Advertisement

Pure and Applied Geophysics

, Volume 171, Issue 7, pp 1251–1281 | Cite as

Impact of Three-Parameter Weibull Models in Probabilistic Assessment of Earthquake Hazards

  • Sumanta Pasari
  • Onkar Dikshit
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the suitability of a three-parameter (scale, shape, and location) Weibull distribution in probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards. The performance is also compared with two other popular models from same Weibull family, namely the two-parameter Weibull model and the inverse Weibull model. A complete and homogeneous earthquake catalog (Yadav et al. in Pure Appl Geophys 167:1331–1342, 2010) of 20 events (M ≥ 7.0), spanning the period 1846 to 1995 from north–east India and its surrounding region (20°–32°N and 87°–100°E), is used to perform this study. The model parameters are initially estimated from graphical plots and later confirmed from statistical estimations such as maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and method of moments (MoM). The asymptotic variance–covariance matrix for the MLE estimated parameters is further calculated on the basis of the Fisher information matrix (FIM). The model suitability is appraised using different statistical goodness-of-fit tests. For the study area, the estimated conditional probability for an earthquake within a decade comes out to be very high (≥0.90) for an elapsed time of 18 years (i.e., 2013). The study also reveals that the use of location parameter provides more flexibility to the three-parameter Weibull model in comparison to the two-parameter Weibull model. Therefore, it is suggested that three-parameter Weibull model has high importance in empirical modeling of earthquake recurrence and seismic hazard assessment.

Keywords

North–east India recurrence interval Weibull models conditional probability Fisher information matrix 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Dr. Debasis Kundu, Professor and Head of Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur for his generous guidance and thorough review of the manuscript. The authors would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and technical inputs. The first author [S.P.] thankfully acknowledges the financial support from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi, India.

References

  1. Abernethy, R. B. (2006), The new Weibull handbook, 5th Ed., North Palm Beach, FL 33408-4328, pp. 536.Google Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1974), A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control 19(6), 716–723.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, J. (1997), R. A. Fisher and the making of maximum likelihood 19121922, Statist. Sci. 12(3), 162–176.Google Scholar
  4. Almeida, J. B. (1999), Application of Weibull statistics to the failure of coatings, J. Material Process. Tech. 93, 257–263.Google Scholar
  5. Anagnos, T. and Kiremidjian, A. S. (1984), A stochastic time predictable model for earthquake occurrences, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 2593–2611.Google Scholar
  6. Anagnos, T. and Kiremidjian, A. S. (1988), A review on earthquake occurrence models for seismic hazard analysis, Prob. Engg. Mech. 3(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, G. (1994), Simple tests of distributional form, J. Econometrics 62, 265–276.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, J. W. (2008), An introduction to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, version 1.3; http://www.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/Publications/Baker_(2008)_Intro_to_PSHA_v1_3.pdf (retrieved on July 25, 2012).
  9. Bartolucci, A. A., Singh, K. P., Bartolucci, A. D., and Bae, S. (1999), Applying medical survival data to estimate the three-parameter Weibull distribution by the method of probability-weighted moments, Maths. Comp. Simulation 48, 385–392.Google Scholar
  10. Bhatia, S. C., Kumar, R. M., and Gupta H. K. (1999), A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India and Adjoining Regions, Annals Geophys. 42(6), 1153–1164.Google Scholar
  11. Bis. (2002), IS 1893 (part 1)-2002: Indian standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1general provisions and buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  12. Blischke, W. R. (1974), On non-regular estimation. II. estimation of the location parameter of the gamma and Weibull distributions, Comm. Statist. 3, 1109–1129.Google Scholar
  13. Boero, G., Smith, J. and Wallis, K. F. (2004), The sensitivity of Chi squared goodness-of-fit tests to the partitioning of data, Econometric Reviews 23, 341–370.Google Scholar
  14. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D, R. (2002), Model selection and multimodel inference: practical informationtheoretic approach, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D, R. (2004), Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection, Sociological Methods and Research 33, 261–304.Google Scholar
  16. Cheng, R. C. H., Evans, B. E., and Iles, T. C. (1992), Embedded models in nonlinear regression, J. Royal Statist. Soc. 54, 877–888.Google Scholar
  17. Cornell, C. A. (1968), Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 58, 1583–1606.Google Scholar
  18. Cousineau, D. (2009), Fitting the three-parameter Weibull distribution: review and evaluation of existing and new methods, IEEE Trans. on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 16 (1), 281–288.Google Scholar
  19. Cousineau, D., Brown, S., and Heathcote, A. (2004), Fitting distributions using maximum likelihood: methods and packages, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 36, 742–756.Google Scholar
  20. Cox, D. R. (1962), Further results on tests of separate families of hypothesis, J. Royal Statist. Soc., Ser. B 24, 406–424.Google Scholar
  21. Cramer, C. H., Petersen, M.D., and Reichle, M.S. (1996), A Monte Carlo approach in estimating uncertainty for a seismic hazard assessment of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties, California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, (Dec. issue).Google Scholar
  22. Cramer, H. (1946), Mathematical methods of statistics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dahiya, R. C. and Gurland, J. (1973), How many classes in the Pearson Chi square test? J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 71, 340–344.Google Scholar
  24. Das, S., Gupta, I. D., and Gupta, V. K. (2006), A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of northeast India, Earthq. Spectra, 22(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  25. Das, S., Gupta, V. K., and Gupta, I. D. (2005), Codal provisions of seismic hazard in northeast India, Curr. Sci. 89(12), 2004–2008.Google Scholar
  26. Dey, A. K. and Kundu, D. (2010), Discriminating between the log-normal and log-logistic distribution, Comm. Statist. – Theory Methods. 39, 280–292.Google Scholar
  27. Drapella, A. (1993), Complementary Weibull distribution: unknown or just forgotten, Qual. Reliab. Engg. Int. 9, 383–385.Google Scholar
  28. Dubey, S. D. (1967), Some percentile estimators for Weibull parameters, Technometrics 9, 119–129.Google Scholar
  29. Efron, B. and Johnstone, I. (1990), Fisher information in terms of the hazard function, Annals Statist. 18, 38–62.Google Scholar
  30. Faenza, L., Hainzl, S., and Scherbaum, F (2009), Statistical analysis of the central Europe seismicity, Tectonophysics 470, 195–204.Google Scholar
  31. Faenza, L., Marzocchi, W., Serretti, P., and Boschi, E. (2008), On the spatio- temporal distribution of M 7.0+ worldwide seismicity, Tectonophysics 449, 97–104.Google Scholar
  32. Ferraes, S.G. (2003), The conditional probability of earthquake occurrence and the next large earthquake in Tokyo, Jpn J. Seismol. 7, 145–153.Google Scholar
  33. Fisher, R. A. (1912), On an absolute criterion for fitting frequency curves, Messenger of Mathematics 41, 155–160.Google Scholar
  34. Fisher, R. A. (1922a), On the mathematical foundations of the theoretical statistics, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 222, 309–368.Google Scholar
  35. Fisher, R. A. (1922b), The goodness of fit of regression formulae, and the distribution of regression coefficients, J. Royal Statist. Soc. 85, 597–612.Google Scholar
  36. Gumbel, E. J. (1943), On the reliability of the classical Chi square test, Annals of Math. Statist. 14, 253–263.Google Scholar
  37. Gupta, H. K., Rajendran, K., and Singh, H. N. (1986), Seismicity of the northeast India region: Part I: the data base, J. Geol. Soc. India 28, 345–365.Google Scholar
  38. Gupta, R. D. and Kundu, D. (1999), Generalized exponential distribution, Aust. NZ. J. Statist. 41, 173–188.Google Scholar
  39. Gupta, R. D. and Kundu, D. (2006), On the comparison of Fisher information of the Weibull and GE distributions, J. Statist. Plann. Inf. 136, 3130–3144.Google Scholar
  40. Hamdan, M. A. (1963), The number and width of classes in Chi square test, J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 58, 678–689.Google Scholar
  41. Heo, J. H., Boes, D. C., and Salas, J. D. (2001), Regional flood frequency analysis based on a Weibull Model: Part 1, Estimation and Asymptotic Variances, J. Hydro. 242, 157–170.Google Scholar
  42. Hirose, H. (1996), Maximum likelihood estimation in the 3-parameter Weibull Distribution: a look through the generalized extreme value distribution, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 3, 43–55.Google Scholar
  43. Hirose, H. (1999), Bias correction for the maximum likelihood estimates in the two-parameter Weibull distributions, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 6, 66–68.Google Scholar
  44. Hogg, R. V., Mckean, J. W., and Craig, A. T. (2005), Introduction to mathematical statistics, 6th Ed., PRC Press, pp. 718.Google Scholar
  45. Huillet, T. and Raynaud, H. F. (1999), Rare events in a Log-Weibull Scenarioapplication to earthquake magnitude data, European Physical Journal B 12, 457–469.Google Scholar
  46. Hurvich, C. M. and Tsai, C. L. (1989), Regression and time series model selection in small samples, Biometrika 76, 297–307.Google Scholar
  47. Hurvich, C. M. and Tsai, C. L. (1995), Model selection for extended quasi-likelihood models in small samples, Biometrics 51, 1077–1084.Google Scholar
  48. Jiang, H., Sano, M., and Sekine, M. (1997), Weibull raindrop-size distribution and its application to rain attenuation, IEEE Proceedings – Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation 144, 197–200.Google Scholar
  49. Jiang, R. (1996), Failure models involving two Weibull distributions, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  50. Jiang, R., Murthy, D. N. P., and Ji, P. (2001), Models involving two inverse Weibull distributions, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 73, 73–81.Google Scholar
  51. Jiang, R., Zuo, M. J., and Li, H. X. (1999), Weibull and Weibull inverse mixture models allowing negative weights, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 66, 227–234.Google Scholar
  52. Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S., and Balakrishnan, N. (1995), Continuous univariate distributions, Vol. 2, 2nd Ed., New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Kagan, Y.Y. and Jackson, D.D. (1991), Long-term earthquake clustering, Geophys. J. Int. 104, 117–133.Google Scholar
  54. Kagan, Y.Y. and Jackson, D.D. (2000), Probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes, Geophys. J. Int. 143, 438–453.Google Scholar
  55. Kagan, Y.Y. and Jackson, D.D. (2011), Global earthquake forecasts, Geophys. J. Int. 184(2), 759–776.Google Scholar
  56. Keller, A. Z. and Kamath, A. R. (1982), Reliability analysis of CNC machine tools, Reliab. Eng. 3, 449–473.Google Scholar
  57. Khan, M. S., Pasha, G. R., and Pasha, A. H. (2008), Theoretical analysis of inverse Weibull distribution, Wseas Trans. on Maths. 7(2), 30–38.Google Scholar
  58. Kijko, A. (2000), Statistical estimation of maximum regional earthquake magnitude m max, Workshop on Seismicity Modeling in Seismic Hazard Mapping, Poljce, Slovenia, 22–24.Google Scholar
  59. Kijko, A. and Sellevoll, M. A. (1981), Triple exponential distribution, a modified model for the occurrence of large earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 2097–2101.Google Scholar
  60. Kijko, A. and Sellevoll, M. A. (1992), Estimation of earthquake hazard parameters from incomplete data files. Part ΙΙ, incorporation of magnitude heterogeneity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 82(1), 120–134.Google Scholar
  61. King, J. R. (1971), Probability charts for decision making, Industrial Press, New York.Google Scholar
  62. Kiremidjian, A.,and Anagnos, T. (1984), Stochastic slip-predictable model for earthquake occurrences, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 739–755.Google Scholar
  63. Knopoff, L. A. (1971), A Stochastic model for the occurrence of main sequence earthquakes, Rev. Geol. Space Phys. 9, 175–188.Google Scholar
  64. Koelher, K. J. and Gan, F. F. (1990), Chi squared goodness of fit test: cell selection and power, Comm., Statist. B. 19, 1265.Google Scholar
  65. Kolmogorov, A. (1933), Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione (Italian), J. Inst. Ital. Atturi. 4:83.Google Scholar
  66. Kundu, D. and Manglick, A. (2004), Discriminating between the Weibull and log-normal distributions, Naval Res. Logistics 51, 893–905.Google Scholar
  67. Kundu, D. and Raqab, M. Z. (2009), Estimation of three parameter Weibull distribution, Statist. Prob. Let. 79, 1839–1846.Google Scholar
  68. Kundu, D., Gupta, R. D., and Manglick, A. (2005), Discriminating between the log-normal and the generalized Exponential distributions, J. Statist. Planning and Inference 127, 213–227.Google Scholar
  69. Lawless, J. F. (1982), Statistical models and methods for lifetime data, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Lehmann, E. L. (1998), Theory of point estimation, Wiley, New York, pp. 616.Google Scholar
  71. Mann, H. B. and Wald, A. (1942), On the choice of the number of class intervals in the application of the Chi square test, Annals Math. Statist. 13, 306–317.Google Scholar
  72. Marshal, A. W., Meza, J. C., and Olkin, I. (2001), Can data recognize its parent distribution? J. Comp. Graphical Statist. 10, 555–580.Google Scholar
  73. Marzocchi, W. and Lombardi, A. M. (2008), A double branching model for earthquake occurrence, J. Geophy. Res. 113, 1–12.Google Scholar
  74. Massey, F. J. (1951), The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit, J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 46(253), 68–78.Google Scholar
  75. Matthews, M. V., Ellsworth, W. L., and Reasenberg, P. A. (2002), A Brownian model for recurrent earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92(6), 2233–2250.Google Scholar
  76. Molnar, P. (1979), Earthquake recurrence intervals and plate tectonics, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 69(1), 115–133.Google Scholar
  77. Mudholkar, G. S. and Kollia, G. D. (1994), Generalized Weibull family: a structural analysis, Comm. Statist. Series A: Theory and Methods 23, 1149–1171.Google Scholar
  78. Mudholkar, G. S. and srivastava, D. K. (1993), Exponentiated Weibull family for analyzing bathtub failure-rate data, IEEE Trans. on Reliability 42(2), 299–302.Google Scholar
  79. Mudholkar, G. S., Srivastava, D. K., and Fremier, M. (1995), The exponentiated Weibull Family: a reanalysis of the bus motor failure data, Technometrics 37(4), 436–445.Google Scholar
  80. Mulargia, F. and Tinti, S. (1985), Seismic sample area defined from incomplete catalogs: an application to the Italian territory, Phys. Earth Planetroy Sci. 40(4), 273–300.Google Scholar
  81. Murthy, D. N. P., Xie M., and Jiang R. (2004), Weibull models, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, 1st Ed., pp.383.Google Scholar
  82. Nelson, W. (1982), Applied life data analysis, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  83. O’connor, D. T. P. (1997), Practical reliability engineering, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  84. Ogata, Y. (1988), Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83(401), 9 – 27.Google Scholar
  85. Ogata, Y. (1999), Seismicity analysis point-process modeling: a review, Pure Appl. Geophys. 155, 471–507.Google Scholar
  86. Parvez, I. A. and Ram, A. (1997), Probabilistic Assessment of earthquake hazards in the north-east Indian Peninsula and Hindukush regions, Pure Appl. Geophys. 149, 731–746.Google Scholar
  87. Parvez, I. A. and Ram, A. (1999), probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazards in the Indian subcontinent, Pure Appl. Geophys. 154, 23–40.Google Scholar
  88. Rao, C. R. (1945), Information and the accuracy attainable in the estimation of statistical parameters, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 37, 81–89.Google Scholar
  89. Reliability engineering, reliability theory, reliability data analysis, and modeling resource Website, www.weibull.com (retrieved on Oct 25, 2012).
  90. Rikitake, T. (1976a), Earthquake prediction, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 357.Google Scholar
  91. Rikitake, T. (1976b), Recurrence of great earthquakes at subduction zones, Tectonophysics 35(4), 335–362.Google Scholar
  92. Rikitake, T. and Hamada, K. (2001), Earthquake prediction, In: Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, 3rd Ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 4, 743–760.Google Scholar
  93. Rinne, H. (2009), The Weibull distribution: a handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 784.Google Scholar
  94. Rockette, H., Antle, C., and Klimko, L. A. (1974), Maximum likelihood estimation with the Weibull model, J. Am. Stats. Assoc. 69, 246–249.Google Scholar
  95. Schoor, B. (1974), On the choice of the class intervals for the Chi square test of goodness of fit, J. Appl. Maths. Mech. 54(12), 249–251.Google Scholar
  96. Schwarz, G. E. (1978), Estimating the dimension of a model, Annals Statist. 6(2), 461–464.Google Scholar
  97. Sharma, M. L. and Malik, S. (2006), Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and estimation of spectral strong ground motion on bed rock in northeast India, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, October 12–13, Paper no. 015.Google Scholar
  98. Sitharam, T. G. (2008), Seismic microzonation: principles, practices and experiments. EJGE Special Volume Bouquet.Google Scholar
  99. Smirnov, N. V. (1948), Tables for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions, Annals Math. Statist. 19:279.Google Scholar
  100. Smith, R., L. (1985), Maximum likelihood estimation in a class of non-regular cases, Biometrika 72, 67–90.Google Scholar
  101. SSHAC (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee), Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts (1997), US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report, CR-6372, Washington, DC, pp. 888.Google Scholar
  102. Sugiura, N. (1978), Further analysis of the data by Akaike’s information criterion and the finite correctness, Communication is Statistics, Theory and Methods A7, 13–26.Google Scholar
  103. Tripathi, J. N. (2006), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake recurrence in the January 26, 2001 earthquake region of Gujarat, India, J. Seismol. 10, 119–130.Google Scholar
  104. Utsu, T. (1984), Estimation of parameters for recurrence models of earthquakes, Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst., Univ. of Tokyo, 59, 53–66.Google Scholar
  105. Vere-Jones, D. (1970), Stochastic models for earthquake occurrence (with discussion), J. Royal Statist. Soc. B31, 1–62.Google Scholar
  106. Vere-Jones, D. (1978), Earthquake prediction: a statistician’s view, J. Phys. Earth 26, 129–146.Google Scholar
  107. Villaverde, R. (2009), Fundamental concepts of earthquake engineering, CRC Press, 1st Ed., pp. 960.Google Scholar
  108. Wahed, A. S., Luong, T. M., and Jeong, J. H. (2009), A New generalization of Weibull Distribution with application to a breast cancer data set, Stat. Med. 28(16), 2077–2094.Google Scholar
  109. Weibull, W. (1939), A statistical theory of the strength of material, Ing. Vetenskapa Acad. Handlingar 151, 1–45.Google Scholar
  110. Weibull, W. and Sweden, S. (1951), A statistical distribution function of wide applicability, J. Appl. Mech. 18, 293–297.Google Scholar
  111. Wiemer, S. and Wyss, M. (2000), Minimum magnitude of complete reporting in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the Western United States, and Japan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, 859–869.Google Scholar
  112. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve, retrieved on Oct 25, 2012.
  113. Williams, C. A. (1950), On the choice of number and width of classes for the Chi square test of goodness of fit, J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 45, 77–86.Google Scholar
  114. Woessner, J. and Wiemer, S. (2005), Assessing the quality of earthquake catalogs: estimating the magnitude of completeness and its uncertainty, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95(2), 684–698.Google Scholar
  115. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003), Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco bay region: 20022031 (U.S. Geologic Survey, Denver), USGS Open File Rep., p. 03–214Google Scholar
  116. Yadav, R. B. S., Bayrak, Y., Tripathi, J. N., Chopra, S., Singh, A. P., and Bayrak, E. (2011), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake hazard parameters in NW Himalaya and the adjoining regions, Pure Appl. Geophys. 169(9), 1619–1639.Google Scholar
  117. Yadav, R. B. S., Bormann, P., Rastogi, B. K., Das, M. C., and Chopra, S. (2009), A homogeneous and complete earthquake catalog for northeast India and the adjoining region, Seismol. Res. Let. 80(4), 609–627.Google Scholar
  118. yadav, R. B. S., Tripathi, J. N., Rastogi, B. K., Das, M. C., and Chopra, S. (2010), Probabilistic assessment of earthquake recurrence in northeast India and adjoining regions, Pure Appl. Geophys. 167, 1331–1342.Google Scholar
  119. Yazdani, A. and Kowsari, M. (2011), Statistical prediction of the sequence of large earthquakes in Iran, IJE Trans. B: Appl. 24(4), 325–336.Google Scholar
  120. Zanakis, S. H. and Kyparisis, J. (1986), A review of maximum likelihood estimation methods for the three parameter Weibull distribution, J. Statist. Comp. and Simulation 25, 53–73.Google Scholar
  121. Zoller, G., Zion, Y. B., Holschneider, M., and Hainzl, S. (2007), Estimating recurrence times and seismic hazard of large earthquakes on an individual fault, Geophy. J. Int. 170, 1300–1310.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology KanpurKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations