Evaluating hazard results for Switzerland and how not to do it: A discussion of "Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants" by J-U Klugel

被引:16
作者
Musson, RMW
Toro, GR
Coppersmith, KJ
Bommer, JJ
Deichmann, N
Bungum, H
Cotton, F
Scherbaum, F
Slejko, D
Abrahamson, NA
机构
[1] British Geol Survey, Edinburgh EH9 3LA, Midlothian, Scotland
[2] Risk Engn Inc, Acton, MA 01720 USA
[3] Coppersmith Consulting Inc, Creek, CA 94596 USA
[4] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, London SW7 2AZ, England
[5] ETH Honggerberg, Inst Geophys, Swiss Seismol Serv, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
[6] NORSAR, Kjeller, Norway
[7] Univ Grenoble 1, Lab Geophys Interne & Tectonophys, F-38041 Grenoble 9, France
[8] Univ Potsdam, Inst Geowissensch, D-14415 Potsdam, Germany
[9] Ist Nazl Oceanog & Geofis Sperimentale, I-34010 Trieste, Italy
[10] Pacific Gas & Elect Co, San Francisco, CA 94106 USA
关键词
seismic hazard analysis; epistemic uncertainty; aleatory variability; hazard methodology; validation; PEGASOS; strong ground motion; ground-motion prediction;
D O I
10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.09.003
中图分类号
P5 [地质学];
学科分类号
0709 ; 081803 ;
摘要
The PEGASOS project was a major international seismic hazard study, one of the largest ever conducted anywhere in the world, to assess seismic hazard at four nuclear power plant sites in Switzerland. Before the report of this project has become publicly available, a paper attacking both methodology and results has appeared. Since the general scientific readership may have difficulty in assessing this attack in the absence of the report being attacked, we supply a response in the present paper. The bulk of the attack, besides some misconceived arguments about the role of uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis, is carried by some exercises that purport to be validation exercises. In practice, they are no such thing; they are merely independent sets of hazard calculations based on varying assumptions and procedures, often rather questionable, which come up with various different answers which have no particular significance. (C) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:43 / 55
页数:13
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   Probability and uncertainty in seismic hazard analysis [J].
Abrahamson, NA ;
Bommer, JJ .
EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA, 2005, 21 (02) :603-607
[2]  
Abrahamson NA, 2002, P 12 EUR C EARTHQ EN, V633
[3]  
ABRAHAMSON NA, 2000, GEOENG 2000, V1, P659
[4]  
Ambraseys NN, 2005, B EARTHQ ENG, V3, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0
[5]  
Ambraseys NN, 1996, EARTHQ ENG STRUCT D, V25, P371, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199604)25:4<371::AID-EQE550>3.0.CO
[6]  
2-A
[7]   Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions [J].
Ambraseys, NN ;
Douglas, J .
SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2003, 23 (01) :1-18
[8]   THE PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN EUROPE [J].
AMBRASEYS, NN .
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 1995, 24 (04) :467-490
[9]   THE ATTENUATION OF GROUND ACCELERATIONS IN EUROPE [J].
AMBRASEYS, NN ;
BOMMER, JJ .
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 1991, 20 (12) :1179-1202
[10]  
AMBRASEYS NN, 2000, REAPPRAISAL EFFECT V