Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of a new machine learning model to improve earthquake ground motion predictions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A cross-region prediction model named SeisEML (an acronym for Seismological Ensemble Machine Learning) has been developed in this paper to predict the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at a given site during an earthquake. The SeisEML model consists of hybridized models, kernel-based algorithms, tree regression algorithms, and regression algorithms. The model ablation study is conducted to examine the performance and the selection of meta-machine learning models in the SeisEML. The training and testing dataset consists of 20852 and 6256 accelerograms recorded by the Kyoshin Network, Japan. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) have been utilized to compare the predicted peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the test data. The SeisEML model yields approximately half the MAE and RMSE values obtained with conventional attenuation relations. The SeisEML model has been used to compute Japan’s iso acceleration contour map of three earthquakes (\(M_{JMA}\) 7.4, 6.6, and 6.1). The qualitative comparison of iso acceleration contours obtained from actual and predicted PGA using SeisEML clearly shows that the model can reliably predict the PGA distribution during an earthquake compared to the regional ground motion prediction equation (GMPE). The cross-region prediction was performed on the datasets of the Iranian earthquakes using SeisEML. The comparison of predicted and observed peak ground acceleration in terms of MAE and RMSE shows that the machine learning model’s performance is superior to the regional attenuation relation. The predictions of PGA from the developed ML model indicate that this trained model has the potential for predicting regional and global scenarios with similar tectonic setups. The ML model developed in this paper can considerably enhance the reliability of PGA prediction for seismic hazard mapping of any region and can serve as a reliable substitute for GMPEs.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used in this research work is taken from National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED).

Code availability (software application or custom code)

Code used in this paper has been developed in Python.

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Litehiser JJ (1989) Attenuation of vertical peak acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 79:549–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ask14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30:1025–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler J, Parmryd I (2010) Quantifying colocalization by correlation: The pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the mander’s overlap coefficient. Cytometry A 77A

  • Akoğlu H (2018) User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emer Med 18:91–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi AH, Gandomi AH (2011) Prediction of principal ground-motion parameters using a hybrid method coupling artificial neural networks and simulated annealing. Comput Struct 89:2176–2194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Modaresnezhad M et al (2011) New ground-motion prediction equations using multi expression programing. J Earthq Eng 15:511–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambraseys N, Simpson K, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:371–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anbazhagan P, Kumar A, Sitharam TG (2013) Ground motion prediction equation considering combined dataset of recorded and simulated ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 53:92–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aoi S, Kunugi T, Nakamura H, et al. (2011) Deployment of new strong motion seismographs of k-net and kik-net. In: In: Akkar S, Gülkan P, van Eck T (eds) Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology. Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, Springer, Dordrecht

  • Boore DM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 73:1865–1894

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Atkinson GM (1987) Stochastic prediction of ground motion and spectral response parameters at hard-rock sites in eastern north america. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:440–467

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthq Spectra 24:138–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Thompson EM, Cadet H (2011) Regional correlations of vs30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 meters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:3046–3059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E et al (2014) Nga-west2 equations for predicting pga, pgv, and 5% damped psa for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt R (2012) Vs30 - a site-characterization parameter for use in building codes, simplified earthquake resistant design, gmpes, and shakemaps. In: 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering

  • Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24(2):123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L (2004) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, et al (1984) Classification and regression trees. In: Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth

  • BSSC (2004) Nehrp recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (fema 450). 2003 edition. part 1: Provisions, buildin seismic safety council, national institute of building sciences, washington, d.c

  • Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol Res Lett 68:154–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) Nga-west2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of pga, pgv, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1087–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan YH (2003) Biostatistics 104: correlational analysis. Singap Med J 44:614–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

  • Dancey CP, Reidy J (1999) Statistics Without Maths For Psychology. Pearson Education Limited, https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117870366

  • Derras B, Bard PY, Cotton F et al (2012) Adapting the neural network approach to pga prediction: an example based on the kik-net data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 102:1446–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derras B, Bard PY, Cotton F (2013) Towards fully data driven ground-motion prediction models for europe. Bull Earthq Eng 12:495–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derras B, Bard PY, Cotton F (2016) Site-condition proxies, ground motion variability, and data-driven gmpes: insights from the nga-west2 and resorce data sets. Earthq Spectra 32:2027–2056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2003) 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00112-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2003) 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 61:43–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Edwards B (2016) Recent and future developments in earthquake ground motion estimation. Earth Sci Rev 160:203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efron B, Tibshirani R (1994) An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC

  • Frazier P (2018) A tutorial on bayesian optimization. ArXiv abs/1807.02811

  • Freund Y, Schapire RE (1995) A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. In: EuroCOLT

  • Freund Y, Schapire RE (1996) Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In: ICML

  • Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Mousavi M et al (2011) A hybrid computational approach to derive new ground-motion prediction equations. Eng Appl Artif Intell 24:717–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts P, Ernst D, Wehenkel L (2006) Extremely randomized trees. Mach Learn 63:3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadley DM, Helmberger DV (1980) Simulation of strong ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:617–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell S (1982) Simulation of ground accelerations for the May 1980 Mammoth Lakes, California, earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72(6A):2381–2387. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA07206A2381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartzell SH (1978) Earthquake aftershocks as green’s functions. Geophys Res Lett 5:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoerl AE, Kennard RW (2000) Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 42:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoshiba M, Kamigaichi O, Saito M et al (2008) Earthquake early warning starts nationwide in Japan. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union 89:73–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu P, Pan JS, Chu SC (2020) Improved binary grey wolf optimizer and its application for feature selection. Knowl Based Syst 195(105):746

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings L (1985) Modelling earthquakes with empirical green’s functions (abs). Earthq Notes 56:14

    Google Scholar 

  • Irikura K (1983) Semi-empirical estimation of strong ground motions during large earthquakes. Bull Disaster Prev Res Inst 33:63–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Irikura K, Muramatu I (1982) Synthesis of strong ground motions from large earthquakes using observed seismograms of small events. In: Proc 3rd Int Microzonation Conprence, Seattle, pp 447-458

  • Irikura KK (1986) Prediction of strong acceleration motions using empirical green’s function. In: Proc 7th Japan Earthq Eng Symp, pp 151–156

  • Joshi AP, Midorikawa S (2005) Attenuation characteristics of ground motion intensity from earthquakes with intermediate depth. J Seismol 9:23–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamae K, Irikura K (1992) Prediction of site specific strong ground motion using semi empirical methods. In: Earthq Eng 10th World Conf, pp 801-806

  • Kanamori H (1979) A semi-empirical approach to prediction of long-period ground motions from great earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am

  • Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T et al. (2017) Lightgbm: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In: NIPS

  • Kinoshita S (1998) Kyoshin net (k-net). Seismol Res Lett 69:309–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubo H, Kunugi T, Suzuki W, et al (2020) Hybrid predictor for ground-motion intensity with machine learning and conventional ground motion prediction equation. Sci Rep 10

  • Maclin R, Opitz DW (1999) Popular ensemble methods: an empirical study. J Artif Intell Res 11:169–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandal P, Mandal P (2022) Peak ground acceleration prediction using supervised machine learning algorithm for earthquakes of mw5.6-7.9 occurring in India and Nepal. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1806354/v1, preprint from Research Square

  • Midorikawa S (1993) Semi-empirical estimation of peak ground acceleration from large earthquakes. Tectonophysics 218(1):287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(93)90275-O

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikumo T, Irikura K, Imagawa K (1981) Near field strong motion synthesis front foreshock and aftershock records and rupture process of the main shock fault. IASPEI 21st General Assembly,London

  • Mirjalili SM, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa N, Fujiwara H (2013) A new ground motion prediction equation for japan applicable up to m9 mega-earthquake. J Disaster Res 8:878–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motazedian D, Atkinson GM (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munguía L, Brune JN (1984) Simulations of strong ground motion for earthquakes in the mexicali-imperial valley region. Geophys J Int 79:747–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath SK, Raj A, Thingbaijam KKS et al (2009) Ground motion synthesis and seismic scenario in Guwahati city-a stochastic approach. Seismol Res Lett 80:233–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada Y (2004) Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan. J Phys: Conf Seri 433(012):039

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostroumova L, Gusev G, Vorobev A, et al (2018) Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. In: NeurIPS

  • Panahi H (2017) Sarpol zahab earthquake. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31717.50408

  • Sheng Paul Lai S (1982) Statistical characterization of strong ground motions using power spectral density function. Bull Seismol Soc Am 72:259–274

  • Prasanth S, Singh U, Kumar A et al (2020) Forecasting spread of covid-19 using google trends: a hybrid gwo-deep learning approach. Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals 142:110–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2009) Gaussian processes for machine learning. In: Adaptive computation and machine learning

  • Saidi R, Waad B, Essoussi N (2019) Hybrid feature selection method based on the genetic algorithm and pearson correlation coefficient. In: Machine Learning Paradigms

  • Saikia CK (1993) Ground motion studies in great los angles due to \(m_w\)=7.0 earthquake on the elysian thrust fault. Bull Seismol Soc Am

  • Saikia CK, Herrmann RB (1985) Application of waveform modelling to determine focal mechanisms of four 1982 miramichi aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am

  • Schapire RE (1990) The strength of weak learnability. Mach Learn 5(2):197–227. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022648800760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scordilis E (2005) Globally valid relations converting ms, mb and mjma to mw. NATO advanced research workshop on earthquake monitoring and seismic hazard mitigation in Balkan Countries, 11–17 September 2005, the Rila Mountains-Resort Village Borovetz. Bulgaria, Abstracts book, pp 158–161

  • Shoushtari AV, bin Adnan A, Zare M (2018) Ground motion prediction equations for distant subduction interface earthquakes based on empirical data in the malay peninsula and Japan. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng

  • Si H, Midorikawa S (1999) New attenuation relationships for peak ground acceleration and velocity considering effects of fault type and site condition. J Struct Constr (transactions of Aij) 64:63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somala SN, Chanda S, Karthikeyan K, et al (2021) Explainable machine learning on new zealand strong motion for pgv and pga. Structures

  • Thiagarajan B, Srinivasan L, Sharma A, et al. (2017) A machine learning approach for prediction of on-time performance of flights. 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp 1–6

  • Thomas S, Pillai GN, Pal K (2017) Prediction of peak ground acceleration using \(\epsilon\)-svr, \(\nu\)-svr and ls-svr algorithm. Geomat Nat Hazards Risk 8:177–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trugman DT, Shearer PM (2018) Strong correlation between stress drop and peak ground acceleration for recent m 1–4 earthquakes in the san francisco bay area. Bull Seismol Soc Am 108:929–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victoria AH, Maragatham G (2021) Automatic tuning of hyperparameters using bayesian optimization. Evol Syst 12:217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Chen H, Li H et al (2017) Grey wolf optimization evolving kernel extreme learning machine: application to bankruptcy prediction. Eng Appl Artif Intell 63:54–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu GY (1994) Some aspects of earthquake seismology: slip partitioning along major convergent plate boundaries; composite source model for estimation of strong motion; and nonlinear soil response modeling. In: NIPS

  • Yu GY, Khattri KN, Anderson JG, et al. (1995) Strong ground motion from the uttarkashi, himalaya, india, earthquake: Comparison of observations with synthetics using the composite source model. Bull Seismol Soc Am

  • Zeng Y, Anderson JG, Yu GY (1994) A composite source model for computing realistic synthetic strong ground motions. Geophys Res Lett 21:725–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou T, Jiao H (2022) Exploration of the stacking ensemble machine learning algorithm for cheating detection in large-scale assessment. Educ Psychol Meas

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. John Clague and reviewers for manuscript suggestions. We thank Prof. Nagendra Kumar and Ms. Swati Singh for proof reading the manuscript and correcting grammatical errors. We would also like to thank National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience (NIED) for providing earthquake data.

Funding

This project is supported from grant for PhD research by Prime Minister Research Fellowship (Grant code: PM-31-22-626-414).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, 247667, India

    Anushka Joshi & Balasubramanian Raman

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Sangareddy, Telangana, 502285, India

    C. Krishna Mohan

  3. Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Agder, Grimstad, 4879, Norway

    Linga Reddy Cenkeramaddi

Authors
  1. Anushka Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balasubramanian Raman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Krishna Mohan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linga Reddy Cenkeramaddi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anushka Joshi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that there are no competing interests related to any financial concern with regard to the publication of a study. It is being declared that there are no personal relationships with people or organization that may influence or may be perceived to influence the research work described in this paper.

Ethical approval

The work presented in this paper does not involve research using humans and/or animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joshi, A., Raman, B., Mohan, C.K. et al. Application of a new machine learning model to improve earthquake ground motion predictions. Nat Hazards 120, 729–753 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06230-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06230-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation