Time-dependent probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis using stochastic rupture sources

  • Katsuichiro GodaEmail author
Original Paper


This study conducts a time-dependent probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis using stochastic rupture sources, which enables the consideration of numerous heterogeneous earthquake slip distributions. Earthquake occurrence modeling is based on temporal renewal and magnitude recurrence models. To account for various combinations of alternative models for temporal occurrence process, earthquake magnitude distribution, and spatial earthquake slip distribution, a logic-tree approach is implemented, facilitating more comprehensive characterization of epistemic uncertainties for the stochastic rupture source approach. To demonstrate the effects of different model components on tsunami hazard curves, a case study for coastal plain areas of Miyagi Prefecture in Japan is set up. The sensitivity analysis clearly indicates that the selection of renewal and magnitude models has paramount influence on the tsunami hazard results. The results also depend on the situations of interest in terms of current time and time-horizon with respect to the recurrence process of the earthquake rupture. In light of significant uncertainties of tsunami hazard and risk due to future mega-thrust subduction events, consideration of epistemic uncertainties is of critical importance.


Time-dependent hazard analysis Tsunami hazard Renewal process Stochastic sources Logic tree Sensitivity analysis Epistemic uncertainty 



This work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust (RPG-2017-006) and the Canada Research Chair in Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment program (950-232015). The author is grateful to three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.


