A Reliable Method for Determining the Tapered Minimum Magnitude in a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Document Type : Original Research Article


Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering faculty, Behbahan Khatam Alanbia University of Technology, Behbahan, Iran


One of the inputs of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is the minimum magnitude (mmin) of damaging earthquakes. Recent studies have shown that the choice of mmin can affect the results of PSHA. That is, if the mmin value is low, the PSHA will be overestimated. Therefore, it is important to choose the mmin value in such a way that earthquakes with greater magnitude than mmin have the capability to damage the structure. Obviously, the mmin depends on the characteristics of the structure and the earthquake. The mechanism of occurrence of earthquakes in each region is such that earthquakes with different characteristics can occur. Therefore, earthquakes with the same magnitude cause different levels of damage to the structure. This paper uses a tapered line instead of the cut-off magnitude for mmin. In this regard, we model The 3, 5, and 8-story intermediate concrete frame using Opensees software and perform time history dynamic analysis based on 246 earthquake accelerograms. The structural damage is assumed based on the drift ratio. The drift ratio of 0.004 is assumed as the limit state for the operational performance (OP) level. Using the non-uniform distance number, the mmin taper line is obtained as [4.5, 5.5]. This number can be used as the integral lower bound in the PSHA.


Main Subjects

  1. Motaghed, M. Khazaee, N. Eftekhari, and M. Mohammadi, “A non-extensive approach to probabilistic seismic hazard analysis,” Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 23, no. 3, Mar., pp. 1117-1124, 2023.
  2. Nicknam, M. Khanzadi, S.Motaghed, and A.Yazdani, “Applying b-value variation to seismic hazard analysis using closed-form joint probability distribution,” Journal of Vibroengineering, vol. 16, no. 3, May., pp. 1376-1386.‏ 2014.
  3. Bender and K. W. Campbell, “A note on the selection of minimum magnitude for use in seismic hazard analysis,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 79, no. 1, Feb., pp. 199-204, 1989.
  4. Halchuk, and J. Adams, “mmin − implicatons of its choice for canadian seismic hazard and seismic risk,” presented in 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, 2010.
  5. J. Bommer and H. Crowley, “The Purpose and Definition of the Minimum Magnitude Limit in PSHA Calculations,” Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 88, no. 4, May., pp. 1097-1106, 2017.
  6. A. Cornell and R.T. Sewell, (1987). “Equipment response in linear and non-linear nuclear power plant structures: Small magnitude versus design-type motion,”
  7. Yazdani, A. Nicknam, M. Khanzadi, S. Motaghed, “An artificial statistical method to estimate seismicity parameter from incomplete earthquake catalogs, a case study in metropolitan Tehran, Iran,” Scientia Iranica, Vol. 2, no. 2, Mar., pp. 400-409, 2015.
  8. Amini, M. Kia, and M. Bayat, “Seismic vulnerability macrozonation map of SMRFs located in Tehran via reliability framework,” Structural Engineering and Mechanics, vol. 78, no. 3, May. pp. 351-368, 2021.‏
  9. Shahbazi and B. Mansouri, “Grid Source Event-Based Seismic Hazard Assessment of Iran,” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering, vol. 45, pp. 1109-1119, 2021.‏
  10. Building & Housing Research Center, BHRC, Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Standard No. 2800, Publication PNS-253, 4rd Revision, 240, Tehran, Iran, 2015.
  11. Iranian National Building Code for Structural Loading-Standard 519, part 6, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Tehran, Iran, 2013.
  12. Iranian National Building Code for RC Structure Design, part 9, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Tehran, Iran, 2013.
  13. A. Cornell, “Engineering seismic risk analysis,” Bulletin of the seismological society of America, Vol. 58, no. 5,Oct., pp. 1583-1606, 1968.
  14. J. Budnitz, G. Apostolakis, and D. M. Boore, “Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts,” (No. NUREG/CR-6372-Vol. 1; UCRL-ID-122160). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States). Div. of Engineering Technology; Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (United States); Electric Power Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (United States); USDOE, Washington, DC (United States), 1997.
  15. Plan and Budget organization of iran, Guideline for Seismic Hazard Analysis, NO, 626, 2015.
  16. Motaghed, M. Khazaee, , and M. Mohammadi, “The b-value estimation based on the artificial statistical method for Iran Kope-Dagh seismic province,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, vol. 14, no.15, Jul. pp.1461,‏ 2021.
  17. L. Bernreuter, J. B. Savy, , and R. W. Mensing, “Seismic hazard characterization of the Eastern United States: comparative evaluation of the LLNL and EPRI studies,” (No. NUREG/CR--4885). Lawrence Livermore National Lab, 1987.
  18. Z. Dehkordi, R. Abdipour, S. Motaghed, A. K. Charkh, H. Sina, , and M. S. Shahid Zad, “Reinforced concrete frame failure prediction using neural network algorithm,” Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 5, May., pp. 498-501, 2012.‏
  19. Beauval, and O. Scotti, “Quantifying sensitivities of PSHA for France to earthquake catalog uncertainties, truncation of ground-motion variability, and magnitude limits,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 94, no.5, Oct., pp.1579-1594, 2004.
  20. J. Bommer, P. J. Stafford, J. E.Alarcón, , and S. Akkar, “The influence of magnitude range on empirical ground-motion prediction,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 2152-2170, 2007.
  21. Motaghed, A. Yazdani, A. Nicknam, and M. Khanzadi, “Sobol sensitivity generalization for engineering and science applications,” Journal of Modeling in Engineering, vol. 16, no. 54, Oct. pp. 217-226, 2018.‏
  22. Chiou, B., Youngs, R., Abrahamson, N., & Addo, K. (2010). “Ground-motion attenuation model for small-to-moderate shallow crustal earthquakes in California and its implications on regionalization of ground-motion prediction models,” Earthquake spectra, 26(4), 907-926.
  23. Reiter, “Earthquake hazard analysis: issues and insights,” vol. 22, no. 3, New York: Columbia University Press, p. 254, 1990.
  24. L. Kramer, Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Pearson Education India, 1996.‏
  25. Motaghed, M. S. Shahid zadeh, A. khooshecharkh, and M. Askari, “Implementation of AI for The Prediction of Failures of Reinforced Concrete Frames,” International Journal of Reliability, Risk and Safety: Theory and Application, vol. 5, no. 2, Dec., pp. 1-7, 2022.
  26. Mehrabi Moghadam, A. Yazdani, and S. Motaghed, “Considering the Yielding Displacement Uncertainty in Reliability of Mid-Rise RC Structures,” Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering, vol. 10, no. 3, Aug., pp. 141-157, 2022.
  27. Moradi Tayebi, S. Motaghed, and R. Dastanian, “Nature Evaluation and Time Series Prediction of Tehran Earthquakes,” Modares civil engineering journal, vol. 20, no. 3 , Oct., pp. 147–160, 2020.