT function
Cumulative probability
Log-normal
60
Gamma
Poisson
40
20
0 0
0 200 400 600
Recurrence interval (yr)
Figure 5. Comparison of the observed recurrence intervals for the
Chelungpu rupture with modeled probability distributions based
on the Brownian passage time (BPT), log-normal, gamma, and
Poisson distributions. The mean and standard deviation of the
recurrence interval (obtained by Fig. S2) were implemented in the
BPT model, and the best-fit parameters obtained by trial and
error were adopted in the other three distributions. The root
mean square (rms) in comparison with observations for each
distribution is shown.
Poisson distribution model: The Poisson distribution
expresses DF as follows:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;;53;340
in which ν is a constant that is obtained by trial and error.
DF presents the earthquake probability as a function of the
time elapsed since the last event t. The corresponding cumulative
probability is a function of t, which is expressed as follows:
in which Δt is the exposure period.
Confirming the credibility of the models requires comparing
them with the rupture histories. We used the paleoseismological
data of the Chelungpu fault (Chen et al., 2007) and found that,
in the past 2000 yr, the recurrence interval of the Chelungpu
rupture had been 371 ± 126 yr (see Fig. S2). With the paleoseis-
mological records thus gained, we could validate our models. In
the case of the BPT model, we incorporated the mean and stan-
dard deviation of the recurrence interval; for the other three
models, we considered the best-fit parameters obtained by trial
and error (see Fig. 5). The root mean square (rms) values suggest
12 Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
that the BPT distribution had the best fit with the observations,
5
confirming its credibility and raising the importance of a time-
dependent model for PSHA. The outcome of this test also
4
explains the mismatch between PSHA and observations in
Number of the paleoseismic event
the Italy case by Albarello and D’Amico (2008).
3
The 2018 Hualien earthquake and the Milun fault. The
2018 M 6.3 Hualien earthquake initiated offshore and ruptured
along the Milun fault (ID 32), resulting in large ground-shak-
2
ing levels (Fig. 1a). In comparing the observations with our
model, however, we expect even higher ground shakings
rms
(see Fig. 2f). This could be attributed to the high recurrence
BPT function 0.108
1 rate of the Milun fault (highest among the 44 seismogenic
Log-normal 0.193
Gamma 0.159
structures, shown in Table 1) and high seismic rate in the area
Poisson 0.164
source (S17A) (third highest among the 28 area sources, shown
in Table 3). Because the recurrence rate of the Milun fault is
800 high, even considering the time-dependent BPT model and the
last rupture in 2018, the expected rupture probability in the
near future remains high (fig. 4a of Chan et al., 2019).
Earthquakes on unidentified seismogenic struc-
tures. During the observation period from 1995 to 2019, sev-
eral events occurred that cannot be attributed to any identified
seismogenic structures, for example, the 1994 M 6.2 Nan-Ao
earthquake, the 2003 M 6.4 Chengkung earthquake, and the
2006 M 7.0 Pingtung doublet (Fig. 1a). Their impact could
be regarded from shallow-background sources in the forms
of area source and smoothing models, both of which forecast
the general spatial patterns of seismicity well (figs. 2 and 3 of
Chan et al., 2019). In the case of the Nan-Ao earthquake, the
earthquake took place on the boundary between areas S14A
and S15. Considering their a- and b- values (see Table 3),
DF
1 − e−ν×t ; the expected number of M 6.3 events in 25 yr is 1.58 and
0.20, respectively. Although an event of this magnitude is
expected during the observation period in the two areas, it
is rather difficult to predict the specific locations of future
events. This ambiguity might explain not only the underpre-
diction of ground shakings in the vicinity of the epicenter but
R tΔt also their overprediction in the Ilan Plain.
DFdt The Chengkung and Pingtung events occurred in areas
R∞ ;
t DFdt S18A and S08B, respectively. The expected number of events
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;;53;249
of M 6.4 and M 7.0 in 25 yr are 0.13 and 0.01, respectively.
Considering the deviation of the a-value, the expected number
of events similar to the Chengkung earthquake and the
Pingtung earthquake in a 25 yr period is 0.74 and 0.01, respec-
tively. The occurrence of these earthquakes raises awareness of
unexpected events in a region with relatively low hazard.
