Researcher profile

Hilal Tasan

Hilal Tasan contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

On the Testing of Ground--Motion Prediction Equations against Small--Magnitude Data

Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE) are essential in probabilistic seismic hazard studies for estimating the ground motions generated by the seismic sources. In low seismicity regions, only weak motions are available in the lifetime of accelerometric networks, and the equations selected for the probabilistic studies are usually models established from foreign data. Although most ground-motion prediction equations have been developed for magnitudes 5 and above, the minimum magnitude often used in probabilistic studies in low seismicity regions is smaller. Desaggregations have shown that, at return periods of engineering interest, magnitudes lower than 5 can be contributing to the hazard. This paper presents the testing of several GMPEs selected in current international and national probabilistic projects against weak motions recorded in France (191 recordings with source-site distances up to 300km, 3.8\leqMw\leq4.5). The method is based on the loglikelihood value proposed by Scherbaum et al. (2009). The best fitting models (approximately 2.5\leqLLH\leq3.5) over the whole frequency range are the Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008), Akkar and Bommer (2010) and Abrahamson and Silva (2008) models. No significant regional variation of ground motions is highlighted, and the magnitude scaling could be predominant in the control of ground-motion amplitudes. Furthermore, we take advantage of a rich Japanese dataset to run tests on randomly selected low-magnitude subsets, and check that a dataset of ~190 observations, same size as the French dataset, is large enough to obtain stable LLH estimates. Additionally we perform the tests against larger magnitudes (5-7) from the Japanese dataset. The ranking of models is partially modified, indicating a magnitude scaling effect for some of the models, and showing that extrapolating testing results obtained from low magnitude ranges to higher magnitude ranges is not straightforward.