The size of the logic tree within the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Version 3, Time-Dependent (UCERF3-TD) model can challenge risk analyses of large portfolios. An insurer or catastrophe risk modeler concerned with losses to a California portfolio might have to evaluate a portfolio 57,600 times to estimate risk in light of the hazard possibility space. Which branches of the logic tree matter most, and which can one ignore? We employed two model-order-reduction techniques to simplify the model. We sought a subset of parameters that must vary, and the specific fixed values for the remaining parameters, to produce approximately the same loss distribution as the original model. The techniques are (1) a tornado-diagram approach we employed previously for UCERF2, and (2) an apparently novel probabilistic sensitivity approach that seems better suited to functions of nominal random variables. The new approach produces a reduced-order model with only 60 of the original 57,600 leaves. One can use the results to reduce computational effort in loss analyses by orders of magnitude.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A., SilvaW. J., and KamaiR., 2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra30, 1025–1055.
2.
AllenT. I., and WaldD. J., 2009. On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (VS30), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 935–943.
3.
AmsallemD., and FarhatC., 2008. Interpolation method for adapting reduced-order models and application to aeroelasticity, AIAA Journal46, 1803–1813.
4.
AntoulasA. C., 2009. An overview of model reduction methods and a new result, Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Shanghai, 15–18 December 2009, 5357–5361.
5.
BaiZ., 2002. Krylov subspace techniques for reduced-order modeling of large-scale dynamical systems, Applied Numerical Mathematics43, 9–44.
6.
BennerP., GugercinS., and WillcoxK., 2015. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems, SIAM Review57, 483–531.
7.
BooreD. M., StewartJ. P., SeyhanE., and AtkinsonG. M., 2014. NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra30, 1057–1085.
8.
BozorgniaY., AbrahamsonN. A., Al AtikL., AnchetaT. D., AtkinsonG. M., BakerJ. W., BaltayA., BooreD. M., CampbellK. W., ChiouB. S.-J., and DarraghR., 2014. NGA-West2 research project, Earthquake Spectra30, 973–987.
9.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra, Earthquake Spectra30, 1087–1115.
10.
ChatterjeeA., 2000. Introduction to proper orthogonal decomposition, Current Science78, 808–817.
11.
ChiouB. S. J., and YoungsR. R., 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra30, 1117–1153.
EstevaL., 1967. Criteria for the construction of spectra for seismic design. Third Panamerican Symposium on Structures, Caracas, Venezuela (vol. 1082).
14.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2008. HAZUS-MH Estimated Annualized Earthquake Losses for the United States, FEMA 366, Washington, 53 pp.
15.
FieldE. H., JordanT. H., and CornellC. A., 2003. OpenSHA: A developing community-modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis, Seismological Research Letters74, 406–419.
16.
FieldE. H., DawsonT. E., FelzerK. R., FrankelA. D., GuptaV., JordanT. H., ParsonsT., PetersenM. D., SteinR. S., WeldonR. J.II, and WillsC. J., 2009. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 2053–2107.
17.
FieldE. H., ArrowsmithR. J., BiasiG. P., BirdP., DawsonT. E., FelzerK. R., JacksonD. D., JohnsonK. M., JordanT. H., MaddenC., MichaelA. J., MilnerK. R., PageM. T., ParsonsT., PowersP. M., ShawB. E., ThatcherW. R., WeldonR. J., and ZengY., 2014. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.104, 1122–1180, doi:10.1785/0120130164.
18.
FieldE. H., ArrowsmithR. J., BiasiG. P., BirdP., DawsonT. E., FelzerK. R., JacksonD. D., JohnsonK. M., JordanT. H., MaddenC., MichaelA. J., MilnerK. R., PageM. T., ParsonsT., PowersP. M., ShawB. E., ThatcherW. R., WeldonR. J., and ZengY., 2015. Long-term, time-dependent probabilities for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.105, 511–543, doi:10.1785/0120140093.
19.
GugercinS., and AntoulasA. C., 2004. A survey of model reduction by balanced truncation and some new results, International Journal of Control77, 748–766.
20.
HowardR. A., 1988. Decision analysis: practice and promise, Management Science34, 679–695.
21.
IdrissI. M., 2014. An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra30, 1155–1177.
22.
MayoA. J., and AntoulasA. C., 2007. A framework for the solution of the generalized realization problem, Linear Algebra and its Applications425, 634–662.
23.
MichaelA. J., MilnerK. R., PageM. T., ParsonsT., PowersP. M., ShawB. E., ThatcherW. R., WeldonR. J., and ZengY., 2014. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3): The time-independent model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.104, 1122–1180.
24.
National Institute of Building Sciences and Federal Emergency Management Agency (NIBS and FEMA), 2012. Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model Hazus®-MH 2.1 Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 718 pp.
25.
PetersenM. D., MoschettiM. P., PowersP. M., MuellerC. S., HallerK. M., FrankelA. D., ZengY., RezaeianS., HarmsenS. C., BoydO. S., FieldN., ChenR., RukstalesK. S., LucoN., WheelerR. L., WilliamsR. A., and OlsenA. H., 2014. Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2014-1091, 243 pp.
26.
PorterK. A., 2009. Cracking an open safe: more HAZUS vulnerability functions in terms of structure-independent spectral acceleration, Earthquake Spectra25, 607–618.
27.
PorterK. A., FieldE. H., and MilnerK., 2012. Trimming the UCERF2 hazard logic tree, Seismological Research Letters83, 815–828.
28.
PorterK. A., BeckJ. L., and ShaikhutdinovR. V., 2002. Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables, Earthquake Spectra18, 719–743.
29.
PowersP. M., and FieldE. H., 2015. Update to the National Seismic Hazard Model in California, Earthq. Spectra31, S177–S200.
SorensenD. C., and AntoulasA. C., 2002. The Sylvester equation and approximate balanced reduction, Linear Algebra and Its Applications351, 671–700.
32.
WaldD. J., and AllenT. I., 2007. Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97, 1379–1395.
33.
WillsC. J., and ClahanK. B., 2006. Developing a map of geologically defined site-conditions categories for California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96, 1483–1501.
34.
WillsC. J., GutierrezC. I., PerezF. G., and BranumD. M., 2015. A next generation VS30 map for California based on geology and topography, Bull Seis Society of America105, 3083–3091.
35.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2007. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 2007-1437 and California Geol. Surv. Special Rept. 203.
