Representation of Earthquake Ground Motions

  • Junbo Jia


It is noted that the most important parameters of an earthquake ground motions are its maximum motion, predominant period and effective durations [1]. However, different from other loadings, earthquake induced loading and ground motion cherish high uncertainties in these aspects, as well as, more broadly, on its occurrence, magnitude, frequency content and duration. The uncertainties come from many sources: the energy suddenly released during an earthquake is built up rather slowly through tectonic movements; historical records over a time span of a couple of hundred years do not provide a complete picture of the seismic hazard. Moreover, the rupture and faulting process during an earthquake is extremely complex and affected by many parameters that are difficult to predict [2].


Ground Motion Response Spectrum Strong Ground Motion Natural Period Earthquake Ground Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE, a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuëller GI (1991) Structural dynamics, recent advances. Springer, BerlinzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson Ed (2015) Termination of the response spectrum method (RSM), July 13, 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jia Junbo (2014) Essentials of applied dynamic analysis. Springer, HeidelbergzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yue QJ, Qu Y, Bi XJ, Kärnä T (2007) Ice force spectrum on narrow conical structures. Cold Reg Sci Technol 49(2):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schuster Arthur (1898) On the investigation of hidden periodicities with application to a supposed 26 day period of meterological phenomena. Terrestr. Magnet. 3:13–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuster Arthur (1900) The periodogram of magnetic declination as obtained from the records of Greenwich Observatory during the years 1871–1895. Trans Camb Philos Soc 18:107–135Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schuster Arthur (1906) The periodogram and its optical analogy. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 77:136–140zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Izuru Takewaki (2007) Critical excitation methods in earthquake engineering, 1st edn. Elsevier Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:4997–5009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brune JN (1971) Correction. J Geophys Res 76:5002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanks TC (1982) f max. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:1867–1879 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papageorgiou AS, Aki K (1983) A specific barrier for the quantitative description of inhomogeneous faulting and the prediction of strong ground motion. II. Applications of the model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:953–978Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weisstein EW (2011) Maximum entropy method, MathWorld—a Wolfram web resourceGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson JF (2003) Dynamics of offshore structures. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chopra AK (2000) Dynamics of structures: theory and application to earthquake engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanai K (1967) Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 35:309–325Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tajimi H (1960) A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earth-quake. In: Proceedings of the second world conference on earthquake engineering, vol 2, pp 781–798Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kubo T, Penzien J (1979) Simulation of three-dimensional strong ground motions along principal axes. San Fernando Earthq Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moustafa Abbas (2010) Identification of resonant earth-quake ground motion. Sӑdhanӑ (Indian Academy of Science) 5(3):355–371zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kanaji H, Hamada N, Naganuma T (2005) Seismic retrofit of a cantilever truss bridge in the Hanshin expressway. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen G, Wu J (2001) Optimal placement of multiple tuned mass dampers for seismic structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 127(9):1054–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li C, Liu Y (2004) Ground motion dominant frequency effect on the design of multiple tuned mass dampers. J Earthq Eng 8(1):89–105Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clough RW, Penzien J (1993) Dynamics of structures, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Der Kiureghian A, Neuenhofer A (1992) Response spectrum method for multi-support seismic excitations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 21:713–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bessason B (1992) Assessment of earthquake loading and response of seismically isolated bridges. PhD thesis, MTA-rapport 1991: 88, Norges Tekniske Høgskole, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hanks TC, McGuire RK (1986) The character of high frequency strong ground motion in space and time. Eng Mech 112:154–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73(6):1865–1894Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herman RB (1985) Letter to the editor? An extension of random vibration theory estimates of strong ground motion to large distances. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(5):1447–1453Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Biot MA (1932) Transient oscillations in elastic systems. PhD thesis No. 259, Aeronautics Department, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Biot MA (1943) Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology. Trans ASCE 108(1):365–385Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suyehiro K (1926) A seismic vibration analyzer and the records obtained therewith, vol 1. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Housner GW (1941) An investigation of the effects of earthquakes on buildings. PhD thesis, California Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Housner GW, Martel RR, Alford JL (1953) Spectrum analysis of strong motion earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 43(2):97–119Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    NEHRP (2009) NEHRP Recommended provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750), 2009 ed. Building Seismic Safety Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ASCE 7-05 (2006) Minimum design loads for buildings and others structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kumar M, Stafford PJ, Elghazouli AY (2013) Influence of ground motion characteristics on drift demands in steel moment frames designed to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct 52:502–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kumar M, Stafford PJ, Elghazouli AY (2013) Seismic shear demands in multi-storey steel frames designed to Eurocode 8. Eng Struct 52:69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brunesi E, Nascimbene R, Casagrande L (2016) Seismic analysis of high-rise mega-braced frame-core buildings. Eng Struct 115:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Clough RW, Benuska KL, Wilson El (1965) Inelastic earthquake response of tall buildings. In: Third world conference on earthquake engineering, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen WF, Lui EM (2006) Earthquake engineering for structural design, 1st edn. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2005) A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral acceleration and epsilon. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1193–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Baker JW, Cornell CA (2006) Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35(9):1077–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ISO19901-2 (2004) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteriaGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    NORSAR (1998) Seismic zonation for Norway, prepared for Norwegian Council for Building Standardization by NORSAR and Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gazetas G (2006) Seismic design of foundations and soil–structure interaction. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mylonakis G, Gazetas G, Nikolaou A, Michaelides O (2000) The role of soil on the collapse of 18 piers of the elevated Hanshin Expressway in the Kobe earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Iervolino I, Cornell CA (2005) Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of structures. Earthq Spectra 3:685–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Newmark NM, Blume JA, Kapur KK (1973) Seismic design spectra for nuclear power plants. J Power Div 99(2):287–303Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    NORSOK Standard N-003 (2004) Actions and action effects, Rev. 2, Oct 2004Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    ICC (2007) Standards Australia, structural design actions—earthquake actions in Australia, AS 1170.4-2007, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    China Net for Engineering Construction Standardization (2010) Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, GB 50011-2010. China Building Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    International Code Council (ICC) (2006) International building code, 5th edn. ICC, Falls Church, VAGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2009) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures. Rep. FEMA P-750, FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rodriguez-Marek AR, Bray JD, Abrahamson NA (2001) An empirical geotechnical seismic site response procedure. Earthq Spectra 17(1):65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Anbazhagan P, Parihar A, Rashmi HN (2011) Amplification based on shear wave velocity for seismic zonation: comparison of empirical relations and site response results for shallow engineering bedrock sites. Geomech Eng 3(3):189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Anbazhagan P, Sheikh N, Parihar A (2013) Influence of rock depth on seismic site classification for shallow bedrock regions. Nat Hazards Rev 14(2):108–121Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lee VW, Trifunac MD, Todorovska M, Novikova EI (1995) Empirical equations describing attenuation of peaks of strong ground motion, in terms of magnitude, distance, path effects and site conditions. Rep. No. CE 95-02, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kokusho T, Sato K (2008) Surface-to-base amplification evaluated from KiK-net vertical array strong motion records. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(9):707–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Anbazhagan P, Sheikh MN, Tsang HH (2010) Seismic site classification practice in Australia, China and India, suitability. In: Abraham R, Latheswary S, Unnikrishnan N (eds) International conference on materials mechanics and management, New Delhi, pp 189–197Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Boore DM (2004) Estimating V s (30) (or NEHRP site classes) from shallow velocity models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(2):591–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dobry R, Iai S (2000) Recent developments in the understanding of earthquake site response and associated seismic code implementation. In: Proceedings of GeoEng2000, international conference on geotechnical & geological engineering, Melbourne, Australia, pp 186–129Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dobry R, Ramos R, Power MS (1997) Site factors and site categories in seismic codes: a perspective. In: Power MS, Mayes RL (eds) Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on the national representation of seismic ground motion for new and existing highway facilities, Report NCEER-97-0010, May 29–30, San Francisco, pp 137–170Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Papageorgiou AS, Kim J (1991) Study of the propagation and amplification of seismic waves in Caracas Valley with reference to the 29 July 1967 earthquake: SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 81(6):2214–2233Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Chang SW, Bray JD (1995) Seismic response of deep, stiff soil deposits in the Oakland, California area during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Report. No. UCB/GT/95-06, Geotechnical Engineering, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Motosaka M, Nagano M (1997) Analysis of amplification characteristics of ground motions in the heavily damaged belt zone during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 26(3):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bozorgnia Y, Mahin SA, Brady AG (1998) Vertical response of 12 structures recorded during the Northridge earthquake. Earthq Spectra 14:411–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Richter CF (1958) Elementary seismology. WH Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Papazoglou AJ, Elnashai AS (1996) Analytical and field evidence of the damaging effect of vertical earthquake ground motion. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25(10):1109–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Elgamal AW, Liangcai H (2004) Vertical earthquake motions records: an overview. J Earthq Eng 8(5):663–697Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW (2004) The vertical to horizontal response spectral ratio and tentative procedures for developing simplified V/H and vertical design spectra. J Earthq Eng 8:175–207Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K (2016) Ground motion model for the vertical-to-horizontal (V/H) ratios of PGA, PGV, and response spectraGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kalkan Erol, Graizer Vladimir (2007) Multi-component ground motion response spectra for coupled horizontal, vertical, angular accelerations and tilt. ISET J Earthq Technol 44(1):259–284 (Paper No. 485)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Ay BO (2014) Compatible ground-motion prediction equations for damping scaling factors and vertical to horizontal spectral amplitude ratios for the broader European region. Bull Earthq Eng 12:517–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Gülerce Z, Abrahamson NA (2011) Site specific design spectra for vertical ground motion. Earthq Spectra 27:1023–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bommer JJ, Akkar S, Kale Ö (2011) Model for vertical to horizontal response spectral ratios for Europe and the Middle East. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(4):1783–1806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K (2004) Vertical to horizontal response spectra ratio and tentative procedures for developing simplified V/H and vertical design spectra. J Earthq Eng 8(2):175–207Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    NORSAR, Risk Engineering, Inc. (1991) Ground motions from earthquake on Norwegian continental shelf. Summary report, Report for Operatørkomite Nord (OKN), Stavanger, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    GB 50267-97 (1998) Code for seismic design of nuclear power plants. Ministry of Construction of People’s Republic of ChinaGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    ISO19901-2 (2016) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—part 2: seismic design procedures and criteria, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    JTG/T B02-01-2008 (2008) Guidelines for seismic design of high bridges. Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of ChinaGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Belstsos AS, Newmark NM (1960) Effect of inelastic behaviour on the rersponse of simple systems to earthquake motions. In: Proceedings of the second world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, pp 895–912Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Penzien J (1960) Elasto-plastic response of idealized multi-story structures subjected to a strong motion earthquake. In: Proceedings of the second world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Berg GV, Thomaides SS (1960) Energy consumption by structures in strong motion earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the second world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Naeim F (2001) The seismic design handbook, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publisher, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Wakabayashi M (1980) Design of earthquake resistant buildings. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Blume JA, Newmark NM, Corning L (1961) Design of multistory reinforced concrete buildings for earthquake motions. Portland Cement Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Clough RW (1955) On the importance of higher modes of vibration in the earthquake response of a tall building. Bull Seismol Soc Am 45(4):289–301Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2014) Reliability of offshore structures—current design and potential inconsistencies. OGP Report No. 486Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Spudich P, Chiou BSJ (2008) Directivity in NGA earthquake ground motions: analysis using isochrone theory. Earthq Spectra 24:279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lin YK, Zhang R, Yong Y (1990) Multiply supported pipeline under seismic wave excitations. J Eng Mech ASCE 116:1094–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong motion accelerograms: needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Akkar Sinan, Boore DM (2009) On baseline corrections and uncertainty in response spectra for baseline variations commonly encountered in digital accelerograph records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(3):1671–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Boore DM (2001) Effect of baseline corrections on displacements and response spectra for several recordings of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 91:1199–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
  100. 100.
