The Challenge of Defining Upper Bounds on Earthquake Ground Motions

Bommer, Julian J.; Abrahamson, Norman A.; Strasser, Fleur O.; Pecker, Alain; Bard, Pierre‐Yves; Bungum, Hilmar; Cotton, Fabrice; Fäh, Donat; Sabetta, Fabio; Scherbaum, Frank; Studer, Jost A.

doi:10.1785/gssrl.75.1.82

Cited by 121 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is now common to have ground-motion data points with at least three standard deviations (3r; e = 3) above the logarithmic mean (Bommer et al 2004). Therefore, this could be one reason for the limitation at e max = 3, as it is used e.g.…”

Section: Limitation Of the Ground-motion Residualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability

Grünthal

Stromeyer

Bosse

et al. 2018

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The basic seismic load parameters for the upcoming national design regulation for DIN EN 1998-1/NA result from the reassessment of the seismic hazard supported by the German Institution for Civil Engineering (DIBt). This 2016 version of the national seismic hazard assessment for Germany is based on a comprehensive involvement of all accessible uncertainties in models and parameters and includes the provision of a rational framework for integrating ranges of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities in a comprehensive and transparent way. The developed seismic hazard model incorporates significant improvements over previous versions. It is based on updated and extended databases, it includes robust methods to evolve sets of models representing epistemic uncertainties, and a selection of the latest generation of ground motion prediction equations. The new earthquake model is presented here, which consists of a logic tree with 4040 end branches and essential innovations employed for a realistic approach. The output specifications were designed according to the user oriented needs as suggested by two review teams supervising the entire project. Seismic load parameters, for rock conditions of v S30 = 800 m/s, are calculated for three hazard levels (10, 5 and 2% probability of occurrence or exceedance within 50 years) and delivered in the form of uniform hazard spectra, within the spectral period range 0.02-3 s, and seismic hazard maps for peak

show abstract

Section: Limitation Of the Ground-motion Residualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability

Grünthal

Stromeyer

Bosse

et al. 2018

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The necessity of an upper bound of the ground motion, as well as the difficulties related to its determination are summarized in Bommer et al (2004). Strasser et al (2004) proposed the truncation of the distribution of residuals at a level of three standard deviations above the median as a measure to prevent the effect of unbounded normal distribution.…”

Section: Implication For Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of alternative distributions of ground motion variability on results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Pavlenko

2015

Nat Hazards

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is a regularly applied practice that precedes the construction of important engineering structures. The Cornell-McGuire procedure is the most frequently applied method of PSHA. This paper examines the fundamental assumption of the Cornell-McGuire procedure for PSHA, namely, the log-normal distribution of the residuals of the ground motion parameters. Although the assumption of log-normality is standard, it has not been rigorously tested. Moreover, the application of the unbounded log-normal distribution for the calculation of the hazard curves results in non-zero probabilities of the exceedance of physically unrealistic amplitudes of ground motion parameters. In this study, the distribution of the residuals of the logarithm of peak ground acceleration is investigated, using the database of the Strong-motion Seismograph Networks of Japan and the ground motion prediction equation of Zhao and co-authors. The distribution of residuals is modelled by a number of probability distributions, and the one parametric law that approximates the distribution most precisely is chosen by the statistical criteria. The results of the analysis show that the most accurate approximation is achieved with the generalized extreme value distribution for a central part of a distribution and the generalized Pareto distribution for its upper tail. The effect of replacing a log-normal distribution in the main equation of the Cornell-McGuire method is demonstrated by the calculation of hazard curves for a simple hypothetical example. These hazard curves differ significantly from one another, especially at low annual exceedance probabilities.

show abstract

“…Here there seems to be no agreement among experts [Bommer et al, 2004]. Once it was believed that ground accelerations of 1 g were impossi ble; now over 2 g has been recorded.…”

Section: Maximum Ground Motionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Communicating with uncertainty: A critical issue with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis’” by R. M. W. Musson]

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Challenge of Defining Upper Bounds on Earthquake Ground Motions

Cited by 121 publications

References 75 publications

The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability

The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability

Effect of alternative distributions of ground motion variability on results of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Reply [to “Comment on ‘Communicating with uncertainty: A critical issue with probabilistic seismic hazard analysis’” by R. M. W. Musson]

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About