Title of article :
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 Klügel
Author/Authors :
Musson، نويسنده , , R.M.W. and Toro، نويسنده , , G.R. and Coppersmith، نويسنده , , K.J. and Bommer، نويسنده , , J.J. and Deichmann، نويسنده , , N. and Bungum، نويسنده , , H. and Cotton، نويسنده , , F. and Scherbaum، نويسنده , , F. and Slejko، نويسنده , , D. and Abrahamson، نويسنده , , N.A.، نويسنده ,
Issue Information :
روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2005
Pages :
13
From page :
43
To page :
55
Abstract :
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.
Keywords :
Validation , PEGASOS , strong ground motion , seismic hazard analysis , epistemic uncertainty , Aleatory variability , Hazard methodology , Ground-motion prediction
Journal title :
Engineering Geology
Serial Year :
2005
Journal title :
Engineering Geology
Record number :
2341227
Link To Document :
بازگشت