Natural Hazards

, Volume 9, Issue 1–2, pp 215–233 | Cite as

Seismic hazard analysis with randomly located sources

  • M. Semih Yucemen
  • Polat Gulkan
Part IV: Geological Hazards

Abstract

Demarcation of areal and linear seismic sources involves a certain degree of uncertainty and this should be reflected in the final seismic hazard results. The uncertainty associated with the description of the geographical coordinates of a source zone boundary is modeled by introducing the concept of ‘random boundary’, where the location of the boundary is assumed to exhibit a spatial bivariate Gaussian distribution. Here the mean vector denotes the best estimate of location and the variance reflects the magnitude of location uncertainty, which may be isotropic or may show spatial directivity. The consideration of spatial randomness in the boundaries smooths the seismicity parameters and permits the gradual transitions of these to occur across border zones. Seismic sources modeled as lines can also be attributed random geometrical properties.

The sensitivity of seismic hazard results to the isotropic and direction dependent location uncertainty is examined on the basis of hypothetical case studies. Area and line source location uncertainties are examined separately because they are reflected in the eventual outcome of the analyses in a complicated manner. The effect of random source zone boundaries on the expected peak ground acceleration is tested for a specific site in Turkey by conducting a comprehensive seismic hazard analysis.

Key words

Seismic hazard random source location random boundary source zone boundary seismic sources uncertainty earthquakes statistical analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bender, B.: 1986, Modeling source zone boundary uncertainty in seismic hazard analysis,Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 76 (2), 329–341.Google Scholar
  2. Bender, B. and Perkins, D. M.: 1987, SEISRISK III: A computer program for seismic hazard estimation, USGS Bulletin 1772, Washington D.C., 48 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Doyuran, V., Gulkan, P., and Kocyigit, A.: 1989, Seismotectonic evaluation of the Akkuyu nuclear power plant site, Report No. 89-01, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 69 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Gulkan, P. and Yucemen, M. S.: 1977, Seismic risk analysis for nuclear power plants,METU J. Pure Appl. Sci. 10(1), 115–135.Google Scholar
  5. Gulkan, P. and Yucemen, M. S.: 1991, Seismic hazard determination in regions having diffused boundaries,Proc. 4th Intern. Conference on Seismic Zonation, Vol. 2, Stanford, California, pp. 65–70.Google Scholar
  6. McGuire, R. K.: 1976, Fortran computer program for seismic risk analysis, USGS Open-File report 76-67, 90 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Slemmons, D. B.: 1977, State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazard in the United States, Part 6, faults and earthquake magnitude, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, 129 pp.Google Scholar
  8. U.S. National Committee for the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction: 1991,A Safer Future: Reducing the Impacts of Natural Disasters, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Semih Yucemen
    • 1
  • Polat Gulkan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and Earthquake Engineering Research CenterMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations