in the early years of geotechnical earthquake engineering, the use of deterministic

seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) was prevalent. A DSHA involves the development of
a particular seismic scenario upon which a ground motion hazard evaluation is
based. The scenario consists of the postulated occurrence of an earthquake of a
specified size occurring at a specified location. A typical DSHA can be described as a
four-step process (Reiter, 1990) consisting of:

1. Identification and characterizarion of all earthquake sources capable of producing

significant ground motion at the site. Source characterization includes definition of
each source's geometry (the source zone) and earthquake potential.

2. Selection of a source-to-site distance parameter for each source zone. In most

DSHAs, the shortest distance between the source zone and the site of interest is
selected. The distance may be expressed as an epicentral distance or hypocentral
distance, depending on the measure of distance of the predictive relationships used
in the following step.

3. Selection of the controlling earthquake (in example the earthquake that is

expected to produce the strongest level of shaking), generally expressed in terms of
some ground motion parameter, at the site. The selection is made by comparing the
levels of shaking produced by earthquakes (identified in step 1) assumed to occur at
the distances identified in step 2. The controlling earthquake is described in terms
of its size (usually expressed as magnitude) and the distance from the site.

4. The hazard at the site is formally defined, usually in terms of the ground motions
produced at the site by the controlling earthquake. Its characteristics are usually
described by one or more ground motion parameters obtained from predictive
relationships of the types presented in Chapter 3. Peak acceleration, peak velocity,
and response spectrum ordinates are commonly used to characterize the seismic
hazard.
The dsha procedure is shown schematically in figure 4.5. Expressed in these four
compact steps, DSHA appears to be a very simple procedure, and in many respects
it is.

When applied to structures for which failure could have catastrophic consequences,
such as nuclear power plants and large dams, DSHA provides a straightforward
framework for evaluation of worst-case ground motions. However, it provides no
information on the likelihood of occurence of the controlling earthquake, the
likelihood of it occurring where it is assumed to occur, the level of shaking that
might be expected during a finite period of time (such as the useful lifetime of a
particular structure or facility), or the effect of uncertainties in the various steps
required to compute the resulting ground motion characteristics.

Perhaps most important, DSHA involves subjective decisions, particularly regarding

earthquake potential (step 1), that can require the combined expertise and opinions
of seismologist, seismic geologists, engineers, risk analysts, economists, social
scientists, and government officials. The broad range of backgrounds and often
divergent goals of such proffesionals can cause difficulty in reaching a consensus on
earthquake potential; among them the maximum credible eathquake (MCE), design
basis earthquake (DBE), safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), maximum probable
earthquake (MPE), operating basis earthquake (OBE) and seismic safety evaluation
earthquake. The MCE, for example, is usually defined as the maximum earthquake
that appears capable of occuring under the known tectonic framework. The DBE and
SSE are usually defined in essentially the same way. The MPE has been defined as
the maximum historical earthquake and also as the maximum earthquake likely to
occur in a 100-year interval. Many DSHAs have used the two-pronged approach of
evaluating hazards for both the MCE and MPE (or SSE and OBE). Disagreements
over the definition and use of these terms have forced the delay, and even
cancellation, of a number of large construction projects. The Committee on Seismic
Risk of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) has stated that terms
such as MCE and MPE "are misleading... and their use is discouraged" (Committee
on Seismic Risk, 1984).

Example 4.2
The site shown in Figure E4.2 is located in the vicinity of three independent seismic
sources represented by source zones 1, 2, and 3. Using a deterministic seismic
hazard analysis, compute the peak acceleration.

Solution
Taking the site as the center of a local x-y coordinate system, the coordinates of the
source zone boundaries (in kilometers) are given in parentheses. Source zone 1 is a
111 km long linear source zone that can produce a maximum magnitude of 7.3 at

any point along its length. Source zone 2 is an areal source zone of 5800 km2
capable of generating a magnitude 7.7 earthquake anywhere within its boundaries.
Source zone 3 is a point source that can produce a maximum magnitude of 5.0.
Following the four-step procedure described earlier:
1. The problem statement provides the location and maximum magnitude of each
source zone. In real DSHAs, this is often an extremely complex and difficult task.
2. The source-to-site distance can be represented by the minimum between the site
and any part of each source zone. On that basis, the distances are:

3. If the level of shaking is assumed to be adequately characterized by the peak

horizontal acceleration, an appropriate attenuation relationship can be used to
select the controlling earthquake. Using the relationship of Cornell et al. (1979),
developed with data from M=3.0 to 7.7 earthquakes at distances of 20 to 200 km in
the western united states

the PHA values generated by each of the source zones would be:

on this basis, the source zone 2 event would be selected as the controlling
earthquake. (Note; Though currently out of date, the Cornell et al. relationship is
used here because of its simplicity which will make a subsequent example on
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis much easier to understand.)
4. The hazard would be taken as that which would result from a magnitude 7.7
earthquake occuring at a distance of 25 km. This motion would produce a peak
acceleration of 0.57 g; other ground motion parameters could be obtained from the
predictive relationships described in Chapter 3.