Comparison of epistemic uncertainty captured in probabilistic seismic hazard assessments for critical infrastructure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v5i1.1866Keywords:
seismic hazard, earthquake, epistemic uncertainty, SSHAC, fractiles, percentiles, critical infrastructure, nuclear power plantsAbstract
Site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessments (PSHAs) are fundamental for designing and evaluating critical infrastructure, e.g. nuclear power plants. However, PSHAs involve significant epistemic uncertainties.
This study compares epistemic uncertainties from thirty site-specific PSHAs, half of which followed the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) guidelines. Uncertainties were estimated for three intensity measures (IMs) at four annual frequencies of exceedances (AFEs), and for some sites, at both bedrock and target horizons. Four uncertainty metrics were used: mean-to-median ratio (R); log-ratio of the 84th and 16th fractiles (Unc); standard deviation of the fractiles assuming a lognormal distribution (σhaz); and a standard deviation of a R-based relationship (σµ).
Results show strong correlations amongst Unc, σhaz and σµ. R correlates well with σµ but only moderately with the others, likely due to asymmetry in the fractile distribution. Unexpectedly, uncertainties are often constant across AFEs and ground-motion levels but vary across IMs. SSHAC level has limited impact on uncertainty levels, though non-SSHAC studies show greater dispersion.
Results provide a benchmark for assessing appropriateness of uncertainty levels in PSHAs; however, the risk of ‘anchoring’ to previous studies must be considered. Routine estimation and documentation of total epistemic uncertainty are recommended, especially for critical infrastructure.
References
Adams, J., & Halchuk, S. (2019). Uncertainty spread in the 5th Generation seismic hazard results used in NBCC2015. 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Aldama-Bustos, G., Douglas, J., Strasser, F. O., Daví, M., & MacGregor, A. (2023). Methods for assessing the epistemic uncertainty captured in ground-motion models. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 21(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01515-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-022-01515-8
Aldama-Bustos, G., Tromans, I. J., Strasser, F., Garrard, G., Green, G., Rivers, L., Douglas, J., Musson, R. M. W., Hunt, S., Lessi-Cheimariou, A., Daví, M., & Robertson, C. (2018). A streamlined approach for the seismic hazard assessment of a new nuclear power plant in the UK. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0442-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0442-5
AMEC-Geomatrix. (2011). Seismic hazard assessment, OPG’s geologic repository for low and intermediate level waste, NWMO DGR‐TR‐2011‐20, revision R000.
Anderson, J. G., & Hough, S. E. (1984). A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(5), 1969–1993.
Arizona Public Service Company. (2015). Seismic hazard and screening report for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3, Revision 0, Arizona, USA.
Bender, B. (1984). Incorporating acceleration variability into seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74(4), 1451–1462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0740041463
Bommer, J. J., Coppersmith, K. J., Coppersmith, R. T., Hanson, K. L., Mangongolo, A., Neveling, J., Rathje, E. M., Rodriguez‐Marek, A., Scherbaum, F., Shelembe, R., Stafford, P. J., & Strasser, F. O. (2015). A SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a New‐Build Nuclear Site in South Africa. Earthquake Spectra, 31(2), 661–698. https://doi.org/10.1193/060913eqs145m DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/060913EQS145M
Bommer, J. J., & Scherbaum, F. (2008). The Use and Misuse of Logic Trees in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Earthquake Spectra, 24(4), 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2977755 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2977755
Budnitz, R. J., Apostolakis, G., Boore, D. M., Cluff, L. S., Coppersmith, K. J., Cornell, C. A., & Morris, P. A. (1997). Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. NUREG/CR-6372, Two Volumes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. https://doi.org/10.2172/479072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2172/479072
Cornell, C. A. (1992). An interim recommendation for DOE use of the LLNL and EPRI hazard curves. Appendix D in DOE standard DOE-STD-1024-92, Guidelines for use of probabilistic seismic hazard curves. Department of Energy Sites for Department of Energy Facilities.
de Almeida, A. A. D., Assumpção, M., Bommer, J. J., Drouet, S., Riccomini, C., & Prates, C. L. M. (2019). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a nuclear power plant site in southeast Brazil. Journal of Seismology, 23(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9755-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-018-9755-8
Douglas, J. (2018). Capturing Geographically-Varying Uncertainty in Earthquake Ground Motion Models or What We Think We Know May Change. In Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe (pp. 153–181). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_6
Douglas, J., Crowley, H., Silva, V., Marzocchi, W., Danciu, L., & Pinho, R. (2024). Methods for evaluating the significance and importance of differences amongst probabilistic seismic hazard results for engineering and risk analyses: a review and insights. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 22(6), 2769–2796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01896-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-024-01896-y
Douglas, J., Ulrich, T., Bertil, D., & Rey, J. (2014). Comparison of the Ranges of Uncertainty Captured in Different Seismic-Hazard Studies. Seismological Research Letters, 85(5), 977–985. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140084
Electric Power Research Institute. (2004). CEUS ground motion project final report [Technical Report 1009684]. EPRI Palo Alto, CA; Dominion Energy, Glen Allen, VA; Entergy Nuclear, Jackson, MS;
Energy Northwest. (2015). Seismic hazard and screening report for the Columbia Generating Station [Techreport].
Fujiwara, H., Ebisawa, K., Kagawa, T., Si, H., Furumura, T., Miyake, H., Morikawa, N., Shiota, T., Ogawa, H., Matsusaki, S., Miyakoshi, J., Sakai, T., & Kameda, H. (2024). Development of ground motion characterization model at the Ikata site based on guidelines for SSHAC level 3. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.5610/jaee.24.2_1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5610/jaee.24.2_1
IAEA. (2025). Non-ergodic Ground Motion Models for Site Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment at Nuclear Installation Sites, IAEA TECDOC series. In IAEA TECDOC Series. International Atomic Energy Agency. https://doi.org/10.61092/iaea.9f3l-atpr
INL. (1996). Site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Vol. 95) [Final Report INEL-95/0536, Volume 1]. Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Geomatrix Consultants.
INL. (2016). SSHAC Level 1 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the Idaho National Laboratory (Vol. 2) [Revision INL/EXT-15-36682].
INL. (2022). Idaho National Laboratory sitewide SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, INL/RPT-22-70233. Idaho National Laboratory.
Kulkarni, R. B., Youngs, R. R., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1984). Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1, 263–270.
Lapajne, J. K., & Fajfar, P. (1995). Seismic hazard assessment of an existing NPP in Slovenia. Transactions of the 13th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 13).
Liou, I., & Abrahamson, N. (2025). Framework for Aleatory Variability and Epistemic Uncertainty for the Ground-Motion Characterization Based on the Level of Simplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 115(1), 296–314. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120240141
NAGRA. (2004). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Swiss nuclear power plant sites (PEGASOS Project), prepared for Unterausschuss Kernenergie der Überlandwerke (UAK) by the Nationale Genossenchaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle (NAGRA), Final report. 1(6), 2557.
Nielsen, A. (2023). Updating the seismic design guidance for HMNB Clyde. SECED 2023 Conference: Earthquake Engineering and Dynamics for a Sustainable Future, 14-15 September.
Pacific Electric and Gas Company. (2015). Seismic hazard and screening report, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, PGandE Letter DCL-15-035, Diablo Canyon Power Plant [Techreport].
PNNL. (2014). Hanford sitewide probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. In Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, prepared for the U.S. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In Department of Energy, under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830, and Energy Northwest, PNNL–23361.
Scherbaum, F., & Kuehn, N. M. (2011). Logic Tree Branch Weights and Probabilities: Summing up to One is not Enough. Earthquake Spectra, 27(4), 1237–1251. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3652744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3652744
Schulte, S. M., & Mooney, W. D. (2005). An updated global earthquake catalogue for stable continental regions: reassessing the correlation with ancient rifts. Geophysical Journal International, 161(3), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2005.02554.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02554.x
Smith, C. E., & Murray, R. (1999). Development of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for offshore facilities in the Santa Barbara Channel. Proceedings of the 31st U.S.-Japan Joint Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, 140–155.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company. (2014). Seismic hazard and screening report - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant - Units 1 and 2, Enclosure 1 to SNC Letter, NL-14-0344 [Techreport].
Stamatakos, J. A., Watson-Lamprey, J., Cawthra, H. C., Claassen, D., Coppersmith, R. T., Johnson, C. B., Midzi, V., Montaldo Falero, V., Mulabisana, T. F., Rathje, E. M., Stafford, P. J., Ulmer, K., Largent, M., Williams, T., & Shaw, K. A. (2024). Enhanced SSHAC Level 2 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for the Duynefontyn nuclear site, Western Cape Province, South Africa [Report number: 2024-0001, Council for Geoscience, South Africa].
Stamatakos, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Cawthra, H., Claassen, D., Coppersmith, R., Johnson, C., Largent, M., Manzunzu, B., Midzi, V., Mulabisana, T., Murphy, D., Rathje, E., & Wooddell, K. (2022). Baseline PSHA for the Duynefontyn site and the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station [Report number: CGS-2022-0009, Council for Geoscience, South Africa].
Stepp, J. C., Wong, I., Whitney, J., Quittmeyer, R., Abrahamson, N., Toro, G., Youngs, R., Coppersmith, K., Savy, J., & Sullivan, T. (2001). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Ground Motions and Fault Displacement at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Earthquake Spectra, 17(1), 113–151. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586169
Swissnuclear. (2013). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Swiss nuclear power plant sites—PEGASOS Refinement Project (Vols. 1–6).
Toro, G. R. (2006). The effects of ground-motion uncertainty on seismic hazard results: examples and approximate results. Annual Meeting of the Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1322.2007
Toro, G. R., & McGuire, R. K. (1991). Evaluation of seismic hazard at the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant. Proceedings of the Third DOE Natural Phenomena Hazards Mitigation Conference, 157–165.
Tromans, I. J., Aldama-Bustos, G., Douglas, J., Lessi-Cheimariou, A., Hunt, S., Daví, M., Musson, R. M. W., Garrard, G., Strasser, F. O., & Robertson, C. (2019). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for a new-build nuclear power plant site in the UK. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0441-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0441-6
Ursic, M., Stritar, A., Vojnovic, D., & Mühleisen, A. (2005). Evolution of the NPP Krsko safety assessment due to seismic hazard. Proceedings of the Nuclear Energy for New Europe International Conference, 5-8 September.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1994). Revised Livermore seismic hazard estimates for sixty-nine nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains [Final Report]. NUREG-1488.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2018). Updated Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Hazard Studies [Report NUREG-2213].
Valentini, A., & Beltran, F. (2024). Mean‐to‐median spectral acceleration ratios in Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analyses: An analysis of reported results. Earthquake Spectra, 40(1), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231217003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231217003
Varpasuo, P. (2008). The update of the seismic probabilistic site hazard assessment for Loviisa NPP in Finland. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12-17 October.
Villani, M., Lubkowski, Z., Free, M., Musson, R. M. W., Polidoro, B., McCully, R., Koskosidi, A., Oakman, C., Courtney, T., & Walsh, M. (2020). A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Wylfa Newydd, a new nuclear site in the United Kingdom. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 18(9), 4061–4089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00862-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00862-8
Visakorpi, V. (2022). Sensitivity analysis of a seismic hazard assessment for a Finnish nuclear power plant. Master of Science in Technology, School of Science, Aalto University.
Weston Geophysical Corporation. (1996). Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment Gentilly 2 [AECB project 2.311.1].
Wong, I. G., Pezzopane, S. K., Abrahamson, N. A., Green, R. K., Sun, J. I., & Quittmeyer, R. C. (1996). A preliminary assessment of earthquake ground shaking hazard at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and implications to the Las Vegas region.
Wong, I., Silva, W., Olig, S., Dober, M., Gregor, N., Gardner, J., Lewis, C., Terra, F., Zachariasen, J., Stokoe, K., Thomas, P., & Upadhyaya, S. (2007). Update of the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and development of seismic design ground motions at the Los Alamos National Laboratory [Final Report]. URS Corporation.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Guillermo Aldama Bustos, John Douglas
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
