@article{DouglasAkkarAmerietal.2014,
  author    = {Douglas, John and Akkar, Sinan and Ameri, Gabriele and Bard, Pierre-Yves and Bindi, Dino and Bommer, Julian J. and Bora, Sanjay Singh and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Derras, Boumediene and Hermkes, Marcel and Kuehn, Nicolas Martin and Luzi, Lucia and Massa, Marco and Pacor, Francesca and Riggelsen, Carsten and Sandikkaya, M. Abdullah and Scherbaum, Frank and Stafford, Peter J. and Traversa, Paola},
  title     = {Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East},
  series = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1570-761X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10518-013-9522-8},
  pages     = {341 -- 358},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {This article presents comparisons among the five ground-motion models described in other articles within this special issue, in terms of data selection criteria, characteristics of the models and predicted peak ground and response spectral accelerations. Comparisons are also made with predictions from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) models to which the models presented here have similarities (e.g. a common master database has been used) but also differences (e.g. some models in this issue are nonparametric). As a result of the differing data selection criteria and derivation techniques the predicted median ground motions show considerable differences (up to a factor of two for certain scenarios), particularly for magnitudes and distances close to or beyond the range of the available observations. The predicted influence of style-of-faulting shows much variation among models whereas site amplification factors are more similar, with peak amplification at around 1s. These differences are greater than those among predictions from the NGA models. The models for aleatory variability (sigma), however, are similar and suggest that ground-motion variability from this region is slightly higher than that predicted by the NGA models, based primarily on data from California and Taiwan.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DelavaudCottonAkkaretal.2012,
  author    = {Delavaud, Elise and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Akkar, Sinan and Scherbaum, Frank and Danciu, Laurentiu and Beauval, Celine and Drouet, Stephane and Douglas, John and Basili, Roberto and Sandikkaya, M. Abdullah and Segou, Margaret and Faccioli, Ezio and Theodoulidis, Nikos},
  title     = {Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe},
  series = {Journal of seismology},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Journal of seismology},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1383-4649},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z},
  pages     = {451 -- 473},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {The Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE) project, which began in June 2009, aims at establishing new standards for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in the Euro-Mediterranean region. In this context, a logic tree for ground-motion prediction in Europe has been constructed. Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) and weights have been determined so that the logic tree captures epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction for six different tectonic regimes in Europe. Here we present the strategy that we adopted to build such a logic tree. This strategy has the particularity of combining two complementary and independent approaches: expert judgment and data testing. A set of six experts was asked to weight pre-selected GMPEs while the ability of these GMPEs to predict available data was evaluated with the method of Scherbaum et al. (Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3234-3247, 2009). Results of both approaches were taken into account to commonly select the smallest set of GMPEs to capture the uncertainty in ground-motion prediction in Europe. For stable continental regions, two models, both from eastern North America, have been selected for shields, and three GMPEs from active shallow crustal regions have been added for continental crust. For subduction zones, four models, all non-European, have been chosen. Finally, for active shallow crustal regions, we selected four models, each of them from a different host region but only two of them were kept for long periods. In most cases, a common agreement has been also reached for the weights. In case of divergence, a sensitivity analysis of the weights on the seismic hazard has been conducted, showing that once the GMPEs have been selected, the associated set of weights has a smaller influence on the hazard.},
  language  = {en}
}