    Iwan WD, Moser MA, Peng CY (1985) Some observations on strongmotion earthquake measurement using a digital accelerograph. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:1225–1246Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Yang J, Li JB, Lin G (2006) A simple approach to integration of acceleration data for dynamic soil–structure interaction analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:725–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zhou Y, Zhang W, Yu H (1997) Analysis of long-period error for accelerograms recorded by digital seismographs. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 17(2):1–9 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gupta VK (2009) Wavelet-based random vibrations in earthquake engineering (lecture). IIT Kanpur, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Gaupillaud P, Grossmann A, Morlet J (1984) Cycle-octave and related transforms in seismic signal analysis. Geo-exploration 23:85–102Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Pradeep N (2011) Analyzing the effect of moving resonance on seismic response of structures using wavelet transforms. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Heidari A, Salajegheh E (2008) Wavelet analysis for processing of earthquake. Asian J Civil Eng (Build Hous) 9(5):513–524Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Li Hongnan, Yi Tinghua, Ming Gu, Huo Linsheng (2009) Evaluation of earthquake-induced structural damages by wavelet transform. Prog Nat Sci 19(4):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Chanerley AA, Alexander NA (2010) Obtaining estimates of the low-frequency “fling”, instrument tilts and displacement timeseries using wavelet decomposition. Bull Earthq Eng 8(2):231–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Zhou T, Li Z, Jia J, Jia Z (2003) Dynamic response analysis of isolated seismic foundation structure under earthquake motion using wavelet transformation. Ind Constr 33(6):21–23Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Atik L, Abrahamson N (2010) An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. Earthq Spectra 26(3):601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Koduru SD (2010) Influence of spectral nonstationarity on structural damage. In: Proceedings of the ninth US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering, vol 8Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Cao H, Friswell M (2009) The effect of energy concentration of earthquake ground motions on the nonlinear response of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(2):292–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Albert B, Francis JN (2009) A first course in wavelet with Fourier analysis. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Bhattacharya S, Tokimatsu K, Goda K, Sarkar R, Shadlou M, Rouholamin M (2014) Collapse of Showa Bridge during 1964 Niigata earthquake: a quantitative reappraisal on the failure mechanisms. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kudo K, Uetake T, Kanno T (2008) Re-evaluation of nonlinear site response during the 1964 Niigata earthquake using the strong motion records at Kawagishi-cho, Niigata city. In: Proceedings of the 12th world conference on earthquake engineeringGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Yoshida N, Tazoh T, Wakamatsu K, Yasuda S, Towhata I, Nakazawa H, Kiku H (2007) Causes of Showa Bridge collapse in the 1964 Niigata earthquake based on eyewitness testimony. Soils Found 47(6):1075–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Iyama J, Kuwamura H (1999) Application of wavelet to analysis and simulation of earthquake motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:255–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Mukherjee S, Gupta K (2002) Wavelet-based characterization of design ground motions. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:1137–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Zhou Z, Adeli H (2003) Wavelet energy spectrum for time–frequency localization of earthquake energy. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 13:133–140Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Suárez LE, Montejo LA (2005) Generation of artificial earthquakes via the wavelet transform. Int J Solids Struct 42(21–22):5905–5919zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Chordati Amiri G, Asadi A (2008) New method for simulation earthquake records by using adapted wavelet. In: The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, BeijingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aker SolutionsBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations