Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On how the ergodic assumption influences seismic risk

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Monte-Carlo (MC) simulation approach has been widely applied to the problem of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) for geographically distributed systems. Although the conventional integral approach is well-established in PSHA, the MC simulation approach is an efficient and flexible alternative when complicated factors, such as spatial correlation of ground shaking are involved. The objective of this study is to assess how the ergodic assumption influences the economic loss results for a region. To meet this objective, MC simulation and multi-scale random fields techniques are used to assess the probabilistic seismic hazard of a region, while incorporating estimated site-terms (δS2Ss) based on available strong-motion records at specific sites and spatially correlated δS2Ss at others in addition to single-station sigma to the PSHA process. The proposed method is applied to the Fatih district of Istanbul in the case of a moment magnitude 7.3 earthquake on the Marmara Fault. Results indicate that the probability for total economic loss being underestimated due to the ergodic assumption by at least 29% is 0.50 in the case of a moment magnitude 7.3 earthquake on the Marmara Fault.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA, and Hollenback JC (2012) Application of single station sigma ground motion prediction equations in practice, Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisboa, Portugal

  • Abrahamson N, Silva W (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-Motion Relations. Earthq Spectra 24(1):67–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson N, Silva W, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground-motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1025–1055

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson NA, Kuehn N, Walling M, Landwehr N (2019) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in California using nonergodic ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109(4):1235–1249

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Çağnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2978–2995

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:359–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Senyurt M, Sisi AA, Ay BO (2014) Reference database for seismic ground motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Eroglu Azak T, Çan T, Ceken U, Demircioglu MB, Duman T, Erdik M, Ergintav S, Kadirioglu FT, Kalafat D, Kale O, Kartal RF, Kekovalı K, Kılıc T, Ozalp S, Altuncu Poyraz S, Sesetyan K, Tekin S, Yakut A, Yılmaz MT, Yucemen MS, Zulfikar O (2014) Türkiye Sismik Tehlike Haritasının Güncellenmesi Projesi, UDAP-Ç-13-06. AFAD, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Cheng Y (2016) Application of a Monte-Carlo Simulation Approach for the Probabilistic Assessment of Seismic Hazard for Geographically Distributed Portfolio. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 45:525–541

    Google Scholar 

  • Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81(5):794–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JG, Brune JN (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment without the ergodic assumption. Seismol Res Lett 70(1):19–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P (2014) Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull Earthq Eng 12:391–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnhoff M, Bulut F, Dresen G, Malin PE, Eken T, Aktar M (2013) An Earthquake Gap South of Istanbul. Nat Commun 4(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2006) Why do modern probabilistic seismic hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates? Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:1967–1977

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Bungum H, Fäh D (2010) On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis. Seism Res Lett 81(5):783–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer J, Coppersmith JK, Coppersmith RT, Hanson KL, Mangongolo A, Neveling J, Rathje EM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Scherbaum F, Shelembe R, Stafford P, Strasser FO (2015) A SSHAC level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new building nuclear site in South Africa. Earthq Spectra 31(2):661–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085

    Google Scholar 

  • Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures: part 1, provisions, federal emergency management agency (P-750), Washington

  • Çağnan Z, Akkar S (2019) Assessment of aleatory and epistemic uncertainty for ground-motion intensity measure prediction in Turkey. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109(1):263–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1087–1115

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprio M, Tarigan B, Worden CB, Wiemer S, Wald DJ (2015) Ground motion to intensity conversion equations: a global relationship and evaluation of regional dependency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(3):1476–1490

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, Bianchini A (2015) Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1587–1612

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Q, Seifried A, Andrade JF, Baker JW (2012) Characterization of random fields and their impact on the mechanics of geosystems at multiple scales. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 36(2):140–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiou B-J, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 24(1):173–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the chiou and youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico M, Tiberti MM, Russo E, Pacor F, Basili R (2017) Ground‐motion variability for single site and single source through deterministic stochastic method simulations: implications for PSHA. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(2):966–983

    Google Scholar 

  • Danciu L, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Gulen L, Zare M, Basili R, Elias A, Adamia S, Tsereteli M, Yalcin H, Utkucu M, Khan MA, Sayab M, Hessami K, Rovida A, Stucchi M, Burg JP, Karakhanyan A, Babayan H, Avanesyan M, Mamadi T, Al-Qaryouti M, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D (2016) The 2014 earthquake model of the Middle East: seismogenic sources. Bull Earthq Eng 16:3465–3496

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBock JD, Garrison JW, Kim KY, Liel AB (2014) Incorporation of spatial correlations between building response parameters in regional seismic loss assessment. Bull of Seismol Soc of Am 104(1):214–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Demircioglu MB (2010) Earthquake hazards and risk assessment for Turkey. PhD Thesis, Bogazici University

  • Douglas J (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61(1–2):43–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Durukal E, Erdik M, Sesetyan K, Fahjan Y (2006) Building loss estimation for earthquake insurance pricing, Proceedings of the 8th U.S. national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California, 18–22 April, U.S.A.

  • Goda K, Hong HP (2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bull of Seismol Soc Am 98(1):354–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98), Cahiers du Centre European de Geodynamique et de Seismologie 15. Center Europeen de Geodynamique et de Seismologie, Luxembourg, p 99

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulen L, Sesetyan K, Adamia S, Sadradze N, Gvencadze A, Karakhanyan A et al. (2014) Earthquake Model of the Middle East (EMME) project: active faults and seismic sources, Proceedings of 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, 2ECEES, 24–29 August 2014, Istanbul, Turkey, Abstract no.3216

  • Gülerce Z, Kargioğlu B, Abrahamson NA (2015) Turkey-adjusted NGA-W1 horizontal ground motion prediction models. Earthq Spectra 32(1):75–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutenberg B, Richter CF (1944) Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 34:185–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM (2008) An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 24(1):217–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (2009). Updating estimations of the probable earthquake in Istanbul, Report prepared by OYO international corporation, p 251

  • Jayaram N, Baker J (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 38:1687–1708

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale O, Akkar S (2013) A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR) method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(2A):1069–1084

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale Ö, Akkar S (2017) A ground-motion logic-tree scheme for regional seismic hazard studies. Earthq Spectra 33(3):837–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale O, Akkar S, Cagnan Z (2017) Temsili ve ayrık yer hareketi tahmin denklemlerinin Türkiye yer hareketi veri tabanı altındaki performanslarının karsılastırılması. Proceedings of the 4th international earthquake engineering and sismology conference, 11–13 October 2017, Eskişehir, Turkey

  • Kale O, Akkar S, Anooshiravan A, Hamzehloo H (2015) A ground-motion predictive model for iran and turkey for horizontal PGA, PGV and 5%-Damped response spectrum: investigation of possible regional effects. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(2A):963–980

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalkan E, Gülkan P (2004) Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey. Earthq Spectra 20:1111–1138

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Bindi D, Cotton F (2017) From ergodic to region- and site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: method development and application at European and Middle Eastern Sites. Earthq Spectra 33(4):1433–1453

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and Mechanical Models for the Vulnerability and Damage Assessment of Current Buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzano G, Pacor F, Luzi L, D’Amico M, Puglia R, Felicetta C (2017) Systematic source, path and site effects on ground motion variability: the case study of Northern Italy. Bull Earthq Eng 15:4563–4583

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornthammarath T, Douglas J, Sigbjornsson R, Lai CG (2011) Assessment of ground motion variability and its effects on seismic hazard analysis: a case study for Iceland. Bull Earthq Eng 9:931–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbey C, Sari A, Manuel L, Erdik M, Fahjan Y (2004) An empirical attenuation relationship for Northwestern Turkey ground motion using a random effects approach. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 24(2):115–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Pecker A, Faccioli E, Gurpinar A, Martin C, Renault P (2017) An overview of the SIGMA research project: a European approach to seismic hazard analysis, geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol 42, Springer International Publishing, p 172

  • Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (2001) Numerical recipes in fortran 77: the art of scientific computing, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez- Marek A, Rathje EM, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Stafford PJ (2014) Application of single-station sigma and site-response characterization in a probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis for a new nuclear site. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(4):1601–1619

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004) On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6):2164–2185

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3234–3247

    Google Scholar 

  • Sesetyan K, Danciu L, Tumsa MBD, Giardini D, Erdik M, Akkar S, Gulen L, Zare M, Adamia S, Ansari A, Arakelyan A, Askan A, Avanesyan M, Babayan H, Chelidze T, Durgaryan R, Elias A, Hamzehloo H, Hessami K, Kalafat D, Kale O, Karakhanyan A, Khan MA, Mammadli T, Al-Qaryouti M, Sayab M, Tsereteli N, Utkucu M, Varazanashvili O, Waseem M, Yalcin H, Yilmaz MT (2018) The 2014 seismic hazard model of the Middle East: overiew and results. Bull Earthq Eng 16:3535–3566

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser FO, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ (2009) Sigma: issue, insights, and challenges. Seismol Res Lett 80(1):40–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Villani M, Abrahamson NA (2015) Repeatable site and path effects on the ground motion sigma based on empirical data from Southern California and simulated waveforms from the cybershake platform. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(5):2681–2695

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagener T, Goda K, Erdik M, Daniell J, Wenzel F (2016) A spatial correlation model of peak ground acceleration and response spectra based on data of the istanbul earthquake rapid response and early warning system. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 85:166–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Zare M, Amini H, Yazdi P, Sesetyan K, Demircioglu MB, Kalafat D, Erdik M, Giardini D, Khan MA, Tsereteli N (2014) Recent developments of the Middle East catalog. J Seismolog 18(4):749–772

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper would not have been possible without the explicit and implicit contributions of Prof. Dr. Sinan Akkar and Prof. Dr. Mustafa Erdik. Their contributions are acknowledged with gratitude. The computer codes developed by Akkar and Cheng (2016) form the foundation of the current study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Sciences Department, Middle East Technical University, MM Building, Universiteler Mah.Dumlupinar Blvd. No.1, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    Zehra Çağnan

Authors
  1. Zehra Çağnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zehra Çağnan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çağnan, Z. On how the ergodic assumption influences seismic risk. Bull Earthquake Eng 19, 1–25 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00992-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00992-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation