Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of civil infrastructure - Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems - page 14

2.0 2.0

Inslab earthquakes for
Cascadia subduction zone
M w = 7.5 & V S30 = 555 (m/s)

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

YCSH97
AB03(G)
AB03(C)

0.05

0.05

BJF97
A05
HG07

Shallow crustal earthquakes
for western Canada
M w = 7.0 & V S30 = 555 (m/s)

0.02 0.02

Zhao06
GA09

BA08

0.01 0.01

12 5 0 20 50 100 200 50 100 200 300

Distance (km) Distance (km)

(a) (b)

2.0

Interface earthquakes for
Cascadia subduction zone
M w = 8.5 & V S30 = 555 (m/s)

1.0

0.5

0.2

0.1

YCSH97
GSWY02
AB03(C)

0.05

Zhao06
AM09

0.02

0.01

50 100 200 300

Distance (km)

(c)

1.6 Comparison of several GMPEs for western Canada: (a) crustal
events, (b) inslab events, and (c) interface events (see Atkinson and
Goda (2011) for details).

an uncertainty analysis, in that it provides insight into the critical assump-
tions that drive the results. Note that the effects of changing seismicity
models and GMPEs on seismic hazard estimates are inter-connected; for
instance, a change of spatial distribution of seismic activities affects scenario
characteristics and their contributions to the overall hazard, and thus the
impact of alternative GMPEs may depend on the seismicity model
characteristics.
There are several pending issues to be addressed/incorporated in the
PSHA methodology (this is not a comprehensive list): (i) characterisation
of regional site amplifi cation factors using a proxy measure beyond V S30
(Hunter et al. , 2010; Cadet et al. , 2011), (ii) improvement of GMPEs (includ-
ing better characterisation of magnitude scaling for both small and large
events, and more comprehensive treatment of regional site effects), and (iii)