4.7 Article

Selection of earthquake ground motion models using the deviance information criterion

期刊

SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 288-299

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.11.014

关键词

DIC; GMM; PSHA; Uncertainties

资金

  1. Icelandic Centre for Research Grant of Excellence [141261051/52/53]
  2. Eimskip Doctoral Fund of the University of Iceland
  3. University of Iceland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we propose a data-driven method using the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) to select the most suitable earthquake ground motion model (GMM) for application in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). The standard deviation (sigma) of the GMM is an important parameter for PSHA and plays an important role in data-driven methods. The main advantage of the proposed procedure is to introduce the posterior sigma as the key quantity for objectively ranking different candidate models against a given earthquake ground motion dataset. In the context of the Bayesian statistical framework, sigma is then determined for a given GMM based on the observed ground motions and at the same time takes into account the misfit of the GMM predictions to the observed ground motions. This feature addresses issues associated with other ranking methods where in some cases a considerable bias between the GMM predictions and the observed ground motions is effectively ignored. On the contrary, the DIC considers the influence of these two factors together by ranking models more favorably when they are associated with smaller bias and the determined sigma is close to the actual variability of the ground motions in the region under study. We submit the DIC method of this study as a useful and objective method for evaluating the performance of a GMM to a given dataset. This has potentially important application for PSHA when using multiple GMMs and either logic tree or backbone approaches are required to handle epistemic uncertainty in an appropriate manner.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据