Note: Intro -- Contents -- 1 Best Practices in Physics-Based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1. Section I: Quasi-dynamic Rupture Modeling -- 1.2. Section II: Full-Dynamic Rupture Modeling -- 1.3. Section III: Kinematic Rupture Modeling -- 1.4. Section IV: Seismic Hazard and Engineering Application -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 2 Surface Rupture Effects on Earthquake Moment-Area Scaling Relations -- 1. Introduction -- 2. A Rate-and-State Earthquake Cycle Model -- 3. Dislocation Models -- 4. Crack Models -- 5. Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 3 Dynamic Rupture Modelling of the 1999 Du¨zce, Turkey Earthquake -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Model Parameters -- 2.1. Fault and Medium Model -- 2.2. Stress and Frictional Parameters -- 3. Estimation of Dynamic Parameters -- 4. Near-Source Ground Motion and Rupture Speed -- 5. Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 4 Dynamic Rupture Simulations Based on the Characterized Source Model of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Model -- 2.1. Characterized Model of the Tohoku Earthquake -- 2.2. Simulation Conditions -- 3. Results -- 4. Discussion -- 5. Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 5 Quantification of Fault-Zone Plasticity Effects with Spontaneous Rupture Simulations -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Method -- 2.1. Initial Stress and Rupture Models -- 2.2. Models of Rock-Mass Strength -- 2.3. Definition of Fault Damage Zone -- 3. Ground Motions from Layered Structure Models -- 3.1. Reduction of Average Near-Fault Ground Motions -- 3.2. Reduction of Ground Motion Extremes -- 4. Effect of Low-Velocity Zone (LVZ) on Ground Motions -- 4.1. Reduction of Near-Surface Slip and Slip Rates -- 4.2. Reduction of Near-Fault Ground Motions -- 4.3. Effect of Non-linearity and LVZ On Fault-Zone Width. , 5. Southern San Andreas Simulations -- 5.1. Results w/o LVZ -- 5.2. Results w/ LVZ -- 5.3. Comparison of Spectral Accelerations Against Ground Motion Prediction Equations -- 6. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 6 Synthetic Source Inversion Tests with the Full Complexity of Earthquake Source Processes, Including Both Supershear Rupture and Slip Reactivation -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Finite Source Modeling -- 2.1. Supershear Rupture -- 2.2. Slip Reactivation -- 3. Finite Source Inversion -- 3.1. Nonlinear vs. Linear Source Inversions -- 3.2. Bayesian Source Inversion -- 3.3. Model Setups -- 4. Results -- 4.1. Supershear Rupture -- 4.2. Slip Reactivation -- 4.3. Spectral Stability Analysis -- 5. Discussion -- 6. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 7 Accounting for Fault Roughness in Pseudo-Dynamic Ground-Motion Simulations -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Methods and Parameterizations -- 3. Rough-Fault Dynamic Rupture Properties -- 3.1. Rupture Dynamics for Different Rough-Fault Parameterizations -- 3.2. Parameterizing the Dynamic Source-Time Function -- 4. Ground Motions for Simplified Kinematic Rupture Models -- 4.1. Ground-Motion Characteristics for Simplified Geometrical Representations -- 4.2. Kinematic Ground-Motion Characteristics for Variations in Source-Time Function -- 5. Correlation of Kinematic Source Parameters -- 6. Discussion -- 7. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 8 Within-Event and Between-Events Ground Motion Variability from Earthquake Rupture Scenarios -- 1. Introduction -- 2. UCSB Method -- 2.1. Green's Functions -- 2.2. Earthquake Source -- 2.3. Slip-Rate Function -- 2.4. 1-Point Statistics -- 2.5. 2-Point Statistics -- 2.6. Correlations Between Source Parameters -- 2.7. Ground Motion Calculation -- 3. Earthquake Rupture and Ground Motion Scenarios. , 3.1. Validation of Ground Motion Against the 2014 NGA West-2 GMPE's -- 3.2. Calculation of Ground Motion Variability -- 4. Ground Motion Variability -- 5. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 9 Azimuthal Dependence of the Ground Motion Variability from Scenario Modeling of the 2014 Mw6.0 South Napa, California, Earthquake Using an Advanced Kinematic Source Model -- 1. Introduction -- 2. RIK Source Model Description -- 3. Source and Velocity Model -- 4. Results -- 4.1. Ground Motion Simulation for the South Napa Earthquake Model -- 4.2. Scenario Modeling -- 4.3. Factorization of the Ground Motion Variability -- 5. Discussion and Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 10 Near-Fault Broadband Ground Motion Simulations Using Empirical Green's Functions: Application to the Upper Rhine Graben (France-Germany) Case Study -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Simulations Method -- 2.1. Simulations Method: EGF Technique -- 2.2. Simulations Method: The Multi-EGF Approach -- 2.3. Simulations Method: Source Model -- 3. Upper Rhine Graben Case Study -- 4. EGF Selection and Analysis -- 5. Ground Motion Simulations -- 5.1. Sensitivity Analysis -- 5.2. Fault Geometry and Stress Drop -- 5.3. Blind Simulations -- 6. Discussion and Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 11 Broadband Ground Motion Simulation of the 2004 and 1977 Vrancea, Romania, Earthquakes Using Empirical Green's Function Method -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Methodology -- 2.1. Source Spectral Ratio Method and Estimation of Scaling Parameters -- 3. Data -- 4. Estimation of Source Parameters for the October 27 2004 (Mw 5.8) Earthquake -- 4.1. Source Scaling -- 5. Estimation of Source Parameters for the 1977 Mw 7.4 Earthquake -- 6. Discussion and Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 12 Mechanisms for Generation of Near-Fault Ground Motion Pulses for Dip-Slip Faulting. , 1. Introduction -- 1.1. Near-Fault Ground Motion Pulses -- 2. Methodology -- 2.1. Extraction of Long-Period Pulses from the Observed Ground Motions -- 2.2. Forward Simulation of Ground Motion Pulses for Normal-Faulting Event -- 3. Results -- 3.1. Effect of Ground Motion Pulses on the Response Spectra -- 3.2. Conditions for the Generation of Near-FaultGround Motion Pulses: The 2009 L'Aquila Earthquake -- 4. Discussion and Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 13 Performance of Irikura Recipe Rupture Model Generator in Earthquake Ground Motion Simulations with Graves and Pitarka Hybrid Approach -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Methods: IM2011 and GP2016 Rupture Model Generators -- 3. Ground Motion Simulations Using IM2011 and GP2016 Rupture Model Generators -- 3.1. Rupture Models -- 3.2. Broadband Ground Motion Method -- 3.3. Simulation Results -- 3.4. Modified IM Approach (IM-fastRS) -- 4. Conclusions -- REFERENCES -- 14 High Attenuation Rate for Shallow, Small Earthquakes in Japan -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Attenuation Characteristics of Small Earthquakes -- 2.1. Data -- 2.2. Comparison of Observations with Predictions -- 3. Attenuation of Synthetic Motion for Small and Moderate Earthquakes -- 3.1. Simulation Method and Model -- 3.2. Simulation results -- 4. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 15 Stochastic Earthquake Rupture Modeling Using Nonparametric Co-Regionalization -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Correlation Between Earthquake Source Parameters -- 3. Nonparametric Co-Regionalization -- 3.1. Nonparametric Co-Regionalization -- 3.2. Modeling Examples -- 4. Stochastic Rupture Modeling -- 5. Discussion -- 6. Conclusions -- Acknowledgments -- REFERENCES -- 16 Assessment of Simulated Ground Motions in Earthquake Engineering Practice: A Case Study for Duzce (Turkey) -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Description of Frame Models. , 3. Simulation of the 12 November 1999 Duzce Earthquake (Mw = 7.1) -- 3.1. Observed Ground Motion Records -- 3.2. Simulated Ground Motion Records Obtained with Stochastic Finite-Fault Method -- 3.3. Comparison of the Simulated and Observed Ground Motion Records -- Acknowledgements -- REFERENCES -- 17 Challenges Ahead for Nuclear Facility Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment in France: The Alternative Energies and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Vision -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Current Practices in France for Assessing Seismic Hazard in a Nuclear Safety Approach -- 2.1. Introduction -- 2.2. The RFS 2001-01 Method -- 2.2.1 Main Steps in the RFS 2001-01 Approach -- 2.2.2 Sensitivity of the RFS 2001-01 Method to Key Steps and Parameters, and the Associated Uncertainties -- 2.3. Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on French Nuclear Facilities: Complementary Safety Assessmentsand Requirements for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment -- 3. Key Scientific Questions and Issues -- 3.1. Seismic Source Characterization -- 3.1.1 Seismic Zoning -- 3.1.2 Fault Identification -- 3.1.3 Zoneless Approaches -- 3.1.4 Seismic Source Characterization: State of Knowledge of the Middle Durance Fault Area -- 3.2. Strong Ground Motion Prediction -- 3.2.1 Strong Motions Available in France -- 3.2.2 The RFS 2001-01 Approach: A Point Source Description and a Single Ground Motion Prediction Equation to Predict the Motion -- 3.2.3 Epistemic Uncertainty on Strong Ground Motion Prediction Accounted for in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment During Complementary Safety Assessments -- 3.2.4 Point Source Approximation Compared with Extended Fault Source Model Testing -- 3.3. On Maximum Magnitude Estimation in the Context of Slow Tectonic Activity: Methodology Proposed by the Atomic Energy Commission -- 3.3.1 Why is Mmax So Difficult to Determine?. , 3.3.2 Paleoseismological Indices, and Associated Magnitude Estimates and Uncertainties.