The 1st Annual Meeting of the Strategic Chinese-Korean-Japanese Cooperative Program :Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Next Generation Map, Harbin, China

Current status of SeismicHazard Map in Korea
2011. 11. 25.

Jeong Soo JEON
Earthquake Research Center
Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM)

Background of Korean PSHM
 1995. 1. 17. Hyogo EQ. (M 6.9)
 1995. 12. 6. Countermeasure Act for Natural Disaster 1997. 12. 1st PSHM made by Ministry of Construction andTransportation (Supported by Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea)
 2004 Sumatra EQ. (M 9.1), 2005 Pakistan EQ.(M 7.6)

 2008. 3. 28. Countermeasure Act for Earthquake Disaster- Recommendation for renewal of PSHM every 5 years- Recommendation for supplying an Active fault map
 2009. 3. 1. ~ 2012. 8. 31.
Project Title : “Making an Active fault map and Seismic hazard map“- Principal Institute : KIGAM- Agency : National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)‘97 PSHM□ Seismic Source• Only using Historical & Instrumental
Earthquake Catalog• Without considering the geological &geodetical data
• Without considering the incompleteness ofhistorical earthquake catalog□ Path• Because of no adequate seismic attenuation
formula for Korean peninsula,• Using the attenuation formula of US Easternregion• Without considering the frequency
dependency
PGA(%g) with 10%
probability of exceedence
in 50 years□ Site effect• Without considering the site effectAnnual objects & contents of PSHM Project

Annualobjects

1st Year (2009)

2nd Year (2010)• Collect whole available
seismic data andinformation• Analysis of the previous
research results• Historical Earthquake Catalog• Collect and sensitivity
analysis of input parameters• Analysis the present
PSHMContents• Comparison with thevarious procedures
including foreigncountries method tomake Korean PSHM
• Operation of specialist
committee to develop
future research direction
and contents

Product• Operation of specialist
committee & holding thepublic hearing to make an
unified historical earthquake
catalog• Sensitivity analysis of the
input parameters for PSHM
• Collect & Analysis of the data
related to the site
amplification• Historical & Instrumental
Earthquake Catalog

3rd Year(2011)• Revision of PSHM

• Preparing the Logic tree &input parameter• Operation of specialist
committee & holding thepublic hearing to make an
PSHM• Collect & Analysis of thedata related to the site
amplification• National PSHM
• Site amplification map for
5 metropolitan cities

Procedure for PSHM

1. PSHM Methodology– Comparison with various PSHM Methodology
2. Sensitivity Analysis of Input Parameters– Historical & Instrumental EQ Catalog– Attenuation Formula– Intensity-Magnitude Conversion Formula– Depth, etc
3. Calculation of PSHM
– Applying Logic Tree method & Preparing the basic input
data/parameter– Open consensus-building process; Operation of specialists committee including the variety major; Holing the public hearing1. PSHM Methodology□ Evaluation of the Spatially Smoothed Method․ Criteria for seismic design(II), Ministration of Construction & Transportation,
Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea, 1997.
․ Peterson, M.D., and others, 2008, United States National Seismic Hazard Maps
․ Frankel, A. and others, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National SeismicHazard Maps

․ Frankel, A. and others, 1996, National Seismic Hazard Maps

□ Evaluation of the Seismic Zoninig Method․ Cornell, C.A., 1968, Engineering seismic risk analysis․ SSHAC, 1997, Recommendations for PSHM, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission report․ Klugel, 2009, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for nuclear power plants․ KOPEC, 2003, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for SHINWOLSONG 1&2 nuclearpower plant site.

1. PSHM Methodology
USGS PSHA Method
Fault Source

Point Source

Fault Information- Lat-Lon, Strike, Dip, Depth- Slip rate
- Maximum Capable EQ Magnitude

Earthquake Catalogue- Regional b-value- Maginitude-complteteness times

hazFX

hazgridX

Hazard Curves on a grid of lat-lon

Hazard Curves on a grid of lat-lon

hazallX

Ground Motion with specified annual frequency of excedence1. PSHM Methodology
Active Faults D/B

Contents : Name, Location, Fault
type, Strike/Dip, Length,
Displacement, Age dating,Lithology, etc

1. PSHM Methodology
Sensitivity Analysis of PSHM using by USGS Method- Slip Rate : 7.0 mm/year[Length: 10km, Mmax : 6.0]

[Length: 20km, Mmax : 6.5]

[Length: 50km, Mmax : 7.0]
*PGA[%g] for 50years

1. PSHM Methodology
Sensitivity Analysis of PSHM using by USGS Method- Slip Rate : 14.0 mm/year[Length: 10km, Mmax : 6.0]

[Length: 20km, Mmax : 6.5]

[Length: 50km, Mmax : 7.0]
*PGA[%g] for 50years

2. Input Data/Parameters□ USGS(2008); combine earthquakes from several (reformatted)
source catalogs, choose one preferred record for each
event that is listed more than once, and decluster to remove aftershocks
and foreshocks- Western North America(WNA) Catalog- Central & Eastern North America(CENA) Catalog□ Japan NIED(2009); Chronological Scientific Tables(自然科學硏究機構 國立天文臺 編)~1884 : Tatsuo Usami Catalog(宇佐美龍夫)- 1885~1925 : Tokuji Utsu(宇津德治)- 1926~: JMA

2. Input Data/Parameters□ Collection & Analysis of available earthquake list and research results- 嚴相鎬(1978), 金昭九(1978)- 鄭鳳一(1981)- 韓國動力資源硏究所(1983)- 朝鮮地震硏究所(1984, 1987)- 李基和(1985, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2006): 2,186 historical earthquake list
- 慶在福(1989, 2009): 2,113 historicla EQ. List
- 建設交通部(1997)- 國立防災硏究所(1999)- 原子力安全硏究院(2000)

朝鮮地震硏究所(1987)

李基和外(2006)

2. Input Data/Parameters□ Historical EQ D/B Construction- Collect all available lists & Publications- Collect EQ information from National & University D/B related to historical record- Adjacent countries D/B and List

2. Input Data/Parameters□ Setup specific criteria for- Unified Event List
- Epicenter determination- Intensity determination; Felt-area–Intensity relationship; according to the description for
Human & Animal
Building (castle, fortress, house, wall, etc)
Natural phenomenon (surface rupture,shaking, liquefaction, etc)

□ Operation of specialist committee- Confirmation above criterion- Review the final historical EQ catalog- Revaluation for the 64 big historical EQ□ Holding the public hearing to make anunified(acceptable?) historicalearthquake catalog

2. Input Data/Parameters
1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

KIGAM
KMA
LEE&YANGNKNORTH KOREA
건설교통부
KYUNG
EARLY
NEIC
ISC

Organization

Duration

KIGAM

02-08

~

2010-11-28

2437

KMA

1978-08-30~

2010-12-20

918

LEE&YANG

02-08~

1904-03-23

1928

NK

27-10

~

1985-12-23

1057

NORTH KOREA

1905-08-25~

1996-11-17

445

Ministry of Construction

27-00

~

1810-01-20

389

KYUNG

27-00

~

1810-02-19

449

EARLY

1913-05-12~1941-12-15

91

NEIC

1973-09-10~

2009-08-10

207

ISC

1905-08-25~

2009-05-01

849

데이터수857
918
66
766
445
1
1
91
207
849

No. of Events

3. PSHM Calculation

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4. Site Amplification

Seismic zonationsin an urban area

Minor hazards

E rthquake Ground Motion

Site effects

Dynamic Rupture(Source effects)

Earthquake By
Fault Movement

Wave Propagation(Path effects)

in an urban area

Serious hazards

4. Site Amplification
Current Site Classification Scheme in Most Codes– Western Region of US

Average Soil Prop
Soil Profile Type

Generic Description

Short-Period

Mid-Period

Z = 0.11 Z = 0.07

Z =0.11 Z = 0.07

Vs (Vs30) (m/s) Ca

Fa

Ca

Fa

Cv

Fv

Cv

Fv

SA (Site Class A)

Hard Rock> 1,500

0.09 0.82 0.05 0.71 0.09 0.82 0.05 0.71

SB (Site Class B)

Rock760 - 1,500

0.11 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.07 1.00

SC (Site Class C)

Very Dense andSoft Rock360 - 760

0.13 1.18 0.08 1.14 0.18 1.64 0.11 1.57

SD (Site Class D)

Stiff Soil

180 - 360

0.16 1.45 0.11 1.57 0.23 2.09 0.16 2.29

SE (Site Class E)

Soft Soil< 180

0.22 2.00 0.17 2.43 0.37 3.36 0.23 3.29

SF (Site Class F)

C : Seismic Coefficient
Short Period : 0.1 ~ 0.5 sec,

Soil Requiring Site-specific Evaluation

F : Site Amplification Factor
Mid-Period : 0.4 ~ 2.0 sec

Z : Seismic Zone Factor

4. Site Amplification
Modification of Site Classification

Criteria
Generic Description

Site Coefficients

Site ClassRockVS30 (m/s)

TG (s)

FaFv> 760

< 0.06

1.00

1.00

C1> 620< 0.101.28

1.04

C2> 520< 0.14

1.45

1.09

C3> 440< 0.201.65

1.13

C4> 360< 0.291.90

1.19

D1> 320< 0.382.08

1.23

D2> 280< 0.46

2.26

1.29

D3> 240< 0.542.48

1.36

D4> 180< 0.62

2.86

1.43

≤ 180

≥ 0.62

1.50

2.00

B

Weathered Rock and Very Stiff Soil
CIntermediate Stiff Soil

Deep Stiff Soil

Deep Soft SoilDE4. Site Amplification
For five metropolitan cities, Seoul, Daejeon, Gwangju, Daegu, Busan
125 º N

126 º N

127 º N

128 º N

129 º N

39 º N

39 º N

38 º N

38 º NSeoul
37 º N

37 º N

Daejeon36 º NDaegu
36 º N

Gwangju

35 º N

35 º N

BusanN

34 º N

34 º NW

ES

125 º N

126 º N

127 º N

128 º N

129 º N

• Building the geotechnical DB
composed of the existing borehole
drilling data and surface geoknowledge data
• Implementing the GIS-based
geotechnical information system for
spatial geotechnical (geo-) layers
using the geotechnical DB• Creating a variety of spatial zoning
maps for quantifying the site effects
in terms of the site period within GISbased tools• Annual Target Area
2010 : Daejeon, Gwangju
2011 : Seoul, Daegu, Busan

4. Site Amplification
Geotechnical database (2010)

Daejeon : Collecting more than 1,300 existing Borehole drilling data andacquiring about 300 surface goe-knowledge data for each target area
Kwangju : More than 1,900 borehole data and about 300 surface data

4. Site Amplification
Geotechnical database (2010)

Seoul : More than 10,800 borehole data & about 900 surface data
Daegu : More than 1,800 borehole data and about 300 surface data
Busan : More than 2,900 borehole data and about 200 surface data

4. Site Amplification
Depth to bedrock in Daegu- Maximum depth of deeper than 30m in Daegu basin
Depth toBedrock, H (m)
0.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
18.0
21.0
24.0
27.0
30.0
33.0

4. Site Amplification
Predominant site period in Daegu- 0.20 to 0.35 sec in plain and valleys(vulnerability for 2 to 4 storied buildings during EQ)- 100m x 100m Grid

Site
Period,TG (s)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.33

4. Site Amplification
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)

4. Site Amplification
Representative site classes for rapid response in Daegu- Site classes averaged with administrative sub-unit- Site classes C(C1 to C4) in most sub-unit => Significant seismic amplification

SiteClassB
C1
C2C3C4

Final Goal
Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program– Region 8 Eastern Asia

Thank You !!
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/static/GSHAP/eastasia/asiafin.gif