Comparison of PSH results with historical macroseismic observations at different scales. Part 1: methodology

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

Volumn 15, Issue 11, 2017, Pages 4585-4607

  Rota, M ^a   Rosti, A ^b  

^a EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING   (Italy)

^b SCUOLA UNIVERSITARIA SUPERIORE IUSS PAVIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Fragility curves; Macroseismic method; Macroseismic observations; Probabilistic seismic hazard; Sampling in space

Indexed keywords

HAZARDS; SEISMIC RESPONSE;

BUILDING STOCKS; DIFFERENT SCALE LEVELS; FRAGILITY CURVES; HISTORICAL OBSERVATION; MACROSEISMIC; REGIONAL LEVELS; SEISMIC HAZARDS; SEISMIC VULNERABILITY;

SEISMOLOGY;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA SET; EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE; EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY; HISTORICAL RECORD; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; SAMPLING; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC METHOD; SEISMICITY; SITE INVESTIGATION; VULNERABILITY;

EID: 85019638965     PISSN: 1570761X     EISSN: 15731456     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10518-017-0157-z     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Albarello D, D’Amico V (2008) Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates by comparison with observations: an example in Italy. Geophys J Int 175:1088–1094
2. Baker JW, Abrahamson NA, Whitney JW, Board MP, Hanks TC (2013) Use of fragile geologic structures as indicators of unexceeded ground motions and direct constraints on probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(3):1898–1911
3. Beauval C (2011) On the use of observations for constraining probabilistic seismic hazard estimates—brief review of existing methods. In: Int Conf on Applic of Statistics and Probab in Civil Eng, Zurich, Switzerland
4. Beauval C, Bard PY, Hainzl S, Guéguen P (2008) Can strong-motion observations be used to constrain probabilistic seismic-hazard estimates? Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(2):509–520
5. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the MSK76 scale. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, Greece, 20–25 September 1982
6. Brune JN (1996) Precariously balanced rocks and ground-motion maps for southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(1A):43–54
7. Dolce M, Goretti A (2015) Building damage assessment after the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 13(8):2241–2264
8. Ebel J, Wald DJ (2003) Bayesian estimations of peak ground acceleration and 5% damped spectral acceleration from modified Mercalli intensity data. Earthq Spectra 19(3):511–529
9. Fiorini E, Bazzurro P (2015) An application of Bayes theorem to test macroseismic intensity data. In: CSNI Workshop on “Testing PSHA results and benefit of Bayesian techniques for seismic hazard assessment”, Pavia, Italy
10. Galli P, Camassi R, Azzaro R, Bernardini F, Castenetto S, Molin D, Peronace E, Rossi A, Vecchi M, Tertulliani A (2009) April 6, 2009 L'Aquila earthquake: macroseismic survey, surficial effects and seismotectonic implications. Italian J Quat Sci 22(2):235–246
11. Gribovszki K, Bokelmann G, Szeidovitz Gy, Paskaleva I, Brimich L, Kovács K, Mónus P (2013) Comprehensive investigation of intact, vulnerable stalagmites to estimate an upper limit on prehistoric horizontal ground acceleration. Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vienna, Austria
12. Grünthal G, Musson RMW, Schwarz J, Stucchi M (eds) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998. Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de la Seismologie, Conseil de L’Europe, vol 15, Luxembourg
13. Iervolino I (2013) Probabilities and fallacies: why hazard maps cannot be validated by individual earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 29(3):1125–1136
14. Iervolino I, Giorgio M (2015) The effect of dependence of observations on hazard validation studies. In: CSNI workshop on testing PSHA results and benefit of Bayesian techniques for seismic hazard assessment, Pavia, Italy
15. Jayaram N, Baker JW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(15):1687–1708
16. Labbé PB (2010) PSHA outputs versus historical seismicity. Example of France. In:14th European Conf Earthq Eng, Ohrid, Macedonia
17. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:415–443
18. Locati M, Camassi R, Rovida A, Ercolani E, Bernardini F, Castelli V, Caracciolo CH, Tertulliani A, Rossi A, Azzaro R, D'Amico S, Conte S, Rocchetti E (2016) DBMI15, the 2015 version of the Italian Macroseismic Database. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. doi:10.6092/INGV.IT-DBMI15
19. Loth C, Baker JW (2013) A spatial cross-correlation model of spectral acceleration at multiple periods. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(3):397–417
20. Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2010) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismol 14(2):413–428
21. NTC08 (2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Decreto Ministeriale del 14 gennaio 2008, Supplemento ordinario alla G.U. n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008
22. Ordaz M, Reyes C (1999) Earthquake hazard in Mexico City: observations versus computations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(5):1379–1383
23. Park J, Bazzurro P, Baker JW (2007) Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion intensity measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation. In: 10th Int Conf Applic of Statistic Probab in Civil Eng, Tokyo, Japan
24. Purvance MD, Brune JN, Abrahamson NA, Anderson JG (2008) Consistency of precariously balanced rocks with probabilistic seismic hazard estimates in southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(6):2629–2640
25. Rosti A, Rota M (2017) Comparison of PSH results with historical macroseismic observations at different scales—Part 2: application to South-East France. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-017-0161-3
26. Rosti A, Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2017) Statistical treatment of empirical damage data collected after the main Italian seismic events (1980–2009). In: Proc. 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile
27. Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2010) A methodology for deriving analytical fragility curves for masonry buildings based on stochastic nonlinear analyses. Eng Struct 32(5):1312–1323
28. Rota M, Penna A, Strobbia C, Magenes G (2011) Typological seismic risk maps for Italy. Earthq Spectra 27(3):907–926
29. Rota M, Penna A, Magenes G (2014) A framework for the seismic assessment of existing masonry buildings accounting for different sources of uncertainty. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 43(7):1045–1066
30. Sisfrance—Catalogue des séismes français métropolitains, BRGM, EDF, IRSN. http://www.sisfance.net
31. Stein S, Geller R, Liu M (2011) Bad assumptions or bad luck: why earthquake hazard maps need objective testing. Seismol Res Lett 82(5):623–626
32. Stirling M (2012) Earthquake hazard maps and objective testing: the hazard mapper’s point of view. Seismol Res Lett 83(2):231–232
33. Stirling M, Gerstenberger M (2010) Ground motion-based testing of seismic hazard models in New Zealand. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(4):1407–1414
34. Stirling M, Petersen M (2006) Comparison of the historical record of earthquake hazard with seismic-hazard models for New Zealand and the continental United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(6):1978–1994
35. Tasan H, Beauval C, Helmstetter A, Sandikkaya A, Guéguen P (2014) Testing probabilistic seismic hazard estimates against accelerometric data in two countries: France and Turkey. Geophys J Int 198(3):1554–1571
36. Ward SN (1995) Area-based tests of long-term seismic hazard predictions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85(5):1285–1298