Abstract
AbstractWe investigate probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in low-seismicity regions in which epistemic uncertainties are largely due to the sparsity of data, with a focus on Finland, northern Europe. We investigate the sensitivity of site-specific PSHA outcomes to different choices of basic input parameters, starting from preexisting PSHA models of the nuclear licensees in the country, without producing a final hazard curve. The outcome shows that the parameters and models needed to estimate future seismicity rates from actual observations, in particular the b value, seismicity rates, and the largest possible magnitude, Mmax, as well as the median ground-motion prediction equation, play significant roles. The sensitivity also depends on the spectral frequency; for example, the effect of Mmax is significant especially for a low-frequency hazard at annual frequency of exceedance 10−5 but more moderate for peak ground acceleration. The delineation of seismic source zones (SSZs) remains ambiguous in regions of low seismicity. This, combined with the dominance of the host SSZ and its seismicity parameters, may have a substantial impact on the outcome. Our results are quantitatively applicable to Finland, but may also be of relevance to other low-seismicity regions in Europe and elsewhere. For future work we recommend the exploration of PSHA sensitivity with focus on the host SSZ with its immediate vicinity and the b value around the site of interest.
Funder
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland
University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous),Atmospheric Science,Water Science and Technology
Reference63 articles.
1. Ahjos T, Uski M (1992) Earthquakes in northern Europe in 1375–1989. Tectonophysics 207:1–23, and subsequent at the Institute of Seismology, University of Helsinki
2. Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seism Res Lett 81:794–801. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.794
3. Aldama-Bustos G, Tromans IJ, Strasser F, Garrard G, Green G, Rivers L, Douglas J, Musson RMW, Hunt S, Lessi-Cheimariou A, Daví M, Robertson C (2019) A streamlined approach for the seismic hazard assessment of a new nuclear power plant in the UK. Bull Earthquake Eng 17:37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0442-5
4. Arvidsson R, Grünthal G, The SHARE Working Group on the Seismic Source Zone Model (2009) Compilation of existing regional and national seismic source zones. Deliverable D3.1 of the SHARE project.
5. Avital M, Kamai R, Davis M, Dor O (2018) The effect of alternative seismotectonic models on PSHA results – a sensitivity study for two sites in Israel. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 18:499–514. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-499-2018
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献