Modelling Pan-European ground motions for seismic hazard applications
- 30 Downloads
Ground motion models (GMMs) are a key component in seismic hazard assessment and in seismic risk analysis. The consideration of both aleatory and epistemic sources of variability may have significant influence on the results and are vital because of their influence on the over- or under-estimation of the final assessment of losses. Recent research has shown that the commonly used framework of weighted logic trees for the choice of GMMs is not necessarily the best suited to account for epistemic uncertainty. Recently, a simple and alternative procedure has been proposed in which a GMM suite is defined with only three representative models (lower, central and upper) derived from available median models. This alternative model is equivalent to the use of multiple models, provided the same range of epistemic uncertainty is sampled. The representative suite approach was applied to the European context for developing a Pan-European GMM for EC8 ground type B and normal or strike slip faulting style for its implementation in risk analysis of critical infrastructures Europe wide, within the framework of the European funded project INFRARISK. The proposed new Pan-European representative GMM is based on the most recent GMMs developed using the common RESORCE strong-motion database of European and Near and Middle East acceleration records. It is shown to perform well when tested against new ground-motion observations from the ESM-Engineering Strong-Motion database and even slightly better than other available GMMs. The procedure is efficient and transparent limiting the sample space to three GMMs and reducing both complexity of the modelling and computational efforts.
KeywordsGround-motion model Epistemic uncertainty Seismic hazard Seismic risk Pan-European
This study has been carried out in the framework of the European project INFRARISK (Novel indicators for identifying critical INFRAstructure at RISK from Natural Hazards. INFRARISK is funded by the European Commission’s FP7 programme, Grant Agreement No. 603960. Further information can be found at www.infrarisk-fp7.eu. The authors are grateful to the Associate Editor John Douglas, Graeme Weatherill, and one anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions that helped improving the manuscript and clarify some important points.
- CEN—Comité Européen de Normalisation (2004) European Standard EN 1998-1:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, Seismic action and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
- Douglas J (2018a) Capturing geographically-varying uncertainty in earthquake ground motion models or what we think we know may change. In: Pitilakis K (ed) Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe. 16th European conference on earthquake engineering-Thessaloniki. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 153–181Google Scholar
- Douglas J (2018b) Calibrating the backbone approach for the development of earthquake ground motion models. In: Paper presented at best practice in physics-based fault rupture models for seismic hazard assessment of nuclear installations: issues and challenges towards full seismic risk analysis, Cadarache, France, 14–16 May 2018, p 11. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/63991/. Accessed July 2018
- Kammerer AM, Ake JP (2012) Practical implementation guidelines for SSHAC level 3 and 4 hazard studies. NUREG-2117, Rev. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Luzi L, Puglia R, Russo E, D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Pacor F, Lanzano G, Çeken U, Clinton J, Costa G, Duni L, Farzanegan E, Gueguen P, Ionescu C, Kalogeras I, Özener H, Pesaresi D, Sleeman R, Strollo A, Zare M (2016) The engineering strong motion database: a platform to access Pan-European accelerometric data. Seismol Res Lett 87(4):987–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Musson RMW (1999) Determination of design earthquakes in seismic hazard analysis through Monte Carlo simulation. J Earthq Eng 3:463–474Google Scholar
- Paolucci R, Pacor F, Puglia R, Ameri G, Cauzzi C, Massa M (2011) Record processing in ITACA, the New Italian strong-motion database. In: Akkar S, Gülkan P, van Eck T (eds) Earthquake data in engineering seismology—predictive models, data management and networks. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- SSHAC [Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee], Budnitz RJ, Chairman, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Cluff LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. NUREG/CR-6372, Vol. 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Stafford PJ (2015) Variability and uncertainty in empirical ground-motion prediction for probabilistic hazard and risk analyses. In: Ansal A (ed) Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology vol 2, geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering vol 39. Springer, Cham, pp 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16964-4_4