Options
Akkar, Sinan
Loading...
3 results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- PublicationOpen AccessComparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East(2014-02)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Douglas, J.; BRGM, Orléans, France ;Akkar, S.; Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey ;Ameri, G.; FUGRO-Geoter, Auriol, France. ;Bard, P.; ISTerre, Grenoble, France ;Bindi, D.; GFZ, Potsdam, Germany ;Bommer, J.; Imperial College London, United Kingdom ;Bora, S. S.; Inst. Erd- und Umweltwissesnschaften, Universitaet Potsdam, Germany ;Cotton, F.; ISTerre, Grenoble, France ;Derras, B.; ISTerre, Grenoble, France ;Hermkes, M.; Inst. Erd- und Umweltwissesnschaften, Universitaet Potsdam, Germany ;Kuehn, N. M.; Inst. Erd- und Umweltwissesnschaften, Universitaet Potsdam, Germany ;Luzi, L.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Milano-Pavia, Milano, Italia ;Massa, M.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Milano-Pavia, Milano, Italia ;Pacor, F.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Milano-Pavia, Milano, Italia ;Riggelsen, C.; Inst. Erd- und Umweltwissesnschaften, Universitaet Potsdam, Germany ;Sandikkaya, M. A.; Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey ;Scherbaum, F.; Inst. Erd- und Umweltwissesnschaften, Universitaet Potsdam, Germany ;Stafford, P.; Imperial College London, United Kingdom ;Traversa, P.; EDF, Aix en Provence, France; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; This article presents comparisons among the five ground-motion models described in other articles within this special issue, in terms of data selection criteria, characteristics of the models and predicted peak ground and response spectral accelerations. Comparisons are also made with predictions from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) models to which the models presented here have similarities (e.g. a common master database has been used) but also differences (e.g. some models in this issue are nonparametric). As a result of the differing data selection criteria and derivation techniques the predicted median ground motions show considerable differences (up to a factor of two for certain scenarios), particularly for magnitudes and distances close to or beyond the range of the available observations. The predicted influence of style-of-faulting shows much variation among models whereas site amplification factors are more similar, with peak amplification at around 1s. These differences are greater than those among predictions from the NGA models. The models for aleatory variability (sigma), however, are similar and suggest that ground-motion variability from this region is slightly higher than that predicted by the NGA models, based primarily on data from California and Taiwan.214 263 - PublicationRestrictedToward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe(2012-02-22)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Delavaud, E.; ISTerre, Université Joseph Fourier, CNRS, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, France ;Cotton, F.; ISTerre, Université Joseph Fourier, CNRS, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, France ;Akkar, S.; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, METU, 06531 Ankara, Turkey ;Scherbaum, F.; Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, 14476 Golm, Germany ;Danciu, L.; Swiss Seismological Service, Institute of Geophysics, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, NO, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland ;Beauval, C.; ISTerre, Université Joseph Fourier, CNRS, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, France ;Drouet, S.; ISTerre, Université Joseph Fourier, CNRS, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble, France ;Douglas, J.; RIS/RSI, BRGM, 3 avenue C. Guillemin, BP 36009, 45060 Orléans Cedex 2, France ;Basili, R.; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia ;Sandikkaya, M. A.; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, METU, 06531 Ankara, Turkey ;Segou, M.; Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, METU, 06531 Ankara, Turkey ;Faccioli, E.; Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milan, Italy ;Theodoulidis, N.; ITSAK, P.O. Box 53, Finikas 55102 Thessaloniki, Greece; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; The Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE) project, which began in June 2009, aims at establishing new standards for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in the Euro-Mediterranean region. In this context, a logic tree for ground-motion prediction in Europe has been constructed. Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) and weights have been determined so that the logic tree captures epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction for six different tectonic regimes in Europe. Here we present the strategy that we adopted to build such a logic tree. This strategy has the particularity of combining two complementary and independent approaches: expert judgment and data testing. A set of six experts was asked to weight pre-selected GMPEs while the ability of these GMPEs to predict available data was evaluated with the method of Scherbaum et al. (Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3234–3247, 2009). Results of both approaches were taken into account to commonly select the smallest set of GMPEs to capture the uncertainty in ground-motion prediction in Europe. For stable continental regions, two models, both from eastern North America, have been selected for shields, and three GMPEs from active shallow crustal regions have been added for continental crust. For subduction zones, four models, all non-European, have been chosen. Finally, for active shallow crustal regions, we selected four models, each of them from a different host region but only two of them were kept for long periods. In most cases, a common agreement has been also reached for the weights. In case of divergence, a sensitivity analysis of the weights on the seismic hazard has been conducted, showing that once the GMPEs have been selected, the associated set of weights has a smaller influence on the hazard.258 20 - PublicationOpen AccessA risk-based multi-level stress test methodology: application to six critical non-nuclear infrastructures in Europe(2020)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;Recent natural disasters that seriously affected critical infrastructure (CI) with significant socio-economic losses and impact revealed the need for the development of reliable meth- odologies for vulnerability and risk assessment. In this paper, a risk-based multi-level stress test method that has been recently proposed, aimed at enhancing procedures for evaluation of the risk of critical non-nuclear infrastructure systems against natural hazards, is speci- fied and applied to six key representative CIs in Europe, exposed to variant hazards. The following CIs are considered: an oil refinery and petrochemical plant in Milazzo, Italy, a conceptual alpine earth-fill dam in Switzerland, the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline in Tur- key, part of the Gasunie national gas storage and distribution network in the Netherlands, the port infrastructure of Thessaloniki, Greece, and an industrial district in the region of Tuscany, Italy. The six case studies are presented following the workflow of the stress test framework comprised of four phases: pre-assessment phase, assessment phase, decision phase and report phase. First, the goals, the method, the time frame and the appropriate stress test level to apply are defined. Then, the stress test is performed at component and system levels and the outcomes are checked and compared to risk acceptance criteria. A stress test grade is assigned, and the global outcome is determined by employing a grading system. Finally, critical components and events and risk mitigation strategies are formu- lated and reported to stakeholders and authorities.110 50