Skip to main content

Investigating Possible Regional Dependence in Strong Ground Motions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology

Part of the book series: Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering ((GGEE,volume 14))

Abstract

It is common practice to use ground-motion models, often developed by regression on recorded accelerograms, to predict the expected earthquake ground motions at sites of interest. An important consideration when selecting these models is the possible dependence of ground motions on geographical region, i.e., are median ground motions in the (target) region of interest for a given magnitude and distance the same as those in the (host) region where a ground-motion model is from, and are the aleatory variabilities of ground motions also similar? In this brief article, some of the recent literature with relevance to these questions is summarized. It is concluded that although some regions seem to show considerable differences in shaking it is currently more defensible to use well-constrained models, possibly based on data from other regions, rather than use local, often poorly-constrained, models. In addition, it is noted that the presence of “pseudo-regional dependency ” due to differences in, for example, focal depth s, average shear-wave velocity profiles or focal mechanisms can lead to apparent variations between areas when these variations could be captured in well-characterized ground-motion prediction equation s.

John Douglas is also at BRGM, Orléans, France.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrahamson N, Atkinson G, Boore D, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K, Chiou B, Idriss IM, Silva W, Youngs R (2008) Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):45–66. doi: 10.1193/1.2924363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen TI, Atkinson GM (2007) Comparison of earthquake source spectra and attenuation in eastern North America and Southeastern Australia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(4):1350–1354. doi: 10.1785/0120060206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen TI, Dhu T, Cummins PR, Schneider JF (2006) Empirical attenuation of ground-motion spectral amplitudes in Southwestern Western Australia. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(2):572–585. doi: 10.1785/0120040238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen TI, Wald DJ (2009) Evaluation of ground-motion modeling techniques for use in Global ShakeMap – A critique of instrumental ground-motion prediction equations, peak ground motion to macroseismic intensity conversions, and macroseismic intensity predictions in different tectonic settings. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1047, 114p

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson GM, Morrison M (2009) Observations on regional variability in ground-motion amplitudes for small-to-moderate earthquakes in North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4):2393–2409. doi: 10.1785/0120080223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bakun WH, McGarr A (2002) Differences in attenuation among the stable continental regions. Geophys Res Lett 29(23):2121. doi:10.1029/2002GL015457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baqer S, Mitchell BJ (1998) Regional variation of Lg coda Q in the continental United States and its relation to crustal structure and evolution. Pure Appl Geophys 153:613–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Strasser FO (2003) Style-of-faulting in ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Earthquake Eng 1(2):171–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Akkar S (2010) Current empirical ground-motion prediction equations for Europe and their application to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthquake Eng 8(1):5–26. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9122-9. doi: 10.1785/0120080133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Alarcón JE, Akkar S (2007) The influence of magnitude range on empirical ground-motion prediction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(6):2152–2170. doi: 10.1785/0120070081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1):99–138. doi: 10.1193/1.2830434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bragato PL (2009) Assessing regional and site-dependent variability of ground motions for ShakeMap implementation in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(5):2950–2960. doi: 10.1785/0120090020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell KW (1989) The dependence of peak horizontal acceleration on magnitude, distance, and site effects for small-magnitude earthquakes in California and eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79(5):1311–1346

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chiou B, Youngs R, Abrahamson N, Addo K (2010) Ground-motion attenuation model for small-to-moderate shallow crustal earthquakes in California and its implications on regionalization of ground-motion prediction models. Earthquake Spectra 26(4):907–926. doi: 10.1193/1.3479930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cotton F, Pousse G, Bonilla F, Scherbaum F (2008) On the discrepancy of recent European ground-motion observations and predictions from empirical models: analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and point-sources stochastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(5):2244–2261. doi: 10.1785/0120060084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Douglas J (2003a) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61(1):43–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Douglas J (2003b) A note on the use of strong-motion data from small magnitude earthquakes for empirical ground motion estimation. Skopje Earthquake 40 Years of European Earthquake Engineering (SE-40EEE)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Douglas J (2004) An investigation of analysis of variance as a tool for exploring regional differences in strong ground motion. J Seismol 8(4):485–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Douglas J (2007) On the regional dependence of earthquake response spectra. ISET J Earthquake Tech 44(1):77–99

    Google Scholar 

  20. Douglas J (2010) Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 8(6):1515–1526. DOI 10.1007/s10518-010-9195-5

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drouet S, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Souriau A (2007) Selection and ranking of ground motion models for seismic hazard analysis in the Pyrenees. J Seismol 11(1):87–100. doi: 10.1007/s10950-006-9039–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanks TC, Johnston AC (1992) Common features of the excitation and propagation of strong ground motion for north American earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(1):1–23

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hintersberger E, Scherbaum F, Hainzl S (2007) Update of likelihood-based ground-motion model selection for seismic hazard analysis in western central Europe. Bull Earthquake Eng 5(1):1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10518-006-9018–x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mooney WD, Laske G, Masters TG (1998) CRUST 5.1: a global crustal model at 5 degrees × 5 degrees. J Geophys Res 103:727–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F (2009) A comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(5):2961–2978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Smit P (2004) On the use of response spectral-reference data for the selection and ranking of ground-motion models for seismic-hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: the case of rock motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(6):2164–2185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stafford PJ, Strasser FO, Bommer JJ (2008) An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Bull Earthquake Eng 6(2):149–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Landsvirkjun and the University of Iceland for funding my 1-year visiting professorship at the Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, University of Iceland. Also I thank the organizers of the Second Euro-Med iterranean meeting on Accelerometric Data Exchange and Archiving for the invitation to present at this meeting. This article has benefited from participation in discussions during the PEGASOS Refinement Project and the EC-funded Seventh Framework Programme project SHARE and with Teraphan Ornthammarth.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Douglas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Douglas, J. (2011). Investigating Possible Regional Dependence in Strong Ground Motions. In: Akkar, S., Gülkan, P., van Eck, T. (eds) Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology. Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0152-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics