Recent testing of the
Global Seismic Hazard
Assessment Program(GSHAP) maps
Vladimir G. KOSSOBOKOV
Anastasia K. NEKRASOVAInternational Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics,
Russian Academy of Sciences, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, FRANCE
E-mails: volodya@mitp.ru or volodya@ipgp.jfr; nastia@mitp.ru

11/26/2011♦ 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

1

Chinese National Seismic Design Map

11/26/2011♦ 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

2

The Global Seismic
Hazard Assessment
Program (GSHAP) was
launched in 1992 by
the International
Lithosphere Program(ILP) with the support

11/26/2011♦ 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

3

…endorsed as a demonstration program in the framework of
the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction…

11/26/2011♦ 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

4

11/26/2011♦ 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

5

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
11/26/2011♦ 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

6

Data
• The results of GSHAP are provided as the Global Map of•Seismic Hazard and the Table of PGA values (“peakground acceleration with a 10% chance of exceedancein 50 years corresponding to a return period of 475
years”, GSHPUB.dat) at
http://www.seismo2009.ethz.ch/GSHAP/. There are5369091 values at the regular 0.1° × 0.1° grid, of which
1739063 are “NaN” and 175275 are “0”. Therefore, wehave 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♦ 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

7

Method of comparison• Each of the strong (magnitude 6 or larger) earthquakes
may have up to n = 9/cosf values of GSHAP PGA in acell 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 Intensityof ground shaking at epicenter, I0.
• The pairs of the GSHAP expected maximum, I0(mPGA),
and the estimate of observed value, I0(M), linked by thestrong earthquakes are analyzed.

11/26/2011♦ 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

8

The classical relationship linking the earthquake magnitude M
and the MMI intensity of felt shaking at the epicentral region, I0 ,is that proposed for California by Gutenberg and Richter (1956).
M = 2/3 I0 + 1(1)
I0 = 1.5 (M – 1 )2

Some empirical relationships between PGA in m/s and MMI at
the earthquake epicenter, I0, suggested by different authors, i.e.
Aptikaev et al, 2008 (2), Shteinberg et al, 1993 (3), Sauter and
Shah, 1978 (4), and Murphy and O'Brien, 1977 (5):I0 = 2.50 Log10(PGA) + 6.89
I0 = 2.97 Log10(PGA) + 6.71
I0 = 3.62 Log10(PGA) + 6.34
I0 = 2.86 Log10(PGA) + 6.96
11/26/2011

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

♦ 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

9

Results• For each of 1181 out of 1347

I0 (M)

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 achoice of established empirical relations.
I0(mPGA)
11/26/2011♦ 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

10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 tocount 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♦ 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

The contributors to GSHAP could haveevaluate the poor performance of theirproduct before its publication in 1999...

Aptikaev et al, 2008 (2), Shteinberg et al, 1993 (3), Sauter and Shah, 1978 (4), andMurphy and O'Brien, 1977 (5)11/26/2011♦ 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

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

11/26/2011♦ 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

13

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku,
also known as the 2011 Tōhoku earthquakeor 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 thecoast 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 powerfulearthquakes 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♦ 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

14

11/26/2011♦ 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

15

11/26/2011♦ 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

16

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

11/26/2011♦ 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

17

11/26/2011♦ 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

18

The color coded discrepancy, DI0, between actual and GSHAP predictedeffect at epicenters of strong shallow earthquakes in 1900-2009.
“Surprises” dominate, while “big surprises” (i.e., DI0 > 1) are widespreadthroughout all seismic regions worldwide.

60°

40°
20°
0°
-20°
-40°

-60°
-160°

11/26/2011

-120°

-80°

D0 ≤ 0.0

0.5

-40°

1.0

0°

1.5

2.0

40°

80°

120°

2.5

3.0

3.5  D0160°

♦ 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

19

“Top Twelve Deadliest Earthquakes, 2000-2011”
RegionSumatra-Andaman“Indian Ocean Disaster”
Port-au-Prince (Haiti)
Wenchuan (Sichuan, China)
Kashmir (North India andPakistan border region)
Bam (Iran)
Bhuj (Gujarat, India)
Off the Pacific coast of Tohoku(Japan)
Yogyakarta (Java, Indonesia)
Southern Qinghai (China)
Boumerdes (Algeria)
Nias (Sumatra, Indonesia)
Padang (Southern Sumatra,Indonesia)
11/26/2011

Date

М

Fatalities

DI0

26.12.2004

9.02278984.0

12.01.2010
12.05.2008

7.3
8.1

222570
87587

2.2
3.2

08.10.2005

7.7~860002.3

26.12.2003
26.01.2001

6.6
8.0

0.2
2.9

11.03.2011

9.0~3100020085
15824

26.05.2006
13.04.2010
21.05.2003
28.03.2005

6.3
7.0
6.8
8.6

5749
2698
2266
1313

0.3
2.1
2.1
3.3

30.09.2009

7.5

1117

1.8

(3847 missing)

3.2♦ 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

20

“Top Twelve Deadliest Earthquakes, 2000-2011”
M. Wyss, A. Nekrasova, V. Kossobokov Errors in Expected Human Losses Dueto Incorrect Seismic Hazard Estimates (2011, submitted to Natural Hazards)

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).

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

11/26/2011♦ 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

21

Comparison of maps
showing calculated
intensities (top) andmean damage (bottom)
for the 2001 Bhuj
earthquake (M8.0, left)
and the magnitude
implied by GSHAP(M6.1, right). The sizeof dots marking
settlements is
proportional to their
population and thecolor represents
intensity (top scale)and mean damage(bottom scale).

11/26/2011♦ 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

22

11/26/2011♦ 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

23

Conclusion:
Thus, a systematic and quantitative comparison of the GSHAP peakground 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 RISKEVALUATION 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 thebackground 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 andseismic risk is implemented to protect the public safety.
11/26/2011♦ 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

24

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 ofearthquakes 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).
11/26/2011♦ 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

25

“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 krøbi 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

General Conclusion
Based on the recent, enormous progressin 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 advancecatastrophic events.

11/26/2011♦ 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

27

Thank you!
”When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions”(William Shakespeare, 1564-1616)

11/26/2011♦ 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

28