recent testing of the global seismic hazard …...since the gshap terminated, seismic reality was...

1 11/26/2011

Vladimir G. KOSSOBOKOV

Anastasia K. NEKRASOVA

International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics,

Russian Academy of Sciences, RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, FRANCE

E-mails: [email protected] or [email protected]; [email protected]

Recent testing of the

Global Seismic Hazard

Assessment Program

(GSHAP) maps

♦ The 1st Annual Meeting of the Strategic Chinese-Korean-Japanese Cooperative Program:

Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Next Generation Map

♦ Harbin Institute of Technology ♦ 25-30.11.2011 ♦ Harbin China

11/26/2011 2

Chinese National Seismic Design Map




11/26/2011 3

The Global Seismic Hazard Assessment

Program (GSHAP) was launched in 1992 by

the International Lithosphere Program (ILP) with the support




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Haitians_pull_out_a_body_from_the_rubbles_of_a_school_(12_january_2010).jpg

11/26/2011 4

…endorsed as a demonstration program in the framework of

the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction…




http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/global/

http://www.idndr.org/

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb4/ilp/

http://www.icsu.org/

http://www.seismo.com/iaspei

http://www.unesco.org/

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/

http://www.ingrm.it/iindex.htm

http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/

http://gt.csdi.ac.cn/

http://www.usgs.gov/

11/26/2011 5




11/26/2011 6

Since the GSHAP terminated, seismic reality was testing the prediction given by Global Seismic Hazard Map.

USGS/NEIC Global Hypocenter’s Data Base, 2000-2010




Data • The results of GSHAP are provided as the Global Map of

Seismic Hazard and the Table of PGA values (“peak

ground acceleration with a 10% chance of exceedance

in 50 years corresponding to a return period of 475

years”, GSHPUB.dat) at

http://www.seismo2009.ethz.ch/GSHAP/. There are

5369091 values at the regular 0.1° × 0.1° grid, of which

1739063 are “NaN” and 175275 are “0”. Therefore, we

have used 3454753 GSHAP PGA estimates.

• Global Hypocenters Data Base, GHDB, System of the

US Geological Survey and National Earthquake

Information Center, USGS/NEIC (ftp://hazards.cr.usgs.gov/)

11/26/2011 7




http://www.seismo2009.ethz.ch/GSHAP/

Method of comparison

• Each of the strong (magnitude 6 or larger) earthquakes

may have up to n = 9/cosf values of GSHAP PGA in a

cell ¼° (1/4cosf)° centered at its epicenter (f, l). The

maximum of these values, mPGA, and the magnitude

the earthquakes, М, are transformed by widely accepted

empirical relationships to the Modified Mercalli Intensity

of ground shaking at epicenter, I0.

• The pairs of the GSHAP expected maximum, I0(mPGA),

and the estimate of observed value, I0(M), linked by the

strong earthquakes are analyzed.

11/26/2011 8




11/26/2011 9

S,

ome empirical relationships between in m/s and MMI at the earthquake epicenter, suggested by different authors, i.e.

(2), (3), (4), and (5):

PGA

IAptikaev et al, 2008 Shteinberg et al, 1993 Sauter and

Shah, 1978 Murphy and O'Brien, 1977

2

0

I PGAI PGA

I PGA

I PGA

0

0

0

0

= 2.50 Log ( ) + 6.89 (2) = 2.97 Log ( ) + 6.71 (3) = 3.62 Log ( ) + 6.34 (4) = 2.86 Log ( ) + 6.96 (5)

10

10

10

10

The classical relationship linking the earthquake magnitude and the MMI intensity of felt shaking at the epicentral region, , is that proposed for California by

M

I

Gutenberg and Richter (1956).0

M I = 2/3 + 1 (1)0

I M0 = 1.5 ( – 1 )




Results

11/26/2011 10

• For each of 1181 out of 1347 strong crustal earthquakes from USGS/NEIC GHDB, 2000-2009, it

is possible to determine the pair

{I0(mPGA), I0(M)}

and the difference

DI0 = I0 (M) - I0(mPGA).

• Points above the diagonal

I0 (M) = I0(mPGA)

are “surprises” for GSHAP. Qualitatively the results are independent of a

choice of established empirical relations.

I 0 (M

)

I0(mPGA) ♦ The 1st Annual Meeting of the Strategic Chinese-Korean-Japanese Cooperative Program:



Each of 1181 strong crustal earthquakes in 2000-2009 has from

6 to 58 values of GSHAP PGA in the ¼° (1/4cosf)° cell

centered at its epicenter (f, l).

The transformed values the GSHAP expected maximum,

I0(mPGA), and the estimate of observed value, I0(M), allow to

count the number of “surprises”, the average difference DI0,

and the median of DI0 for earthquakes of different magnitude.

For example, each of the 59 magnitude 7.5 or larger earthquakes

in 2000-2009 was a “surprise” for GSHAP Seismic Hazard

Map; moreover, the minimum of the 59 values of DI0 is 0.6.

The average and the median of DI0 are about 2.

11/26/2011 11




The contributors to GSHAP could have evaluate the poor performance of their product before its publication in 1999...

11/26/2011 12

Aptikaev et al, 2008 (2), Shteinberg et al, 1993 (3), Sauter and Shah, 1978 (4), and Murphy and O'Brien, 1977 (5)




Finally yet, rare cases of actual measurements of strong ground acceleration and field surveys of earthquake intensity at the sites of historically recent strong earthquakes, are in full agreement with our results, which we have achieved by a crude computation, and they essentially confirm the basic validity of our work.

11/26/2011 13




The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku,

also known as the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake

or the Great East Japan Earthquake

(Japanese: “Eastern Japan Great Earthquake Disaster”

- 東日本大震災 - Higashi Nihon Daishinsai )

was a magnitude 9.0 (Mw) undersea mega-thrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on Friday, 11 March 2011, with the epicenter approximately 70 km east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 32 km. It was the most powerful known earthquake to have hit Japan, and one of the five most powerful earthquakes in the world overall since modern record-keeping began in 1900. It was so powerful the island of Honshu was moved 2.4 m eastward.

The earthquake triggered extremely destructive tsunami waves of up to 40.5 metres in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku. In some cases traveling up to 10 km inland. In addition to loss of life and destruction of infrastructure, the tsunami caused a number of nuclear accidents, primarily the level 7 meltdowns at three reactors in the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant complex, and the associated evacuation zones affecting hundreds of thousands of residents.

11/26/2011 14




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language

11/26/2011 15




11/26/2011 16




Tohoku, Japan Earthquake, 03/11/2011, Mw 9.0

11/26/2011 17




11/26/2011 18




The color coded discrepancy, DI0, between actual and GSHAP predicted

effect at epicenters of strong shallow earthquakes in 1900-2009. “Surprises” dominate, while “big surprises” (i.e., DI0 > 1) are widespread

throughout all seismic regions worldwide.

11/26/2011 19

-160° -120° -80° -40° 0° 40° 80° 120° 160°-60°

-40°

-20°

0°

20°

40°

60°

D0 0.0≤ 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 D0




“Top Twelve Deadliest Earthquakes, 2000-2011”

11/26/2011 20

Region Date М Fatalities DI0 Sumatra-Andaman

“Indian Ocean Disaster” 26.12.2004 9.0 227898 4.0

Port-au-Prince (Haiti) 12.01.2010 7.3 222570 2.2 Wenchuan (Sichuan, China) 12.05.2008 8.1 87587 3.2

Kashmir (North India and Pakistan border region)

08.10.2005 7.7 ~86000 2.3

Bam (Iran) 26.12.2003 6.6 ~31000 0.2 Bhuj (Gujarat, India) 26.01.2001 8.0 20085 2.9

Off the Pacific coast of Tohoku (Japan)

11.03.2011 9.0 15824 (3847 missing)

3.2

Yogyakarta (Java, Indonesia) 26.05.2006 6.3 5749 0.3 Southern Qinghai (China) 13.04.2010 7.0 2698 2.1

Boumerdes (Algeria) 21.05.2003 6.8 2266 2.1 Nias (Sumatra, Indonesia) 28.03.2005 8.6 1313 3.3

Padang (Southern Sumatra, Indonesia)

30.09.2009 7.5 1117 1.8




“Top Twelve Deadliest Earthquakes, 2000-2011”

M. Wyss, A. Nekrasova, V. Kossobokov Errors in Expected Human Losses Due to Incorrect Seismic Hazard Estimates (2011, submitted to Natural Hazards)

11/26/2011 21

Magnitude DI0 Eobs/EGSHAP Fest/FGSHAP Pest/PGSHAP Sest/SGSHAP

6.3≤M≤6.8 0.3 2 2 1.5 1.5

6.9≤M≤8.6 1.5 350 160 10 3

M≥9 4 5,600 6,500 5,000,000 1,700

Summary of the difference between size and consequences of earthquakes

observed and implied by GSHAP, measured by difference in ground shaking

intensity (Iobs-IGSHAP), ratio of radiated energy (Eobs/EGSHAP), ratio of fatalities

(Fest/FGSHAP), ratio of population affected (Pest/PGSHAP), and ratio of settlements

affected (Sest/SGSHAP).




Comparison of maps

showing calculated

intensities (top) and

mean damage (bottom)

for the 2001 Bhuj

earthquake (M8.0, left)

and the magnitude

implied by GSHAP

(M6.1, right). The size

of dots marking

settlements is

proportional to their

population and the

color represents

intensity (top scale)

and mean damage

(bottom scale).

11/26/2011 22




11/26/2011 23




11/26/2011 24

Conclusion:

Thus, a systematic and quantitative comparison of the GSHAP peak ground acceleration estimates (a 10% chance of exceedance in 50

years) with those related to actual strong earthquakes,

unfortunately, discloses gross inadequacy of this “probabilistic” product; which, in common sense, is evidently

UNACCEPTABLE FOR ANY KIND OF RESPONSIBLE SEISMIC RISK EVALUATION AND KNOWLEDGEABLE DISASTER PREVENTION.

The self-evident shortcomings and failures of GSHAP appeals to all earthquake scientists and engineers for an urgent revision of the global seismic hazard maps from the first principles including the background methodologies involved, such that there becomes:

(1) a demonstrated and sufficient justification of hazard assessment protocols;

(2) a more complete learning of the actual range of earthquake hazards to local communities and populations, and

(3) a more ethically responsible control over how seismic hazard and seismic risk is implemented to protect the public safety.




11/26/2011 25

Thus, earthquake mitigation measures in areas where large

earthquakes are possible may not be based on GSHAP

maps. It follows that the international project Global

Earthquake Model, GEM, (http://www.globalquakemodel.org/)

is on the wrong track, if it continues to base seismic risk

estimates on the standard method when many reasons

have been given to abandon it.

Other modern methods for modeling realistic scenarios of

earthquakes allow better

Advanced Seismic Hazard Assessment, Eds. G. Panza, K. Irikura, M. Kouteva-Guentcheva, A. Peresan, Z. Wang, R. Saragoni.

Pure Appl. Geophys. 168 (1-4), 1–752. (2011).




“Men han har jo ikke noget paa,” sagde et lille Barn. “Herre Gud, hør

den Uskyldiges Røst,” sagde Faderen; og den Ene hvidskede til den

Anden, hvad Barnet sagde.

“Men han har jo ikke noget paa,” raabte tilsidst hele Folket. Det krøb

i Keiseren, thi han syntes, de havde Ret, men han tænkte som saa:

“nu maa jeg holde Processionen ud”. Og Kammerherrerne gik og

bar paa Slæbet, som der slet ikke var. Hans Christian Andersen, 1837. Keiserens nye Klæder

Based on the recent, enormous progress in real-time retrieval and monitoring of distributed multitude of geophysical data -

• Contemporary Science can do a better job than GSHAP in disclosing Natural Hazards, assessing Risks, and delivering such info in advance catastrophic events.

11/26/2011 27

General Conclusion


Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Next Generation Map ♦ Harbin Institute of Technology ♦

25-30.11.2011 ♦ Harbin China

Thank you!

”When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions”

(William Shakespeare, 1564-1616)

11/26/2011 28




recent testing of the global seismic hazard …...since the gshap terminated, seismic reality was...

Documents