...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering >Objective assessment of source models for seismic hazard studies: with a worked example from UK data
【24h】

Objective assessment of source models for seismic hazard studies: with a worked example from UK data

机译：客观评估地震危险源模型：以英国数据为例

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Up to now, the search for increased reliability in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) has concentrated on ways of assessing expert opinion and subjective judgement. Although in some areas of PSHA subjective opinion is unavoidable, there is a danger that assessment procedures and review methods contribute further subjective judgements on top of those already elicited. It is helpful to find techniques for objectively assessing seismic source models that show what the interpretations physically mean in terms of seismicity. Experience shows that well-meaning but flawed design decisions can lead to source models that are incompatible with the seismic history that was used as input. In this paper a method is demonstrated in which large numbers of synthetic earthquake catalogues, that match the completeness thresholds of the historical catalogue, are generated. The study area can be divided into a grid of uniform cells, and the number of earthquakes in each cell in both the historical catalogue and each simulated catalogue are then counted. Comparison of the historical pattern and a set of 1,000 simulated patterns, using a X2 test, shows if the historical pattern is credibly a member of the set of outcomes obtainable from the seismic source model. A second method is to chart the distribution of a large sample of simulated catalogues in terms of magnitude frequency, and observe whether the historical catalogue is comfortably within this distribution, or an outlier. If it proves impossible to replicate the historical catalogue using the model, it casts doubt on whether the model is a valid depiction of the seismicity rates that will govern the future hazard. At the very least, the disparity needs careful investigation to ensure the model is error-free. A worked example is presented here for the UK, using a source model that was used in Global Seismic Hazard Map (GSHAP), compared to one that was artificially constructed to be credible but flawed. Two tests find the GSHAP model to be an acceptable representation of the pattern of seismicity in the UK, while the artificial model is conclusively rejected.
机译：到目前为止，在概率地震危险性分析（PSHA）中寻求提高可靠性的搜索都集中在评估专家意见和主观判断的方法上。尽管在PSHA的某些领域中，主观意见是不可避免的，但存在危险，即评估程序和审查方法会在已经引起的主观判断基础上做出进一步的主观判断。找到客观地评估地震震源模型的技术很有帮助，这些技术可以显示这些解释对地震活动的物理意义。经验表明，善意但有缺陷的设计决策可能导致源模型与用作输入的地震历史不兼容。本文演示了一种方法，其中生成了大量与历史目录的完整性阈值匹配的合成地震目录。可以将研究区域划分为均匀单元格的网格，然后对历史目录和每个模拟目录中每个单元中的地震次数进行计数。使用X 2 检验比较历史模式和一组1,000个模拟模式，可以证明历史模式是否确实是可从震源模型获得的一组结果的成员。第二种方法是根据幅度频率绘制大量模拟目录样本的分布图，并观察历史目录是否在该分布范围内，还是离群值。如果证明无法使用该模型来复制历史目录，则会怀疑该模型是否是对将控制未来灾害的地震活动率的有效描述。至少，差异需要仔细研究以确保模型没有错误。此处以英国为例，使用了全球地震灾害地图（GSHAP）中使用的源模型，与人工构造的可信但有缺陷的模型相比，给出了一个工作示例。两项测试发现，GSHAP模型是英国地震活动模式的可接受代表，而人工模型被最终拒绝。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号