@article{fdi:010073971,
  title = {{I}ntegration of site effects into {P}robabilistic {S}eismic {H}azard {A}ssessment ({PSHA}) : a comparison between two fully probabilistic methods on the {E}uroseistest site},
  author = {{A}ristizabal, {C}. and {B}ard, {P}. {Y}. and {B}eauval, {C}{\'e}line and {G}omez, {J}. {C}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he integration of site effects into {P}robabilistic {S}eismic {H}azard {A}ssessment ({PSHA}) is still an open issue within the seismic hazard community. {S}everal approaches have been proposed varying from deterministic to fully probabilistic, through hybrid (probabilistic-deterministic) approaches. {T}he present study compares the hazard curves that have been obtained for a thick, soft non-linear site with two different fully probabilistic, site-specific seismic hazard methods: (1) {T}he analytical approximation of the full convolution method ({AM}) proposed by {B}azzurro and {C}ornell 2004a, b and (2) what we call the {F}ull {P}robabilistic {S}tochastic {M}ethod ({SM}). {T}he {AM} computes the site-specific hazard curve on soil, {HC} ({SS}ar (f)), by convolving for each oscillator frequency the bedrock hazard curve, {HC} ({S}-a(r) (f)), with a simplified representation of the probability distribution of the amplification function, {AF} (f), at the considered site {T}he {SM} hazard curve is built from stochastic time histories on soil or rock corresponding to a representative, long enough synthetic catalog of seismic events. {T}his comparison is performed for the example case of the {E}uroseistest site near {T}hessaloniki ({G}reece). {F}or this purpose, we generate a long synthetic earthquake catalog, we calculate synthetic time histories on rock with the stochastic point source approach, and then scale them using an adhoc frequency-dependent correction factor to fit the specific rock target hazard. {W}e then propagate the rock stochastic time histories, from depth to surface using two different one-dimensional (1{D}) numerical site response analyses, while using an equivalent-linear ({EL}) and a non-linear ({NL}) code to account for code-to-code variability. {L}astly, we compute the probability distribution of the non-linear site amplification function, {AF} (f), for both site response analyses, and derive the site-specific hazard curve with both {AM} and {SM} methods, to account for method-to-method variability. {T}he code-to-code variability ({EL} and {NL}) is found to be significant, providing a much larger contribution to the uncertainty in hazard estimates, than the method-to-method variability: {AM} and {SM} results are found comparable whenever simultaneously applicable. {H}owever, the {AM} method is also shown to exhibit severe limitations in the case of strong non-linearity, leading to ground motion " saturation", so that finally the {SM} method is to be preferred, despite its much higher computational price. {F}inally, we encourage the use of ground-motion simulations to integrate site effects into {PSHA}, since models with different levels of complexity can be included (e. g., point source, extended source, 1{D}, two-dimensional (2{D}), and three-dimensional (3{D}) site response analysis, kappa effect, hard rock...), and the corresponding variability of the site response can be quantified.},
  keywords = {site response ; epistemic uncertainty ; {PSHA} ; non-linear behavior ; host-to-target adjustment ; stochastic simulation ; {GRECE} ; {THESSALONIQUE}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{G}eosciences},
  volume = {8},
  numero = {8},
  pages = {285 [28 ]},
  ISSN = {2076-3263},
  year = {2018},
  DOI = {10.3390/geosciences8080285},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010073971},
}