Você está na página 1de 27

Logic Tree Approach Used In

PSHA

Presented By

RAVINDRA K. GOLIYA

Introduction

Logic tree address uncertainty involved in SHA.

Uncertainties in SHA are dealt in sequential


manner.

Breaks a complex problem into smaller simple


problems.

First introduced into probabilistic seismic hazard


analysis (PSHA) by Kulkarni et al. (1984)

Seismic Hazard Analysis


Quantitative estimation of ground shaking hazards at a
particular site.

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA)

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA)

Steps involved in DSHA

Identification and characterization of sources

Selection of a source-to-site distance parameter

Selection of the controlling earthquake.

Hazard defined in terms of ground motion


parameters.

Steps involved in PSHA

Identification and characterization of source zone.

Seismicity of source zone is then characterized.

Ground motion parameters are determined using


predictive relationships.

Probability of exceedence of ground motion


parameter during a particular time period is
found.

Types of uncertainties involved in


SHA
There are two types of uncertainties that are
dealt with in SHA :

Aleatory uncertainty

Epistemic uncertainty

Aleatory Uncertainty
Uncertainties that are related to an apparent
randomness in nature.

It is easy to incorporate such variability directly


into the hazard calculations.

Ground motion prediction equations are the


most important aleatory uncertainty in SHA.

Epistemic Uncertainty
Uncertainties due to insufficient knowledge are
known as epistemic uncertainties.

The main epistemic uncertainties involved in any


SHA:
Characteristics of the seismic source zones
The model for the recurrence relationship.
The maximum earthquake magnitude.

Logic Tree
Logic tree contains a series of nodes and

branches.
Each node represents an assessment of a state
of nature or an input parameter.

Branch represents one possible discrete


alternative for the state of nature.

Branches are weighted suitably.

Logic Tree contd

A typical Logic Tree

Logic Tree contd


It is advisable that
branches are placed
adequately represent
parameter estimation.

a sufficient number of
at a given node to
the uncertainty in the

Logic Tree Weights


Probabilities that represent the relative
likelihood or degree of belief that the branch
represents are known as weights.

The weights are usually based on subjective


judgments.

Logic Tree Weights contd


Vick (2002) defines :
Probability as a measure of stable
frequency.

An expression of belief.

Features of Logic Tree Weights based on

frequency-based probabilities
1. Weights at a node must sum to unity.
2. Events for which they are defined must be
exhaustive.
3. Events for which they are defined must be
mutually exclusive.
4. Must represent the relative rate at which
alternative events are occurring.

Features of logic-tree weights based on


degree of belief

1.

Weights at a node should sum to unity.

2.

Branches do not include all of the possible


alternatives.

3.

Options on the branches of a logic tree will not


be mutually exclusive.

4.

Weighted average of the hazard values does


not give the expected value.

How to assign weights?


General considerations

Multiple set of relative weights applicable to the


selected equations should be adopted.

The degree of dependence between branches of


the logic tree should also be considered.

Criteria for Grading Candidate Equations

Candidate equations should be grouped into two


categories intrinsic and application specific.

Intrinsic factors - confidence of the user in a


particular equation.

The application-specific characteristics can be


divided into those

related to the conventions adopted for the hazard


calculations.
related to the specific environment for which the SHA
is performed.

Ranking and Combining Criteria for Logic


Tree Weights
a hierarchy for the influence of each factor on the
final weighting.

a transparent system for combining the grading


for the different factors into a single weight.

Logic Tree for New Madrid Seismic


Zone: A Case Study
The area considered
in the study is, as
shown in the adjacent
figure, between 35oN
to 38oN latitude and
88oW
to
92oW
longitude.
Different
faults and position of
past earthquakes are
also shown in the
same figure.

Source model alternatives for the


New Madrid seismic zone.

The adjacent figure

presents a Logic Tree


for the New Madrid
Seismic Zone.

Using a logic tree to incorporate model


alternatives into a seismic hazard analysis
leads to a distribution of possible seismic
hazard results. This distribution can be
represented by a mean seismic hazard map
and a coefficient of variation (COV) map as
shown in the figures below.

Other issues related to Logic Trees

Selection of specific ground motion prediction


relations.

Multiple opinions are not uniform data sets and


cannot be averaged.

Logic trees make sense


earthquake risk analysis.

when

used

in

Problems with Logic Tree approach


Problems with Logic Tree approach as listed by E.
L. Krinitzsky (1995):
Other attenuations could have been used in logic
tree.

The weightings are arbitrary and are no more


than guesses.

Maximum magnitudes with the percentage


weightings could have been made into an almost
infinite series of weighted values.

Recurrence rate and b-values are totally


unsuitable for generating design values.

Conclusion

Best way to address procedure related, or


epistemic uncertainties, is using Logic Trees.

Ground motion models used should very closely


represent the future ground motion.

Epistemic uncertainty should be addressed fully.

Importance of the weights decreases as the


number of branches used in Logic Tree
increases.

Issues rose by different researchers in their


papers should also be kept in mind.