Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 168, Issue 3–4, pp 383–407 | Cite as

History of Modern Earthquake Hazard Mapping and Assessment in California Using a Deterministic or Scenario Approach

Article

Abstract

Modern earthquake ground motion hazard mapping in California began following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan area of southern California. Earthquake hazard assessment followed a traditional approach, later called Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) in order to distinguish it from the newer Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). In DSHA, seismic hazard in the event of the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) magnitude from each of the known seismogenic faults within and near the state are assessed. The likely occurrence of the MCE has been assumed qualitatively by using late Quaternary and younger faults that are presumed to be seismogenic, but not when or within what time intervals MCE may occur. MCE is the largest or upper-bound potential earthquake in moment magnitude, and it supersedes and automatically considers all other possible earthquakes on that fault. That moment magnitude is used for estimating ground motions by applying it to empirical attenuation relationships, and for calculating ground motions as in neo-DSHA (Zuccoloet al., 2008). The first deterministic California earthquake hazard map was published in 1974 by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) which has been called the California Geological Survey (CGS) since 2002, using the best available fault information and ground motion attenuation relationships at that time. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) later assumed responsibility for printing the refined and updated peak acceleration contour maps which were heavily utilized by geologists, seismologists, and engineers for many years. Some engineers involved in the siting process of large important projects, for example, dams and nuclear power plants, continued to challenge the map(s). The second edition map was completed in 1985 incorporating more faults, improving MCE’s estimation method, and using new ground motion attenuation relationships from the latest published results at that time. CDMG eventually published the second edition map in 1992 following the Governor’s Board of Inquiry on the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and at the demand of Caltrans. The third edition map was published by Caltrans in 1996 utilizing GIS technology to manage data that includes a simplified three-dimension geometry of faults and to facilitate efficient corrections and revisions of data and the map. The spatial relationship of fault hazards with highways, bridges or any other attribute can be efficiently managed and analyzed now in GIS at Caltrans. There has been great confidence in using DSHA in bridge engineering and other applications in California, and it can be confidently applied in any other earthquake-prone region. Earthquake hazards defined by DSHA are: (1) transparent and stable with robust MCE moment magnitudes; (2) flexible in their application to design considerations; (3) can easily incorporate advances in ground motion simulations; and (4) economical. DSHA and neo-DSHA have the same approach and applicability. The accuracy of DSHA has proven to be quite reasonable for practical applications within engineering design and always done with professional judgment. In the final analysis, DSHA is a reality-check for public safety and PSHA results. Although PSHA has been acclaimed as a better approach for seismic hazard assessment, it is DSHA, not PSHA, that has actually been used in seismic hazard assessment for building and bridge engineering, particularly in California.

References

  1. Albarello, D. and D’Amico, V. (2008), Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates by comparison with observations: an example in Italy, Geophys. Jnl. Inter. 175, 1088–1094.Google Scholar
  2. Algermissen, S. T. and Perkins, D. M. (1976), A Probabilistic Map of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States. US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 76-416, 45 p.Google Scholar
  3. Algermissen, S. T., Perkins, D. M., Thenhaus, P. C., Hanson, S. H., and Bender, B. L. (1982), Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States. US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 82-1033, 99 p.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, C. R. (1995), Earthquake hazard assessment: has our approach been modified in the light of recent earthquakes? Earthq. Spect. 11, 355–366.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. G. and Brune, J. N. (1999), Methodology for using precarious rocks in Nevada to test seismic hazard models. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, 456–467.Google Scholar
  6. ATC (1978), Applied Technology Council. Tentative provision for the development of seismic regulations for buildings; ATC 3-06. NBS Special Publication 510, NSF Publication 78-8, 505 p.Google Scholar
  7. Brune, J. N. (2002), Precarious-rock constraints on ground motion from historic and recent earthquakes in southern California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 2602–2611.Google Scholar
  8. BSSC (1997), Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions.Google Scholar
  9. BSSC (2000), Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions.Google Scholar
  10. BSSC (2003), Building Seismic Safety Council. NEHRP Recommended Provisions.Google Scholar
  11. CDMG (1975), California Division of Mines & Geology. Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquake: CDMG Note 43.Google Scholar
  12. Caltrans (2006), California Department of Transportation. Seismic Design Criteria: June 2006, Version 1.4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/othermanual/other-engin-manual/seismic-design-criteria/page.
  13. CGS (2008) California Geological Survey. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Special Publication 117A, 98 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Castanos, H. and Lomnitz, C. (2002), PSHA: Is it science? Eng. Geol. 66, 315–317.Google Scholar
  15. Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans (1998), San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project: Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Statutory Exemption. September 24, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. Frankel, A., Mueller, C., Barnhard, T., Perkins, D., Leyendecker, E. V., Dickman, N., Hanson, S. and Hopper, M. (1996), National seismic Hazard Maps: Documentation. US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 96-532, 71 p.Google Scholar
  17. Frankel, A. D., Petersen, M. D., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Wheeler, R. L., Leyendecker, E. V., Wesson, R. L., Harmsen, S. C., Cramer, C. H., Perkins, D. M. and Rukstales, K. S. (2002), Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps. US Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 02-420, 32 p.Google Scholar
  18. Geschwind, C-H. (2001), California Earthquakes: Science, Risk, and the Politics of Hazard Mitigation (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 337 p).Google Scholar
  19. Grant, L., Ballenger, L. J. and Runnerstrom, E. E. (2002), Coastal Uplift of the San Joaquin Hills, Southern Los Angeles Basin, California, by a large earthquake since A. D. 1635. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 590–599.Google Scholar
  20. Greensfelder, R. W. (1974), Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California. California Department Conservation, Division Mines and Geology Map Sheet 23, 12 p and Map.Google Scholar
  21. Husband, J. J. (1976), Maximum Probable Bedrock Accelerations from Nevada Earthquakes. Report No. EDD 76-1, Engineering Geology and Foundation Section, Nevada State Highway Department, Carson City, Nevada, 14 p and Map.Google Scholar
  22. Housner, G. W. et al. (1990), Competing Against Time: Report to Governor George Deukmejian from the Governor’s Board of Inquiry on the Loma Prieta Earthquake. George W. Housner Chairman. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, CA, May.Google Scholar
  23. Housner, G. W. et al. (1994), The Continuing Challenge: The Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994. Report to the Director, California Department of Transportation by the Seismic Advisory Board, Sacramento, CA, October.Google Scholar
  24. Kiremidjian, A. S. and Shah, H. C. (1975), Seismic Hazard Mapping of California. Technical Report No. 21, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 84 p, Appendix, and 8 Charts.Google Scholar
  25. Kiremidjian, A. S. and Shah, H. C. (1978), Seismic Risk Analysis for California State Water Project. Technical Report No. 33, The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 246 p.Google Scholar
  26. Klügel, J.-U. (2005), Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants, Eng. Geol. 78, 285–307.Google Scholar
  27. Klügel, J.-U. (2007), Error inflation in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Eng, Geol. 90, 186–192.Google Scholar
  28. Klügel, J.-U., Mualchin, L. and Panza, G. F. (2006), A scenario-based procedure for seismic risk analysis. Eng. Geol. 88, 1–22.Google Scholar
  29. Krinitzsky, E. L. (1993), Earthquake Probability in Engineering, Part 1: The Use and Misuse of Expert Opinion. Eng. Geol. 33, 257–288.Google Scholar
  30. Krinitzsky, E. L. (1995), Deterministic versus probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for critical structures. Eng. Geol. 40, 1–7.Google Scholar
  31. Mathiessen, R. B. (1984), Recommendations concerning seismic design and zonation. In ATC-10-1: Critical Aspects of Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage Potential. Applied Technology Council, 213–246.Google Scholar
  32. McGuire, R. K. (1995), Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85, 1275–1284.Google Scholar
  33. Meehan, R. L. (1984), The Atom and the Fault: Experts, Earthquakes, and Nuclear Power (MIT Press, Cambridge, vol. xiv, 161 pp).Google Scholar
  34. Mualchin, L. (1983), Damage Probability for Schools Using the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. California Division of Mines and Geology, Unpublished Report for California Office of State Architect.Google Scholar
  35. Mualchin, L. and Jones, A. L. (1992), Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthquakes in California. California Department Conservation, Division Mines & Geology Open-File Rep. 92-01: 53 pp & Map.Google Scholar
  36. Mualchin, L. (1996a), Development of the Caltrans deterministic fault and earthquake hazard map of California. Eng. Geol. 42, 217–222.Google Scholar
  37. Mualchin, L. (1996b), California Seismic Hazard Map 1996: Maps and a Technical Report. California Department Transportation, Engineering Service Center, Sacramento, CA, 65 p & Map. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/earthquake_engineering/Seismology/MapReport.PDF.
  38. Mualchin, L. and Krinitzsky, E. L. (2003), A new and defective regulation in California for protecting critical buildings from earthquakes, Eng. Geol. 60, 415–419.Google Scholar
  39. Mualchin, L. (2004a), Seismic Hazard Analysis for Critical Infrastructures in California: International Workshop on Seismic Hazard Assessment State of the Art and Future Developments, November 8, 2004, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  40. Mualchin, L. (2004b), Questions Unanswered by PSHA: Specialists’ Meeting on “State of the Art in Seismic Hazard Evaluation Methodology—Insights and Lessons from the PEGASOS Project”—Key Note Remarks, Nov. 9–10, Hotel DuPare, Baden, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  41. National Research Council (1988), Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Report of the Panel on Seismic Hazard Analysis (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 97 p).Google Scholar
  42. Nishioka, T. and Mualchin, L. (1997), Deterministic seismic hazard map of Japan from inland maximum credible earthquakes for engineering, J. Struct. Eng. Earthq. Eng. Jpn. Soc. Civil Eng. 14, 139s–147s.Google Scholar
  43. Penzien, J. et al. (2003), The Race to Seismic Safety: Protecting California’s Transportation System. Submitted to the Director, California Department of Transportation by the Seismic Advisory Board, Sacramento, California. December.Google Scholar
  44. Petersen, M. D., Frankel, A. D., Harmsen, S. C., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Wheeler, R. L., Wesson, R. L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O. S., Perkins, D. M., Luco, N., Field, E. H., Wills, C. J. and Rukstales, K. S. (2008), Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1128, 61 p.Google Scholar
  45. Purvance, M. D., Brune, J. N., Abrahamson, N. A. and Anderson, J. G. (2008), Consistency of precariously balanced rocks with probabilistic seismic hazard estimates in southern California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 2629–2640.Google Scholar
  46. Research Group for Active Faults of Japan (1991), Active Faults in Japan (revised edition). University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo (in Japanese with English abstract), 437 p and 4 Sheet Maps.Google Scholar
  47. Schnabel, P. B. and Seed, H. B. (1973) Acceleration in rock for earthquakes in the western United States. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 63, 501–516.Google Scholar
  48. Seed, H. B. (1982), The selection of design earthquakes for critical structures. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 72, S7–S12.Google Scholar
  49. SSHAC (1997), Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee. Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6372, UCRL-ID-122160, 256 p.Google Scholar
  50. SFGate (2000), Corps of Engineers Report on Bay Bridge Plan, in the Oct. 27, 2000 San Francisco web edition at http://www.sfgate.com/.
  51. Shen, Z-K., Sun, J., Zhang, P., Wan, Y., Wang, M., Burgmann, R., Zeng, Y., Gan, W., Liao, H. and Wang, Q. (2009), Slip maxima at fault junctions and rupturing of barriers during the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, Nature Geosci. 2, 718–724.Google Scholar
  52. Siddharthan, R., Bell, J. W., Anderson, J. G. and dePolo, C. M. (1993), Peak Bedrock Acceleration for State of Nevada. A Final Report to Nevada Dept. of Transportation. Dept. Civil Engg., Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology, Seismological Laboratory, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, 51 p.Google Scholar
  53. Slosson, J. E. (2005), Written personal communication to the author.Google Scholar
  54. Strasser, F. O., Abrahamson, N. A. and Bommer, J. J. (2009), Sigma: Issues, insights, and challenges. Seismol. Res. Lett. 80, 41–56.Google Scholar
  55. Sydnor, R. H. (2002), Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services Buildings, to be used with California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2001 California Building Code. California Geological Survey, Note 48, 27 p. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs.
  56. Wells, D. L. and Coppersmith, K. J. (1994), New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 974–1002.Google Scholar
  57. Wesnousky, S. G. (1986), Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California, J. Geophys. Res. 91, B12, 12,587–12,631.Google Scholar
  58. Wiggins, J. H. (1975), Procedure for Determining Acceptable Risk Ground Motion Design Criteria. J. H. Wiggins Company, Redondo Beach, California Technical Report No. 75-1229.Google Scholar
  59. Willis, B. (1923), A fault map of California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 13, 1–12.Google Scholar
  60. Yuichiro, F., Miyamoto, F., Yoshoika, T. (2007), A drastic revision of active fault database in Japan based on the redefined relational data model. Geoinformatics 2007 Conference (17–18 May 2007) at University of California, San Diego. Geological Society of America: Paper No. 3-15. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007GE/finalprogram/abstract_122239.htm.
  61. Zacher, E. G. (1990), U. S. Earthquake Zoning MapHistory of the Structural Engineers Association of California’s (SEAOC’s) involvement in the development of the U. S. earthquake zoning map. Proceedings of the 50th Regional Conference, Feb. 25–26, 1988, Los Angeles, California. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Council Report 903.377, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 17–23.Google Scholar
  62. Zuccolo, E., Vaccari, F. Peresan, A., Dusi, A., Martelli, A. and Panza, G. F. (2008), Neo-deterministic definition of seismic input for residential seismically isolated buildings, Eng. Geo 101, 89–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser / Springer Basel AG 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Department of TransportationSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Seismic ConsultantGovernment of MizoramAizawlIndia

Personalised recommendations