USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70003681

Model and parametric uncertainty in source-based kinematic models of earthquake ground motion

Abstract

Four independent ground-motion simulation codes are used to model the strong ground motion for three earthquakes: 1994 M w 6.7 Northridge, 1989 M w 6.9 Loma Prieta, and 1999 M w 7.5 Izmit. These 12 sets of synthetics are used to make estimates of the variability in ground-motion predictions. In addition, ground-motion predictions over a grid of sites are used to estimate parametric uncertainty for changes in rupture velocity. We find that the combined model uncertainty and random variability of the simulations is in the same range as the variability of regional empirical ground-motion data sets. The majority of the standard deviations lie between 0.5 and 0.7 natural-log units for response spectra and 0.5 and 0.8 for Fourier spectra. The estimate of model epistemic uncertainty, based on the different model predictions, lies between 0.2 and 0.4, which is about one-half of the estimates for the standard deviation of the combined model uncertainty and random variability. Parametric uncertainty, based on variation of just the average rupture velocity, is shown to be consistent in amplitude with previous estimates, showing percentage changes in ground motion from 50% to 300% when rupture velocity changes from 2.5 to 2.9 km/s. In addition, there is some evidence that mean biases can be reduced by averaging ground-motion estimates from different methods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stephen H. Hartzell, Arthur Frankel, Pengcheng Liu, Yuehua Zeng, Shariftur Rahman. 2011-09-26. Model and parametric uncertainty in source-based kinematic models of earthquake ground motion. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110028

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