USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70030538

Uncertainty of earthquake losses due to model uncertainty of input ground motions in the Los Angeles area

Abstract

In a recent study we used the Monte Carlo simulation method to evaluate the ground-motion uncertainty of the 2002 update of the California probabilistic seismic hazard model. The resulting ground-motion distribution is used in this article to evaluate the contribution of the hazard model to the uncertainty in earthquake loss ratio, the ratio of the expected loss to the total value of a structure. We use the Hazards U.S. (HAZUS) methodology for loss estimation because it is a widely used and publicly available risk model and intended for regional studies by public agencies and for use by governmental decision makers. We found that the loss ratio uncertainty depends not only on the ground-motion uncertainty but also on the mean ground-motion level. The ground-motion uncertainty, as measured by the coefficient of variation (COV), is amplified when converting to the loss ratio uncertainty because loss increases concavely with ground motion. By comparing the ground-motion uncertainty with the corresponding loss ratio uncertainty for the structural damage of light wood-frame buildings in Los Angeles area, we show that the COV of loss ratio is almost twice the COV of ground motion with a return period of 475 years around the San Andreas fault and other major faults in the area. The loss ratio for the 2475-year ground-motion maps is about a factor of three higher than for the 475-year maps. However, the uncertainties in ground motion and loss ratio for the longer return periods are lower than for the shorter return periods because the uncertainty parameters in the hazard logic tree are independent of the return period, but the mean ground motion increases with return period.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T. Cao, M.D. Petersen. 2006. Uncertainty of earthquake losses due to model uncertainty of input ground motions in the Los Angeles area. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050130

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↗