Abstract
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) generally relies on the basic assumption that ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed for other similar tectonic regions can be adopted in the considered area. This implies that observed ground motion and its variability at considered sites could be modelled by the selected GMPEs. Until now ground-motion variability has been taken into account in PSHA by integrating over the standard deviation reported in GMPEs, which significantly affects estimated ground motions, especially at very low probabilities of exceedance. To provide insight on this issue, ground-motion variability in the South Iceland Seismic Zone (SISZ), where many ground-motion records are available, is assessed. Three statistical methods are applied to separate the aleatory variability into source (inter-event), site (inter-site) and residual (intra-event and intra-site) components. Furthermore, the current PSHA procedure that makes the ergodic assumption of equality between spatially and temporal variability is examined. In contrast to the ergodic assumption, several recent studies show that the observed ground-motion variability at an individual location is lower than that implied by the standard deviation of a GMPE. This could imply a mishandling of aleatory uncertainty in PSHA by ignoring spatial variability and by mixing aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in the computation of sigma. Station correction coefficients are introduced in order to capture site effects at different stations. The introduction of the non-ergodic assumption in PSHA leads to larger epistemic uncertainty, although this is not the same as traditional epistemic uncertainty modelled using different GMPEs. The epistemic uncertainty due to the site correction coefficients (i.e. mean residuals) could be better constrained for future events if more information regarding the characteristics of these seismic sources and path dependence could be obtained.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground motion relations. Earthq Spectra 24: 67–97
Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 81(2): 195–206
Ambraseys NN, Smit P, Douglas J, Margaris B, Sigbjornsson R, Olafsson S, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) Internet-site for European strong-motion data. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 45(3): 113–129
Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (2005) Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1): 1–53. doi:10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0
Anderson JG, Brune JN (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis without the ergodic assumption. Seismol Res Lett 70(1): 19–28
Andrews DJ, Hanks TC, Whitney JW (2007) Physical limits on ground motion at Yucca Mountain. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(6): 1771–1792
Atkinson GM (2006) Single-station sigma. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2): 446–455
Atkinson GM (2011) An empirical perspective on uncertainty in earthquake ground motion prediction, Canadian. J Civil Eng (in press)
Beauval C, Bard PY, Hainzl S, Guegun P (2008) Can strong-motion observations be used to constrain probabilistic seismic hazard estimates?. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(2): 509–520
Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2006) Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for diferent defnitions of the horizontal component of motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(4A): 1512–1522
Bindi D, Luzi L, Pacor F (2009) Interevent and interstation variability computed for the Italian accelerometric archive (ITACA). Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4): 2471–2488
Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2006) Why do modern probabilistic seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6): 1967–1977
Boore DM, Watson-Lamprey J, Abrahamson NA (2006) Orientation-independent measures of ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96: 1502–1511
Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24: 99–138
Brillinger DR, Preisler HK (1984) An exploratory analysis of the Joyner-Boore attenuation data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(4): 1441–1450
Brune (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75(26): 4997–5009. doi:10.1029/JB075i026p04997
Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) 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 0.01 to 10 s. Earthq Spectra 24: 139–172
Chen Y-H, Tsai C-C P (2002) A New Method for estimation of the Attenuation Relationship with Variance Components. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92(5): 1984–1991
Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2008) Chiou-Youngs NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. Earthq Spectra 24: 173–216
Cotton F, Pousse G, Bonilla F, Scherbaum F (2008) On the discrepancy of recent European ground-motion observations and predictions from Empirical Models: Analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and point-sources stochastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(5): 2244–2261
Douglas J, Gehl P (2008) Investigating strong ground-motion variability using analysis of variance and two-way-fit plots. Bull Earthq Eng 6(3): 389–405
Fisher RA (1918) The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans Roy Soc Edinburgh 52: 399–433
Fukushima Y, Tanaka T (1990) A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion in Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80: 757–783
Halldorsson B, Sigbjörnsson R (2009) The Mw 6.3 Ölfus earthquake at 15:45 UTC on 29 May 2008 in South Iceland: ICEARRAY strong-motion recordings. Soil Dynamics and Earthq Eng 29: 1073–1083
Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(6): 2011–2038
Joyner WB, Boore DM (1993) Methods for regression analysis of strong-motion data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 83: 469–487
Lee Y, Zeng Y, Anderson JG (1998) A simple strategy to examine the sources of errors in attenuation relations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 88(1): 291–296
Midorikawa S, Ohtake Y (2004) Variance of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity in attenuation relationships. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering August 1–6, 2004, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Paper No. 3361
Morikawa N, Kanno T, Narita A, Fujiwara H, Okumura T, Fukushima Y, Guerpinar A (2008) Strong motion uncertainty determined from observed records by dense networks in Japan. J Seismol 12(4): 529–546. doi:10.1007/s10950-008-9106-2
Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J (2007) CRISIS 2007 Ver 1.1 Program for computing Seismic Hazard. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)
Ornthammarath T (2010) Influence of hazard modeling methods and the uncertainty of GMPEs on the results of probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. PhD Dissertation, ROSE school, IUSS Pavia, Italy
Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F (2009) A Comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(5): 2961–2978
Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Cotton F, Bungum H, Sabetta F (2006) Ground-Motion Prediction in PSHA: A Post-PEGASOS Perspective. Paper presented at the First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland
Sigbjörnsson R, Ólafsson S, Thórarinsson Ó (2004) Strong-motion recordings in Iceland. In Proceedings of the13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver: Mira, Paper no. 2370
Sigbjörnsson R, Snæbjörnsson J, Higgins S, Halldórsson B (2009) A note on the Mw 6.3 earthquake in Iceland on 29 May 2008 at 15:45 UTC. Bull Earthq Eng 7: 113–126. doi:10.1007/s10518-008-9087-0
Stafford PJ, Strasser FO, Bommer JJ (2008) An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Bull Earthq Eng 6: 149–177
Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2008) Truncation of the distribution of ground-motion residuals. J Seismol 12(1): 79–105
Strasser FO, Abrahmson NA, Bommer JJ (2009) Sigma: issues, insights, and challenges. Seismol Res Lett 80: 40–56
Tukey JW (1972) Some graphic and semigraphic displays. In: Bancroft TA (eds) Statistical papers in Honor of George W Snedecor. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 293–316
Wang M, Takada T (2009) A Bayesian framework for prediction of seismic ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4): 2348–2364
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ornthammarath, T., Douglas, J., Sigbjörnsson, R. et al. Assessment of ground motion variability and its effects on seismic hazard analysis: a case study for iceland. Bull Earthquake Eng 9, 931–953 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9251-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9251-9