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 R o b i n K. M c G u i r e

Abstract Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is conducted because there

is a perceived earthquake threat: active seismic sources in the region may produce a
moderate-to-large 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 earthquake" is often desired wherein the earthquake threat
is characterized by a single magnitude, distance, and perhaps other parameters. This
allows additional characteristics of the ground shaking to be modeled, such as du-
ration, nonstationarity of motion, and critical pulses. This study describes a method
wherein a design earthquake can be obtained that accurately represents the uniform
hazard spectrum from a PSHA. There are two 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 motion is above or below the median
predicted motion for that equation. Second, the hazard for two natural frequencies
(herein taken to be 10 and 1 Hz) must be examined by seismic source to see if one
source dominates the hazard at both frequencies. This allows us to determine whether
it is reasonable to represent the hazard with a single design earthquake, and if so to
select the most-likely combination of M, R, and e (herein called the "beta earth-
quake") to accurately replicate the uniform hazard spectrum. This closes the loop
between the original perception of the earthquake threat, the consideration of all
possible 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 magnitude/f/and distance/~ low frequencies are controlled by another. Developing work-
of the seismic event that caused a ground-motion exceedence able recommendations for this case will ensure that the con-
at the chosen return period. The concept of M and k was clusions are applicable over a wide range of contributions
introduced by McGuire and Shedlock (1981) in the context from multiple faults and zones.
of evaluating uncertainties in hazard.
Independently, Kameda and his co-workers in Japan
have examined the concept of M and/~ for single-hypothesis Site Application
PSHA, i.e, without uncertainties in inputs (Ishikawa and Ka-
We demonstrate the contribution to seismic hazard by
meda, 1988, 1991, 1993). They have recommended that 114
examining the PSHA results at multiple periods T. (We use
and/t be determined separately for each natural frequency
"period" instead of "frequency" to avoid confusion in ter-
of interest and for each seismic zone that contributes to haz-
minology with "annual frequency.") The site chosen is Wat-
ard. These magnitudes and distances can then be used with
kins, Colorado, latitude 39.75 ° N and longitude 104.54 ° W;
the relevant attenuation equation to calculate ground motion,
a map showing the site and historical seismicity in the region
but this motion must be scaled to give the same amplitude
is presented in Figure 1.
as the target ground motion.
A PSHA requires a definition of seismic zones. For this
Also, several studies (e.g., Stepp et aI., 1993; Chapman,
example the seismic zones developed by the U.S. Geological
1995) have de-aggregated the seismic hazard into its contri-
Survey (Algermissen et al., 1982) for the national seismic
bution by magnitude and distance (and, for the former ref-
hazard map are adopted. These zones are also illustrated in
erence, e) to show which events dominate the hazard at the
Figure 1. In addition, a hypothetical fanlt is added: fault i
site. These studies have not addressed the issue of uncer-
lies west of the site about 20 km and is used to represent the
tainty in ground-motion equations, which is a feature of
high seismic activity indicated in Figure 1. Much of this
many current seismic hazard analyses, and have not consid-
seismicity was induced by deep fluid injection at the Rocky
ered how to derive a single dominant earthquake for a range
Mountain Arsenal during the 1960s, and the alignment of
of response spectrum periods.
recorded epicenters at the time suggested that a fault might
There are distinct advantages to developing one or a few
lie in the area. A detailed, nonhypothetical application of
"design earthquakes" that can be used for detailed analysis
PSHA likely would disregard fault 1 or would assign it a
and decision making. One obtains an intuitive feel for the
much lower activity, as most of the associated earthquakes
earthquake that is dominating the hazard at the chosen prob-
were not naturally occurring. The inclusion of this fault here
ability level. This earthquake can be associated with a known
allows us to demonstrate the applicability of the recom-
fault or seismic zone and can be ascribed familiar charac-
mended procedures when a nearby fault dominates the short
teristics such as a magnitude, stress drop, azimuth, depth,
periods but distant diffuse zones of seismicity dominate the
and distance. Also, more detailed analyses can be performed
long periods (as will be seen).
for the design earthquake, for example by generating dura-
Seismicity parameters for the source areas and for fault
tions and time histories of motion for nonlinear structural
1 are shown in Table 1, for the two examples considered
analysis.
here. For the source areas the rate of seismic activity is de-
What has been lacking in the definition of design earth-
rived from the results presented by Algermissen et al.
quakes to date is an overall format within which to derive a
(1982); for the fault the activity rate is purely hypothetical.
design earthquake, by which we mean a magnitude, distance,
All b values are assumed to be 0.9. The maximum magni-
and perhaps other parameters that are consistent with the
tudes listed in Table 1 are chosen to accentuate the contri-
target ground motion. The problem with the use of)f/and/~
bution of small magnitudes at close distances (for the fault)
or with a "modal" earthquake (the most likely values of M
and large magnitudes at large distances (for the seismic
and R) is that the resulting ground motion must be scaled in
zones).
a heuristic way to equal the target ground motion. Also,
For assumptions on ground-motion attenuation, two
previous recommendations have not addressed multiple hy-
empirically derived equations were used. These were taken
potheses explicitly and have only used one structural period.
from the work by Boore et al. (1994) and Campbell (1993).
The latter characteristic means that different/17/'s and/~'s
The form of these equations is substantially different; the
(and different ground motions) might be calculated for 10
Boore et al. form (herein called "attenuation 1") is
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. lnY= a + b(M- 6) + c ( M - 6) 2
Developing such a format is the purpose of this article, + d i n (R1) + ~R,, (1)
so that we might understand design earthquakes over a range
of natural frequencies and for multiple input hypotheses with where Y is a ground-motion measure, a through d are em-
uncertainties. A hypothetical but realistic example is used, pirically derived coefficients, M is moment magnitude, and
in order to investigate what drives seismic hazard when high R1 is calculated using the distance to the surface projection
frequencies are controlled by one source of earthquakes but of the fault surface Rs for faults: R1 = (R~ + h2)m. In the
Probabilistic Seismic HazardAnalysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop 1277

41" 7/
b t ee oI e o Magnitude
e ~ / > 6.0
5.0-6.0

40"
"°~ _ U S e S SouSee 45
o
o/ e
e , ,~'''~JL
Fault 1
0
e
4.0-5.0
3.0-4.0
~
:
' ~ ~ ,,,,,"'~%
o 8 o eoo , ~
, e SITE
- <3.o
e O ~ ,~eeo I e e ol
39" . g° •° ~ ' ~ " ~ ° USGS Source 7,1 o

°
.
o
.
~_ "X

",Z\ ~\
k k

o\
,
\ o
o o

38"

o * • /

-109" -108" -107" -106 ° -105" -104" -103" -102"

Figure 1. Historical seismicity in Colorado, USGS sources 71 and 45, and hypo-
thetical fault 1.

Table 1 ard, the equations might be changed to account for regional

Seismicity Parameters Used in Examples attenuation, rock properties, and local soil response. The
equations are directly applicable to earthquakes occurring
Seismic Magnitude Activity Maximum
Example Source Distribution Rate* b Value Magnitude on faults in this example. For earthquakes in source areas,
we modify the application of these equations by subtracting
1 fault 1 exponential 0.00l 0.9 5.2
USGS source 71 exponential 0.003 0.9 6.1 a distance equal to one-quarter the earthquake's estimated
tJSGS source 45 exponential 0.0344 0.9 7.5 rupture length, as an approximate correction. The random-
2 fault 1 exponential 0.0001 0.9 5.2 ness term for each period T is used as reported by the au-
LrSGSsource 71 exponential 0.03 0.9 6.1 thors.
USGS source 45 exponential 0.0034 0.9 7.5
* Annual rate of earthquakes above M = 5. Seismic Hazard Calculations

The standard formulation of probabilistic seismic haz-

latter expression, h is a depth specified by the authors. The
ard is to calculate a frequency of exceedence 7 of a ground-
Campbell form (herein called "attenuation 2") is
motion amplitude y as

In Y = a +bm + c tanh (d(M - 4.7))

- lnr- eR2 + ( f - glnRz)S, (2) 7(y) = ~ v~( f fv(m)fR(r)P[Y > ylm, r]dm dr, (3)

where a through g are empirical coefficients, R 2 is distance

to the rupture surface, r = f(R2,M), and S indicates soil type. where v~ is the activity rate for source i. The probability in
These equations are used herein to predict spectral acceler- the integrand of equation (3) can be expressed explicitly as
ation (SA) at T = 0.04, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1, and 2 sec, for 5% a function of the ground-motion randomness e, giving
of critical damping.
The above two equations were developed by the re-
spective authors based on empirical data from California, 7(y)= ~ v~f ~ .( f~(m)fR(r)f~(e)P[Y
and were adopted for use in this example assuming rock
conditions. In a nonhypothetical calculation of seismic haz- > ylm, r, e]dmdrde, (4)
1278 R.K. McGuire

where e is defined as the number of logarithmic standard Contribution to T=O.1 s hazard by source
deviations by which the logarithmic ground motion deviates
from the median. In this formulation, the probability in the
~ All Sources
integrand is simply the Heaviside step function: \\ ..... Fault 1
\\ .... U S G S Source 71
P[Y > ylm, r, e] = H[ln Y(m, r, e) - In y], (5)
' \ " " "k
which is zero if In g(m, r, e) from equation (1) or (2) is less e~
o
\ \'.
than In y, and 1 otherwise. To derive contributions to 7(y) "\ \ ",
by M, R, and e, we use instead \ ",
o "\ \ ",
.\\ ",
o
P[Y > ylm, r, el = J[ln Y(m, r, e) - In y], (6)
g,
where 6 is the Dirac delta function, which gives a probability
of 1 at In Y(m, r, e) = In y and zero otherwise. (J is used
because we wish to obtain M-R-e sets that equal the target \
\
"x,~

ground motion, not that exceed it.) The formulations in equa- \

\
tions (4) and (6) are used below to derive the contributions \
\
to ~(y) by m, r, and e. N

For example 1, Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the total hazard

curves for T = 0.1 and 1 sec, respectively, and the contri- 0.000.05 0.i0 0.i5 0.i0 0.25" 0.30
bution by fault and source areas. The site is in an area of Spectral acceleration (g)
low seismicity; for T = 0,1 sec fault 1 contributes most to
the seismic hazard because of its proximity, and for T = 1 Figure 2. Contribution to hazard by source for T
sec USGS source 45 contributes most to the seismic hazard = 0.1 sec, example 1.
because of its high rate of activity and high maximum mag-
nitude. Thus the response spectrum is dominated by different
earthquakes at different periods, which makes the goal of
deriving a single earthquake that will reasonably represent
the uniform hazard spectrum particularly challenging. For
this example, we assume that the design motion should cor-
respond to an annual frequency of exceedence of 10 -4. Contribution to T=I s hazard by source
To provide further insight into the contribution to haz-
ard, we deaggregate the hazard results by magnitude M, dis-
- - A l l Sources
tance R, and ground-motion deviation e. This is achieved by Fault 1
accumulating (by magnitude, distance, and e) the annual fre- U S G S Source 71
quencies of exceedence of the target ground-motion ampli- tm U S G S Source 45
tude for each period T separately. Dividing these annual fre- ,q
quencies by the total hazard (the total annual frequency) O
gives the probability that, given an exceedence of that am-
plitude, it has been caused by a certain combination of M,
R, and e. Q
O
Figure 4 (top) illustrates the joint distribution of M, R, O •\ "\\,
and e for combinations causing the exceedence of the
10,000-yr ground motion for T -- 0.1 sec. The major con- \ "?\
tribution comes from small magnitudes at close distance -d
L' "q-",
(fault 1) with 0 < e < 1. The distribution for T = 1 sec,
Figure 4 (bottom), shows the contribution from large M,
','-,\
large R, and epsilon values generally between 1 and 2 (from
source 45). The four-dimensional plot necessitates wide in-
"x
tervals of M, R, and e, which hides some of the distributions'
features. 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
To provide more detail, the joint distribution is repre-
Spectral acceleration (g)
sented as marginal distributions on M, R, and e in Figures 5
(for r = 0.1 sec) and 6 (for T = 1 sec). Mathematically, Figure 3. Contribution to hazard by source for T
these distributions are defined as = 1 sec, example 1.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop 1279

T=0.1s
l e : 2+
me: lto 2
e:0to 1
I e: -1 to 0
m e: -2 to -1

T=ls

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), example 1.
1280 R.K. McGuire

2.0HAZA!~C O N ~ . BUT ION BY.MA,.GN!,. T ~ . E 2.0/

HAZARD
. . . . , ' " "
CONTRIBUTION
. . . . . . . , . . . .
BY
, .
MAGNITUDE
. . . . . . . .

T=0.1 s, All sources

1.6

1.2
[..
0.8
I
0.4 ~_ 0.4

0 "~.0 . . . . ' ....

5.5 ~
6.0' ' .6.fi
. . . . . . . . .7.. 0 '7.5 .... 8.0
°'I
0"~.0' 5'5 .... b'0 . . . . 6'5 .... 7'0 .... 7'5 .... S.0
MAGNITUDE MAGNITUDE
HAZARD CONTRIBUTION BY DISTANCE b* HAZARD CONTRIBUTION BY DISTANCE
0.10 ....... , . • . , .... ' . • . , ........... 0.10 . . . , .... . . . , . . . , ........ • . . , . • .
T=0.1 s, All s o u r c e s T=I s, All sources
0.o8
~ 0.08

~0.06 ~0.06

0.04 ~0,04

~0.02 ~0.02

~0.00 ~0.o~q 20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 160

DISTANCE (kin) DISTANCE (kin)
HAZARD CONTRIBUTION BY EPSILON HAZARD CONTRIBUTION BY EPSILON
1.0 [~ t.0 . . . . L . . . . + . . . . i . . . . , . . . . [ . . ' , . , . . . . i . . . .

~ 0.8

0.6
" r=0.i'
~
.~
0.8
0.6
T=I s, All sources

~0.4 0.4

~ 0.2 ~0.2
m
/
~0.0 ~ ..~ ~ .
,0 -1.5 -l.0 -0.5
.... 7 .................
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 ~ 0.o T :i.5 - i . 0 ' ' :d.$' ' g.O.... b'.~ " '£o ' 1 3
EPSILON EPSILON
Figure 5. Marginal contributions to hazard by M, Figure 6. Marginal contributions to hazard by M,
R, and e for 10 4 hazard, T = 0.1 sec, example 1. R, and e for 10 -4 hazar d, T = 1 sec, example 1.

f' m) = f f ld de (7) The distribution of distance (which is epicentral dis-

= lO v, f dmde
f;(e) = 1 0 4 ~ v i f f l d m d r ,
where the integrand I in all three equations is
I = fM(m)fR(r)f+(e)J[ln Y(m, r, e) - In y],
and the constant 104 is used to normalize the total annual
frequency of 10 -4 to 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.
tance for the areal sources and rupture distance for the fault)
is illustrated in Figure 5 (middle). These results were cal-
(8) culated at 5-kin intervals. The large contribution from 20 to
27.5 km reflects the location of fault 1.
Figure 5 (bottom) illustrates the marginal distribution of
(9) 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
(10) 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 motion 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 Table 2

is evident. Spectral Accelerations Estimated for Mean and Modal
Table 2 presents values of mean magnitude/f/, mean Earthquakes, Example 1
distance/~, and mean deviation g for T = 0.1 and 1 sec Predicted Ground Motion*
calculated from the joint distribution shown in Figure 4 Period Description Values 0A sec 1 sec
(these are also mean values from the marginal distributions
0.1 sec mean /17/= 5.4 0.12g(-25%) 0.030g(-39%)
of Figs. 5 and 6). This table also presents the most likely
earthquake R = 28.9 k m
(modal) values of magnitude, distance, and e from the joint g = 0.92
distribution, which are labeled h)/,/~, and g. These modal
1 sec mean M = 6.1 0.085 g ( - 4 7 % ) 0.034 g ( - 3 0 % )
values from the joint distribution do not necessarily corre- earthquake /? = 66.5 k m
spond to the mode of the marginal distributions. Also shown g = 1.2
are predicted ground motions using the mean and modal 0.1 sec modal h~/ = 5.15 0.12 g ( - 2 5 % ) 0.028 g (43%)
values of M, R, and e. These predicted ground motions earthquake /? = 22.5 k m
weight each attenuation equation equally, as the hazard anal- g = 0.90
ysis does. The mean values do not guarantee a combination 1 sec modal M = 5.15 0.18 g ( + 15%) 0.041 g ( - 15%)
of ~Q,/~, and g that is consistent with the 10,000-yr motion earthquake R = 17.5 k m
(there is no theoretical reason why they should). The modal ~ = 1.1
values do not replicate the target ground motions, because * 10 4targetmotions are 0.16 g for 0.1 sec and 0.048 g for 1 sec. Values
different attenuation equations may require different values in parentheses are deviations from target motions.
of e to equal the target ground motion and this is not taken
into account by a single g.

butions are different (in the limit, if they are completely

Determination o f Design Earthquakes
To derive a single or several design earthquakes that
can replicate the uniform hazard spectrum over all natural
periods, we examine a "composite 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 composite 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 composite distribution from the two natural periods
distributions by (a) considering only intervals in which there
is a nonzero contribution at both 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 both 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. If they overlap closely (in
the limit, if they are identical), this means that similar earth-
quakes drive the hazard for T = 0.1 and 1 sec. If the distri-
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 composite seismic hazard analysis is the tool used
to determine a single design earthquake, if appropriate. Us-
ing the composite 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 term 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
motion level separately by source for T = 0.1 and 1 sec.
(2) If one source is the dominant contributor at both 0.1 and
1 sec, then one design earthquake generally can be used
to represent the hazard. In this case,
(2A) Perform a composite 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
Period T Description Values Predicted Ground Motion*

0.1 sec beta earthquake for attenuation 1 M~ = 5.15, R~ = 17.5 kin, ea~ = 1.5 0.173 g
0.1 sec beta earthquake for attenuation 2 m~2 = 5.15, R~z = 22.5 km, e~l 0.90 = 0.143 g
0.1 sec average 0.16 g (0)
0.1 sec weighted beta earthquake M ~ = 5.15, Ra~ = 20 km, ea~ = 1.2 0.167 g ( + 4 % )
0.1 sec adjusted weighted beta earthquake M¢w= 5.15, Ra~ = 20 km, ~ = 1.12 0.16 g (0)
= "beta earthquake"
1 sec beta earthquake for attenuation 1 M~ = 7.35, Re, = 102.5 kna, e~ = 0.5 0.049 g
1 sec beta earthquake for attenuation 2 M~ = 6.75, Ra~ = 72.5 km, e~ = 0.7 0.049 g
1 sec average 0.049 g ( + 2%)
1 sec weighted beta earthquake M ~ = 7.05, R¢~ = 87.5 kin, ea~ = 0.6 0.046 g ( - 4 % )
1 sec adjusted weighted beta earthquake M~,~ = 7.05, R ~ = 87.5 km, eaw= 0.65 0.048 g (0)
= "beta earthquake"

* 10 -4 target ground motions are 0.16 g at 0.1 sec and 0.048 g at 1 sec. Values in parentheses are deviations from target values.

tions at both T = 0.1 and 1 sec equal or exceed values of Mpi and R~i should make it clear whether the design
the target motions. earthquake corresponds to a fault or a source area; in the
(3) If different sources are the dominant contributors for T case of example 1, the values of M~g and R~j at T = 0.1 sec
= 0.1 and 1 sec, we generally should not use one earth- clearly correspond to an earthquake on fault 1, whereas they
quake to represent the hazard. In this case, correspond to an earthquake in source 45 for T = 1 sec. The
(3A) Perform a seismic hazard analysis for the domi- ground motions shown in Table 3 closely match the target
nant source at T = 0.1 sec, and for each attenu- ground motions when averaged over the attenuation equa-
ation equation separately determine Mp~, Rp~, and tions, even though the estimates for each equation separately
ep~. may differ from the target ground motion.
(3B) Calculate a weighted M~w, Rew, and epwby weight- These differences result from the finite sizes of the M-
ing the Ma{s Rpi's, and ep~'s using the weights as- R-e bins used to calculate the fi point; our experience is that
signed to each attenuation equation. the average ground motion (over the attenuation equations)
(3C) Adjust the weighted e~w so that the final predicted generally matches the target ground motion, even if the
ground motion (weighted by attenuation equation) individual estimates differ. Also, the "beta earthquake"
equals the 10-Hz target motion. matches the target ground motion exactly, because the e
(3D) Repeat steps (3A) through (3C) for T = 1 sec. value has been chosen to achieve that match.
Figure 7 shows the "Design Spectra" obtained from the
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 D E S I G N SPECTRA, EXAMPLE 1
of precision associated with an M-R-e bin). This is the case
. . . . . . , . • , . . . . . . . , , . , ,
because each M-R-e combination just causes the target Uniform hazard spectrum
ground motion to be equaled in equation (6). If the attenu- ...... 0.1 s beta spectrum
ation equations have similar characteristics (e.g., similar z el ..... 1 s beta spectrum
o
magnitude and distance dependencies), the values of Mpci,
R~ci, and epc~will be similar. / " / *~-. ~ ?,

d
Estimates Using Design Earthquakes

For example 1 the seismic hazard analysis indicates that

different sources contribute most to the hazard for T = 0.1 e,i

and 1 sec (see Figs. 2 and 3). As a result, steps (3A) through
(3D) are used to derive two design earthquakes for example r~

1. 10-2
, , ,i
2
r i i , illl
10-1
,, ,T
2
r , i i , i i i
10 0 2
Table 3 shows the values of M~i, Rpj, and e~ derived from
P E R I O D (s)
the analysis and the associated ground motions. The weighted
values M~w,Rpw, and eB~provide a close estimate of the target Figure 7. Uniform hazard spectrum and beta
ground motion (within 4%) for both T = 0.1 and 1 sec. The earthquake spectra for 10-4 hazard, example 1.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop 1283

Table 4
Spectral Accelerations Estimated for Design Earthquakes, Example 2

Predicted SA*

Period T Description Values 0.1 sec 1 sec

0.1 and 1 sec Compositebeta earthquake for M~cl = 5.95, Rpc1 = 12.5 km, ~/~cl = 0.1 0.302 g (+18%) 0.055 g (-21%)
attenuation 1
0.1 and 1 sec compositebeta earthquake for Mac2 = 5,35, R¢cj = 12.5 km, eacl = 0.3 0.286 g (+ 12%) 0.063 g ( - 10%)
attenuation 2
0.1 and 1 sec average 0.294 g ( + 15%) 0.059 g ( - 16%)
0.1 and 1 sec weightedcomposite beta M~c = 5.65, Rac = 12.5 km, eCe = 0.2 0.292 g ( + 14%) 0.073 g (+4%)
earthquake
0.1 and 1 sec adjustedweighted composite M¢c = 5.65, R~c = 12.5 km, epc = 0.15 0.284 g (+ 11%) 0.070 g (0)
beta earthquake = "composite
beta earthquake"

