TY  - JOUR
A1  - Douglas, John
A1  - Akkar, Sinan
A1  - Ameri, Gabriele
A1  - Bard, Pierre-Yves
A1  - Bindi, Dino
A1  - Bommer, Julian J.
A1  - Bora, Sanjay Singh
A1  - Cotton, Fabrice Pierre
A1  - Derras, Boumediene
A1  - Hermkes, Marcel
A1  - Kuehn, Nicolas Martin
A1  - Luzi, Lucia
A1  - Massa, Marco
A1  - Pacor, Francesca
A1  - Riggelsen, Carsten
A1  - Sandikkaya, M. Abdullah
A1  - Scherbaum, Frank
A1  - Stafford, Peter J.
A1  - Traversa, Paola
T1  - 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
JF  - Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering
N2  - 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.
KW  - Strong-motion data
KW  - Ground-motion models
KW  - Ground-motion prediction equations
KW  - Style of faulting
KW  - Site amplification
KW  - Aleatory variability
KW  - Epistemic uncertainty
KW  - Europe
KW  - Middle East
Y1  - 2014
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9522-8
SN  - 1570-761X
SN  - 1573-1456
VL  - 12
IS  - 1
SP  - 341
EP  - 358
PB  - Springer
CY  - Dordrecht
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Delavaud, Elise
A1  - Cotton, Fabrice Pierre
A1  - Akkar, Sinan
A1  - Scherbaum, Frank
A1  - Danciu, Laurentiu
A1  - Beauval, Celine
A1  - Drouet, Stephane
A1  - Douglas, John
A1  - Basili, Roberto
A1  - Sandikkaya, M. Abdullah
A1  - Segou, Margaret
A1  - Faccioli, Ezio
A1  - Theodoulidis, Nikos
T1  - Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe
JF  - Journal of seismology
N2  - 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.
KW  - Logic trees
KW  - Ground-motion prediction equations
KW  - Expert judgment
KW  - Model selection
KW  - Seismic hazard assessment
Y1  - 2012
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z
SN  - 1383-4649
VL  - 16
IS  - 3
SP  - 451
EP  - 473
PB  - Springer
CY  - Dordrecht
ER  -