Abstract
The backbone approach is becoming increasingly employed to develop ground-motion models for use within probabilistic seismic hazard assessments, particularly for nuclear facilities. The backbone approach has a number of attractions, including: transparency over the level of uncertainty implied by the ground-motion model, a clearer understanding of the meaning of the weights of the logic tree (because each branch is mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) and an ability to make the model specific for a given site. This is in contrast to the classic method of selecting (using various approaches) a suite of ground motion prediction equations from the literature, which may appear easier but suffers, for example, from the difficulty of understanding whether epistemic uncertainty in future ground motions at the site is sufficiently captured.
One of the principal challenges in applying the backbone approach is its calibration so that the branches of the ground-motion logic tree capture the appropriate level of epistemic uncertainty. This is particularly difficult for regions with limited strong-motion data, which are generally areas of lower seismicity. In this article, I summarize previous uses of the backbone approach in the literature before investigating calibration using the stochastic method, which is particularly useful when there are few or no local strong-motion records. I show that the scaling factors developed from the stochastic models roughly imply the expected variations in epistemic uncertainty given the amount of data available from different tectonic regimes.
One of the principal challenges in applying the backbone approach is its calibration so that the branches of the ground-motion logic tree capture the appropriate level of epistemic uncertainty. This is particularly difficult for regions with limited strong-motion data, which are generally areas of lower seismicity. In this article, I summarize previous uses of the backbone approach in the literature before investigating calibration using the stochastic method, which is particularly useful when there are few or no local strong-motion records. I show that the scaling factors developed from the stochastic models roughly imply the expected variations in epistemic uncertainty given the amount of data available from different tectonic regimes.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Publication status | Published - 14 May 2018 |
| Event | Best Practice in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations : Issues and Challenges Towards Full Seismic Risk Analysis - CEA - Cadarache- Château, Cadarache, France Duration: 14 May 2018 → 16 May 2018 |
Workshop
| Workshop | Best Practice in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations : Issues and Challenges Towards Full Seismic Risk Analysis |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | 2nd BestPSHANI |
| Country/Territory | France |
| City | Cadarache |
| Period | 14/05/18 → 16/05/18 |
Keywords
- seismic hazard
- ground-motion model
- backbone approach
- epistemic uncertainty
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Calibrating the backbone approach for the development of earthquake ground motion models'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Research output
- 1 Chapter
-
Capturing geographically-varying uncertainty in earthquake ground motion models or what we think we know may change
Douglas, J., 25 Apr 2018, Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe: 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering-Thessaloniki 2018. Pitilakis, K. (ed.). Cham, Switzerland: Springer, p. 153-181 29 p. (Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering; vol. 46).Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter
Open AccessFile39 Link opens in a new tab Citations (Scopus)159 Downloads (Pure)
Activities
-
XVIII ANIDIS Conference
Douglas, J. (Participant)
16 Sept 2019Activity: Presenting or Organising an Event › Key-note speaker and plenary lectures at conferences
-
Discussion of the ground-motion models proposed for the next generation of PSHA in Europe
Douglas, J. (Participant)
27 Mar 2019Activity: Presenting or Organising an Event › Conference, workshop, seminar or course
-
GMPE workshop for revision of UK national seismic hazard map
Douglas, J. (Invited speaker)
27 Sept 2018Activity: Talk or Presentation › Invited talk
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver