NHESS Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences NHESS Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 1684-9981 Copernicus Publications Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/nhess-13-2649-2013 A first-order second-moment calculation for seismic hazard assessment with the consideration of uncertain magnitude conversion Wang J. P. 1 Yun X. 1 Wu Y.-M. 2 Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong Dept. Geosciences, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 22 10 2013 13 10 2649 2657 Copyright: © 2013 J. P. Wang et al. 2013 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is available from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/13/2649/2013/nhess-13-2649-2013.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/13/2649/2013/nhess-13-2649-2013.pdf

Earthquake size can be described with different magnitudes for different purposes. For example, local magnitude <i>M</i><sub>L</sub> is usually adopted to compile an earthquake catalog, and moment magnitude <i>M</i><sub>w</sub> is often prescribed by a ground motion model. Understandably, when inconsistent units are encountered in an earthquake analysis, magnitude conversion needs to be performed beforehand. However, the conversion is not expected at full certainty owing to the model error of empirical relationships. This paper introduces a novel first-order second-moment (FOSM) calculation to estimate the annual rate of earthquake motion (or seismic hazard) on a probabilistic basis, including the consideration of the uncertain magnitude conversion and three other sources of earthquake uncertainties. In addition to the methodology, this novel FOSM application to engineering seismology is demonstrated in this paper with a case study. With a local ground motion model, magnitude conversion relationship and earthquake catalog, the analysis shows that the best-estimate annual rate of peak ground acceleration (PGA) greater than 0.18 <i>g</i> (induced by earthquakes) is 0.002 per year at a site in Taipei, given the uncertainties of magnitude conversion, earthquake size, earthquake location, and motion attenuation.

 References Ang, A. H. S. and Tang, W. H.: Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2nd Edn., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NJ, 2007. Bommer, J. J.: Uncertainty about the uncertainty in seismic hazard analysis, Eng. Geol., 70, 165–168, 2003. Campbell, K. W. and Bozorgnia, Y.: NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5 % damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01s to 10s, Earthq. Spectra., 24, 139–171, 2008. Castanos, H. and Lomnitz, C.: PSHA: is it science?, Eng. Geol., 66, 315–317, 2002. Cheng, C. T., Chiou, S. J., Lee, C. T., and Tsai, Y. B.: Study on probabilistic seismic hazard maps of Taiwan after Chi-Chi earthquake, J. GeoEng., 2, 19–28, 2007. Cornell, C. A.: Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 58, 1583–1606, 1968. Das, R., Wason, H. R., and Sharma, M. L.: Magnitude conversion to unified moment magnitude using orthogonal regression relation, J. Asian. Earth. Sci., 50, 44–51, 2012. Hahn, G. J. and Shapiro, S. S.: Statistical Models in Engineering, Wiley, NY, 1967. Huang, D. and Wang, J. P.: Earthquake energy release in Taiwan from 1991 to 2008, The 24th KKCNN Symposium on Civil Engineering, Hyogo, Japan, 477–480, 2011. Jha, S. K. and Suzuki, K.: Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction based on standard penetration test, Comput. Geotech., 36, 589–596, 2009. Kanamori, H. and Jennings, P. C.: Determination of local magnitude, M$_L$, from strong motion accelerograms, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 68, 471–485, 1978. Kaynia, A. M., Papathoma-Köhle, M., Neuhäuser, B., Ratzinger, K., Wenzel, H., and Medina-Cetina, Z.: Probabilistic assessment of vulnerability to landslide: application to the village of Lichtenstein, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, Eng. Geol., 101, 33–48, 2008. Keller, E. A.: Environmental Geology, 7th Edn., Prentice Hall, NJ, 1996. Kluegel, J. U.: Seismic hazard analysis – Quo vadis?, Earth-Sci. Rev., 88, 1–32, 2008. Kramer, S. L.: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall Inc., NJ, 1996. Krinitzsky, E. L.: How to combine deterministic and probabilistic methods for assessing earthquake hazards, Eng. Geol., 70, 157–163, 2003. Lin, P. S., Lee, C. T., Cheng, C. T., and Sung, C. H.: Response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes in Taiwan, Eng. Geol. 121, 150–164, 2011. Mualchin, L.: Seismic hazard analysis for critical infrastructures in California, Eng. Geol., 79, 177–184, 2005. Mualchin, L.: History of modern earthquake hazard mapping and assessment in California using a deterministic or scenario approach, Pure. Appl. Geophys., 168, 383–407, 2011. Na, U. J., Chaudhuri, S. R., and Shinozuka, M.: Probabilistic assessment for seismic performance of port structures, Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 28, 147–158, 2008. Richter, C. F.: An instrumental earthquake scale, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 25, 1–32, 1935. Stirling, M., Litchfield, N., Gerstenberger, M., Clark, D., Bradley, B., Beavan, J., McVerry, G., Van Dissen, R., Nicol, A., Wallace, L., and Buxton, R.: Preliminary probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the CO2CRC Otway Project Site, Victoria, Australia, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, 2726–2736, 2011. Suppe, J.: Kinematics of arc-continent collision, flipping of subduction, and back-arc spreading near Taiwan, Mem. Geol. Soc. China., 6, 21–33, 1984. US Army Corps of Engineers: Engineering and Design: Introduction to Probability and Reliability Methods for Use in Geotechnical Engineering, Technical Letter, No. 1110-2-547, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 1997. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: A Performance-based Approach to Define the Site-specific Earthquake Ground Motion, Regulatory Guide 1.208, Washington, DC, 2007. Wang, J. P., Chan, C. H., and Wu, Y. M.: The distribution of annual maximum earthquake magnitude around Taiwan and its application in the estimation of catastrophic earthquake recurrence probability, Nat. Hazards., 59, 553–570, 2011. Wang, J. P., Chang, S. C., Wu, Y. M., and Xu, Y.: PGA distributions and seismic hazard evaluations in three cities in Taiwan, Nat. Hazards., 64, 1373–1390, 2012a. Wang, J. P., Brant, L., Wu, Y. M., and Taheri, H.: Probability-based PGA estimations using the double-lognormal distribution: including site-specific seismic hazard analysis for four sites in Taiwan, Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 42, 177–183, 2012b. Wang, J. P., Huang, D., Cheng, C. T., Shao, K. S., Wu, Y. C., and Chang, C. W.: Seismic hazard analysis for Taipei City including deaggregation, design spectra, and time history with Excel applications, Comput. Geosci., 52, 146–154, 2013a. Wang, J. P., Huang, D., Chang, S. C., and Wu, Y. M.: New evidence and perspective to the Poisson process and earthquake temporal distribution from 55,000 events around Taiwan since 1900, Nat. Hazards. Rev. ASCE, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000110">https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000110</a>, 2013b. Wu, Y. M., Shin, T. C., and Chang, C. H.: Near real-time mapping of peak ground acceleration and peak ground velocity following a strong earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 91, 1218–1228, 2001. Wu, Y. M., Chang, C. H., Zhao, L., Teng, T. L., and Nakamura, M.: A Comprehensive Relocation of Earthquakes in Taiwan from 1991 to 2005, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 98, 1471–1481, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120070166">https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070166</a>, 2008. Yu, S. B., Chen, H. Y., Kuo, L. C., Lallemand, S. E., and Tsien, H. H.: Velocity field of GPS stations in the Taiwan area, Tectonophysics, 274, 41–59, 1997.