Refine
Year of publication
Language
- English (70)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (70)
Keywords
- site effects (5)
- KiK-net (4)
- earthquake (3)
- Aleatory variability (2)
- Earthquake hazards (2)
- Epistemic uncertainty (2)
- Europe (2)
- GMPE (2)
- Ground-motion prediction equations (2)
- HVSR (2)
The use of ground-motion-prediction equations to estimate ground shaking has become a very popular approach for seismic-hazard assessment, especially in the framework of a logic-tree approach. Owing to the large number of existing published ground-motion models, however, the selection and ranking of appropriate models for a particular target area often pose serious practical problems. Here we show how observed around-motion records can help to guide this process in a systematic and comprehensible way. A key element in this context is a new, likelihood based, goodness-of-fit measure that has the property not only to quantify the model fit but also to measure in some degree how well the underlying statistical model assumptions are met. By design, this measure naturally scales between 0 and 1, with a value of 0.5 for a situation in which the model perfectly matches the sample distribution both in terms of mean and standard deviation. We have used it in combination with other goodness-of-fit measures to derive a simple classification scheme to quantify how well a candidate ground-rnotion-prediction equation models a particular set of observed-response spectra. This scheme is demonstrated to perform well in recognizing a number of popular ground-motion models from their rock-site- recording, subsets. This indicates its potential for aiding the assignment of logic-tree weights in a consistent and reproducible way. We have applied our scheme to the border region of France, Germany, and Switzerland where the M-w 4.8 St. Die earthquake of 22 February 2003 in eastern France recently provided a small set of observed-response spectra. These records are best modeled by the ground-motion-prediction equation of Berge-Thierry et al. (2003), which is based on the analysis of predominantly European data. The fact that the Swiss model of Bay et al. (2003) is not able to model the observed records in an acceptable way may indicate general problems arising from the use of weak-motion data for strong-motion prediction
One of the major challenges in engineering seismology is the reliable prediction of site-specific ground motion for particular earthquakes, observed at specific distances. For larger events, a special problem arises, at short distances, with the source-to-site distance measure, because distance metrics based on a point-source model are no longer appropriate. As a consequence, different attenuation relations differ in the distance metric that they use. In addition to being a source of confusion, this causes problems to quantitatively compare or combine different ground- motion models; for example, in the context of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, in cases where ground-motion models with different distance metrics occupy neighboring branches of a logic tree. In such a situation, very crude assumptions about source sizes and orientations often have to be used to be able to derive an estimate of the particular metric required. Even if this solves the problem of providing a number to put into the attenuation relation, a serious problem remains. When converting distance measures, the corresponding uncertainties map onto the estimated ground motions according to the laws of error propagation. To make matters worse, conversion of distance metrics can cause the uncertainties of the adapted ground-motion model to become magnitude and distance dependent, even if they are not in the original relation. To be able to treat this problem quantitatively, the variability increase caused by the distance metric conversion has to be quantified. For this purpose, we have used well established scaling laws to determine explicit distance conversion relations using regression analysis on simulated data. We demonstrate that, for all practical purposes, most popular distance metrics can be related to the Joyner-Boore distance using models based on gamma distributions to express the shape of some "residual function." The functional forms are magnitude and distance dependent and are expressed as polynomials. We compare the performance of these relations with manually derived individual distance estimates for the Landers, the Imperial Valley, and the Chi-Chi earthquakes
Composite ground-motion models and logic trees: Methodology, sensitivities, and uncertainties
(2005)
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
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
The estimation of minimum-misfit stochastic models from empirical ground-motion prediction equations
(2006)
In areas of moderate to low seismic activity there is commonly a lack of recorded strong ground motion. As a consequence, the prediction of ground motion expected for hypothetical future earthquakes is often performed by employing empirical models from other regions. In this context, Campbell's hybrid empirical approach (Campbell, 2003, 2004) provides a methodological framework to adapt ground-motion prediction equations to arbitrary target regions by using response spectral host-to-target-region-conversion filters. For this purpose, the empirical ground-motion prediction equation has to be quantified in terms of a stochastic model. The problem we address here is how to do this in a systematic way and how to assess the corresponding uncertainties. For the determination of the model parameters we use a genetic algorithm search. The stochastic model spectra were calculated by using a speed-optimized version of SMSIM (Boore, 2000). For most of the empirical ground-motion models, we obtain sets of stochastic models that match the empirical models within the full magnitude and distance ranges of their generating data sets fairly well. The overall quality of fit and the resulting model parameter sets strongly depend on the particular choice of the distance metric used for the stochastic model. We suggest the use of the hypocentral distance metric for the stochastic Simulation of strong ground motion because it provides the lowest-misfit stochastic models for most empirical equations. This is in agreement with the results of two recent studies of hypocenter locations in finite-source models which indicate that hypocenters are often located close to regions of large slip (Mai et al., 2005; Manighetti et al., 2005). Because essentially all empirical ground-motion prediction equations contain data from different geographical regions, the model parameters corresponding to the lowest-misfit stochastic models cannot necessarily be expected to represent single, physically realizable host regions but to model the generating data sets in an average way. In addition, the differences between the lowest-misfit stochastic models and the empirical ground-motion prediction equation are strongly distance, magnitude, and frequency dependent, which, according to the laws of uncertainty propagation, will increase the variance of the corresponding hybrid empirical model predictions (Scherbaum et al., 2005). As a consequence, the selection of empirical ground-motion models for host-to-target-region conversions requires considerable judgment of the ground-motion analyst
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.
Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE) are essential in probabilistic seismic hazard studies for estimating the ground motions generated by the seismic sources. In low-seismicity regions, only weak motions are available during the lifetime of accelerometric networks, and the equations selected for the probabilistic studies are usually models established from foreign data. Although most GMPEs have been developed for magnitudes 5 and above, the minimum magnitude often used in probabilistic studies in low-seismicity regions is smaller. Disaggregations have shown that, at return periods of engineering interest, magnitudes less than 5 may be contributing to the hazard. This paper presents the testing of several GMPEs selected in current international and national probabilistic projects against weak motions recorded in France (191 recordings with source-site distances up to 300 km, 3:8 <= M-w <= 4:5). The method is based on the log-likelihood value proposed by Scherbaum et al. (2009). The best-fitting models (approximately 2:5 <= LLH <= 3:5) over the whole frequency range are the Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008), Akkar and Bommer (2010), and Abrahamson and Silva (2008) models. No significant regional variation of ground motions is highlighted, and the magnitude scaling could be the predominant factor in the control of ground-motion amplitudes. Furthermore, we take advantage of a rich Japanese dataset to run tests on randomly selected low-magnitude subsets, and confirm that a dataset of similar to 190 observations, the same size as the French dataset, is large enough to obtain stable LLH estimates. Additionally we perform the tests against larger magnitudes (5-7) from the Japanese dataset. The ranking of models is partially modified, indicating a magnitude scaling effect for some of the models, and showing that extrapolating testing results obtained from low-magnitude ranges to higher magnitude ranges is not straightforward.