Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp.

1275-1284, October 1995

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes:
Closing the Loop
b y Ro b i n K. Mc Gu i r e
Abstract Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is conduct ed because there
is a percei ved earthquake threat: active seismic sources in the region may produce a
moderat e-t o-l arge earthquake. The analysis considers a multitude of earthquake oc-
currences and ground motions, and produces an integrated description of seismic
hazard representing all events. For design, analysis, retrofit, or other seismic risk
decisions a single "design eart hquake" is often desired wherein the earthquake threat
is characterized by a single magnitude, distance, and perhaps other parameters. This
al l ows additional characteristics of the ground shaking to be model ed, such as du-
ration, nonstationarity of motion, and critical pulses. This study describes a met hod
wherein a design earthquake can be obtained that accurately represents the uni form
hazard spectrum from a PSHA. There are t wo key steps in the derivation. First, the
contribution to hazard by magnitude M, distance R, and e must be maintained sep-
arately for each attenuation equation used in the analysis. Here, e is the number of
standard deviations that the target ground mot i on is above or bel ow the medi an
predi ct ed mot i on for that equation. Second, the hazard for t wo natural frequenci es
(herein taken to be 10 and 1 Hz) must be exami ned by seismic source to see i f one
source dominates the hazard at bot h frequencies. This allows us to determine whet her
it is reasonable to represent the hazard with a single design earthquake, and i f so to
select the most -l i kel y combi nat i on of M, R, and e (herein called the "bet a earth-
quake") to accurately replicate the uni form hazard spectrum. This closes the l oop
bet ween the original perception of the earthquake threat, the consideration of all
possi bl e seismic events that might contribute to that threat, and the representation of
the threat with a single (or few) set of parameters for design or analysis.
Introduction
The primary advantage of probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis (PSHA) over alternative representations of the earth-
quake threat is that PSHA integrates over all possible earth-
quake occurrences and ground motions to calculate a com-
bined probability of exceedence that incorporates the relative
frequencies of occurrence of different earthquakes and
ground-motion characteristics. Modern PSHA also considers
multiple hypotheses on input assumptions and thereby re-
flects the relative credibilities of competing scientific hy-
potheses. These features of PSHA allow the ground-motion
hazard to be expressed at multiple sites consistently in terms
of earthquake sizes, frequencies of occurrence, attenuation,
and associated ground motion. As a result, consistent deci-
sions can be made to choose seismic design or retrofit levels,
to make insurance and demolition decisions, and to optimize
resources to reduce earthquake risk vis-a-vis other causes of
loss.
A disadvantage of PSHA is that the concept of a "design
earthquake" is lost; i.e., there is no single event (specified,
in simplest terms, by a magnitude and distance) that repre-
sents the earthquake threat at, for example, the 10,000-yr
ground-motion level (which we call the "target ground mo-
tion"). This disadvantage results directly from the integrative
nature of PSHA, and it means that other characteristics of the
ground motion (e.g., the duration or nonstationarity) must
be estimated in an ad hoc fashion if these characteristics are
important for analysis or design. This disadvantage was rec-
ognized by the Aki committee (NRC, 1988), which recom-
mended that a "recursive" PSHA be performed to determine
the dominant earthquake at any particular hazard level. The
earthquake and attenuation models can then be revised to
more accurately reflect the characteristics of this dominant
earthquake, and the hazard analysis can be repeated using
these more accurate models. The dominant earthquake was
1275
1276 R.K. McGuire
recommended to be the mean magni t ude/ f / and distance/~
of the seismic event that caused a ground-motion exceedence
at the chosen return period. The concept of M and k was
introduced by McGuire and Shedlock (1981) in the context
of evaluating uncertainties in hazard.
Independently, Kameda and his co-workers in Japan
have examined the concept of M and/~ for single-hypothesis
PSHA, i . e, without uncertainties in inputs (Ishikawa and Ka-
meda, 1988, 1991, 1993). They have recommended that 114
a nd/ t be determined separately for each natural frequency
of interest and for each seismic zone that contributes to haz-
ard. These magnitudes and distances can then be used with
the relevant attenuation equation to calculate ground motion,
but this motion must be scaled to give the same amplitude
as the target ground motion.
Also, several studies (e.g., Stepp e t aI., 1993; Chapman,
1995) have de-aggregated the seismic hazard into its contri-
bution by magnitude and distance (and, for the former ref-
erence, e) to show which events dominate the hazard at the
site. These studies have not addressed the issue of uncer-
tainty in ground-motion equations, which is a feature of
many current seismic hazard analyses, and have not consid-
ered how to derive a single dominant earthquake for a range
of response spectrum periods.
There are distinct advantages to developing one or a few
"design earthquakes" that can be used for detailed analysis
and decision making. One obtains an intuitive feel for the
earthquake that is dominating the hazard at the chosen prob-
ability level. This earthquake can be associated with a known
fault or seismic zone and can be ascribed familiar charac-
teristics such as a magnitude, stress drop, azimuth, depth,
and distance. Also, more detailed analyses can be performed
for the design earthquake, for example by generating dura-
tions and time histories of motion for nonlinear structural
analysis.
What has been lacking in the definition of design earth-
quakes to date is an overall format within which to derive a
design earthquake, by which we mean a magnitude, distance,
and perhaps other parameters that are consistent with the
target ground motion. The problem with the use of ) f / and/ ~
or with a "modal" earthquake (the most likely values of M
and R) is that the resulting ground motion must be scaled in
a heuristic way to equal the target ground motion. Also,
previous recommendations have not addressed multiple hy-
potheses explicitly and have only used one structural period.
The latter characteristic means that different/17/'s and/ ~' s
(and different ground motions) might be calculated for 10
and I Hz; in some cases this would not be practical or re-
alistic for the analysis of a building with two natural fre-
quencies in the range 10 to 1 Hz.
Developing such a format is the purpose of this article,
so that we might understand design earthquakes over a range
of natural frequencies and for multiple input hypotheses with
uncertainties. A hypothetical but realistic example is used,
in order to investigate what drives seismic hazard when high
frequencies are controlled by one source of earthquakes but
low frequencies are controlled by another. Developing work-
able recommendations for this case will ensure that the con-
clusions are applicable over a wide range of contributions
from multiple faults and zones.
Si t e Appl i cat i on
We demonstrate the contribution to seismic hazard by
examining the PSHA results at multiple periods T. (We use
"period" instead of "frequency" to avoid confusion in ter-
minology with "annual frequency.") The site chosen is Wat-
kins, Colorado, latitude 39.75 N and longitude 104.54 W;
a map showing the site and historical seismicity in the region
is presented in Figure 1.
A PSHA requires a definition of seismic zones. For this
exampl e the seismic zones developed by the U.S. Geological
Survey (Algermissen e t al . , 1982) for the national seismic
hazard map are adopted. These zones are also illustrated in
Figure 1. In addition, a h y p o t h e t i c a l fanlt is added: fault i
lies west of the site about 20 km and is used to represent the
high seismic activity indicated in Figure 1. Much of this
seismicity was induced by deep fluid injection at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal during the 1960s, and the alignment of
recorded epicenters at the time suggested that a fault might
lie in the area. A detailed, nonhypothetical application of
PSHA likely would disregard fault 1 or would assign it a
much lower activity, as most of the associated earthquakes
were not naturally occurring. The inclusion of this fault here
allows us to demonstrate the applicability of the recom-
mended procedures when a nearby fault dominates the short
periods but distant diffuse zones of seismicity dominate the
long periods (as will be seen).
Seismicity parameters for the source areas and for fault
1 are shown in Table 1, for the two examples considered
here. For the source areas the rate of seismic activity is de-
rived from the results presented by Algermissen e t al.
(1982); for the fault the activity rate is purely hypothetical.
All b values are assumed to be 0.9. The maximum magni-
tudes listed in Table 1 are chosen to accentuate the contri-
bution of small magnitudes at close distances (for the fault)
and large magnitudes at large distances (for the seismic
zones).
For assumptions on ground-motion attenuation, two
empirically derived equations were used. These were taken
from the work by Boore e t al . (1994) and Campbell (1993).
The form of these equations is substantially different; the
Boore e t al . form (herein called "attenuation 1") is
l n Y= a + b(M- 6 ) + c(M- 6 ) 2
+ d i n (R1) + ~R,, (1)
where Y is a ground-motion measure, a through d are em-
pirically derived coefficients, M is moment magnitude, and
R1 is calculated using the distance to the surface projection
of the fault surface Rs for faults: R1 = (R~ + h2) m. In the
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop 1277
7 / oI
4 1 " b t e e e o M a g n i t u d e
e ~ / > 6 . 0
5 . 0 - 6 . 0
e 4 5 o / e 0 4 . 0 - 5 . 0
o
" ~ _ U S e S S o u S e e , , ~' ' ' ~JL Fault 1 e 3. 0- 4. 0
~' ~~o o e o o , ~ - < 3 . o
40"
: ,,,,,"'~% 8 , e S I T E
e O ~ , ~ e e o I e e ol
39" . g ~ ' ~ " ~ U S G S Sour ce 7 , 1 o
"X k k
o ~_ " , Z \ ~ \ , o o
. . o \ \ o
38"
o * /
-109" -108" -107" - 106 -105" -104" -103" -102"
Fi gure 1. Historical seismicity in Colorado, USGS sources 71 and 45, and hypo-
thetical fault 1.
Table 1
Seismicity Parameters Used in Examples
Seismic Magnitude Activity Maximum
Example Source Distribution Rate* b Val ue Magnitude
1 fault 1 exponential 0.00l 0.9 5.2
USGS source 71 exponential 0.003 0.9 6.1
tJSGS source 45 exponential 0.0344 0.9 7.5
2 fault 1 exponential 0.0001 0.9 5.2
LrSGS source 71 exponential 0.03 0.9 6.1
USGS source 45 exponential 0.0034 0.9 7.5
* Annual rate of earthquakes above M = 5.
latter expressi on, h is a dept h specified by the authors. The
Campbel l f or m (herein cal l ed "at t enuat i on 2") is
In Y = a + b m + c t anh (d(M - 4. 7))
- l n r - eR2 + ( f - gl nRz ) S, (2)
wher e a t hr ough g are empi ri cal coefficients, R 2 is di st ance
to the rupt ure surface, r = f(R2,M), and S i ndi cat es soil type.
These equat i ons are used herei n t o predi ct spectral accel er-
ation (SA) at T = 0. 04, 0.1, 0.2, 0. 4, 1, and 2 sec, for 5%
of critical dampi ng.
The above t wo equat i ons were devel oped by t he re-
spect i ve authors based on empi ri cal dat a f r om California,
and were adopt ed f or use in this exampl e assumi ng r ock
condi t i ons. I n a nonhypot het i cal cal cul at i on of sei smi c haz-
ard, the equat i ons mi ght be changed t o account f or regi onal
attenuation, r ock properties, and l ocal soil response. The
equat i ons are di rect l y appl i cabl e to eart hquakes occur r i ng
on faults in this exampl e. For eart hquakes i n source areas,
we modi f y the appl i cat i on of these equat i ons by subt ract i ng
a di st ance equal to one-quart er the ear t hquake' s est i mat ed
rupt ure length, as an approxi mat e correct i on. The r andom-
ness t erm f or each peri od T is used as report ed by t he au-
thors.
Seismic Hazard Calculations
The st andard f or mul at i on of probabi l i st i c sei smi c haz-
ard is to cal cul at e a f r equency of exceedence 7 of a gr ound-
mot i on ampl i t ude y as
7(y) = ~ v~ ( f fv(m)fR(r)P[Y > ylm, r]dm dr, ( 3)
where v~ is the act i vi t y rate for source i. The probabi l i t y in
t he i nt egrand of equat i on (3) can be expressed expl i ci t l y as
a funct i on of t he gr ound- mot i on r andomness e, gi vi ng
7 ( y ) = ~ v~ f ~ .( f~(m)fR(r)f~(e)P[Y
> ylm, r, e]dmdrde, (4)
1278 R. K. McGuire
where e is defined as the number o f l ogari t hmi c st andard
devi at i ons by whi ch the l ogari t hmi c gr ound mot i on devi at es
f r om the medi an. I n this formul at i on, the probabi l i t y i n the
i nt egrand is si mpl y the Heavi si de step funct i on:
P[Y > ylm, r, e] = H[ l n Y(m, r, e) - In y], ( 5)
whi ch is zero i f In g(m, r, e) f r om equat i on (1) or (2) is less
t han In y, and 1 otherwise. To deri ve cont ri but i ons to 7(y)
by M, R, and e, we use i nst ead
P[Y > ylm, r, el = J[ l n Y(m, r, e) - In y], (6)
wher e 6 is the Di rac delta funct i on, whi ch gi ves a probabi l i t y
of 1 at In Y(m, r, e) = In y and zero otherwise. (J is used
because we wi sh to obt ai n M-R-e sets t hat equal the target
gr ound mot i on, not that exceed it.) The formul at i ons in equa-
tions (4) and (6) are used bel ow t o deri ve t he cont ri but i ons
t o ~(y) by m, r, and e.
For exampl e 1, Fi gures 2 and 3 illustrate t he total hazar d
curves for T = 0.1 and 1 sec, respect i vel y, and the contri-
but i on by fault and source areas. The site is in an area of
l ow sei smi ci t y; f or T = 0,1 sec fault 1 cont ri but es most t o
t he seismic hazar d because of its proxi mi t y, and f or T = 1
sec USGS source 45 cont ri but es most t o the seismic hazar d
because of its hi gh rate of act i vi t y and hi gh maxi mum mag-
nitude. Thus the r esponse spect r um is domi nat ed by di fferent
eart hquakes at di fferent peri ods, whi ch makes the goal of
deri vi ng a single eart hquake t hat will r easonabl y represent
t he uni f or m hazard spect r um part i cul arl y chal l engi ng. For
this exampl e, we assume t hat the desi gn mot i on shoul d cor-
r espond t o an annual f r equency of exceedence of 10 -4.
To pr ovi de furt her i nsi ght i nt o the cont ri but i on t o haz-
ard, we deaggregat e the hazar d results by magni t ude M, dis-
t ance R, and gr ound- mot i on devi at i on e. This is achi eved by
accumul at i ng (by magni t ude, distance, and e) the annual fre-
quenci es of exceedence of t he t arget gr ound- mot i on ampli-
t ude f or each peri od T separately. Di vi di ng these annual fre-
quenci es by the total hazar d (the total annual frequency)
gi ves t he probability that, gi ven an exceedence of t hat am-
plitude, it has been caused by a cert ai n combi nat i on o f M,
R, and e.
Fi gure 4 (top) illustrates t he j oi nt distribution of M, R,
and e f or combi nat i ons causi ng the exceedence of the
10, 000-yr gr ound mot i on f or T -- 0.1 sec. The maj or con-
t ri but i on comes f r om small magni t udes at cl ose di st ance
(fault 1) wi t h 0 < e < 1. The distribution f or T = 1 sec,
Fi gure 4 (bottom), shows t he cont ri but i on f r om large M,
large R, and epsi l on val ues general l y bet ween 1 and 2 (from
source 45). The f our - di mensi onal pl ot necessitates wi de in-
tervals of M, R, and e, whi ch hides some of t he di st ri but i ons'
features.
To pr ovi de mor e detail, t he j oi nt distribution is repre-
sented as mar gi nal distributions on M, R, and e in Fi gures 5
(for r = 0.1 sec) and 6 (for T = 1 sec). Mat hemat i cal l y,
these distributions are defined as
e~
o
o
o
g ,
, q
O
O
O
-d
C o n t r i b u t i o n t o T=O. 1 s h a z a r d b y s o u r c e
~ A l l S o u r c e s
\ \ . . . . . F a u l t 1
\ \ . . . . U S G S S o u r c e 71
' \ " " " k
\ \ ' .
"\ \ ",
\ " ,
" \ \ " ,
. \ \ " ,
\ "x, ~
\
\
\
\
\
N
0.000.05 0 . i 0 0.i5 0 . i 0 0.25" 0.30
S p e c t r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n ( g )
Fi gure 2. Contribution to hazard by source for T
= 0.1 sec, example 1.
tm
C o n t r i b u t i o n t o T=I s hazard by s o u r c e
- - A l l S o u r c e s
F a u l t 1
U S G S S o u r c e 71
U S G S S o u r c e 4 5
Q
\ " \ \ ,
\ " ? \
L ' " q - " ,
' , ' - , \
"x
0 . 0 0 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 2 0 . 1 6 0 . 2 0
S p e c t r a l a c c e l e r a t i o n ( g )
Fi gure 3. Contribution to hazard by source for T
= 1 sec, example 1.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop 1279
T=0. 1s
J
l e : 2+
me: l t o 2
e : 0t o 1
I e: -1 to 0
m e: -2 to -1
T=l s
o. 29
Figure 4. Contribution to 10 -4 hazard by M, R, and e for T = 0.1 sec (top) and T
= 1 sec (bottom), exampl e 1.
1280 R. K. McGuire
[..
0 . o 8
~ 0 . 0 6
0.04
~ 0 . 0 2
~0.00
2.0HAZA!~ CON~ . BUT I ON BY.MA, .GN!, . T~. E
T = 0 . 1 s , A l l s o u r c e s
1 . 6
1 . 2
0 . 8
I
0. 4 ~_
0 ' ~ . . . . . . . . . . .
" ~ . 0 . . . . 5 . 5 . . . . 6.0' ' 6 . f i 7 . 0 ' 7 . 5 . . . . 8. 0
M A G N I T U D E
H A Z A R D C O N T R I B U T I O N B Y D I S T A N C E
0 . 1 0 . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . ' . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
T=0.1 s, All s o u r c e s
DISTANCE (kin)
H A Z A R D C O N T R I B U T I O N B Y E P S I L O N
" r = 0 . i '
~ . . ~ ~ . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,0 -1.5 -l.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
E P S I L O N
1.0
~
0 . 8
0.6
~ 0 . 4
~ 0.2
~ 0 . 0
Figure 5. Marginal contributions to hazard by M,
R, and e for 10 4 hazard, T = 0.1 sec, example 1.
H A Z A R D C O N T R I B U T I O N B Y M A G N I T U D E
2 . 0 / . . . . , ' " " . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . .
' I
0 . 4
0 " ~ . 0 ' 5 ' 5 . . . . b ' 0 . . . . 6 ' 5 . . . . 7 ' 0 . . . . 7 ' 5 . . . . S . 0
M A G N I T U D E
b * H A Z A R D C O N T R I B U T I O N B Y D I S T A N C E
0 . 1 0 . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . .
T = I s , A l l s o u r c e s
~
0. 08
~ 0 . 0 6
~ 0 , 0 4
~ 0 . 0 2
~0.o~q
[~ t. 0
~
0.8
. ~ 0 . 6
0 . 4
~ 0 . 2
20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 160
D I S T A N C E (kin)
H A Z A R D C O N T R I B U T I O N B Y E P S I L O N
. . . . L . . . . + . . . . i . . . . , . . . . [ . . ' , . , . . . . i . . . .
T = I s , A l l s o u r c e s
m
~ 0.o
/
T : i . 5 - i . 0 ' ' :d.$' ' g.O .... b'.~ " 'o ' 1 3
EPSILON
Figure 6. Marginal contributions to hazard by M,
R, and e for 10 -4 hazar d, T = 1 sec, example 1.
f ' m ) = f f l d d e
= l O v , f d m d e
f; (e) = 1 0 4 ~ v i f f l d m d r ,
where the integrand I in all three equations is
( 7 )
( 8 )
(9)
I = fM(m)fR(r)f+(e)J[ln Y(m, r, e) - In y], (10)
and the constant 104 is used to normalize the total annual
frequency of 10 -4 t o obtain a proper probability density
function.
The magnitude distribution in Figure 5 (top) was drawn
from hazard contributions calculated at 0.1 magnitude inter-
vals. There are contributions from all magnitudes from 5.0
to 7.5, reflecting earthquakes on fault 1 and USGS sources
71 and 45, but the largest contribution comes from fault 1,
confirming Figure 2.
The distribution of distance (which is epicentral dis-
tance for the areal sources and rupture distance for the fault)
is illustrated in Figure 5 (mi ddl e). These results were cal-
culated at 5-kin intervals. The large contribution from 20 to
27.5 km reflects the location of fault 1.
Figure 5 (bot t om) illustrates the marginal distribution of
values. These results were obtained using bins that are 0.2~
units wide; the values at + 2 include all contributions below
- 2 and above + 2, respectively. The distribution of e has
the largest contributions between 0.5 and 1.0. This reflects
the contribution of fault 1, with small magnitudes (less than
5.2) requiring higher than median ground motions (positive
e values) to equal the 10,000-yr target ground motion. Note
that e is defined as the number of standard deviations of the
ground-motion distribution such that the 10,000-yr ground
motion is equaled, even though the probability of exceed-
ence of that ground mot i on is calculated by the PSHA. e is
defined in this way because we wish to replicate the 10,000-
yr amplitude with the design earthquake.
Figure 6 is similar to Figure 5 except that it shows the
contribution by M, R, and e for 1 Hz. Here the contribution
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop 1281
to hazard of the larger magnitude, more distant earthquakes
is evident.
Table 2 presents values of mean magni t ude/ f/ , mean
distance/~, and mean deviation g for T = 0.1 and 1 sec
calculated from the joint distribution shown in Figure 4
(these are also mean values from the marginal distributions
of Figs. 5 and 6). This table also presents the mos t likely
(modal) values of magnitude, distance, and e from the joint
distribution, which are labeled h)/,/~, and g. These modal
values from the j oi nt distribution do not necessarily corre-
spond to the mode of the marginal distributions. Also shown
are predicted ground motions using the mean and modal
values of M, R, and e. These predicted ground motions
weight each attenuation equation equally, as the hazard anal-
ysis does. The mean values do not guarantee a combination
of ~Q,/~, and g that is consistent with the 10,000-yr motion
(there is no theoretical reason why they should). The modal
values do not replicate the target ground motions, because
different attenuation equations may require different values
of e to equal the target ground motion and this is not taken
into account by a single g.
De t e r mi na t i on o f De s i gn Ear t hquakes
To derive a single or several design earthquakes that
can replicate the uniform hazard spectrum over all natural
periods, we examine a "composi t e seismic hazard analysis"
that combines the contributions by M, R, and e at the two
periods. The key is to keep the hazard results deaggregated
by M, R, and e, for each attenuation equation separately, and
for each natural period. Then we can guarantee mathemati-
cally (uSing equation 6) that the specific combinations of M,
R, and e will reproduce the target ground motion (at least
within the precision associated with a certain M, R, and e
bin), and we can combine the distributions at multiple pe-
riods to obtain a joint distribution that will reproduce the
target ground motion.
To conduct a composi t e seismic hazard analysis, we first
form the distribution of contributions to hazard by M, R, and
e as previously described, for T = 0.1 and 1 sec at the target
annual probability. Separate distributions are formed for
each attenuation equation used in the analysis. The sum of
contributions in each M, R, and e interval will equal the
target annual probability times the weight assigned to that
attenuation equation. Next, for each attenuation equation we
form a composi t e distribution from the two natural periods
distributions by (a) considering only intervals in which there
is a nonzero contribution at bot h periods, (b) adding the an-
nual frequency in the corresponding intervals for the two
periods, and (c) assigning zero to the remaining intervals (for
which one or bot h periods have a zero annual frequency).
A simple explanation of this concept is worthwhile. We
have two distributions (for T = 0.1 and 1 sec) of contribu-
tions to hazard by M, R, and e. I f they overlap closely (in
the limit, i f they are identical), this means that similar earth-
quakes drive the hazard for T = 0.1 and 1 sec. I f the distri-
Table 2
Spectral Accelerations Estimated for Mean and Modal
Earthquakes, Example 1
Pr edi ct ed Gr ound Mot i on*
Per i od Descr i pt i on Val ues 0A sec 1 sec
0.1 sec me a n / 17/ = 5. 4 0 . 1 2 g ( - 2 5 %) 0 . 0 3 0 g ( - 3 9 %)
e a r t hqua ke R = 28. 9 k m
g = 0. 92
1 sec me a n M = 6.1 0. 085 g ( - 4 7 %) 0. 034 g ( - 3 0 %)
ear t hquake /? = 66. 5 k m
g = 1. 2
0. 1 sec moda l h~/ = 5. 15 0. 12 g ( - 2 5 %) 0. 028 g ( 43%)
e a r t hqua ke /? = 22. 5 k m
g = 0. 90
1 sec moda l M = 5. 15 0. 18 g ( + 15%) 0. 041 g ( - 15%)
e a r t hqua ke R = 17.5 k m
~ = 1.1
* 10 4 target motions are 0.16 g for 0.1 sec and 0.048 g for 1 sec. Values
in parentheses are deviations from target motions.
butions are different (in the limit, i f they are compl et el y
separate), different earthquakes drive the hazard. The choice
of interval size is important: small intervals will result in
little apparent overlap, and large intervals will result in large
apparent overlap, for the same distributions. The interval
sizes used here (0.1 on M, 5 km on R, and 0.2 on e) appear
to work well.
This composi t e seismic hazard analysis is the tool used
to determine a single design earthquake, i f appropriate. Us-
ing the composi t e distribution (or the individual distribution
for each period), we can determine the most likely earth-
quake Mp, Rp, and ep. This is herein called the "beta earth-
quake" after the beta point in structural reliability analysis,
the most likely point causing failure. The t erm beta earth-
quake herein designates the most likely combination of M,
R, and e determined separately by attenuation equation, to
distinguish it from the modal earthquake derived earlier for
the distribution with all attenuation equations combined.
In most applications, the following steps can be used to
derive one or more design earthquakes:
(1) Determine the contribution to hazard at the target ground
mot i on level separately by source for T = 0.1 and 1 sec.
(2) I f one source is the dominant contributor at bot h 0.1 and
1 sec, then one design earthquake generally can be used
to represent the hazard. In this case,
(2A) Perform a composi t e seismic hazard analysis for
the dominant source and for each attenuation
equation i separately, to determine Mpcl, R~ci, and
eflci.
(2B) Calculate a weighted M,~ c, Rpc, and epc by weight-
ing the M~ci'S, Rpci' s, and e~c~'s using the weights
assigned to each attenuation equation.
(2C) Adjust e~c so that the final predicted ground mo-
1282 R. K. McGuire
Table 3
Spectral Accelerations Estimated for Design Earthquakes, Example 1
P e r i o d T D e s c r i p t i o n V a l u e s P r e d i c t e d G r o u n d M o t i o n *
0.1 sec bet a eart hquake for at t enuat i on 1
0.1 sec bet a eart hquake for at t enuat i on 2
0.1 sec average
0.1 sec wei ght ed bet a eart hquake
0.1 sec adj ust ed wei ght ed bet a eart hquake
= "bet a eart hquake"
1 sec bet a eart hquake for at t enuat i on 1
1 sec bet a eart hquake for at t enuat i on 2
1 sec average
1 sec wei ght ed bet a eart hquake
1 sec adj ust ed wei ght ed bet a eart hquake
= "bet a eart hquake"
M~ = 5.15, R~ = 17.5 kin, ea~ = 1.5
m~2 = 5.15, R~z = 22.5 km, e~l = 0. 90
M~ = 5.15, Ra~ = 20 km, ea~ = 1.2
Mw= 5.15, Ra~ = 20 km, ~ = 1.12
M~ = 7.35, Re, = 102.5 kna, e~ = 0.5
M~ = 6.75, Ra~ = 72.5 km, e~ = 0.7
M~ = 7.05, R~ = 87.5 kin, ea~ = 0.6
M~,~ = 7.05, R~ = 87.5 km, e a w= 0.65
0.173 g
0.143 g
0.16 g (0)
0.167 g ( + 4 %)
0. 16 g (0)
0.049 g
0.049 g
0.049 g ( + 2%)
0.046 g ( - 4 %)
0.048 g (0)
* 10 -4 t arget gr ound mot i ons are 0. 16 g at 0.1 sec and 0.048 g at 1 sec. Values in par ent heses are devi at i ons f r om t arget values.
tions at both T = 0.1 and 1 sec equal or exceed
the target motions.
(3) If different sources are the dominant contributors for T
= 0.1 and 1 sec, we generally should n o t use one earth-
quake to represent the hazard. In this case,
(3A) Perform a seismic hazard analysis for the domi-
nant source at T = 0.1 sec, and for each attenu-
ation equation separately determine Mp~, Rp~, and
ep~.
(3B) Calculate a weighted M~w, Rew, and epw by weight-
ing the Ma{s Rpi' s, and ep~'s using the weights as-
signed to each attenuation equation.
(3C) Adjust the weighted e~w so that the final predicted
ground motion (weighted by attenuation equation)
equals the 10-Hz target motion.
(3D) Repeat steps (3A) through (3C) for T = 1 sec.
The important trait of the composite beta values (M~c ~, Rt~c~,
and epci) is that they guarantee that the target ground motion
will be replicated by the attenuation equation (to the degree
of precision associated with an M - R - e bin). This is the case
because each M - R - e combination just causes the target
ground motion to be equaled in equation (6). If the attenu-
ation equations have similar characteristics (e.g., similar
magnitude and distance dependencies), the values of Mpci,
R~ci, and epc~ will be similar.
Est i mat es Usi ng Desi gn Ear t hquakes
For example 1 the seismic hazard analysis indicates that
different sources contribute most to the hazard for T = 0.1
and 1 sec (see Figs. 2 and 3). As a result, steps (3A) through
(3D) are used to derive two design earthquakes for example
1.
Table 3 shows the values of M~i, Rpj, and e~ derived from
the analysis and the associated ground motions. The weighted
values M~w, Rpw, and eB~ provide a close estimate of the target
ground motion (within 4%) for both T = 0.1 and 1 sec. The
values of Mpi and R~i should make it clear whether the design
earthquake corresponds to a fault or a source area; in the
case of example 1, the values of M~g and R~j at T = 0.1 sec
clearly correspond to an earthquake on fault 1, whereas they
correspond to an earthquake in source 45 for T = 1 sec. The
ground motions shown in Table 3 closely match the target
ground motions when averaged over the attenuation equa-
tions, even though the estimates for each equation separately
may differ from the target ground motion.
These differences result from the finite sizes of the M-
R - e bins used to calculate the fi point; our experience is that
the average ground motion (over the attenuation equations)
generally matches the target ground motion, even i f the
individual estimates differ. Also, the "beta earthquake"
matches the target ground motion exactly, because the e
value has been chosen to achieve that match.
Figure 7 shows the "Design Spectra" obtained from the
z
o
d
r ~
e l
e , i
DESI GN SPECTRA, EXAMPLE 1
. . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . , , . , ,
Uni f orm hazard spectrum
. . . . . . 0.1 s beta spectrum
. . . . . 1 s beta spectrum
/ " / * ~ - . ~ ? ,
, , , i r i i , i l l l , , , T r , i i , i i i
10-2 2 10-1 2 10 0 2
P E R I OD (s)
Figure 7. Uniform hazard spectrum and beta
earthquake spectra for 10 -4 hazard, example 1.
Pr obabi l i s t i c Se i s mi c Ha z a r d An a l y s i s a n d De s i g n Ear t hquakes : Cl osi ng t he L o o p 1283
Table 4
Spectral Accelerations Estimated for Design Earthquakes, Example 2
P e r i o d T De s c r i p t i o n Va l u e s
P r e d i c t e d SA*
0. 1 s e c 1 s e c
0.1 and 1 sec Composite beta earthquake for
attenuation 1
0.1 and 1 sec composite beta earthquake for
attenuation 2
0.1 and 1 sec average
0.1 and 1 sec weighted composite beta
earthquake
0.1 and 1 sec adjusted weighted composite
beta earthquake = "composite
beta earthquake"
M~cl = 5.95, Rpc 1 = 12.5 km, ~/~cl = 0.1
Mac2 = 5,35, Rcj = 12.5 km, eacl = 0.3
M~c = 5.65, Rac = 12.5 km, eCe = 0.2
Mc = 5.65, R~c = 12.5 km, epc = 0.15
0.302 g (+18%)
0.286 g ( + 12%)
0.294 g ( + 15%)
0.292 g ( + 14%)
0.284 g (+ 11%)
0.055 g (-21%)
0.063 g ( - 10%)
0.059 g ( - 16%)
0.073 g (+4%)
0.070 g (0)
* 10 -4 target motion is 0.256 g at 0.1 sec and 0.070 g at 1 sec. Values in parentheses are deviations from target values.
uni f or m hazar d spect rum, t he T = 0.1 sec adj ust ed bet a
eart hquake, and t he T = 1 sec adj ust ed bet a eart hquake. The
di fferences in f r equency cont ent are clear, as is t he need f or ,~,
t wo desi gn eart hquakes t o represent the hazard.
Z
The paramet ers sel ect ed f or exampl e 2 (see Tabl e 1)
mean t hat USGS source 71 domi nat es the hazar d at bot h T ,~
= 0.1 and 1 sec. As a result, steps (2A) t hr ough (2C) appl y
and t he use of one desi gn eart hquake (for each attenuation
equat i on) is justified. Tabl e 4 shows the val ues of M~c~, R~ci, ,~
a n d e~c ~ f or this exampl e, and illustrates t hat the "adj ust ed
wei ght ed composi t e bet a eart hquake" (or "composi t e bet a
eart hquake" f or short) gi ves reasonabl e val ues of M, R, and
rj
and results i n gr ound mot i ons cl ose t o t he t arget levels.
Fi gure 8 compar es t he uni f or m hazar d spect rum f or ex- o~
ampl e 2 wi t h the spect r um f r om the composi t e bet a earth-
quake and shows t hat the t wo mat ch r easonabl y wel l f or all
frequenci es. The composi t e bet a eart hquakes f or each atten-
uat i on equat i on woul d mat ch t he uni f or m hazar d spect rum
also, but t hese i ndi vi dual eart hquakes have the di sadvant age
t hat t hey do not pr ovi de a single M, R, and e (the val ues are
di fferent f or the t wo at t enuat i on equations).
Co n c l u s i o n s
Sei smi c hazar d can be deaggr egat ed t o show t he con-
t ri but i on by magni t ude, distance, and gr ound- mot i on devi -
ation e, wher e e is t he number of st andard devi at i ons that t he
t arget gr ound mot i on is above or bel ow the medi an f or a
gi ven M and R (in l ogari t hmi c units). Any uncert ai nt i es in
sei smi ci t y paramet ers can be i ncorporat ed and represent ed
in this deaggregat i on.
The deci si on on whet her a single desi gn eart hquake can
represent t he entire r esponse spect rum hi nges on whet her
one sei smi c source domi nat es the hazar d at all frequenci es.
