@article{BommerAbrahamsonStrasseretal.2004, author = {Bommer, Julian J. and Abrahamson, Norman A. and Strasser, F. O. and Pecker, Alain and Bard, Pierre-Yves and Bungum, Hilmar and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and F{\"a}h, Donat and Sabetta, F. and Scherbaum, Frank and Studer, Jost}, title = {The challenge of defining upper bounds on earthquake ground motions}, issn = {0895-0695}, year = {2004}, language = {en} } @article{MussonToroCoppersmithetal.2005, author = {Musson, R. M. W. and Toro, G. R. and Coppersmith, Kevin J. and Bommer, Julian J. and Deichmann, N. and Bungum, Hilmar and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Scherbaum, Frank and Slejko, Dario and Abrahamson, Norman A.}, title = {Evaluating hazard results for Switzerland and how not to do it : a discussion of "Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants" by J-U Klugel}, year = {2005}, abstract = {The PEGASOS project was a major international seismic hazard study, one of the largest ever conducted anywhere in the world, to assess seismic hazard at four nuclear power plant sites in Switzerland. Before the report of this project has become publicly available, a paper attacking both methodology and results has appeared. Since the general scientific readership may have difficulty in assessing this attack in the absence of the report being attacked, we supply a response in the present paper. The bulk of the attack, besides some misconceived arguments about the role of uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis, is carried by some exercises that purport to be validation exercises. In practice, they are no such thing; they are merely independent sets of hazard calculations based on varying assumptions and procedures, often rather questionable, which come up with various different answers which have no particular significance. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved}, language = {en} } @article{ScherbaumBommerBungumetal.2005, author = {Scherbaum, Frank and Bommer, Julian J. and Bungum, Hilmar and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Abrahamson, Norman A.}, title = {Composite ground-motion models and logic trees: Methodology, sensitivities, and uncertainties}, issn = {0037-1106}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Logic trees have become a popular tool in seismic hazard studies. Commonly, the models corresponding to the end branches of the complete logic tree in a probabalistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) are treated separately until the final calculation of the set of hazard curves. This comes at the price that information regarding sensitivities and uncertainties in the ground-motion sections of the logic tree are only obtainable after disaggregation. Furthermore, from this end-branch model perspective even the designers of the logic tree cannot directly tell what ground-motion scenarios most likely would result from their logic trees for a given earthquake at a particular distance, nor how uncertain these scenarios might be or how they would be affected by the choices of the hazard analyst. On the other hand, all this information is already implicitly present in the logic tree. Therefore, with the ground-motion perspective that we propose in the present article, we treat the ground-motion sections of a complete logic tree for seismic hazard as a single composite model representing the complete state-of-knowledge-and-belief of a particular analyst on ground motion in a particular target region. We implement this view by resampling the ground-motion models represented in the ground-motion sections of the logic tree by Monte Carlo simulation (separately for the median values and the sigma values) and then recombining the sets of simulated values in proportion to their logic-tree branch weights. The quantiles of this resampled composite model provide the hazard analyst and the decision maker with a simple, clear, and quantitative representation of the overall physical meaning of the ground-motion section of a logic tree and the accompanying epistemic uncertainty. Quantiles of the composite model also provide an easy way to analyze the sensitivities and uncertainties related to a given logic-tree model. We illustrate this for a composite ground- motion model for central Europe. Further potential fields of applications are seen wherever individual best estimates of ground motion have to be derived from a set of candidate models, for example, for hazard rnaps, sensitivity studies, or for modeling scenario earthquakes}, language = {en} } @article{BommerScherbaumBungumetal.2005, author = {Bommer, Julian J. and Scherbaum, Frank and Bungum, Hilmar and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Sabetta, F. and Abrahamson, Norman A.