Logic trees have become a popular tool to capture epistemic uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis. They are commonly used by assigning weights to models on a purely descriptive basis (nominal scale). This invites the creation of unintended inconsistencies regarding the weights on the corresponding hazard curves. On the other hand, for human experts it is difficult to confidently express degrees-of-beliefs in particular numerical values. Here we demonstrate for ground-motion models how the model and the value-based perspectives can be partially reconciled by using high-dimensional information-visualization techniques. For this purpose we use Sammon's (1969) mapping and self-organizing mapping to project ground-motion models onto a two-dimensional map (an ordered metric set). Here they can be evaluated jointly according to their proximity in predicting similar ground motions, potentially making the assignment of logic tree weights consistent with their ground motion characteristics without having to abandon the model-based perspective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A., and SilvaW. J., 1997. Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett.68, 94–127.
2.
AbrahamsonN. A., and SilvaW. J., 2008. Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations, Earthquake Spectra24, 67–97.
3.
AkkarS., and BommerJ. J., 2007. Prediction of elastic displacement response spectra in Eu-rope and the Middle East, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn.36, 1275–1301.
4.
AmbraseysN., DouglasJ., SarmaS. K., and SmitP., 2005. Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and Middle East: Horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering3, 1–53.
5.
AtkinsonG. M., and BooreD. M., 2006. Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.97, 2181–2205.
6.
AtkinsonG. M., 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America from a referenced empirical approach: Implications for epistemic uncertainty, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.98, 1304–1318.
7.
BeyerK., and BommerJ. J., 2006. Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for Different Definitions of the Horizontal Component of Motion, 10.1785/0120050210, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.96, 1512–1522 c7 c7a c7b––—, Erratum 2007, 97, 1769.
8.
BommerJ. J., ScherbaumF., BungumH., CottonF., SabettaF., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2005. On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.95, 377–389.
9.
BommerJ. J., and ScherbaumF., 2008. The use and misuse of logic trees in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Earthquake Spectra24, 997–1009.
10.
BommerJ. J., DouglasJ., ScherbaumF., CottonF., BungumH., and FähD., 2010. On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis, Seismol. Res. Lett., under review.
11.
BooreD. M., and AtkinsonG. M., 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra24, 99–138.
12.
CampbellK. W., and BozorgniaY., 2008. NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5%-damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra24, 139–171.
13.
ChiouB. S. J., and YoungsR. R., 2008. An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra24, 173–215.
14.
CottonF., ScherbaumF., BommerJ. J., and BungumH., 2006. Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: Application to Central Europe and rock sites, J. Seismol.10, 137–156.
15.
CottonF., PousseG., BonillaF., and ScherbaumF., 2008. On the discrepancy of recent Eu-ropean ground-motion observations and predictions from empirical models: Analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and point-sources stochastic simulations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.98, 2244–2261.
16.
CoverT. M., and ThomasJ. A., 2006. Elements of Information Theory, Second Edition, Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 542 pp.
17.
DouglasJ., 2004. Ground motion estimation equations 1964–2003, reissue of ESEE Report 01-1: A Comprehensive Worldwide Summary of Strong-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Peak Ground Acceleration and Spectral Ordinates (1969 to 2000), with corrections and additions, London Empirical College of Science, Technology, and Medicine.
18.
DouglasJ., 2006. Errata of and additions to Ground motion estimation equations 1964–2003, Intermediary report RP-54603-FR, Orleans, France.
19.
DouglasJ., 2008. Further errata of and additions to Ground motion estimation equations 1964–2003, Orleans, France.
20.
FloydR. W., 1962. Algorithm 97: Shortest path, Commun. ACM5, 345.
21.
IdrissI. M., 2008. An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra24, 217–242.
22.
KahnemannD., SlovicP., and TverskyA., 1982. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York, 544 pp.
23.
KalkanE., and GülkanP., 2004. Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in Turkey, Earthquake Spectra20, 1111–1138.
24.
KoehlerA., OhrnbergerM., and ScherbaumF., 2009. Unsupervised feature selection and general pattern discovery using Self-Organizing Maps for gaining insights into the nature of seismic wavefields, Comput. Geosci., DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2009.02.004
25.
KoehlerA., OhrnbergerM., and ScherbaumF., 2010. Unsupervised pattern recognition in continuous seismic wavefield records using self-organizing maps, Geophys. J. Int., in press, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–246X.2010.04709.x.
26.
KohonenT., 2001. Self-Organizing Maps, Springer Verlag, New York.
27.
KulkarniR. B., YoungsR. R., and CoppersmithK. J., 1984. Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis, paper read at the 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA.
28.
McVerryG. H., ZhaoJ. X., AbrahamsonN. A., and SomervilleP. G., 2006. New Zealand acceleration response spectrum attenuation relations for crustal and subduction zone earthquakes, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering39, 1–58.
29.
MussonR. M. W., 2009. Ground motion and probabilistic hazard, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering7, 575–589.
30.
PankowK. L., and PechmannJ. C., 2004. The SEA99 ground-motion predictive relations for extensional tectonic regimes: revisions and a new peak ground velocity relation, Bull. Seis-mol. Soc. Am.94, 341–348.
31.
PankowK. L., and PechmannJ. C., 2006. Erratum: The SEA99 ground-motion predictive relations for extensional tectonic regimes: Revisions and a new peak ground velocity relation, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.96, 364.
32.
SammonJ. W., 1969. A nonlinear mapping for data structure analysis, IEEE Trans. Comput.C-18, 401–409.
33.
ScherbaumF., CottonF., and SmitP., 2004a. On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection of ground-motion models for seismic hazard analysis: the case of rock motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.94, 2164–2185.
34.
ScherbaumF., SchmedesJ., and CottonF., 2004b. On the conversion of source-to-site distance measures for extended earthquake source models, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.94, 1053–1069.
35.
ScherbaumF., BommerJ. J., BungumH., CottonF., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2005. Composite ground-motion models and logic trees: Methodology, sensitivities, and uncertainties, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.95, 1575–1593.
36.
ScherbaumF., DelavaudE., and RiggelsenC., 2009. Model delection in deismic hazard analysis: An information-theoretic perspective, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.99, 3234–3247.
37.
SchwartzB., 2004. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, Harper Perennial, New York, 304 pp.
38.
SpitzerM., 1999. The Mind within the Net: Models of Learning, Thinking, and Acting, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 375 pp.
39.
StaffordP. J., StrasserF. O., and BommerJ. J., 2008. An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering6, 149–177.
40.
StevensS. S., 1947. On the theory of scales of measurement, Science103, 677–680.
41.
ToroG. R., AbrahamsonN. A., and SchneiderJ. F., 1997. Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: Best estimates and uncertainties, Seismol. Res. Lett.68, 41–57.
42.
ToroG. R., (Toro et al.) 2002. Modification of the Toro et al. (1997) Attenuation Equations for Large Magnitudes and Short Distances, 1–10.
43.
ToroG. R., 2006. The effects of ground-motion uncertainty on seismic hazard results: Examples and approximate results, poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Seismological Society of America, San Francisco, CA.
44.
ZhaoJ. X., ZhangJ., AsanoA., OhnoY., OouchiT., TakahashiT., OgawaH., IrikuraK., ThioH. K., SomervilleP. G., FukushimaY., and FukushimaY., 2006. Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.96, 898–913.
