Mapping Seismic Hazard for Canadian Sites Using Spatially Smoothed Seismicity Model

Abstract

The estimated seismic hazard based on the delineated seismic source model is used as the basis to assign the seismic design loads in Canadian structural design codes. An alternative for the estimation is based on a spatially smoothed source model. However, a quantification of differences in the Canadian seismic hazard maps (CanSHMs) obtained based on the delineated seismic source model and spatially smoothed model is unavailable. The quantification is valuable to identify epistemic uncertainty in the estimated seismic hazard and the degree of uncertainty in the CanSHMs. In the present study, we developed seismic source models using spatial smoothing and historical earthquake catalogue. We quantified the differences in the estimated Canadian seismic hazard by considering the delineated source model and spatially smoothed source models. For the development of the spatially smoothed seismic source models, we considered spatial kernel smoothing techniques with or without adaptive bandwidth. The results indicate that the use of the delineated seismic source model could lead to under or over-estimation of the seismic hazard as compared to those estimated based on spatially smoothed seismic source models. This suggests that an epistemic uncertainty caused by the seismic source models should be considered to map the seismic hazard.

Keywords

Adaptive kernel smoothing / Fixed kernel smoothing / Ground motion model / Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis / Seismic hazard map / Uniform hazard spectra

References

[1] Abrahamson N, Gregor N, Addo K. BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 2016, 32(1): 23-44

[2] Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra, 2014, 30(3): 1025-1055

[3] Adams, J. 2019. A 65-year history of seismic hazard estimates in Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, 17–20 June 2019, Quebec City, QC, Canada.

[4] Adams, J., A. Trevor, S. Halchuk, and M. Kolaj. 2019. Canada's 6th Generation Seismic Hazard Model, as Prepared for the 2020 National Building Code of Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17–20 June 2019, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

[5] Albarello D, Camassi R, Rebez A. Detection of space and time heterogeneity in the completeness of a seismic catalog by a statistical approach: An application to the Italian area. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2001, 91(6): 1694-1703

[6] Atkinson GM. Ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America from a referenced empirical approach: Implications for epistemic uncertainty. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2008, 98(3): 1304-1318

[7] Atkinson GM, Adams J. Ground motion prediction equations for application to the 2015 Canadian national seismic hazard maps. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2013, 40: 988-998

[8] Atkinson GM, Boore DM. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2003, 93(4): 1703-1729

[9] Atkinson GM, Boore DM. Modifications to existing ground-motion prediction equations in light of new data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2011, 101(3): 1121-1135

[10] Atkinson GM, Macias M. Predicted ground motions for great interface earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, 99(3): 1552-1578

[11] Atkinson GM, Eaton DW, Ghofrani H, Walker D, Cheadle B, Schultz R, Shcherbakov R, Tiampo K Hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. Seismological Research Letters, 2016, 87(3): 631-647

[12] Atkinson GM, Ghofrani H, Assatourians K. Impact of induced seismicity on the evaluation of seismic hazard: Some preliminary considerations. Seismological Research Letters, 2015, 86(3): 1009-1021

[13] Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 2014, 30(3): 1057-1085

[14] Campbell KW, Bozorgina Y. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 2014, 30(3): 1087-1115

[15] Chiou BS-J, Youngs R. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal components of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 2014, 30(3): 1117-1153

[16] Cornell CA. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1968, 58(5): 1583-1606

[17] Esteva, L. 1968. Basis for the formulation of seismic design decisions (Bases para la formulación de decisiones de diseño sísmico). Ph.D. thesis. Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (in Spanish).

[18] Feng C, Hong HP. Projecting sets of ground-motion models and their use to evaluate seismic hazard and uniform hazard spectrum for mainland China. Natural Hazards Review, 2021, 22(3): Article 04021014

[19] Feng C, Liu TJ, Hong HP. Seismic hazard assessment for mainland China based on spatially smoothed seismicity. Journal of Seismology, 2020, 24: 613-633

[20] Fereidoni A, Atkinson GM, Macias M, Goda K. CCSC: A composite seismicity catalog for earthquake hazard assessment in major Canadian cities. Seismological Research Letters, 2012, 83(1): 179-189

[21] Frankel A. Mapping seismic hazard in the central and eastern United States. Seismological Research Letters, 1995, 66(4): 8-21

[22] García D, Singh SK, Herráiz M, Ordaz M, Pacheco JF. Inslab earthquakes of central Mexico: Peak ground-motion parameters and response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2005, 95(6): 2272-2282

[23] Gerstenberger MC, Marzocchi W, Allen T, Pagani T, Adams J, Danciu L, Field EH, Fujiwara H Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at regional and national scales: State of the art and future challenges. Reviews of Geophysics, 2020, 58(2): Article e2019RG000653

[24] Ghofrani H, Atkinson GM. Ground-motion prediction equations for interface earthquakes of M7 to M9 based on empirical data from Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2014, 12: 549-571.

[25] Goda K, Hong HP. Optimal seismic design for limited planning time horizon with detailed seismic hazard information. Structural Safety, 2006, 28(3): 247-260

[26] Goda K, Hong HP. Deaggregation of seismic loss of spatially distributed buildings. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2009, 7(1): 255-272.

[27] Goda K, Aspinall W, Taylor CA. Seismic hazard analysis for the UK: Sensitivity to spatial seismicity modelling and ground motion prediction equations. Seismological Research Letters, 2013, 84(1): 112-129

[28] Goulet, C.A., Y. Bozorgnia, N. Kuehn, L. Al Atik, R.R. Youngs, R.W. Graves, and G.M. Atkinson. 2017. NGA-East ground-motion models for the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps: PEER report 2017/03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, USA.

[29] Halchuk, S., T.I. Allen, G.C. Rogers, and J. Adams. 2015. Seismic hazard earthquake epicentre file (SHEEF2010) used in the fifth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada: Open file 7724. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.4095/296908.

[30] Hong, H.P., and P. Hong. 2006. Reliability-consistent seismic design load contour maps. In Proceedings of the 9th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, 26–29 June 2007, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2023–2032.

[31] Hong HP, Goda K, Davenport AG. Seismic hazard analysis: A comparative study. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2006, 33(9): 1156-1171

[32] Hong HP, Hong P. Assessment of ductility demand and reliability of bilinear single-degree-of-freedom systems under earthquake loading. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2007, 34(12): 1606-1615

[33] Kagan YY, Jackson DD. Long-term probabilistic forecasting of earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 1994, 99(B7): 13685-13700

[34] Kolaj, M., T. Allen, R. Mayfield, J. Adams, and S. Halchuk. 2019. Ground-motion models for the 6th generation seismic hazard model of Canada. In Proceedings of the 12th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, 17–20 June 2019, Quebec City, QC, Canada.

[35] Kolaj, M., S. Halchuk, J. Adams, and T.I. Allen. 2020. Sixth generation seismic hazard model of Canada: Input files to produce values proposed for the 2020 National Building Code of Canada: Open file 8630. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

[36] McGuire R. Seismic hazard and risk analysis, 2004, Oakland, CA: EERI Monograph Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

[37] Molina S, Lindholm CD, Bungum H. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Zoning free versus zoning methodology. Bollettino di Geofisica, 2001, 42: 19-39.

[38] Musson RM. The use of Monte Carlo simulations for seismic hazard assessment in the UK. AnnaGeofis, 2000, 43(1): 1-9.

[39] Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L OpenQuake Engine: An open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismological Research Letters, 2014, 85(3): 692-702

[40] Pezeshk S, Zandieh A, Tavakoli B. Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2011, 101(4): 1859-1870

[41] Rosenblueth E. Optimum design for infrequent disturbances. Journal of the Structural Division, 1976, 102(9): 1807-1825

[42] Silva, W., N. Gregor, and R. Darragh. 2002. Development of regional hard rock attenuation relations for central and eastern North America. Report to Pacific Engineering and Analysis. http://www.ce.memphis.edu/7137/PDFs/attenuations/USGS2008/Silva2002.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2023.

[43] Silverman BW. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis, 1986, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press

[44] Stock C, Smith EG. Adaptive kernel estimation and continuous probability representation of historical earthquake catalogs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2002, 92(3): 904-912

[45] US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Technical report—Central and Eastern United States seismic source characterization for nuclear facilities. Washington, DC, and Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, US Department of Energy, and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1204/ML12048A804.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2023.

[46] Vere-Jones D. Walden AT, Guttorp P. Statistical methods for the description and display of earthquake catalogs. Statistics in environmental and earth sciences: New developments in theory & practice, 1992, London: Edward Arnold 220-246.

[47] Weichert DH. Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1980, 70(4): 1337-1346

[48] Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1994, 84(4): 974-1002

[49] Woo G. Kernel estimation methods for seismic hazard area source modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1996, 86(2): 353-362

[50] Xu WJ, Gao MT. Seismic hazard estimate using spatially smoothed seismicity model as spatial distribution function. Acta Seismological Sinica, 2012, 34(4): 526-536 in Chinese

[51] Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2006, 96(3): 898-913

[52] Zuccolo E, Corigliano M, Lai CG. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Italy using kernel estimation methods. Journal of Seismology, 2013, 17(3): 1001-1020