}, title = {On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis}, issn = {0037-1106}, year = {2005}, abstract = {Logic trees are widely used in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis as a tool to capture the epistemic uncertainty associated with the seismogenic sources and the ground-motion prediction models used in estimating the hazard. Combining two or more ground-motion relations within a logic tree will generally require several conversions to be made, because there are several definitions available for both the predicted ground-motion parameters and the explanatory parameters within the predictive ground-motion relations. Procedures for making conversions for each of these factors are presented, using a suite of predictive equations in current use for illustration. The sensitivity of the resulting ground-motion models to these conversions is shown to be pronounced for some of the parameters, especially the measure of source-to-site distance, highlighting the need to take into account any incompatibilities among the selected equations. Procedures are also presented for assigning weights to the branches in the ground-motion section of the logic tree in a transparent fashion, considering both intrinsic merits of the individual equations and their degree of applicability to the particular application}, language = {en} } @article{AlAtikAbrahamsonBommeretal.2010, author = {Al Atik, Linda and Abrahamson, Norman A. and Bommer, Julian J. and Scherbaum, Frank and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Kuehn, Nicolas}, title = {The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components}, issn = {0895-0695}, doi = {10.1785/gssrl.81.5.794}, year = {2010}, language = {en} } @article{BommerDouglasScherbaumetal.2010, author = {Bommer, Julian J. and Douglas, John and Scherbaum, Frank and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre and Bungum, Hilmar and Faeh, Donat}, title = {On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis}, issn = {0895-0695}, doi = {10.1785/gssrl.81.5.783}, year = {2010}, language = {en} } @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{RodriguezMarekRathjeBommeretal.2014, author = {Rodriguez-Marek, A. and Rathje, E. M. and Bommer, Julian J. and Scherbaum, Frank and Stafford, P. J.}, title = {Application of single-station sigma and site-response characterization in a probabilistic Seismic-Hazard analysis for new uclear site}, series = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America}, volume = {104}, journal = {Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America}, number = {4}, publisher = {Seismological Society of America}, address = {Albany}, issn = {0037-1106}, doi = {10.1785/0120130196}, pages = {1601 -- 1619}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Aleatory variability in ground-motion prediction, represented by the standard deviation (sigma) of a ground-motion prediction equation, exerts a very strong influence on the results of probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis (PSHA). This is especially so at the low annual exceedance frequencies considered for nuclear facilities; in these cases, even small reductions in sigma can have a marked effect on the hazard estimates. Proper separation and quantification of aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty can lead to defensible reductions in sigma. One such approach is the single-station sigma concept, which removes that part of sigma corresponding to repeatable site-specific effects. However, the site-to-site component must then be constrained by site-specific measurements or else modeled as epistemic uncertainty and incorporated into the modeling of site effects. The practical application of the single-station sigma concept, including the characterization of the dynamic properties of the site and the incorporation of site-response effects into the hazard calculations, is illustrated for a PSHA conducted at a rock site under consideration for the potential construction of a nuclear power plant.}, language = {en} } @article{BommerCoppersmithCoppersmithetal.2015, author = {Bommer, Julian J. and Coppersmith, Kevin J. and Coppersmith, Ryan T. and Hanson, Kathryn L. and Mangongolo, Azangi and Neveling, Johann and Rathje, Ellen M. and Rodriguez-Marek, Adrian and Scherbaum, Frank and Shelembe, Refilwe and Stafford, Peter J. and Strasser, Fleur O.}, title = {A SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a New-Build Nuclear Site in South Africa}, series = {Earthquake spectra : the professional journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute}, volume = {31}, journal = {Earthquake spectra : the professional journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute}, number = {2}, publisher = {Earthquake Engineering Research Institute}, address = {Oakland}, issn = {8755-2930}, doi = {10.1193/060913EQS145M}, pages = {661 -- 698}, year = {2015}, abstract = {A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis has been conducted for a potential nuclear power plant site on the coast of South Africa, a country of low-to-moderate seismicity. The hazard study was conducted as a SSHAC Level 3 process, the first application of this approach outside North America. Extensive geological investigations identified five fault sources with a non-zero probability of being seismogenic. Five area sources were defined for distributed seismicity, the least active being the host zone for which the low recurrence rates for earthquakes were substantiated through investigations of historical seismicity. Empirical ground-motion prediction equations were adjusted to a horizon within the bedrock at the site using kappa values inferred from weak-motion analyses. These adjusted models were then scaled to create new equations capturing the range of epistemic uncertainty in this region with no strong motion recordings. Surface motions were obtained by convolving the bedrock motions with site amplification functions calculated using measured shear-wave velocity profiles.}, language = {en} }