Ken	  XS	  Hao	  (郝 憲生)	  Hiroyuki	  Fujiwara	  (藤原広行）	  防災科学技術研究所1	 	Global Seismic Hazard Assessment
Program (1999) – Asia

Major earthquakes in East Asian region	

2	

Worst-case scenario of Mega-earthquakes recorded	
1952	  Pyeongyang,	  M 6.2 EQ North	  Korea	  1976 Tangshan M 7.8 EQ China, 240,000 deaths
1995 Kobe M 7.3 EQ Japan, 6400 deaths
1999 Chi-Chi M 7.6 EQ Taiwan, 2,415 deaths
2008 Wenchuan M 8.0 EQ China, 90,000 deaths
2011 Tohoku M 9.0 EQ Japan,19,000 deaths

NEXT	  unexpected	  event	  ?	  
｜ 	  Where	  /	  How	  large	  /	  within	  a	  Long-­‐term	  period	  (The	  verdict	  and	  prison	  sentenced	  to	  Seven	  scienGsts	  and	  oﬃcial	  for	  manslaughter	  in	  the	  2009	  L'Aquila	  earthquake	  	  <=	  Wrong	  targets!!	  	  Back	  Oﬀ	  	  !!)	3	CJK	  Web	  site	  for	  communica3on	  www.j-shis.bosai.go.jp/intl/cjk	
ConGnuously	  PracGce	  	  	   	  	  à	  	  	  Trilateral	  cooperaGve	  program	  	  enabling	  knowledge	  data	  exchange	  	  Supported	  by	  each	  individual	  counGes	  Goal	  	  	  	  	  	  	  à	  	  4	New	  Release	  	  	  www.j-shis.bosai.go.jp/intl/cjk	

←NIED-­‐TEM	  Website	  for	  communica3on	  	  ConGnuously	  PracGce	  	  	   	  	  à	  	  	  Trilateral	  cooperaGve	  program	  	  enabling	  knowledge	  data	  exchange	  	  Supported	  by	  each	  individual	  counGes	  Goal	  	  	  	  	  	  	  à	  	  5	]RQHVLQ&KLQDDQGDGMDFHQWDUHDV (X.	  Li,	  2011)	  	6HLVPRWHFWRQLF
HLVPRWHFWRQLF]RQHVLQ&KLQDDQGDGMDFHQWDUHDV6	1.	  PSHM	  Methodology(JEON,	  2011)	  	Active Faults D/B

Contents : Name, Location, Fault type,
Strike/Dip, Length, Displacement,
Age dating, Lithology, etc
7	What	  lessons	  we	  have	  learnt	  from	  the	  Tohuku	  M9	  earthquake.	  	  We	  did	  give	  the	  90%	  prob.	  in	  PSHA	  map,	  but	  	  Under-­‐esGmated	  M	  	  “The	  borderless	  world	  of	  Science”	  à	  enabling	  knowledge	  and	  data	  exchange	  each	  others.	  
SubducGon	  zones	  à	  Crossing	  border	  connect	  the	  world	  8	National seismic hazard maps for Japan	
Long term evaluation	

Probability of occurrence, magnitude, location	

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps
・Showing the strongmotion intensity with agiven probability, or theprobability with a givenintensity.
・Considering all possible
earthquakes.

Strong-motion evaluation	

Strong-motion, undergroundstructure	

Scenario Earthquake Shaking Maps	

・Showing	  the	  strong-­‐moOon
intensity	  around	  the	  fault	  	  for	  a	  speciﬁed	  earthquake.	  	  	  	9	Strong-motion maps considering low-probability earthquakes	

1,000 years	

10,000 years	

100,000 years	

How	  to	  give	  the	  warning	  or	  message	  to	  public,	  	  for	  unexpecGng	  event,	  or	  low	  probability	  but	  destrucGve	  events,	  	Major earthquakes on active faults and subduction zone with low-probability,	  10-­‐4	  ~	  10-­‐5	  . 	  	  Regarding the PSHA	  for low probability, at presen it is insufficient to evaluate the uncertainty for
low probability of	  M8-­‐class earthquakes and it is necessary to improve techniques for them.	

10	

How to reduce the variation of uncertainty• GMPE => PGA and PGV (now in PSHA, but, largevariance in values)• Requirement of a detail 3D velocity structure formodeling of high frequency.
• Fault Segment, geometry, mechanism• New concept we created on NIED-TEM meeting
PSHA =>(Japan) toreduce the variation.

11	Scenario Earthquake Shaking Maps	
The shaking maps are evaluated for 490 scenario earthquakes ofalmost all of major faults in Japan.	

SelecGon	  of	  a	  speciﬁed	  scenario	  is	  essenGal	  to	  make	  a	  shaking	  map.	  The	  basic	  policy	  of	  the	  selecGon	  of	  a	  scenario	  earthquake	  is	  that	  we	  choose	  the	  most	  probable	  case.	  	  For	  treatment	  of	  uncertainGes,	  we	  assume	  several	  cases	  of	  source	  model	  and	  compare	  the	  results	  of	  them	  to	  show	  deviaGon	  of	  strong-­‐moGon	  evaluaGon	  due	  to	  uncertainGes.	  

12	(JEON,	  2011)	  	4.	  Site	  AmpliﬁcaOon
Site classes based on predominant site period in Daegu- Site classes C(C1 to C4) in plains- Max 1.90 for Fa and 1.19 for Fv => Significant Seismic amplification

Site Class (Fa; Fv)
B (1.00; 1.00)
C1 (1.28; 1.04)
C2 (1.45; 1.09)
C3 (1.65; 1.13)
C4 (1.90; 1.19)

13	

(X.	  Li,	  2011)	  	6HLVPLF*URXQG0RWLRQ3DUDPHWHU=RQDWLRQ
0DSRI&KLQD
θLVVXHGLQ"²²ILIWKJHQHUDWLRQPDSILIWKJHQHUDWLRQPDSθ
7ZRWDEOHV
7ZRWDEOHV˖˖IRUDGMXVWPHQWRISHDNJURXQGDFFHOHUDWLRQDQG
VSHFWUDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFSHULRG7JZLWKVLWHW\SHV
3*$ J IRUVLWHW\SH,,

6LWHW\SHVdt,,,,,,,,9
6LWHW\SHV,,

7J˄ V˅]RQH]RQH]RQH,
,
,,,

,9
14	

1st-­‐order	  velocity	  layered	  model(1)	
Depth distribution of the upper surface of example layers	

Upper surface of the layer No.25(Vs = 2.1km/s)	

Upper surface of the seismic bedrock(Vs > 3.1km/s)	

15	  (Maeda,	  2012)	  	Characterized	  source	  model	  for	  the	  Nankai	  trough	  earthquakes	
• Source	  areas	  (	  14	  cases	  x	  3	  )	  u Single-­‐segment	  earthquake	  •••••Nankai	  (ANNKI:	  Mw	  8.5),	  	  Tonankai	  (ATNKI:	  Mw	  8.2),	  	  	  Tokai	  (ATOKI:	  Mw	  8.0),	  	  	  Hyuga-­‐nada	  (AHGND:	  Mw	  8.3),	  	  and	  along	  the	  trough	  (ATRGH:	  Mw	  8.1)	  	  	  3	  cases	  (a,	  b,	  c).	  
––––MulG-­‐segment	  earthquakes	  2-­‐segment	  rupture	  	  	3-­‐segment	  rupture	  	  	36	  hours/	  1	  scenario	  60000	  steps	  (120	  Hz)	  Itanium	  1.66GHz×256Core	  Memory	  130	  GB	  u MulG-­‐segment	  rupture	  simultaneously	  – 2-­‐segment	  rupture	  • Nankai	  +	  Tonankai	  (ANNI1:	  Mw	  8.7)	  • Tonankai	  +	  Tokai	  (ANNI2:	  Mw	  8.4)	  – 3-­‐segment	  rupture	  • Nankai	  +	  Tonankai	  +	  Tokai	  (ANNI3:	  Mw	  8.8)	  4-­‐segment	  rupture	  	  	– 4-­‐segment	  rupture	  • 3-­‐segment	  +	  along	  the	  trough	  (ANNI4:	  Mw	  8.9)	  • 3-­‐segment	  +	  Hyuga-­‐nada	  (ANNI5:	  Mw	  8.9)	  – Seismic	  moment	  are	  calculated	  using	  scaling	  model	  16	

Maps	  of	  Peak	  ground	  velocity	  (PGV)	  and	  	  Velocity	  response	  (Sv)	

(Maeda,	  2012)	  	the	  sedimentary	  wedge	  greatly	  contributes	  to	  the	  generaGon	  of	  long-­‐period	  ground	  moGons	
Maximum	

Median	InterquarGle	  range	  (IQR)	

Long-­‐period	  ground	  moGons	  in	  the	  Kanto	  basin	  are	  relaGvely	  large	  for	  most	  cases.	

Long-­‐period	  ground	  moGons	  in	  the	  Osaka	  and	  Nobi	  basins	  are	  greatly	  inﬂuenced	  by	  a	  few	  speciﬁc	  scenarios.	  	  

17	(X.	  Li,	  2011)	  	SHDNJURXQGDFFHOHUDWLRQPDSDQG
VSHFWUDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFSHULRGPDS

18	

3.	  PSHM	  CalculaOon(JEON,	  2011)	  	USGS(2009)- Construction of specialist committee to conduct the logic tree evaluation,
consisted of various major field- Now, finalizing the logic tree & preparing input data and parameters
19	Comparison	  of	  GEM’s	  PSHA	  and	  Loss	  calculaGon,	  Japan	  side	  has	  been	  working	  many	  areas	  diﬀerently,	  some	  over	  requirements	  in	  GEM,	  but	  needed	  in	  Japan,	  and	  some	  have	  not	  been	  ﬁnished	  yet.	  	
Source Model	

Stochastic
Events Set	

Rupture Model	

GMPE	

Prob.Seis.Haz.Map*	

◯	◯	

◯	

◯	

Sce.EQ.Shak. Map*	

◯	~	

◯	◯	

SiteAmp. Fac. Map*	

◯	~	

◯	~	

Sub.Stru.Map	

◯	~	

◯	~	

Expos.Population	

~	~	

◯	~	

Vulnerability	

△	~	

△	~	

Total Loss(NLIRO)	

◯	~	

◯	~	

* Mesh 1km2 -->	  	  250m2；J-SHIS done ◯； Going to △；NA ~ 	20	

Exisit Maps	PGA	PGA	PGV	  	  /	  PBV	  IJMA	  intensity	Probability ofExceedance	

in Expose Map Scale/t years 	 Mesh Size	

Updatebase	Probability yearly
Y= - ( ln(1-P) )/t	Return
periods
Years	

China	

PGA for a 10% 	

50	

1:5,000,000	 ? 10 year	

0.002	

475	PGA for a 2% 	50	

1:5,000,000	0.0004	

2475	

PGA for a 10% 	

50	

1:5,000,000	0.002	

475	

PGA for a 10% 	

50	

1:5,000,000	0.002	

475	

Korea	

PGA for a 39% 	

50	

1 x 1 km	

5 year	

0.01	

100~	

Korea	
Korea	
Japan	PGA for a 10% 	

200	

1 x 1 km	

5 year	

0.002	

475	PGA for a 10 % 	500	

1 x 1 km	

5 year	0.0002	

4800	

IJMA >= 6- Upper 	

30	250m2	yearly 	

IJMA >= 6- Lower 	

30	250m2	yearly	

IJMA >= 5- Upper 	

30	250m2	

yearly	IJMA >= 5- Lower 	

30	250m2	yearly	

PGV /PBV	IJMA for a 3%	

30	250m2	

yearly	0.00102	

985	

PGV /PBV	IJMA for a 6% 	30	250m2	

yearly	0.00206	

485	

PGV /PBV	IJMA for a 2% 	50	250m2	

yearly	0.0004	

2475	

PGV /PBV	IJMA for a 5% 	50	250m2	

yearly	0.0010	

975	

PGV /PBV	IJMA for a 10% 	

50	250m2	yearly	

0.002	

PGV /PBV	IJMA for a 39% 	

50	

250m2	

yearly	0.010	

475	
21	101	•The	  Tohoku	  earthquake	  brought	  to	  light	  much-­‐complicated	  quesGons	  to	  Japan	  as	  well	  as	  the	  world.	  By	  joining	  GEM..	  
we	  can	  share	  our	  experiences	  and	  lessons	  and	  work	  together	  on	  improved	  understanding	  of	  earthquake	  hazard	  and	  risk	  worldwide.	  

•“for	  GEM	  it	  is	  a	  great	  honour	  and	  pleasure	  to	  have	  a	  representaGve	  of	  both	  the	  Japanese	  scienGﬁc	  community	  as	  well	  as	  the	  Japanese	  government	  in	  the	  Governing	  Board	  from	  now	  on”.	

22	

convergent	Island	  arc	  around	  East	  Asian	  area	

PreparaGon	  for	  	  Un-expecting events	
Thank	  you	  for	  your	  aZenOon	

23