I f it does, t he preferred desi gn eart hquake is obt ai ned f r om
a "composi t e sei smi c hazar d anal ysi s" wherei n a j oi nt dis-
t ri but i on of cont ri but i ons by M, R, and e is obt ai ned by com-
bi ni ng t he deaggr egat ed hazar d results f or mul t i pl e natural
peri ods (1 and 0.1 sec), keepi ng separate distributions by
e l
D E S I G N S P E C T R A , E X A M P L E 2
e l
I r
- - U n i f o r m h a z a r d s p e c t r u m
, , , ~ i i i i i i i i , , , i , r i i r i l l , , , ~
10-2 2 10-1 2 1 0 0 2
P E R I O D ( s )
Fi gure 8. Uniform hazard spectrum and compos-
ite beta earthquake spectrum for 10 .4 hazard, exam-
ple 2.
gr ound- mot i on attenuation equation. Fr om t he composi t e
analysis, a composi t e bet a eart hquake (M~ci, Rpci, and epci) is
deri ved f or each gr ound- mot i on attenuation equat i on i as t he
mos t l i kel y combi nat i on of M, R, and e t hat will generat e
t he t arget gr ound mot i ons. The final desi gn spect ra or ot her
charact eri st i cs of t he gr ound mot i on can be obt ai ned usi ng
t he i ndi vi dual val ues of Mpci, Rm~, and e~c ~ f or each attenu-
at i on equat i on or by wei ght i ng t hem to obt ai n a single com-
posi t e bet a eart hquake Mn c , R~c, and epc.
I f di fferent sei smi c sources domi nat e t he hazar d at dif-
ferent frequenci es, t hen cont ri but i ons to t he hazar d come
f r om si gni fi cant l y di fferent magni t udes, distances, and ds ,
so t hat a single desi gn eart hquake is not appropriate. I n this
case, val ues of Mew, R~w, and epw deri ved at T = 0.1 and 1
sec by wei ght i ng bet a eart hquakes f or each at t enuat i on equa-
t i on can be used t o represent desi gn eart hquakes f or short
and l ong peri ods, respect i vel y.
1284 R. K. McGuire
The guidelines offered here are meant to be just that.
They may not be appropriate in all situations. Ultimately,
the judgment of the analyst in selecting one or a few design
earthquakes is critical.
Deaggregating a seismic hazard analysis in this way
achieves two important goals. First, the cause of the seismic
hazard in terms of M, R, and e is better understood. There is
a relationship between the specified sources of seismicity
and the calculated hazard. Second, we can close the loop
between the multitude of earthquakes considered by the haz-
ard analysis and the requirement for one or a few design
earthquakes by users of hazard studies. The result should be
better understood seismic hazards and better decisions on
seismic design, analysis, and retrofit.
Acknowl edgment s
The author appreciates comment s from two anonymous reviewers that
were incisive, helpful, and prompt. This work was funded in part by the
Electric Power Research Institute, Contract Number RP3055-12. This sup-
port is gratefully acknowledged.
R e f e r e n c e s
Algermissen, S. T., D. M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhans, S. L. Hanson, and B. L.
Bender (1982). Probabilistic estimates of maxi mum acceleration and
velocity in rock in the contiguous United States, U.S. Geol. Surv.
Open-File Rept. 82-1033, 99 pp.
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal (1994). Estimation of response
spectra and peak accelerations from western North American earth-
quakes: an interim report part 2, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 94-
127, 40 pp.
Campbell, K. W. (1993). Empirical prediction of near-source ground mo-
tion from large earthquakes, in Proc., Int. Workshop on Earthquake
Hazard and Large Dams in the Himalaya, INTACH, New Delhi.
Chapman, M. C. (1995). A probabilistic approach to ground motion selec-
tion for engineering design, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 85, no. 3, 937- 942.
Ishikawa, Y. and H. Kameda (1988). Hazard-consistent magnitude and dis-
tance for ext ended seismic risk analysis, in Proc. 9th WCEE, Vol. II,
89-94.
Ishikawa, Y. and H. Kameda (1991). Probability-based determination of
specific scenario earthquakes, in Proc. 4th International Conference
on Seismic Zonation, Vol. II, 3-10.
Ishikawa, Y. and H. Kameda (1993). Scenario earthquakes vs. probabilistic
seismic hazard, in Proc., Int. Conf on Structural Safety and Relia-
bility, lnnsbruck.
McGuire, R. K. and K. M. Shedlock (1981). Statistical uncertainties in
seismic hazard evaluations in the United States, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.
71, no. 4, 1287-1308.
National Research Council (1988). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis,
Rept. of the Panel on Seismic Hazard Analysis, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 97.
Stepp, J. C., W. J. Silva, R. K. McGuire, and R. T. Sewell (1993). Deter-
mination of earthquake design loads for a high level nuclear waste
repository facility, in Proc., 4th DOE Natural Phen. Haz. Mitig. Conf.,
Atlanta, Vol. II, 651-657.
Risk Engineering, Inc.
4155 Darley Ave., Suite A
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Manuscript received 21 November 1994.