Conclusions
The annual recurrence rate could be further converted into
rupture probability in a period of interest considering proper
temporal models (e.g., the Poisson distribution and the BPT
model). Here, we presented the rupture probability of each
www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022
 seismogenic structure and multiple-structure rupture in the
next 25 yr (see Fig. 6). Several seismogenic structures in eastern
Taiwan have obtained higher rupture probabilities, for exam-
ple, the Milun fault (ID 32), Southern Ilan structure (ID 38),
Taimali coastline structure (ID 36), Longitudinal Valley fault
Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
Figure 6. The rupture probability of each seismogenic structure and
multiple-structure rupture in the next 25 yr. The summarized rup-
ture probabilities from all of these structures are reported, con-
sidering magnitude thresholds of 6.5, 6.7, and 7.0, respectively. The
color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
Seismological Research Letters 13
 (ID 33), and Central Range structure (ID 34), implying
relatively high seismic hazard in their vicinity. Except for these
active structures, most of the structures or faults obtain rupture
probabilities lower than 3%, inferring each might be unlikely to
rupture in the near future. However, when we summarized the
rupture probabilities considering magnitude thresholds, signifi-
cantly high potentials were reported (86%, 64%, and 22% for
M ≥6.5, 6.7, and 7.0, respectively). This suggests the occurrence
of a significant event such as the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake
within a short period in Taiwan, resulting in severe ground
shaking in its vicinity (see Fig. 1a). The rupture probability
map might be beneficial to urban planning on a city scale
and building code legislation on a national scale.
During the observation period, several earthquakes took
place on unidentified seismogenic structures, resulting in severe
ground shakings in their vicinity (see Fig. 1a). According to the
TEM PSHA2020, these events were attributed to shallow-back-
ground sources, and their impacts would be smoothed, that is,
the model underestimated hazard levels in the vicinity (blue
triangles near these epicenters shown in Fig. 2f) and slightly
overestimated ones in the far field. This shortcoming could
be improved by identifying seismogenic structures, such as
blind faults or décollement (e.g., Hsin-Hua Huang, personal
comm., 2021) and offshore active faults or structures (e.g.,
Shyu et al., 2005).
This study validated the TEM PSHA2020 by comparing the
strong-motion observations from 1995 to 2019 and discussing
the impacts of some significant events. Our study could provide
suggestions for the next generation of probabilistic seismic haz-
ard models for Taiwan, as well as other regions. In addition, the
regions with low observation levels might infer a potential haz-
ard in the future, raising the need to strengthen architecture and
infrastructure for hazard mitigation. We expect a subsequent
study could be conducted when a longer observation period
is available, providing observed data as contributing factors
for the seismic hazard model to promote the model’s ability.
Data and Resources
The Taiwan Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (TSMIP) records
are from the Geophysical Database Management System (https://
gdmsn.cwb.gov.tw, last accessed July 2020). The source parameters
of our seismic hazard model are from the Taiwan Earthquake
Model (TEM) (last accessed June 2021). Our seismic hazard analysis
is calculated using the OpenQuake Engine 3.10 (https://github.com/
gem/oq-engine, last accessed May 2021). The distribution of V S30 is
from the Taiwan region from the Engineering Geological Database
for TSMIP (http://egdt.ncree.org.tw/, last accessed February 2019).
The supplemental material for this article includes waveforms and
timeline of the paleoseismic events along the Chelungpu fault.
Declaration of Competing Interests
The authors acknowledge that there are no conflicts of interest
recorded.
14 Seismological Research Letters
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in
Taiwan under the Grant Numbers MOST 109-2116-M-008 -029 -MY3,
MOST 110-2124-M-002 -008, and MOST 110-2634-F-008-008. This
work is financially supported by the Earthquake Disaster & Risk
Evaluation and Management Center (E-DREaM) from the Featured
Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher
Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan.
The authors thank Allison Bent, Chris Rollins, and one anonymous
reviewer for their constructive comments.
References
Albarello, D., and V. D’Amico (2008). Testing probabilistic seismic
hazard estimates by comparison with observations: An example
in Italy, Geophys. J. Int. 175, no. 3, 1088–1094.
Albarello, D., L. Peruzza, and V. D’Amico (2015). A scoring test on
probabilistic seismic hazard estimates in Italy, Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci. 15, no. 1, 171–186.
