Characterizing the Epistemic Uncertainty in the USGS 2014 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (NSHMP)

Lee, Yajie; Graf, William P.; Hu, Zhenghui

doi:10.1785/0120170338

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The AS1170. 4 Figure 4 shows the comparison of kp factors for the eight capital cities across Australia. It is clear that there is a large variation in the kp factors among these localities.…”

Section: Shape Of Hazard Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, coupled with dependence of the UHS shape based on a site's location relative to different earthquake sources, the use of a full UHS over the range of oscillation periods is recommended to determine design spectra for future editions of the AS1170. 4. This approach is also now being adopted by the IBC [e.g., 85].…”

Section: Uniform Hazard Spectramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, the PSHA framework enables hazard practitioners to include multiple sources of modelled uncertainty and to propagate these through to the final (mean) hazard result. It is becoming increasingly important to communicate the mean hazard results from PSHAs in the context of their uncertainties [e.g., 4,5], ensuring that hazard assessments are both transparent and defensible to end users and the wider seismological and earthquake engineering communities [119,120]. However, it is also important that the right questions are being asked of hazard modellers in terms of the provision of seismic demand objectives that are fit for purpose in the design and construction of resilient communities into the future.…”

Section: Final Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A key benefit of the PSHA framework, however, is the ability to include multiple sources of modelled uncertainty and to propagate these uncertainties through to the final hazard result [2]. Modern seismic hazard calculation software [e.g., 3] now enables improved characterisation of modelling uncertainties and can provide additional information regarding the utility and confidence of seismic hazard assessments for end users [e.g., 4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seismic Hazard Estimation in Stable Continental Regions: Does Psha Meet the Needs for Modern Engineering Design in Australia?

Allen

2020

BNZSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Damaging earthquakes in Australia and other regions characterised by low seismicity are considered low probability but high consequence events. Uncertainties in modelling earthquake occurrence rates and ground motions for damaging earthquakes in these regions pose unique challenges to forecasting seismic hazard, including the use of this information as a reliable benchmark to improve seismic safety within our communities. Key challenges for assessing seismic hazards in these regions are explored, including: the completeness and continuity of earthquake catalogues; the identification and characterisation of neotectonic faults; the difficulties in characterising earthquake ground motions; the uncertainties in earthquake source modelling, and; the use of modern earthquake hazard information to support the development of future building provisions. Geoscience Australia recently released its 2018 National Seismic Hazard Assessment (NSHA18). Results from the NSHA18 indicate significantly lower seismic hazard across almost all Australian localities at the 1/500 annual exceedance probability level relative to the factors adopted for the current Australian Standard AS1170.4–2007 (R2018). These new hazard estimates have challenged notions of seismic hazard in Australia in terms of the recurrence of damaging ground motions. This raises the question of whether current practices in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) deliver the outcomes required to protect communities and infrastructure assets in low-seismicity regions, such as Australia. This manuscript explores a range of measures that could be undertaken to update and modernise the Australian earthquake loading standard, in the context of these modern seismic hazard estimates, including the use of alternate ground-motion exceedance probabilities for assigning seismic demands for ordinary-use structures. The estimation of seismic hazard at any location is an uncertain science, particularly in low-seismicity regions. However, as our knowledge of the physical characteristics of earthquakes improve, our estimates of the hazard will converge more closely to the actual – but unknowable – (time independent) hazard. Understanding the uncertainties in the estimation of seismic hazard is also of key importance, and new software and approaches allow hazard modellers to better understand and quantify this uncertainty. It is therefore prudent to regularly update the estimates of the seismic demands in our building codes using the best available evidence-based methods and models.

show abstract

Section: Shape Of Hazard Curvesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uniform Hazard Spectramentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Final Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seismic Hazard Estimation in Stable Continental Regions: Does Psha Meet the Needs for Modern Engineering Design in Australia?

Allen

2020

BNZSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The water pipelines for the City of Los Angeles consist of more than 7,000 miles of underground pipes and cover an area of 1,214 km 2 , supporting a population of about 4 million people. This study includes both the transmission lines (pipelines with 24inch or larger diameters) and distribution lines (pipelines less than 24-inch diameter) of the water pipeline system.…”

Section: Description Of the Los Angeles' Water Pipeline Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic risk assessments of water pipelines

Lee

Eguchi

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Advances in Resilient and Intelligent Cities

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the system-level risks of an infrastructure network is a critical step in developing a seismically-resilient network. In a complex seismic environment, numerous future earthquakes that have a broad range of magnitude, rupture location, and probability can affect a spatially distributed network and cause drastically different damage severity and service interruption time. Characterizing system-level risks involves the assessments of system damage potentials from all possible future earthquakes probabilistically. This paper shows a case study where systemlevel damage potentials for the City of Los Angeles water pipeline network were assessed using a stochastic method. The study considers both the distribution of earthquake-induced shaking and ground deformations, and the locations of the pipe network within the areas of varying shaking and ground deformation. Systemlevel damages, including repair costs and repair time, were established at various target probability levels. CCS CONCEPTS • Applied Computing  Physical science and engineering  Engineering.

show abstract

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis at Regional and National Scales: State of the Art and Future Challenges

Gerstenberger

Marzocchi

Allen

et al. 2020

Reviews of Geophysics

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic hazard modeling is a multidisciplinary science that aims to forecast earthquake occurrence and its resultant ground shaking. Such models consist of a probabilistic framework that quantifies uncertainty across a complex system; typically, this includes at least two model components developed from Earth science: seismic source and ground motion models. Although there is no scientific prescription for the forecast length, the most common probabilistic seismic hazard analyses consider forecasting windows of 30 to 50 years, which are typically an engineering demand for building code purposes. These types of analyses are the topic of this review paper. Although the core methods and assumptions of seismic hazard modeling have largely remained unchanged for more than 50 years, we review the most recent initiatives, which face the difficult task of meeting both the increasingly sophisticated demands of society and keeping pace with advances in scientific understanding. A need for more accurate and spatially precise hazard forecasting must be balanced with increased quantification of uncertainty and new challenges such as moving from time‐independent hazard to forecasts that are time dependent and specific to the time period of interest. Meeting these challenges requires the development of science‐driven models, which integrate all information available, the adoption of proper mathematical frameworks to quantify the different types of uncertainties in the hazard model, and the development of a proper testing phase of the model to quantify its consistency and skill. We review the state of the art of the National Seismic Hazard Modeling and how the most innovative approaches try to address future challenges.

show abstract

Characterizing the Epistemic Uncertainty in the USGS 2014 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (NSHMP)

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

Seismic Hazard Estimation in Stable Continental Regions: Does Psha Meet the Needs for Modern Engineering Design in Australia?

Seismic Hazard Estimation in Stable Continental Regions: Does Psha Meet the Needs for Modern Engineering Design in Australia?

Seismic risk assessments of water pipelines

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis at Regional and National Scales: State of the Art and Future Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About