* 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.

uniform hazard spectrum, the T = 0.1 sec adjusted beta DESIGN SPECTRA, EXAMPLE 2
earthquake, and the T = 1 sec adjusted beta earthquake. The
differences in frequency content are clear, as is the need for ,~,
two design earthquakes to represent the hazard.
Z el
The parameters selected for example 2 (see Table 1)
mean that USGS source 71 dominates the hazard at both T ,~
= 0.1 and 1 sec. As a result, steps (2A) through (2C) apply
and the use of one design earthquake (for each attenuation
equation) is justified. Table 4 shows the values of M~c~, R~ci, ,~
and e~c~ for this example, and illustrates that the "adjusted
weighted composite beta earthquake" (or "composite beta
earthquake" for short) gives reasonable values of M, R, and - - U n i f o r m hazard spectrum
rj el
and results in ground motions close to the target levels. Ir

Figure 8 compares the uniform hazard spectrum for ex- o~

, , ,~ i i i i i i i i , , ,i , r i i r i l l , , ,~

ample 2 with the spectrum from the composite beta earth- 10-2 2 10-1 2 10 0 2
quake and shows that the two match reasonably well for all P E R I O D (s)
frequencies. The composite beta earthquakes for each atten-
uation equation would match the uniform hazard spectrum Figure 8. Uniform hazard spectrum and compos-
also, but these individual earthquakes have the disadvantage ite beta earthquake spectrum for 10 .4 hazard, exam-
that they do not provide a single M, R, and e (the values are ple 2.
different for the two attenuation equations).

ground-motion attenuation equation. From the composite

Conclusions
Seismic hazard can be deaggregated to show the con-
tribution by magnitude, distance, and ground-motion devi-
ation e, where e is the number of standard deviations that the
target ground motion is above or below the median for a
given M and R (in logarithmic units). Any uncertainties in
seismicity parameters can be incorporated and represented
in this deaggregation.
The decision on whether a single design earthquake can
represent the entire response spectrum hinges on whether
one seismic source dominates the hazard at all frequencies.
If it does, the preferred design earthquake is obtained from
a "composite seismic hazard analysis" wherein a joint dis-
tribution of contributions by M, R, and e is obtained by com-
bining the deaggregated hazard results for multiple natural
periods (1 and 0.1 sec), keeping separate distributions by
analysis, a composite beta earthquake (M~ci, Rpci, and epci) is
derived for each ground-motion attenuation equation i as the
most likely combination of M, R, and e that will generate
the target ground motions. The final design spectra or other
characteristics of the ground motion can be obtained using
the individual values of Mpci, Rm~, and e~c~ for each attenu-
ation equation or by weighting them to obtain a single com-
posite beta earthquake Mnc , R~c, and epc.
If different seismic sources dominate the hazard at dif-
ferent frequencies, then contributions to the hazard come
from significantly different magnitudes, distances, and ds,
so that a single design earthquake is not appropriate. In this
case, values of Mew, R~w, and epw derived at T = 0.1 and 1
sec by weighting beta earthquakes for each attenuation equa-
tion can be used to represent design earthquakes for short
and long periods, respectively.
1284
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.
Acknowledgments
The author appreciates comments 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.
References
Algermissen, S. T., D. M. Perkins, P. C. Thenhans, S. L. Hanson, and B. L.
Bender (1982). Probabilistic estimates of maximum 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
R.K. McGuire
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 extended 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.