MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197251794 · doi:10.3390/geohazards2030015

Reduction of Bias and Uncertainty in Regional Seismic Site Amplification Factors for Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis

2021· article· en· W3197251794 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammad Kamruzzaman Talukder, Philippe Rosset, Luc Chouinard

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoHazards · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBedrockSeismic hazardGeologySeismologySeismic riskNatural hazardAmplification factorShear (geology)GeomorphologyOceanographyPaleontologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Site amplification factors in National Building Codes are typically specified as a function of the average shear wave velocity over the first 30 m (Vs30) or site class (A, B, C, D and E) for defined ranges of Vs30 and/or ranges of depth to bedrock. However, a single set of amplification factors may not be representative of site conditions across the country, introducing a bias in seismic hazard and seismic risk analyses. This is exemplified by significant differences in geological settings between East and West coast locations in North America. Western sites are typically characterized by lower impedance contrasts between recent surface deposits and bedrock in comparison to Eastern sites. In North America, site amplification factors have been derived from a combination of field data on ground motions recorded during West Coast earthquakes and numerical models of site responses that are meant to be representative of a wide variety of soil profiles and ground motions. The bias on amplifications and their impact on seismic hazards is investigated for the Montreal area, which ranks second for seismic risks in Canada in terms of population and hazard (PGA of 0.25 g for a 2475 years return period). Representative soil profiles at several locations in Montreal are analyzed with 1-D site response models for natural and synthetic ground motions scaled between 0.1 to 0.5 g. Since bedrock depths are typically shallow (<30 m) across the island, bedrock shear wave velocities have a significant influence on the impedance contrast and amplifications. Bedrock shear wave velocity is usually very variable due to the differences in rock formations, level of weathering and fracturing. The level of this uncertainty is shown to be greatly decreased when rock quality designation (RQD) data, common information when bore hole data are logged, is available since it is highly correlated with both shear and compression wave velocities. The results are used to derive region-specific site amplification factors as a function of both Vs30 and site fundamental frequency and compared to those of the National Building Code of Canada (2015). The results of the study indicate that there are large uncertainties associated with these parameters due to variability in soil profiles, soil properties and input seismic ground motions. Average and confidence intervals for the mean and for predictions of amplification factors are calculated for each site class to quantify this uncertainty. Amplifications normalized relative to class C are obtained by accounting for the correlation between site class amplifications for given ground motions. Non-linearity in the analysis of equivalent linear 1-D site response is taken into account by introducing the non-linear G/Gmax and damping ratios curves. In this method, it is assumed that the shear strain compatible shear modulus and damping ratio values remains constant throughout the duration of the seismic excitation. This assumption is not fully applicable to a case when loose saturated soil profile undergo heavy shaking (PGA > 0.3 g). In this study, all simulations with input motion PGA >0.3 g have been performed by using the EL method instead of the NL method considering that cohesive soils (clay and silt) at Montreal sites are stiff and cohesionless soils (sand and gravel) are considerably dense. In addition, the field and laboratory data required to perform NL analyses are not currently available and may be investigated in future works.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoHazardsSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207