Ameri, G., F. Hollender, V. Perron, and C. Martin (2017). Site-specific
partially nonergodic PSHA for a hard-rock critical site in southern
France: Adjustment of ground motion prediction equations and
sensitivity analysis, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 15, no. 10, 4089–4111.
Anderson, J. G., and J. N. Brune (1999). Probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis without the ergodic assumption, Seismol. Res. Lett. 70,
no. 1, 19–28, doi: 10.1785/gssrl.70.1.19.
Brooks, E. M., S. Stein, and B. D. Spencer (2016). Comparing the per-
formance of Japan’s earthquake hazard maps to uniform and ran-
domized maps, Seismol. Res. Lett. 87, no. 1, 90–102, doi: 10.1785/
0220150100.
Chan, C. H., K. F. Ma, Y. T. Lee, and Y. J. Wang (2019). Rethinking
seismic source model of probabilistic hazard assessment in Taiwan
after the 2018 Hualien, Taiwan, earthquake sequence, Seismol. Res.
Lett. 90, no. 1, 88–96.
Chan, C. H., K. F. Ma, J. B. H. Shyu, Y. T. Lee, Y. J. Wang, J. C. Gao, Y.
T. Yen, and R. J. Rau (2020). Probabilistic seismic hazard assess-
ment for Taiwan: TEM PSHA2020, Earthq. Spectra 36, 137–159.
Chan, C. H., Y. Wang, Y. J. Wang, and Y. T. Lee (2017). Seismic-haz-
ard assessment over time: Modeling earthquakes in Taiwan, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 107, no. 5, 2342–2352, doi: 10.1785/0120160278.
Chan, C. H., Y. M. Wu, and J. P. Wang (2012). Earthquake forecasting
using the rate-and-state friction model and a smoothing Kernel:
Application to Taiwan, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12, no. 10,
3045–3057.
Chen, W. S., C. C. Yang, I. C. Yen, L. S. Lee, K. J. Lee, H. C. Yang, H. C.
Chang, Y. Ota, C. W. Lin, W. H. Lin, et al. (2007). Late Holocene
paleoseismicity of the southern part of the Chelunpu Fault in
Central Taiwan: Evidence from the Chushan excavation site.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, no. 1B, 1–13.
Dawood, H. M., and A. Rodriguez-Marek (2013). A method for
including path effects in ground-motion prediction equations:
An example using the Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake aftershocks.
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103, no. 2B, 1360–1372.
Ellsworth, W. L., M. V. Matthews, R. M. Nadeau, S. P. Nishenko, P. A.
Reasenberg, and R. W. Simpson (1999). A physically based earth-
quake recurrence model for estimation of long-term earthquake
probabilities, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 99-522, doi:
10.3133/ofr99522.
www.srl-online.org • Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022
 Fujiwara, H. (2014). Seismic hazard maps for Japan, in Encyclopedia of
Complexity and Systems Science, 1–28.
Fujiwara, H., S. Kawai, S. Aoi, N. Morikawa, S. Senna, N. Kudo, M.
Ooi, K. X. Hao, K. Wakamatsu, Y. Ishikawa, and T. Okumura
(2009). Technical reports on national seismic hazard maps for
Japan, Technical Note of the National Research Institute for
Earth Science and Disaster Prevention, 336.
Gao, J. C., C. H. Chan, and C.T. Lee (2021). Site-dependent ground-
motion prediction equations and uniform hazard response spectra,
Eng. Geol. 292, 106241, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106241.
Gardner, J. K., and L. Knopoff (1974). Is the sequence of earthquakes
in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, no. 5, 1363–1367.
Gutenberg, B., and C. F. Richter (1944). Frequency of earthquakes in
California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 34, no. 4, 185–188.
Hakimhashemi, A. H. (2009). Time-dependent occurrence rates of
large earthquakes in the Dead Sea fault zone and applications
to probabilistic seismic hazard assessments, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Potsdam, Berlin, Germany.
Kuehn, N. M., and N. A. Abrahamson (2020). Spatial correlations of
ground motion for non-ergodic seismic hazard analysis, Earthq.
Eng. Struct. Dynam. 49, no. 1, 4–23.
Kuehn, N. M., and F. Scherbaum (2016). A partially non-ergodic
ground-motion prediction equation for Europe and the Middle
East, Bull. Earthq. Eng. 14, no. 10, 2629–2642.
Kuehn, N. M., N. A. Abrahamson, and M. A. Walling (2019).
Incorporating nonergodic path effects into the NGA-West2
ground-motion prediction equations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
109, no. 2, 575–585.
Kuo, C. H., K. L. Wen, H. H. Hsieh, C. M. Lin, T. M. Chang, and K. W.
Kuo (2012). Site classification and Vs30 estimation of free-field
TSMIP stations using the logging data of EGDT, Eng. Geol.
129, 68–75, doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.01.013.
Landwehr, N., N. M. Kuehn, T. Scheffer, and N. A. Abrahamson (2016).
A nonergodic ground-motion model for California with
spatially varying coefficients, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106, no. 6,
2574–2583.
Lanzano, G., M. D’Amico, C. Felicetta, R. Puglia, L. Luzi, F. Pacor, and
D. Bindi (2016). Ground-motion prediction equations for region-
specific probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 106, no. 1, 73–92.
Lin, P. S., and C. T. Lee (2008). Ground-motion attenuation relation-
ships for subduction-zone earthquakes in northeastern Taiwan,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 1, 220–240, doi: 10.1785/0120060002.
Volume XX • Number XX • – 2022 • www.srl-online.org
Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/srl/article-pdf/doi/10.1785/0220210186/5589463/srl-2021186.1.pdf
by National Central Univ Library Serials Office, Yen-Yu Lin
Lin, P. S., C. T. Lee, C. T. Cheng, and C. H. Sung (2011). Response
spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes in
Taiwan, Eng. Geol. 121, nos. 3/4, 150–164.
Salditch, L., M. M. Gallahue, M. C. Lucas, J. S. Neely, S. E. Hough, and S.
Stein (2020). California Historical Intensity Mapping Project
(CHIMP): A consistently reinterpreted dataset of seismic intensities
for the past 162 yr and implications for seismic hazard maps,
Seismol. Res. Lett. 91, no. 5, 2631–2650.
Shin, T. C. (1993). Progress summary of the Taiwan strong motion
instrumentation program, Proc. Symposium on Taiwan Strong
Motion Instrumentation.
Shyu, J. B. H., K. Sieh, Y. G. Chen, and C. S. Liu (2005). Neotectonic
architecture of Taiwan and its implications for future large earth-
quakes, J. Geophys. Res. 110, no. B8, doi: 10.1029/2004JB003251.
Shyu, J. B. H., Y. H. Yin, C. H. Chen, Y. R. Chuang, and S. C. Liu (2020).
Updates to the on-land seismogenic structure source database by the
Taiwan Earthquake Model (TEM) project for seismic hazard analy-
sis of Taiwan, Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 31, no. 4, 469–478.
Stein, S., M. Liu, T. Camelbeeck, M. Merino, A. Landgraf, E. Hintersberger,
and S. Kübler (2017). Challenges in assessing seismic hazard in intra-
plate Europe, Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 432, no. 1, 13–28.
Tasan, H., C. Beauval, A. Helmstetter, A. Sandikkaya, and P. Guéguen
(2014). Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates against accel-
erometric data in two countries: France and Turkey, Geophys. J. Int.
198, no. 3, 1554–1571.
Wang, Y. J., C. H. Chan, Y. T. Lee, K. F. Ma, J. B. H. Shyu, and R. J. Rau
(2016). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments for Taiwan, Terr.
Atmos. Ocean. Sci. 27, no. 3, 325–340.
Wang, Y. J., Y. T. Lee, C. H. Chan, and K. F. Ma (2016). An investi-
gation of the reliability of the Taiwan Earthquake Model PSHA2015,
Seismol. Res. Lett. 88, no. 2A, doi: 10.1785/0220160085.
Wen, K. L., H. Y. Peng, Y. B. Tsai, and K. C. Chen (2001). Why 1 G
was recorded at TCU129 site during the 1999 1Chi-Chi, Taiwan,
Earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91, no. 5, 1255–1266.
Wu, Y. M., C. H. Chang, L. Zhao, T. L. Teng, and M. Nakamura
(2008). A comprehensive relocation of earthquakes in Taiwan
from 1991 to 2005, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 3, 1471–1481.
Youngs, R. R., and K. J. Coppersmith (1985). Implications of fault slip
rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic
hazard estimates, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, no. 4, 939–964.
Manuscript received 9 July 2021
Published online 20 April 2022
Seismological Research Letters 15