Epistemic Uncertainty in Ground-Motion Characterization in the Indian Context: Evaluation of Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for the Himalayan Region

IF 2.6 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Seismological Research Letters Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1785/0220230157
Shikha Sharma, U. Mannu, Sanjay Singh Bora
{"title":"Epistemic Uncertainty in Ground-Motion Characterization in the Indian Context: Evaluation of Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for the Himalayan Region","authors":"Shikha Sharma, U. Mannu, Sanjay Singh Bora","doi":"10.1785/0220230157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n One of the major challenges in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) studies, particularly for risk-based decision-making, is to constrain epistemic uncertainties. Epistemic uncertainty associated with ground-motion characterization (GMC) models exerts a strong influence on the hazard estimate for a given target level of ground shaking. In the Indian context (mainly along the Himalayan arc), constraining epistemic uncertainty is a significant challenge owing to the lack of recorded data. This study investigates the epistemic uncertainty associated with ground-motion models (GMMs) considered appropriate for the Himalayan region. First, a review of GMMs considered applicable to the Himalayan region is provided. Subsequently, a graphical comparison of median models is performed, followed by residual and statistical analysis. The evaluation utilizes observations from a recently compiled strong-motion dataset across the Himalayas and Indo-Gangetic plains of northern India. The dataset comprises 519 acceleration traces from 150 events in the moment magnitude (Mw) range Mw 3–7.4, recorded at epicentral distances in the range REpi<300  km. The analysis demonstrates significant between-model variability, particularly with regard to median magnitude and distance scaling. The residual analysis also indicates a large bias and aleatory uncertainty. Moreover, some of the GMMs exhibit trends with distance and magnitude. Overall, our evaluation analysis shows that there is clearly significant aleatory and epistemic uncertainty associated with the GMC modeling owing to the paucity of recorded data. The range of epistemic uncertainty represented by the GMMs (available in the literature) is much larger than that typically captured by the (multiple) global models often used in PSHA studies across India.","PeriodicalId":21687,"journal":{"name":"Seismological Research Letters","volume":"17 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seismological Research Letters","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1785/0220230157","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the major challenges in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) studies, particularly for risk-based decision-making, is to constrain epistemic uncertainties. Epistemic uncertainty associated with ground-motion characterization (GMC) models exerts a strong influence on the hazard estimate for a given target level of ground shaking. In the Indian context (mainly along the Himalayan arc), constraining epistemic uncertainty is a significant challenge owing to the lack of recorded data. This study investigates the epistemic uncertainty associated with ground-motion models (GMMs) considered appropriate for the Himalayan region. First, a review of GMMs considered applicable to the Himalayan region is provided. Subsequently, a graphical comparison of median models is performed, followed by residual and statistical analysis. The evaluation utilizes observations from a recently compiled strong-motion dataset across the Himalayas and Indo-Gangetic plains of northern India. The dataset comprises 519 acceleration traces from 150 events in the moment magnitude (Mw) range Mw 3–7.4, recorded at epicentral distances in the range REpi<300  km. The analysis demonstrates significant between-model variability, particularly with regard to median magnitude and distance scaling. The residual analysis also indicates a large bias and aleatory uncertainty. Moreover, some of the GMMs exhibit trends with distance and magnitude. Overall, our evaluation analysis shows that there is clearly significant aleatory and epistemic uncertainty associated with the GMC modeling owing to the paucity of recorded data. The range of epistemic uncertainty represented by the GMMs (available in the literature) is much larger than that typically captured by the (multiple) global models often used in PSHA studies across India.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
印度地动特征描述中的认识不确定性:喜马拉雅地区地动模型(GMM)评估
概率地震灾害分析(PSHA)研究,尤其是基于风险的决策,面临的主要挑战之一是如何限制认识上的不确定性。与地震动特征描述 (GMC) 模型相关的认识不确定性对给定目标地震动水平的危险估计有很大影响。在印度(主要沿喜马拉雅弧线),由于缺乏记录数据,制约认识不确定性是一项重大挑战。本研究调查了与被认为适合喜马拉雅地区的地震动模型(GMMs)相关的认识不确定性。首先,对被认为适用于喜马拉雅地区的 GMM 进行了回顾。随后,对中值模型进行图形比较,然后进行残差和统计分析。评估利用了最近编制的喜马拉雅山脉和印度北部印度-甘地平原强震数据集的观测数据。该数据集包括来自 150 个震级(Mw)在 Mw 3-7.4 范围内的事件的 519 个加速度迹线,记录的震中距 REpi<300 km。分析表明,模型之间存在很大差异,特别是在中位震级和距离缩放方面。残差分析也表明存在较大偏差和不确定性。此外,一些 GMMs 显示出距离和幅度的变化趋势。总体而言,我们的评估分析表明,由于记录的数据较少,全球海洋监测网建模显然存在着巨大的不确定性和认识上的不确定性。GMM 所代表的认识不确定性范围(可从文献中获得)远远大于通常在印度各地 PSHA 研究中使用的(多个)全球模型所捕获的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Seismological Research Letters
Seismological Research Letters 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
12.10%
发文量
239
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Follow the Trace: Becoming a Seismo‐Detective with a Campus‐Based Raspberry Shake Seismometer Nominations for the Next Joyner Lecturer Due 30 June Imaging Urban Hidden Faults with Ambient Noise Recorded by Dense Seismic Arrays Microseismic Event Location with Dual Vertical DAS Arrays: Insights from the FORGE 2022 Stimulation New Empirical Source‐Scaling Laws for Crustal Earthquakes Incorporating Fault Dip and Seismogenic‐Thickness Effects
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1