On the Use of Logic Trees for Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Seismic-Hazard Analysis

By J. Bommer, Frank Scherbaum, Hilmar Bungum, F. Cotton, F. Sabetta, N. Abrahamson. 2005

346 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c69fecbd7e53f98b7f623056674976dc8d6dce37

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

Citations in the corpus

Sensitivity of PSHA results to ground motion prediction relations and logic-tree weights (2005, methodology): “We should make a note here of the fact that the weights ideally should change according to different magnitudedistance bins, reflecting relative strengths and weaknesses of the different relations for different distances and magnitudes [12].”
Composite Ground-Motion Models and Logic Trees: Methodology, Sensitivities, and Uncertainties (2005, methodology): “First, because the selected models use different parameter definitions they have to be modified in a number of ways before it makes sense to combine them in a logic tree ( Bommer et al., 2003, 2005; Scherbaum, Schmedes, and Cotton, 2004).”
The Estimation of Minimum-Misfit Stochastic Models from Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (2006, methodology): “Combining two or more groundmotion models within a seismic hazard study, for example, within a logic tree framework (Kulkarni et al., 1984), will require a correction for differences in distance metrics (Bommer et al., 2005).”
Influence of spatial correlation of strong ground motion on uncertainty in earthquake loss estimation (2011, methodology): “Epistemic uncertainty can be incorporated into SHA using the logic tree method (as in [1]).”
Logic Tree Branch Weights and Probabilities: Summing up to One is not Enough (2011, methodology): “Regarding the treatment of uncertainties related to the lack of knowledge (epistemic uncertainties), the so-called logic-tree framework (Kulkarni et al. 1984, Bommer et al. 2005, Bommer and Scherbaum 2008) has become the most popular tool of the trade.”
Probability and Uncertainty in Seismic Hazard Analysis (2005, methodology): “In major seismic hazard projects, the scientific uncertainty in the models of the distributions of earthquake magnitude, location, and ground motion are also considered using logic trees (Kulkarni et al. 1984, Coppersmith and Youngs 1986, Reiter 1990, Bommer et al. 2005).”
Criteria for Selecting and Adjusting Ground-Motion Models for Specific Target Regions: Application to Central Europe and Rock Sites (2006, methodology): “The analyst assigns weights to these branches reflecting the relative confidence in each model (Bommer et al., 2005).”
Truncation of the distribution of ground-motion residuals (2008, background): “This is likely to be a problem for the practical implementation of the truncation scheme, since projects that are critical enough to raise the issue of truncation in the first place are expected to include more than one predictive equation through a logic-tree formulation (Bommer et al., 2005).”
Simultaneous quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in GMPEs using Gaussian process regression (2014, methodology): “This is usually quantified via the logic tree framework (Kulkarni et al. 1984; Bommer et al. 2005).”