Seismic hazard estimation: directly using observations versus applying seismic hazard model

Liu, T. J.; Pozos‐Estrada, Adrián; Gómez, R.; Hong, H.P.

doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1988-z

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter can be explained by noting that the cov of SA as well as its probability distribution tail increase as r of GMPEs increases. Additional discussion of the effect of r on the UHS by using the site specific information can be found in [52]. It must be emphasized that the values of S opt and T opt are sensitive to the adopted structural and cost information shown in Table 4.…”

Section: Structural Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic design and importance factor: Benefit/cost for overall service time versus per unit service time

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Structural Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic design and importance factor: Benefit/cost for overall service time versus per unit service time

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Rearranging Equation for ε ( T ), it follows

ε ()(, T) = \frac{\ln italicSa ()(, T) - μ_{\ln italicSa} ()(, M, R, θ, T)}{σ_{\ln italicSa} ()(, T)}

where ε ( T ) represents the number of standard deviations by which the actual logarithmic spectral acceleration differs from the predicted mean value μ ln Sa ( M , R , θ , T ) and the ε ( T ) values at different periods are probabilistically correlated. Additionally, the common assumption is that the residuals (epsilons) are normally distributed 3,33,35,36 ; although a study conducted by Liu et al 37 suggest that the use of the whole set of intraslab ground motions (Table 2) may produce a non‐normal distribution for the residuals. In this research, the ε ( T ) values are assumed to be normally distributed for both interplate and intraslab earthquakes.…”

Section: Second Step: Correlation Coefficients Between Spectral Accelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, we perform the same analysis above, but now choosing as a period of interest T * = 0.2 s. Then, through a deaggregation analysis, we identify the mean magnitude ( M̅ ) and distance ( R̅ ) values, which correspond to an intraslab event 37 . Therefore, according to the GMPE for intraslab events, the resulted spectra are shown below.…”

Section: Fifth Step: Two Earthquake Engineering Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of spectral acceleration correlation models on conditional mean spectra and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Rodríguez-Castellanos

Ruiz

Bojórquez

et al. 2020

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovative engineering applications are proposed to satisfy the current necessities of earthquake engineering, which are well established from a conceptual perspective, and frequently, the development of some missing inputs is only required to employ them, such as the case of the correlations between spectral values at different vibration periods. Accordingly, we computed the correlation between spectral accelerations at two vibration periods using ground motions from interplate and, alternatively, intraslab events, recorded in firm ground of Mexico City. Results show that the spreading of correlation values depends on the rupture mechanism. Then, based on hypothesis test analyses, we used four correlation models available in the literature to predict our correlation values. According to the findings, we proposed a predictive correlation mathematical model for interplate and, separately, for intraslab seismic events. We evaluated the influence of the predictive correlation models on the results corresponding to two earthquake engineering applications. The first refers to compute conditional mean spectra and the second to perform probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) using I Np and, alternatively, Sa avg , intensity measures. We found that while the conditional mean spectra might be affected in the region of short vibration periods, the computations of the PSHA with improved intensity measures are not affected significantly.

show abstract

“…If there are sufficient observed ground motion records at a site, the seismic hazard could be directly estimated using the observations and extreme value theory (Liu et al, 2016;Milne and Davenport, 1969;Ordaz and Reyes, 1999). The records of moderate and large earthquakes at the sites within Ciudad Universitaria (CU) station are rich as compared to other sites; it more or less fits this situation.…”

Section: Seismic Hazard Estimation At a Site With Excellent Historicamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using the SA calculated for the records listed in Table 1, and fitting equation (2) by the method of maximum likelihood, the fitted distribution for selected T n and the estimated y T for T = 125 and 475 years are illustrated in Figure 1 for interplate earthquakes and inslab earthquakes. For further analysis using different distribution types and datasets, the reader is referred to Liu et al (2016). By considering that the occurrence of the interplate earthquake is independent of that of the inslab earthquake, y T for both interplate and inslab earthquakes can be obtained by solving, 1 À 1=T ¼ ðF A ðy T ÞÞ Int ðF A ðy T ÞÞ Ins , where the subscripts Int and Ins indicate the probability distribution of the annual maximum SA due to interplate earthquake alone and due to inslab earthquake alone, respectively.…”

Section: Seismic Hazard Estimation At a Site With Excellent Historicamentioning

confidence: 99%

Site, local, and regional earthquake ground motion characterization and application

Hong

2016

Advances in Structural Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic overview and comparison is presented on the seismic hazard assessment based on the observations and seismic hazard model and the characteristics of earthquake ground motions for a site, a local area, and a region. It shows that the seismic hazard estimated by directly using the observations could differ from that evaluated using an adopted seismic hazard model. It indicates the importance to judiciously select the seismic hazard model, as well as to understand that historical records for a limited period may not fully reflect the seismic hazard. The comparison of the ground motion characteristics is focused on the variability of the ground motion measures, the coherency for record components in two orthogonal orientations, and the spatial correlation and spatial coherency. Procedures for simulating bidirectional excitations at a site and record components at multiple sites for a scenario seismic event are given. The application of the simulated record components to estimate the seismic loss for a portfolio of hypothetical buildings by considering a scenario event is shown, indicating the effectiveness of the presented methodology for seismic loss estimation.

show abstract

Seismic hazard estimation: directly using observations versus applying seismic hazard model

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

Seismic design and importance factor: Benefit/cost for overall service time versus per unit service time

Seismic design and importance factor: Benefit/cost for overall service time versus per unit service time

Influence of spectral acceleration correlation models on conditional mean spectra and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Site, local, and regional earthquake ground motion characterization and application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About