Mapping Seismic Hazard for Canadian Sites Using Spatially Smoothed Seismicity Model

Chao Feng; Han-Ping Hong

doi:10.1007/s13753-023-00521-x

Volume 14 Issue 6

Dec. 2023

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2023 > 14(6): 898-918

Chao Feng, Han-Ping Hong. Mapping Seismic Hazard for Canadian Sites Using Spatially Smoothed Seismicity Model[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2023, 14(6): 898-918. doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00521-x

Citation:

Chao Feng, Han-Ping Hong. Mapping Seismic Hazard for Canadian Sites Using Spatially Smoothed Seismicity Model[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2023, 14(6): 898-918. doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00521-x

Citation:

PDF

Mapping Seismic Hazard for Canadian Sites Using Spatially Smoothed Seismicity Model

doi: 10.1007/s13753-023-00521-x

Chao Feng¹,
Han-Ping Hong^{2,3
,
,}

1. School of Civil Engineering, Chang'an University, Xi'an, 710061, China;
2. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, 518055, China;
3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Western Ontario, London, N6A 5B9, Canada

Funds:

The support of the Fundamental Research Funds from the Central Universities, CHD (Grant No. 300102282103), Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi (Program No. 2023-JC-QN-0512), and Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), is gratefully acknowledged.

Accepted Date: 2023-10-11
Publish Date: 2023-12-07

Abstract

Abstract

The estimated seismic hazard based on the delineated seismic source model is used as the basis to assign the seismic design loads in Canadian structural design codes. An alternative for the estimation is based on a spatially smoothed source model. However, a quantification of differences in the Canadian seismic hazard maps (CanSHMs) obtained based on the delineated seismic source model and spatially smoothed model is unavailable. The quantification is valuable to identify epistemic uncertainty in the estimated seismic hazard and the degree of uncertainty in the CanSHMs. In the present study, we developed seismic source models using spatial smoothing and historical earthquake catalogue. We quantified the differences in the estimated Canadian seismic hazard by considering the delineated source model and spatially smoothed source models. For the development of the spatially smoothed seismic source models, we considered spatial kernel smoothing techniques with or without adaptive bandwidth. The results indicate that the use of the delineated seismic source model could lead to under or over-estimation of the seismic hazard as compared to those estimated based on spatially smoothed seismic source models. This suggests that an epistemic uncertainty caused by the seismic source models should be considered to map the seismic hazard.
- Adaptive kernel smoothing,
- Fixed kernel smoothing,
- Ground motion model,
- Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis,
- Seismic hazard map,
- Uniform hazard spectra

FullText(HTML)

References(52)

References

[1]	Abrahamson, N., N. Gregor, and K. Addo. 2016. BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 32(1): 23–44.
[2]	Abrahamson, N.A., W.J. Silva, and R. Kamai. 2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1025–1055.
[3]	Adams, J. 2019. A 65-year history of seismic hazard estimates in Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, 17–20 June 2019, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
[4]	Adams, J., A. Trevor, S. Halchuk, and M. Kolaj. 2019. Canada's 6th Generation Seismic Hazard Model, as Prepared for the 2020 National Building Code of Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17–20 June 2019, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
[5]	Albarello, D., R. Camassi, and A. Rebez. 2001. Detection of space and time heterogeneity in the completeness of a seismic catalog by a statistical approach: An application to the Italian area. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 91(6): 1694–1703.
[6]	Atkinson, G.M. 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America from a referenced empirical approach: Implications for epistemic uncertainty. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 98(3): 1304–1318.
[7]	Atkinson, G.M., and J. Adams. 2013. Ground motion prediction equations for application to the 2015 Canadian national seismic hazard maps. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 40: 988–998.
[8]	Atkinson, G.M., and D.M. Boore. 2003. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(4): 1703–1729.
[9]	Atkinson, G.M., and D.M. Boore. 2011. Modifications to existing ground-motion prediction equations in light of new data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(3): 1121–1135.
[10]	Atkinson, G.M., and M. Macias. 2009. Predicted ground motions for great interface earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(3): 1552–1578.
[11]	Atkinson, G.M., D.W. Eaton, H. Ghofrani, D. Walker, B. Cheadle, R. Schultz, R. Shcherbakov, and K. Tiampo et al. 2016. Hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Seismological Research Letters 87(3): 631–647.
[12]	Atkinson, G.M., H. Ghofrani, and K. Assatourians. 2015. Impact of induced seismicity on the evaluation of seismic hazard: Some preliminary considerations. Seismological Research Letters 86(3): 1009–1021.
[13]	Boore, D.M., J.P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, and G.M. Atkinson. 2014. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1057–1085.
[14]	Campbell, K.W., and Y. Bozorgina. 2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1087–1115.
[15]	Chiou, B.S.-J., and R. Youngs. 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal components of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1117–1153.
[16]	Cornell, C.A. 1968. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58(5): 1583–1606.
[17]	Esteva, L. 1968. Basis for the formulation of seismic design decisions (Bases para la formulación de decisiones de diseño sísmico). Ph.D. thesis. Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (in Spanish).
[18]	Feng, C., and H.P. Hong. 2021. Projecting sets of ground-motion models and their use to evaluate seismic hazard and uniform hazard spectrum for mainland China. Natural Hazards Review 22(3): Article 04021014.
[19]	Feng, C., T.J. Liu, and H.P. Hong. 2020. Seismic hazard assessment for mainland China based on spatially smoothed seismicity. Journal of Seismology 24: 613–633.
[20]	Fereidoni, A., G.M. Atkinson, M. Macias, and K. Goda. 2012. CCSC: A composite seismicity catalog for earthquake hazard assessment in major Canadian cities. Seismological Research Letters 83(1): 179–189.
[21]	Frankel, A. 1995. Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States. Seismological Research Letters 66(4): 8–21.
[22]	García, D., S.K. Singh, M. Herráiz, M. Ordaz, and J.F. Pacheco. 2005. Inslab earthquakes of central Mexico: Peak ground-motion parameters and response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95(6): 2272–2282.
[23]	Gerstenberger, M.C., W. Marzocchi, T. Allen, T. Pagani, J. Adams, L. Danciu, E.H. Field, and H. Fujiwara et al. 2020. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at regional and national scales: State of the art and future challenges. Reviews of Geophysics 58(2): Article e2019RG000653.
[24]	Ghofrani, H., and G.M. Atkinson. 2014. Ground-motion prediction equations for interface earthquakes of M7 to M9 based on empirical data from Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 12: 549–571.
[25]	Goda, K., and H.P. Hong. 2006. Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information. Structural Safety 28(3): 247–260.
[26]	Goda, K., and H.P. Hong. 2009. Deaggregation of seismic loss of spatially distributed buildings. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 7(1): 255–272.
[27]	Goda, K., W. Aspinall, and C.A. Taylor. 2013. Seismic hazard analysis for the UK: Sensitivity to spatial seismicity modelling and ground motion prediction equations. Seismological Research Letters 84(1): 112–129.
[28]	Goulet, C.A., Y. Bozorgnia, N. Kuehn, L. Al Atik, R.R. Youngs, R.W. Graves, and G.M. Atkinson. 2017. NGA-East ground-motion models for the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps: PEER report 2017/03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
[29]	Halchuk, S., T.I. Allen, G.C. Rogers, and J. Adams. 2015. Seismic hazard earthquake epicentre file (SHEEF2010) used in the fifth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: Open file 7724. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.4095/296908.
[30]	Hong, H.P., and P. Hong. 2006. Reliability-consistent seismic design load contour maps. In Proceedings of the 9th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, 26–29 June 2007, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2023–2032.
[31]	Hong, H.P., K. Goda, and A.G. Davenport. 2006. Seismic hazard analysis: A comparative study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 33(9): 1156–1171.
[32]	Hong, H.P., and P. Hong. 2007. Assessment of ductility demand and reliability of bilinear single-degree-of-freedom systems under earthquake loading. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 34(12): 1606–1615.
[33]	Kagan, Y.Y., and D.D. Jackson. 1994. Long-term probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 99(B7): 13685–13700.
[34]	Kolaj, M., T. Allen, R. Mayfield, J. Adams, and S. Halchuk. 2019. Ground-motion models for the 6th generation seismic hazard model of Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, 17–20 June 2019, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
[35]	Kolaj, M., S. Halchuk, J. Adams, and T.I. Allen. 2020. Sixth generation seismic hazard model of Canada: Input files to produce values proposed for the 2020 National Building Code of Canada: Open file 8630. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
[36]	McGuire, R. 2004. Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Oakland, CA: EERI Monograph Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
[37]	Molina, S., C.D. Lindholm, and H. Bungum. 2001. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Zoning free versus zoning methodology. Bollettino di Geofisica 42: 19–39.
[38]	Musson, R.M. 2000. The use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment in the UK. AnnaGeofis 43(1): 1–9.
[39]	Pagani, M., D. Monelli, G. Weatherill, L. Danciu, H. Crowley, V. Silva, P. Henshaw, and L. Butler et al. 2014. OpenQuake Engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters 85(3): 692–702.
[40]	Pezeshk, S., A. Zandieh, and B. Tavakoli. 2011. Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(4): 1859–1870.
[41]	Rosenblueth, E. 1976. Optimum design for infrequent disturbances. Journal of the Structural Division 102(9): 1807–1825.
[42]	Silva, W., N. Gregor, and R. Darragh. 2002. Development of regional hard rock attenuation relations for central and eastern North America. Report to Pacific Engineering and Analysis. http://www.ce.memphis.edu/7137/PDFs/attenuations/USGS2008/Silva2002.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2023.
[43]	Silverman, B.W. 1986. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, vol 26, . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
[44]	Stock, C., and E.G. Smith. 2002. Adaptive kernel estimation and continuous probability representation of historical earthquake catalogs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92(3): 904–912.
[45]	US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Technical report—Central and Eastern United States seismic source characterization for nuclear facilities. Washington, DC, and Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, US Department of Energy, and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12048A804.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2023.
[46]	Vere-Jones, D. 1992. Statistical methods for the description and display of earthquake catalogs. In Statistics in environmental and earth sciences: New developments in theory & practice, ed. A.T. Walden, and P. Guttorp, 220–246. London: Edward Arnold.
[47]	Weichert, D.H. 1980. Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 70(4): 1337–1346.
[48]	Wells, D.L., and K.J. Coppersmith. 1994. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84(4): 974–1002.
[49]	Woo, G. 1996. Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area source modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86(2): 353–362.
[50]	Xu, W.J., and M.T. Gao. 2012. Seismic hazard estimate using spatially smoothed seismicity model as spatial distribution function. Acta Seismological Sinica 34(4): 526–536 (in Chinese).
[51]	Zhao, J.X., J. Zhang, A. Asano, Y. Ohno, T. Oouchi, T. Takahashi, H. Ogawa, and K. Irikura et al. 2006. Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96(3): 898–913.
[52]	Zuccolo, E., M. Corigliano, and C.G. Lai. 2013. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Italy using kernel estimation methods. Journal of Seismology 17(3): 1001–1020.