  1. Abaimov SG, Turcotte DL, Shcherbakov R, Rundle JB, Yakovlev G, Goltz C, Newman WI (2008) Earthquakes: recurrence and interoccurrence times. Pure Appl Geophys 165:777–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annaka T, Satake K, Sakakiyama T, Yanagisawa K, Shuto N (2007) Logic-tree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and its applications to the Japanese coasts. Pure Appl Geophys 164:577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beven K (2008) Environmental modelling: an uncertain future?. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  4. Console R, Murru M, Falcone G, Catalli F (2008) Stress interaction effect on the occurrence probability of characteristic earthquakes in Central Apennines. J Geophys Res 113:B08313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58:1583–1606Google Scholar
  6. Cornell CA, Winterstein SR (1988) Temporal and magnitude dependence in earthquake recurrence models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78:1522–1537Google Scholar
  7. De Risi R, Goda K (2017) Simulation-based probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis: empirical and robust hazard predictions. Pure Appl Geophys 174:3083–3106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2009) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Struct Saf 31:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field EH (2007) A summary of previous Working Groups on California Earthquake Probabilities. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:1033–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field EH, Jordan TH (2015) Time-dependent renewal-model probabilities when date of last earthquake is unknown. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:459–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fierro R, Leiva V (2017) A stochastic methodology for risk assessment of a large earthquake when a long time has elapsed. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:2327–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukutani Y, Suppasri A, Imamura F (2015) Stochastic analysis and uncertainty assessment of tsunami wave height using a random source parameter model that targets a Tohoku-type earthquake fault. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29:1763–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goda K, Hong HP (2006) Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information. Struct Saf 28:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goda K, Song J (2016) Uncertainty modeling and visualization for tsunami hazard and risk mapping: a case study for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 30:2271–2285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goda K, Mai PM, Yasuda T, Mori N (2014) Sensitivity of tsunami wave profiles and inundation simulations to earthquake slip and fault geometry for the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Earth Planets Space 66:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goda K, Yasuda T, Mori N, Maruyama T (2016) New scaling relationships of earthquake source parameters for stochastic tsunami simulation. Coast Eng J 58:1650010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goto C, Ogawa Y, Shuto N, Imamura F (1997) Numerical method of tsunami simulation with the leap-frog scheme. IOC Manual, UNESCO, No. 35, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  18. Grezio A, Babeyko A, Baptista MA, Behrens J, Costa A, Davies G, Geist EL, Glimsdal S, González FI, Griffin J, Harbitz CB, LeVeque RJ, Lorito S, Løvholt F, Omira R, Mueller C, Paris R, Parsons T, Polet J, Power W, Selva J, Sørensen MB, Thio HK (2017) Probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis: multiple sources and global applications. Rev Geophys. Google Scholar
  19. Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion (2013) Investigations of future seismic hazard assessment. Japanese Govern, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaczmarska J, Jewson S, Bellone E (2018) Quantifying the sources of simulation uncertainty in natural catastrophe models. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32:591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kagan YY (2017) Worldwide earthquake forecasts. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1273–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim K, Cho Y, Kwon H (2018) An integrated Bayesian approach to the probabilistic tsunami risk model for the location and magnitude of earthquakes: application to the eastern coast of the Korean Peninsula. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32:1243–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li L, Switzer AD, Chan CH, Wang Y, Weiss R, Qiu Q (2016) How heterogeneous coseismic slip affects regional probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment: a case study in the South China Sea. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 121:6250–6272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu B, Siu YL, Mitchell G (2017) A quantitative model for estimating risk from multiple interacting natural hazards: an application to northeast Zhejiang, China. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:1319–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthews MV, Ellsworth WL, Reasenberg PA (2002) A Brownian model for recurrent earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92:2233–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazzotti S, Leonard LJ, Cassidy JF, Rogers GC, Halchuk S (2011) Seismic hazard in western Canada from GPS strain rates versus earthquake catalog. J Geophys Res 116:B12310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, p 240Google Scholar
  28. Ming X, Xu W, Li Y, Du J, Liu B, Shi P (2015) Quantitative multi-hazard risk assessment with vulnerability surface and hazard joint return period. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mitchell-Wallace K, Jones M, Hillier J, Foote M (2017) Natural catastrophe risk management and modelling: a practitioner’s guide. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Mueller C, Power W, Fraser S, Wang X (2015) Effects of rupture complexity on local tsunami inundation: implications for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment by example. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120:488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muhammad A, Goda K (2018) Impact of earthquake source complexity and land elevation data resolution on tsunami hazard assessment and fatality estimation. Geosci Comput 112:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ogata Y (1999) Estimating the hazard of rupture using uncertain occurrence times of paleoearthquakes. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 104:17995–18014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Okada Y (1985) Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1135–1154Google Scholar
  34. Pardo-Iguzquiza E, Chica-Olmo M (1993) The Fourier integral method: an efficient spectral method for simulation of random fields. Math Geol 25:177–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park H, Cox DT (2016) Probabilistic assessment of near-field tsunami hazards: inundation depth, velocity, momentum flux, arrival time, and duration applied to Seaside, Oregon. Coast Eng 117:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parsons T, Geist EL (2008) Tsunami probability in the Caribbean region. Pure Appl Geophys 168:2089–2116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rabinowitz N, Steinberg DM, Leonard G (1998) Logic trees, sensitivity analyses, and data reduction in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. Earthq Spectra 14:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rackwitz R (2000) Optimization: the basis of code-making and reliability verification. Struct Saf 22:27–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohmer J, Douglas J, Bertil D, Monfort D, Sedan O (2014) Weighing the importance of model uncertainty against parameter uncertainty in earthquake loss assessments. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 58:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rohmer J, Rousseau M, Lemoine A, Pedreros R, Lambert J, Benki A (2018) Source characterisation by mixing long-running tsunami wave numerical simulations and historical observations within a metamodel-aided ABC setting. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 32:967–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Selva J, Tonini R, Molinari I, Tiberti MM, Romano F, Grezio A, Melini D, Piatanesi A, Basili R, Lorito S (2016) Quantification of source uncertainties in seismic probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (SPTHA). Geophys J Int 205:1780–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shimazaki K, Nakata T (1980) Time predictable recurrence for large earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 7:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sykes LR, Menke W (2006) Repeat times of large earthquakes: implications for earthquake mechanics and long-term prediction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1569–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tanioka Y, Satake K (1996) Tsunami generation by horizontal displacement of ocean bottom. Geophys Res Lett 23:861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) (2008) The uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2), and California Geological Survey Special Report 203, Version 1.1, Accessed 1 June 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Statistical and Actuarial SciencesWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations