Bulletinofthe SeismologicalSocmtyofAmerica,Vol 71,No 4, pp 1287-1308,August1981

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES BY ROBIN K. McGUIRE* AND KAYE M. SHEDLOCK
ABSTRACT

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

INTRODUCTION The probabilistic assessment of seismic ground motion has gained wide acceptance as a method of expressing absolute and relative earthquake hazards (e.g., Cornell and Merz, 1975; Kiremidjian and Shah, 1975; Algermissen and Perkins, 1976; Von Rolf and Mayer-Rosa, 1978). In these studies a variety of mathematical representations have been used to model the sources of energy release, the seismicity associated with those sources, and the seismic ground motion. The uncertainties inherent in these models, and in the parameters used to define them, have been recognized by many investigators as important for the realistic determination of seismic hazard (e.g., CorneU and Vanmarcke, 1969; Esteva, 1970; Der Kiureghian and Ang, 1977; McGuire, 1977). The effect of these uncertainties has generally been investigated by sensitivity studies or by explicit inclusion in the risk analysis of probability distributions on parameters and models. In analyzing seismic hazard at many sites for the purpose of drawing a seismichazard map, methods of accurately and efficiently including the effects of model and parameter uncertainty are important. Fortunately, best (mean-value) estimates of the seismic hazard can be obtained using the mean value of most parameters, because of the almost linear dependence that calculated probabilities have on these parameters. This is demonstrated here. Thus, for best estimates of the seismic hazard, explicit inclusion of uncertainties in most parameters is unnecessary. *Present address. Ertec RockyMountainInc., 1746Cole Boulevard,Golden,Colorado80401 1287

1288

ROBIN K. MCGUIRE AND KAYE M. SHEDLOCK

The primary purpose of the present study is to determine the statistical uncert a m t y in seismic-hazard estimates resulting from statistical uncertainties in models and parameters used as input to the analysis. Explicit evaluation of this statistical uncertainty gives an indication of the precision of the estimates and of how much they are likely to change as more data are collected and as the seismicity and geophysical models and parameters are refined. Further, evaluating the sources of statistical uncertainties in seismic hazard will indicate the most appropriate areas of data collection and research to reduce that uncertainty.
TABLE 1
SEISMIC I-~AZARD MODELS AND PARAMETERS FOR WHICH STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTY IS EXAMINED1 AND DISCRETE DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
Distribution Used In E~ample Model or Parameter Value Probabfllt~

Mean rupture length

[RL (kin)]

I0- 1085+0 3~9M 10-4 0+o8M

I 0

Mean acceleration

McGuire (1978a) Donovan and Bornstein (1978) Schnabel and Seed (1973) 0.69 0 87 1.04 70 75 8.0 0 05 0.10 0.15 As shown in Figure I East 2 km West' 2 kin

0.2 04 04 0.3 0.4 03 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 0,4 03 0.3

Richter b value

Maximum magnitude (M~)

Actavlty rate (v) (events per year)

Fault locataon (in dlrecuon perpendicular to fault strike)

This study is conducted in the context of current procedures used to evaluate earthquake hazards in this country; typical mathematical models and assumptions are discussed in the next section. With the aim of determining statistical uncertainties that would apply to many sites, simple, efficient methods are used for estimating these uncertainties given uncertainties in the input, without explicit inclusion of multi-parameter probability distributions in the analysis.
SEISMIC-HAZARD ANALYSIS

The method used here for assessing seismic hazard incorporates ideas proposed by several investigators (Cornell, 1968; Der Kiureghian and Ang, 1977). The probability of exceedence of various levels of ground motion are of interest; hence the important parameter describing earthquake occurrences in time is the expected number of events within a specified time period. The size and location of successive earthquakes are independent; earthquake magnitudes are assumed to conform to a

STATISTICAL U N C E R T A I N T I E S

IN SEISMIC H A Z A R D E V A L U A T I O N S

1289

truncated exponential distribution. Each event ruptures a section of a prescribed fault; the length of rupture is lognormally distributed, with the mean value a function of the earthquake magnitude. The lognormal distribution is truncated to conform to the constraint that the rupture length is always less than or equal to the
x(16)

x x(15) X(14) X(]3) x(lo) x (9) X(]])

(]2)

X (8) x(7) x (6)

E
o

X (5)

FAULT
I

MIDPOINT~ OFFAULT i "-4"~

I

(1) (2) XX
0

(3) X
20kin

(4) X
( ] SITE NUMBER

Fic

1. Plan view of faults and sites m example problem.

fault length. Characteristics of ground motion at the site of interest are lognormally distributed; the mean value of a specified ground-motion parameter is a function of the earthquake magnitude and the shortest distance between the rupture and the site. The seismic hazard is assessed using the total probability theorem. Specifically, the probability that a value of a chosen ground-motion measure is exceeded at a site during a specified time is the probability that that value is exceeded given a specific seismic event times the probability of that event during the time of interest, summed over all possible events (all possible magnitudes and locations). A modified computer program (McGuire, 1978b) based on this theorem was used for calculations in this paper.

1290

ROBIN K. MCGUIRE AND KAYE M. SHEDLOCK

Given the probabilistic uncertainty in earthquake size, location, and associated ground motion, there are several models and parameters which are determined empirically and which therefore have associated statistical uncertainties. These statistical uncertainties result from the finite number of data available on which to base estimates, and would vanish if an infinite number of appropriate data were available. This is not to say that probabilistic uncertainty would vanish. Models and parameters for which uncertainties are examined specifically in this study are listed in Table 1, along with discrete distributions used to express that uncertainty in a
100( I

L E

STRIKE-SLIP FAULT DATA

101

f
"7" I.--D

"Q

10

z,,

._.i

I
1 2 3

oj/
4

I~ /

'

EARTHQUAKEMAGNITUDE
F~G. 2 Length of surface rupture versus magnitude for strike-sAp faults, and two mathematical expressions of the mean trend (after Bolt, 1978)

hypothetical example described below. It is assumed here that the uncertainties in Table I are statistically independent; this is appropriate if model and parameter estimates are based on different, independent data for each model and parameter. For instance, the Richter b value may be estimated by historical seismicity, the activity rate may be estimated from slip rates observed in fault trenches, and the maximum magnitude may be estimated by considering the tectonic regime of the area. A typical seismic-hazard analysis may not be so simple; if activity rates and Richter b values are determined jointly from historical seismicity, correlation may result in these two parameters unless care is taken in their determination (Veneziano, 1975). Other uncertainties in seismic-hazard analysis are classified here as probabilistic uncertainties; they are inherent to the method and would not be reduced if an infinite data set was available. Included are uncertainties in the number of earthquakes, their locations and magnitudes, in the length of rupture for each event

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS

1291

(assuming an accurate mean rupture length), and in the ground motion at a site for a given earthquake (uncertainty about the expected ground motion). Until more sophisticated methods and technologies are available to seismic-hazard analysis, e.g., to predict the size and location of future earthquakes, these probabilistic uncertainties will remain. The distribution of ground-motion values calculated by the seismic-hazard analysis is in fact a derived distribution obtained from distributions on earthquake
700

600 1000 YEAR ACCELERATION

500

~-~ 4 0 0 ,o
I.-.,..,.. Z

\
\

IogloRL:-1.085+O 389 M IOgloRL=-4.0+0 8 M

300-

. . . .

200

500 YEAR ACCELERATION

100

__
0

I
10

I
20

1
70

_l
80

30 40 50 60 DISTANCE (km) FROM FAULT

FIa. 3. 500- and 1000-yr acceleration at sites (1) through (4) (Figure 1), using two rupture length versus magmtude relations.

magnitude, location, and so on. The complicated nature of the problem prohibits an exact closed-form determination of the effect of uncertainty in the input parameters and models. This effect can always be determined by enumeration, i.e., by using discrete distributions to represent parameter and model uncertainties and doing multiple-hazard analyses for all combinations of input values. Approximate, closedform solutions are presented in the next section; their accuracy is verified by enumeration with exact hazard analysis results.
ESTIMATING E F F E C T S OF STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES

Hypothetical example. To efficiently and accurately determine the effects of statistical uncertainties, several methods are recommended depending on the source of uncertainty. These methods were verified by comparison with exact results for a hypothetical example. The geometry of the fault and the sites examined are shown in Figure 1; the statistical distributions representing uncertainty in input parameters and models are listed in Table 1. Because the approximate results were to be

1292

R O B I N K. M C G U I R E AND K A Y E M. S t I E D L O C K

checked by enumeration with multiple hazard analyses, discrete distributions were limited in number to three values with associated probabilities. These probabilities may represent statistical uncertainties resulting from limited data, or subjective judgments on the validity of one model over another. Peak horizontal ground acceleration was used as a ground-motion measure because it has received wide interest in seismic-hazard studies and because several attenuation functions are available to estimate it. Mean rupture-length magnttude relation. The effect on seismic-hazard estimates of the relationship between the mean length of fault rupture and earthquake magnitude was examined by considering the two relations shown in Table I. These represent extreme interpretations of available data (Bolt, 1978) as shown in Figure 2. For each relation, the peak accelerations with 0.002 and 0.001 annual probabilities of being exceeded are indicated in Figure 3 for the sites located perpendicular to the mid-point of the fault. (The acceleration with 0.002 probability of being exceeded is also called the "500-yr acceleration" and is designated asoo herein.) The sensitivity of a~0o to the mean rupture-length magnitude relation is not large at most sites, leading to the conclusion that uncertainty in this relation need not be included in seismic-hazard estimates. Uncertainty in rupture length about the mean value should be included; because this uncertainty is so large [the standard deviation of log~o (rupture length) is taken to be 0.52], relatively small changes in the mean values, particularly around magnitude 7 where the two lines cross in Figure 2, have little effect on asoo. As a result of this insensitivity to the mean value of rupture length, only the more conservative relationship (the first listed in Table 1) is used for further comparisons in this study (thus the second relation listed in Table 1 is assigned zero probability).

Mean acceleration, b, maximum magnitude, activity rate, and fault location.

Model uncertainty in the estimation of mean acceleration for a given magnitude and distance is represented in this example using three attenuation functions which have been proposed for peak horizontal ground acceleration as on rock (Schnabel and Seed, 1973; Donovan and Bornstein, 1978; McGuire, 1978a) and which have been calibrated with strong motion records. The first function listed in Table 1 (assigned subjective probability of 0.2) assumes a very simple dependence of a s on earthquake magnitude, M, and source-to-site distance R as -- exp(cl + c2M)R c3. Functions of this type are adequate for expressing the dependence of as on magnitude and distance in the M and R range where data are numerous, but are not appropriate for extrapolation in particular to large magnitudes and small distances. The other two attenuation functions listed in Table 1 assume more realistic but more complicated dependences of as on M and R; they provide more realistic estimates of acceleration for large magnitudes at close distances. Uncertainty in a s about the mean value is assumed to conform to a lognormal distribution with standard deviation of In ag equal to 0.62 (McGuire, 1978a) for all three attenuation functions. The assumed truncated exponential distribution on magnitude is specified with two parameters: the slope b of the log number versus magnitude relation, and the maximum magnitude M1. To represent statistical uncertainty in b, a mean value of 0.87 was chosen (and weighted 0.4) with alternate values of -+_20 per cent weighted

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES

IN S E I S M I C H A Z A R D E V A L U A T I O N S

1293

0.3 each (20 per cent typically corresponds to one standard deviation for historical seismicity in the United States). For M~, values of 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0 were weighted equally; this represents a large uncertainty in M~ and is thus an extreme test for the approximate procedures being developed. The rate of occurrence of earthquakes is specified by mean activity rate ~. Uncertainty in ~ is represented by values of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.15 earthquakes per year, each value weighted equally. The fault location indicated on Figure 1 is assigned a subjective probability of 0.4, and the major source of energy release is taken to be at a depth of 5 kin. Alternate fault locations of _+2 km (in the direction perpendicular to the fault) are assigned
(~Pomt-source hazardanalys~s , , ~ using alternate values of bar M 1 4~) Polnt-source \ / hazard analysis 31~ ~ ,~ .~ using mean I~ /b(,.~.) 0'500 from 41~),~(,2),and parameter values I \ ~ ~l. . . . . .

",,,,/

....

s00

T
z <

1\
,3/

~a'soofrom%00
and changes in Y

,,x,
0 002 - -

<c

~ Slopeat asoo .~'best estimate" hazard analysis

z Z

_L_
ACCELERATION,(LOGSCALE)
Fro. 4. D m g r a m m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e m e t h o d for calculating effects of statlstmal u n c e r t a m b e s on 500-yr acceleration N u m b e r s ~n c~rcles inchcate step descrlbed in text

%0

a;oo oo

probabilities of 0.3 each. Uncertainty in the depth of energy release is not modeled in this example but can be treated in a manner identical to the method described below for fault location uncertainty. The recommended method to easily and accurately calculate the dependence of as0o on fault location, mean acceleration, b, M1, and p, requires determining the critical earthquake magnitude and distance that contributes most to the probability of accelerations greater than as0o at the site. This can easily be accomplished during the mean-value hazard analysis, as described below. The required sensitivities can then be estimated in closed form by using a point-source approximation to the earthquake source in place of the actual fault. The method is diagrammed in Figure 4, and for earthquakes on a single fault consists of the following steps. 1. Calculate seismic hazard at the site using mean-value point estimates for b, M1, I, and the fault location. For each magnitude and distance, use the weighted average of the three attenuation functions for the mean value of ag at the site. This analysis will indicate the best estimate for the 500-yr

1294

ROBIN K. MCGUIRE AND KAYE M. SHEDLOCK

acceleration, a~oo, and will also indicate the slope of the (log) probabilityversus-(log) acceleration curve at a~oo. Also, for this value of a~oo, determine an effective magnitude Me and an effective distance Re defined as follows

Me = ~ M . P [ A > asoo [ M ]
M

P[M]/O.O02

Re

~ R
R

P [ A > asoo IR] P[R]/O.O02.

(3)

Me and Re are the m e a n magnitude and m e a n distance of seismic events causing exceedence of acceleration a~oo at the site.

0.05 I

McGulre (1978) Attenuation

0.051 0.05 I

J I111111 III II

LilllllllLIII/ll I111

Donovan (197,8) Attenuation

"~
a,.

HlllIJIIJi
SchnabeI-Seed (1973) Attenuation

o.osl

o.os) o.osl
I 0

l)llllJ)l)lili Ill II(l! lllf I

I 200

I 400

I 600

Acceleration (gals)
Fro. 5. Exact dgstrlbunons (above horizontal hnes) and approximate chstnbutlons (below horizontal lines) of a~0ofor each attenuation, at site (2) m Figure 1

2. For the first a t t e n u a t i o n function determine the acceleration al estimated for magnitude M~ and Re; determine accelerations a2 and a3 similarly for the second and third attenuations. C o m p u t e the weighted average aw of these accelerations using the a t t e n u a t i o n weights. Calculate an a t t e n u a t i o n factor al as the ratio of al to aw; calculate factors a2 and a~ similarly. 3. D e t e r m i n e the closest distance Re from the fault to the site; for the first a t t e n u a t i o n function calculate the acceleration ac estimated for magnitude Me and distance Re. For each change in fault location and depth, determine a new distance R~', a new acceleration a'c, and a location factor X' as the ratio of a~' to ac. 4. For the first attenuation function and m e a n values of b and M1, calculate the probability t h a t acceleration a~oo is exceeded assuming an e a r t h q u a k e of r a n d o m magnitude occurs at distance Re from the site. This is a closed-form

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES

IN S E I S M I C H A Z A R D E V A L U A T I O N S

1295

calculation (Cornell, 1971)

P [ A > asoo] = (1 - k ) o * ( z / o ) + k,~*(z'/o)

+ k R e p3/c2 exp(-fi In a5oo/C2 - f l c l / c 2

+ fimo + B~o~12c~)(~*(z/o - #oleo) - )*(z'/,~ - #,dc~))

(4)

where 0* is the complementary cumulative function of the standardized normal distribution, mo is the lower-bound magnitude, k = (1 - exp(-b(M1 mo))) -1, fi = b In 10 and
-

Z = asoo - c~

c2M1

--

C3 In

Re

Z' = asoo - c~ - c2mo - c3 In Re.

05

(5)

Z 0 F,-

,~04-

,(15) ( I ~ / ,(B)
.

L9

0 ,3 - -

! /

(15)

"/4,:

/~L/ (4 (9) "~6T }

(~.3/

.1) (0
I ) SITE NUMBER

02

03 04 ESTIMATED COEFFICIENTOF VARIATION

FIG 6. C o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n exact a n d e s t i m a t e d cov of a~oo due to stahst]cal uncertainty, for 16 sites s h o w n m Figure 1

The derivation of equation (4) is available in McGuire (1976). 5. For the first attenuation function and an alternate value of b (from its discrete distribution), or of Ms, recalculate the probability t h a t acceleration a~0o is exceeded using equation (4). 6. From the change in probability calculated from steps 4 and 5, and the slope from step 1 [i.e., the ratio of changes in (log) probability to changes in (log) acceleration], determine a new a~oo associated with the alternate value of b. 7. Using the slope from step 1, and assuming t h a t changes in probability are proportional to changes in activity rates, determine (from a~0o in step 6) new accelerations as"oofor each value in the discrete distribution of p. 8. Multiply accelerations a~'0o by the attenuation factor al (step 2) and location factors X' (step 3). For each acceleration al~' a~o (associated with a specific

1296

R O B I N K. M C G U I R E AND KAYE M. S H E D L O C K

fault location and specific values for b, M,, and r) calculate the associated probability as a product of probabilities for attenuation 1, location, b, M, and
P.

Repeat steps 5 through 8 for all combinations of values for b and M1. 10. Repeat steps 3 through 9 for the second and third attenuation. For the purposes of equation (4), c2 can be calculated as the local slope of In (acceleration) with respect to magnitude and c3 is the slope with respect to In (distance), both evaluated at Me and Re; cl can be obtained by solving equation (3) using Me, Re, and acceleration a2 (or a3) calculated in step 2.
.

500

*(1) (5) 400

o ~ 3O0
U t,.)

(6)e o(9} (13) .(3)

"(2)

~- 2oo 8 ,x,
100 18). ,'(16)
(12)
(14)e (7) (10) (15)

111.1%

) SITENUMBER

I
500

100 200 300 400 ESTIMATED 500 YEAR ACCELERATION (GALS)

FIG. 7. Comparison between exact and estnnated a~00 for 16 sites s h o w n m Figure 1.

11. For the calculated values of as0o and their associated probabilities (which sum to unity), determine the mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation (coy), the ratio of standard deviation to mean. To illustrate the accuracy of this method, Figure 5 shows distributions of asoo at the site (2) located 20 km from the mid-point of the fault (Figure 1) for the uncertainties in b, M1, and fault location listed in Table 1, for the three attenuation functions. The "exact" distributions were determined from multiple-hazard analyses; the "approximate" distributions were calculated using the steps described above. The calculated cov for the exact results (including uncertainty in r) is 0.30; for the approximate results it is 0.32. This agreement is remarkable given the simplicity of making these approximate calculations in contrast to repeating the seismic-hazard analysis which involves numerical integration over multiple variables. Agreement between exact and approximate cov's was generally close at all 16 sites shown in Figure 1; this agreement is illustrated in Figure 6.

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES

IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS

1297

A result equally as important is that the use of mean values for fault location, attenuation, b, M1, and v as input to the hazard analysis provided accurate estzmates of a~oo. This is illustrated in Figure 7, which shows asoo from the hazard analysis using mean-value point estimates versus the mean of the values of asoo obtained

GREEN VALLEY NORTHERN ~ODGERS SANANDREAS CREEK

XCONCORD HAYWARD \. - ' ~ X CALAVERAS , ~ ~ SUNOL

'IDWAY

PENINSULAR SANANDREAS

OE~,L R E V LX E
~

,O,T ERN

SANJOAQUIN

~SOUTHER~ , SAN MIDDLE ~.JOAQU I,i SANJOAQUIN % O'NEILL CALAVERAS

\X.

SANGREGORIO IILm
|
" ' "

:~Ok,n
FIG 8 F a u l t s m the San Francisco B a y area.

from multiple-hazard analysis (the "exact" mean asoo). The agreement is excellent; this means that parameter uncertainties of the type examined here need not be considered explicitly in hazard analysis for best estimates of the seismic hazard. To ensure the applicability of this result, it was examined and found to be accurate on a parameter-by-parameter basis, as well as in the case when there are uncertainties in several parameters (as illustrated here). For sites affected by more than one fault, the steps above should be repeated for each fault, and the probabilities associated with each acceleration asoo should be

1298

ROBIN

K. M C G U I R E

AND

KAYE

M. S H E D L O C K

multiplied by a fault-weighting factor. This factor can be computed estimate" hazard analysis as the contribution

from the "best has been

each fault makes to the total proba-

b i l i t y o f e x c e e d e n c e a t a~00 (0.002 p e r y e a r ) . T h e a c c u r a c y o f t h i s m e t h o d

verified with a simple two-fault example; these results are not presented here.

TABLE 2
FAULT SYSTEMS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, AND MEAN VALUES OF ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS (AFTER SHEDLOCK ET A L , 1980) R~chter Richtert Length Magmtude b (kin) Range Seismic Shp (cm/ Creep (cm/ yr) Total SAp (crn/ Activity Rate~+ (events/

No

Fault*

E (M0)

yr) 1.90 0.95 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0 15 0 15 0 15 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 005 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

yr) -- -- 3 1 2 0.75 0 75 - - [[ 6.89 1027 5.82 1027 4.09 1027 2.29 102~ 3.03 1025 8.15 1024 2.29 1025 186 x 1025 1.86 1025 7 95 1024 1.62 2 86 3.57 2.86 6.89 x x 1025 1024 1024 1024 1024 1024 1025 102~ 1024 1024 1025 1025 102~ 1024 1024

yr) 0.0036 0 0020 0.0003 0 0092 0.0159 0.0276 0.0275 0.0411 0.0459 0 0396 0.0249 0 0315 0.0168 0 0210 0 0044 0 0040 0.0009 0 0007 0.0002 0 0009 0 0007 0.0011 0.0034 0.0022 0.0023

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Northern San Andreas Peninsular San Andreas Northern San Andreas San Gregorio Northern San Andreas San Gregorio Peninsular San Andreas Rodgers Creek Maacama Calaveras Calaveras-Sunol Calaveras-Hayward Calaveras-Sunol Green Valley Concord Sargent Qulen Sabe Greenville Las Posltas Monte Vista Evergreen Midway Verona O'Neill Ortlgalita North San Joaquin Middle San Joaquln South San Joaquln

7.6-8.2 7.5-8.2 7 6-7.9 5-7.5 5-7.6 5-6.9 5-7.5 5-7.7 5-7.7 5-7.1 5-7.3 5-6.4 5-6.4 5-6 4 5-7.0 5-6.2 5-7 2 5-7.1 5-7 0 5-7.0 5-7.3 5-7.6 5-7.3 5-6.6 5-6.8

0 72 0.72 0.72 0.75 0 72 0.75 0.75 0.9 0.9 09 0 75 0.9 0.72 0.9 0.9 09 0 75 0.75 0.9 0.9 0.9 09 0.9 0.9 0.9

430 410 270 140 160 50 140 170 190 70 90 20 20 20 50 14 20 14 11 10 24 60 60 14 20

0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 - - I[

06 0 75 - - [[ - - II 06 06 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0.75 0.4 01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 02 0.005 0,02 0,01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

2.12 1 37 1.15 6.89 6.89 x 1 06 1.62 x 1.06 x 2 85 x 5 16

* All faults were given a depth of energy release of 7.5 km with a probability of 1/3; alternate values of 5 and 10 km were assigned probabilities of 1/3 each t Richter b values shown were assigned probabilities of 0 4; values differing by __10 per cent were assigned probabilities of 0.2, and values differing by +20 per cent were asmgned probabilities of 0 1 Rates shown were assigned probabilities of 0.2; values differing by ___25 per cent were asmgned probabflties of 0.2, and values differing by +_50 per cent were asmgned probabflitms of 0.2 Total sAp is counted in faults 3 to 5 Modified from Shedlock e t al. (1980) to yaeld activity rates consistent with historical selsmlclty. [[ On the Calaveras-Sunol section, seismic slip -- 0.3 cm/yr (total) and creep = 0.45 cm/yr On the Calaveras-Calaveras-Sunol section, seismic s h p = 0.15 cm/yr and creep = 0.6 cm/yr. This preserves 0.75 crn/yr total sllp for these sections.

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS

1299

A P I A I N IN T E UNITED S A E P LC TO S H T T S

San Francisco Bay area. The procedures described in the previous section were used to determine the effects of statistical uncertainties on peak horizontal ground acceleration with a 500-yr return period in the San Francisco Bay area. This is an area in which a large amount of geologic investigation has been done to understand faulting and its relationship to seismicity.
1000

50C

(D z~00

50

52

56

60

66 70 MAGNITUDE

76

80

85

FIG. 9 Mean acceleration versus magmtude for several source-to-site distances, using Schnabel and Seed (1973) attenuation (solid hnes). Dashed lmes indmate modificanon made for apphcatlon to San Francisco Bay area

Major faults in the area are shown in Figure 8; these were taken from Shedlock et al. (1980). Seismicity in the area was modeled considering faults singly and in combination; the fault systems and mean values of associated parameters are listed in Table 2 {after Shedlock et al., 1980). Statistical uncertainties in the mean rate of earthquake occurrence, in the Richter b value, and in the depth of energy release, were modeled and are explained in footnotes to Table 2. These reflect our judgments on the uncertainty of these parameters for this area. Geologists familiar with the area expressed no uncertainty about maximum magnitude earthquakes or about fault locations, so neither of these uncertainties was modeled m this application. To estimate ground acceleration, the three attenuation functions given in Table

1300

ROBIN K. MCGUIRE AND KAYE M. SHEDLOCK

1 were used, with weights as shown, except that a modified form of the Schnabel and Seed (1973) function was used. This modification is shown as dashed lines in Figure 9, and represents the observation that small-magnitude earthquakes, on the average, generate larger ground accelerations than those estimated by the original

60

20

40

0kin

50kin

FIG. 10 Peak horizontal ground acceleration (in per cent of gravity) with 0.002 annual exceedence prol~abihty, San Francisco Bay area.

Schnabel and Seed curves. This has been substantiated by recent data, at least at close distances (Seekins and Hanks, 1978). A lognormal distribution of acceleration values (given the mean) was used, with uncertainty specified by a~n%= 0.62. It is important to note that these seismic activity rates were calculated based on Richter magnitudes. The Richter magnitude scale saturates for M _-> 7.5 and may not be a good measure of earthquake source strength for faults on which larger events may originate (e.g., the San Andreas and Calaveras systems). A nonsaturating scale (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979) may be a better choice for use in calculating the activity rates for long faults. However, these activity rates may be several times the

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS

1301

activity rates observed historically (Shedlock et al., 1980) due to uncertainty in parameters such as upper-bound magnitude and rate of fault creep. Furthermore, it has been shown that activity rates which are consistent with observations in the recent past are most appropriate for estimating seismic hazard in the near future

0.3

0.2

\
0.3

'~

0kin

50kin

Fro. 11. Cov of acceleration with 0 002 annual exceedence probability, San Francisco Bay area

(McGuire and Barnhard, 1981). A second consideration for seismic-hazard analyses is that the magnitude scale used for fault activity calculations should be consistent with that used for ground motion estimates. For these reasons we adopt estimates of seismic activity for the San Francisco Bay region based on Richter magnitude for this example application. Figure 10 shows mean value estimates of as00 for the area, using mean values of the seismicity parameters (Table 2) and the weighted attenuation functions {Table

1302

R O B I N K. M C G U I R E AND K A Y E M. S H E D L O C K

1). It is important to interpret Figure 10 in terms of the fault systems and their parameters (Table 2). For example, seismic slip on the section of the San Andreas north of the Golden Gate is attributed entirely to large earthquakes (magnitudes 7.6 to 8.3) which are rare (recurrence interval of about 170 yr). By contrast, seismic slip
x.. "., I fJ

St Louis~/~
/ ,) Ij

/;'"

Ind,ana

' " COTTAGEGROVEFAULT ' ,

"-, ST GENEVIEVEFAULT ~

~' ~....

ROUGHCREEKFAULT

~E

TOWN FAULT

/NO/RTHEAST BRANCH ZONE WEST BRANCH ZON.~_~,~.~ / T---:..................................... CROSS

GRABEN. p ~~.REELFOOTFAULT ZONE /,/

/ ,"~; cs i r-~ Mernphls T........

/_'~ ~'~'" ~RIDGELY FAULT ...... CENTRALGRABEN ZONE~ ~."~'. "COTTONWOODGROVE FAULT

Arkansas

S ....
?
~ISSISSII~Pl i'

/
Alabama
i i
i . . . . *

%'

()kill

:ll)klll

i I

FIG. 12. Faults and smsmogenic zones in the central Mississippi Valley area

on faults in the east bay area (Calaveras, Hayward, and Sunol) is attributed to small and moderate shocks (magnitudes 5.0 to 7.7) which are much more frequent (recurrence interval of about 25 to 40 yr). Contours of the cov of a~oo are shown in Figure 11. Values are largest (somewhat greater than 0.4) along the major faults, decrease to the lowest values (less than 0.2) at sites about 50 km from the major sources of seismic hazard, and increase at sites

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES

IN S E I S M I C H A Z A R D E V A L U A T I O N S TABLE 3

1303

SEISMOGENIC ZONES AND THEIR PARAMETERS IN THE CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI VALLEY AREA SelsmogemcZone St G e n e v m v e fault Location Dtstnbutton (probability) As m Figure 12 (0 8) N E 5 k i n (0.1) SW: 25 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0.8) SE 22.5 k m (0.1) NW: 22.5 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0.8) SE 1.5 k m (0.1) N W 3 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0 8) E 1 k m (0.1) W 1 k m (0 1) As in Figure 12 (0 8) E: 5 k m (0.1) W 15 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0.8) N. 10 k m {0.1) S 10 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0.8) SE: 10 k m (0.1) NW" 10 k m (0 1) As in Figure 12 (0.8) S W 5 k m (0.1) NE: 5 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0 8) S W 5 k m (0.1) NE- 5 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0 8) SE 1 5 k m (0.1) N W 1 5 k m (0.1) As m Figure 12 (0.8) S W 5 k m (0 1) N E 5 k m (0.1) Magmtude Range 4.5-7 5 Activity Rate* (events/yr) 0 031 Rmhtert b 0.87 Depth of Energy Release:~ 10

Central G r a b e n Zone

4 5-7.5

0.156

0.87

10

C o t t o n w o o d Grove fault

4.5-6.0

0.023

0.87

10

Reelfoot fault

4.5-5.5

0 008

0.87

10

Cross G r a b e n

4 5-7 5

0.156

0.87

10

W e s t B r a n c h Zone

4.5-5.0

0.003

0.87

10

N o r t h e a s t B r a n c h Zone

4 5-7 5

0 156

0.87

10

Cottage Grove fault

4.5-7.5

0 031

0 87

10

R o u g h Creek fault

4.5-7 5

0 031

0 87

10

Rldgely fault

4.5-5.5

0.008

0.87

10

S h a w n e e T o w n fault

4 5-6.0

0.002

0.87

10

* R a t e s s h o w n were assigned probabflitms of 0.2 values dlffenng by _+25 per cent were assigned probabilities of 0 2, a n d values dTffenng by _+50 per cent were asmgned probabilities of 0 2. t R i c h t e r b values s h o w n were assigned probabilitms of 0.29; t h e o t h e r assignations were as follows b + 5 per cent -- 0.12; b + 16 per cent = 0 12; b + 26 per cent -- 0.06; b - 5 per c e n t = 0 18; b - i6 per cent = 0.23. T h e d e p t h s h o w n was assigned a probability of 1/3; a l t e r n a t e values of 5 a n d 15 k m were assigned p r o b a b d m e s of 1/3 each.

1304

ROBIN

K. M C G U I R E

AND

KAYE

M. S H E D L O C K

farther to the east. Close to the faults, the major effects are the uncertainties in the mean acceleration and depth of energy release. At 50 km distance, the three attenuation functions estimate about the same acceleration. Therefore uncertainties in a~00 at sites 50 km from major faults result predominantly from uncertainties in
!

,,/"

)
)

20

0,: ,2 "1

Fro. 13 Peak horizontal ground acceleration (m per cent gravity) with 0.002 annual exceedence probability, centralMississippi Valley area. the activity rate and Richter b value. At progressively farther sites, the acceleration estimates again diverge for different attenuations because of the alternate functional forms adopted, resulting in progressively larger cov's. Mississipp~ Valley area. The procedures developed in this study were applied to the central Mississippi Valley area to determine statistical uncertainties in seismic hazard for that region. The area and its faults and seismogenic zones (where current

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS

1305

tectonic processes are still poorly understood) are shown in Figure 12. It is recognized that some disagreement exists among investigators in the Mississippi Valley area over which faults are active and how to delimit seismogenic zones. The faults and zones shown in Figure 12 represent only one of several possible interpretations of
\."%
I

~x

r* k

) ) ,p^' "} e,." .._._') -~ "%

]
f

--4 r" (

0.30

0 2:,

e"

/ /
]

FIG

14.

Coy of acceleration with 0.002 annual exceedence probability, central Miss:sslppi Valley area.

the area (McKeown, personal communication, 1979) and are used here only as an example to illustrate the methodology. Parameters associated with these faults and zones are listed in Table 3. No uncertainty in maximum magnitude was used because geologists familiar with the area were in agreement on the values shown in Table 3. A lower-bound magnitude of 4.5 was adopted because of the low attenuation of ground acceleration in the central United States: small magnitude earthquakes,

1306

R O B I N K. M C G U I R E AND KAYE M. S H E D L O C K

because of their large relative number and the low attenuation of ground motion, may contribute significantly to ground-acceleration hazard. The mean activity rates shown in Table 3 were determined using geologic evidence to estimate recurrence rates for earthquakes of the largest Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity. Assuming that magnitude is proportional to maximum MM intensity and that the constant of proportionality is 2/3, these recurrence rates were assumed to be accurate for magnitudes between M1 - 2/3 and M1, and consistent rates for magnitudes greater than 4.5 were then calculated (Table 3). In this case the strict statistical independence between activity rate and b value does not hold, as it did in the San Francisco example, but any correlation between these two parameters is ignored in this study. In any case, the total activity rate for the area is consistent with historical seismicity as reported by Algermissen and Perkins (1976). The mean acceleration attenuation function used was that proposed by Algermissen and Perkins {1976) for the Central and Eastern United States. Accelerations estimated by this function for magnitudes up to about 6.6 are close to those estimated by the attenuation equation of Nuttli (personal communication, 1979), which became available after this study was initiated. For higher magnitudes, in the range 7.0 to 7.5, the Nuttli equation predicts larger accelerations by a factor of about 2. If the Nuttli curves had been used in the Mississippi Valley region they would have produced higher values of a~0o than those reported in this study but about the same values for the cov of asoo. To model uncertainty in the mean acceleration, a uniform distribution was used, with values ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 of the mean. Uncertainty in peak acceleration about the mean value was assumed lognormally distributed, with (~lnag = 0.62. The calculated values of a~0o are shown in Figure 13. The largest values occur near the "central graben" and "cross graben" zones, where large earthquakes (magnitude ~ 7.5) are estimated to occur once every 600 yr, on the average. Figure 14 shows the cov of these accelerations due to the statistical uncertainties indicated in Table 3 and due to uncertainty in the mean acceleration. The largest uncertainties occur in the area of highest acceleration risk because of uncertainties in fault location and depth of energy release; at locations farther from faults, smaller uncertainties are obtained. The uncertainty in mean acceleration has been assumed constant with distance, so there is no increase in coy at large distances. If, instead of the assumed range of mean accelerations (0.5 to 1.5 times the mean), a range of 0.75 to 1.25 was used, the values shown in Figure 14 would decrease by about 0.1.
CONCLUSIONS

The procedure developed in this study provides a computationaUy efficient method of determining the uncertainty in seismic-hazard calculations which result from statistical uncertainty in the assumed models and their parameters. "Best estimates" of seismic hazard at most sites can be acurately obtained using mean values of statistically uncertain parameters, and uncertainties in the seismic hazard can be determined subsequently in a postprocessing operation. Uncertainties in seismic hazard in the San Francisco Bay area, as expressed by the cov of the 500-yr acceleration, range from greater than 0.4 to less than 0.2. Large uncertainties near the major faults result from uncertainties in mean acceleration given an event and from uncertainties in the depth of energy release. The lowest uncertainty is calculated about 50 km east of the major faults. At farther distances, values of acceleration are low but uncertainty is high due to differences in predicted

STATISTICAL UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATIONS

1307

accelerations at these long distances among various attenuation equations. In the central Mississippi Valley, uncertainty in the 500-yr acceleration is largest near the major faults (cov greater than 0.4) and lower at farther distances (around 0.3 at distances greater than 100 kin). These values depend heavily on the assumed uncertainty in mean acceleration; halving the range used here would decrease cov's by about 0.1. Although not done here, it would be proper and logical to interpret the largest sources of statistical uncertainty as areas in which research and data collection should be conducted to reduce uncertainties in seismic-hazard evaluations. The relative uncertainties also give an indication of how hazard calculations will change in time, with additional research and data. The method explained and illustrated here provides a computationally efficient format for determining these uncertainties.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the help of E. E Brabb, A. J. Crone, D. G. Herd, F. A. McKeown, and D. P. Russ in providing mformatlon on faults and selsmogenic zones and their parameters in the San Francisco Bay area and m the central Mismsmppl Valley area. We appreciate also the revmws of early drafts of this work by C A Cornell, R. M Hamilton, O W Nuttli, D. M. Perkins, and A. M Rogers, Jr., who offered many useful suggestions.
REFERENCES

Algermlssen, S T and D M Perkins {1976) A probabihstm estunate of maxunum acceleration m rock m the contiguous Umted States, U S Geol. Surv Open-F~le Rept. 76-416, 45 pp Bolt, B A. (1978). Incomplete formulations of the regression of earthquake magnitude with surface fault rupture length, Geology 6, 233-235 Cornell, C A {1968) Engmeenng selsmm risk analysis, Bull. Setsm. Soc. Am. 58, 1583-1606 Cornell, C. A (1971). Probabfllstlc analysis of damage to structures under selsmm load, in Dynamic Waves m Cwtl Engineering, D. A Howells, I P. Halgh, and C Taylor, E(fitors, Wiley-Interscmnce, London, 473-488 Cornell, C A. and H. A. Merz (1975) Seismic risk analysis of Boston, J Struc. Dw., A m Soc. C w d Engrs. 101, 2027-2043 Cornell, C A and E. H. Vanmarcke {1969) The major mfluences on seismm risk, Proc Thtrd W o r m Conf on Earthquake E n g , Santmgo, Chile, A-l, 69-83. Der Kmreghmn, A. and A H -S. Ang (1977). A fault-rupture model for smsmm risk analys~s, Bull Setsm Soc. Am. 67, 1173-1194 Donovan, N C and A. E Bornstein (1978) Uncertamtles in seismm risk procedures, J Geotech Eng. D w , A m Soc Ctvd Engrs 164, 869-887. Esteva, L. (1970). Smsmlc risk and smsmm design declsmns, m Sezsm~c Design for Nuclear Power Plants, R. J Hansen, Editor, M.I T Press, Cambridge, 142-182 Esteva, L (1976) Selsmmlty, m Setsmw R~sk and Engineering Deczsmns, E Rosenblueth and C. Lommtz, Editors, Elsevier Scmntific Pubhshmg Co., Amsterdam, 179-224 Hanks, T C and H K a n a m o n (1979) A moment magnitude scale, J Geophys Res 84, 2348-2350. Klremldpan, A S. and H C. Shah (1975). Seismic hazard mapping of California, J o h n A Blume Earthquake Engineering Center Report No. 21, Stanford University, November, 98 pp. McGmre, R. K. (1976). Fortran computer program for seismac risk analyms, US. Geol. Surv. Open-Fde Rept 76-67, 9O pp McGuire, R K (1977) Effects of uncertainty in semmiclty on estimates of smsmlc hazard for the east coast of the United States, Bull. Setsm. Soc. Am. 67, 827-848 McGmre, R K. (1978a) Smsmic ground motion parameter relatmns, J Geotech Eng. Dw., Am. Soc C w d Engrs 164, 481-490 McGmre, R K. (1978b) FRISK-computer program for semmic risk analysis using faults as earthquake sources, U S Geol Surv Open-Fde Rept. 78-1007, 71 pp. McGmre, R. K and T P Barnhard {1981) Effects of temporal varlatmns in smsmiclty on selsmm hazard, Bull Se~sm. Soc. A m 71, 321-334 Schnabel, P B and H B Seed (1973) Acceleratmns m rock for earthquakes in the Western United States, Bull. Setsm Soc Am. 63, 501-516

1308

R O B I N K. M C G U I R E A N D K A Y E M. S H E D L O C K

Seekms, L. C. and T. C. Hanks (1978). Strong motion accelerograms of the Oroville aftershocks and peak acceleration data, Bull. Se~sm Soc Am 68, 677-690 Shedlock, K. M., R, K McGuire, and D. G. Herd (1980). Earthquake recurrence m the San Francisco Bay Region, California, from fault slip and seismic moment, U.S. Geol. Surv Open-F~le Rept 80999, 18 pp. Thenhaus, P. C., D. M. Perkins, J. I Ziony, and S. T. Algern~ssen (1979). Probabfiistic estimates of maymmum selsmm acceleration in rock in coastal California and the adjacent outer continental shelf, U.S Geol. Surv. Open-Fde Rept 80-924, 62 pp Venezlano, D. (1975). ProbabfllStlc and statistical models for seismic risk analysis, M I T Department of Civil Engineering, Pub. R75-34, July, 151 pp. Von Roll, S. and D. Mayer-Rosa {1978) Erdbebengefahrdung in der Schwelz, Schwelzerische Bauzelfung, 96 Jargrgang Heft 7, February, 107-122, U S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Box 25046, MAIL STOP 966 DENVER FEDERAL CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80225 Manuscript received June 12, 1980