Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 1899–1920 | Cite as

Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database

  • D. Bindi
  • F. Pacor
  • L. Luzi
  • R. Puglia
  • M. Massa
  • G. Ameri
  • R. Paolucci
Original Research Paper

Abstract

We present a set of ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) derived for the geometrical mean of the horizontal components and the vertical, considering the latest release of the strong motion database for Italy. The regressions are performed over the magnitude range 4–6.9 and considering distances up to 200 km. The equations are derived for peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV) and 5%-damped spectral acceleration at periods between 0.04 and 2 s. The total standard deviation (sigma) varies between 0.34 and 0.38 log10 unit, confirming the large variability of ground shaking parameters when regional data sets containing small to moderate magnitude events (M < 6) are used. The between-stations variability provides the largest values for periods shorter than 0.2 s while, for longer periods, the between-events and between-stations distributions of error provide similar contribution to the total variability.

Keywords

Ground motion prediction equations Strong motion Italy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82: 505–510Google Scholar
  2. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2010) Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV and spectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 81: 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Çagnan Z, Yenier E, Sandıkkaya A, Sandıkkaya A, Gülkan P (2010) The recently compiled Turkish strong motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters. J Seismol 14: 457– 479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akkar S, Cagnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100: 2978–2995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81: 794–801. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.5.794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ameri G, Massa M, Bindi D, D’Alema E, Gorini A, Luzi L, Marzorati S, Pacor F, Paolucci R, Puglia R, Smerzini C (2009) The 6 April 2009 Mw 6.3 L’Aquila (Central Italy) Earthquake: strong-motion observations. Seismol Res Lett 80: 951–966. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.80.6.951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2006) Relationships between median values and between aleatory variabilities for different definitions of the horizontal component of motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96: 1512–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bindi D, Luzi L, Pacor F, Franceschina G, Castro RR (2006) Ground-motion prediction from empirical attenuation relationships versus recorded data: the case of the 1997–1998 Umbria-Marches, Central Italy, strong motion data set. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96(3): 984–1002. doi: 10.1785/0120050102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bindi D, Luzi L, Pacor F (2009) Interevent and interstation variability computed for the Italian accelerometric archive (ITACA). Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(4): 2471–2488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bindi D, Luzi L, Massa M, Pacor F (2010) Horizontal and vertical ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian accelerometric archive (ITACA). Bull Earthq Eng 8: 1209–1230. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9130-9 CrossRefGoogle 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 0.01 s and 100 s. Earthq Spectra 24: 99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castro RR, Pacor F, Bindi D, Franceschina G, Luzi L (2004) Site response of strong motion stations in the Umbria Region, Central Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94: 576–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2003) prEN 1998-1- Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Draft No 6, Doc CEN/TC250/SC8/N335, January 2003, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas J (2007) On the regional dependence of earthquake response spectra: ISET. J Earthq Technol 44(1): 471–499Google Scholar
  15. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1994) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, ISBN 978-0412042317, 456 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Foti S, Parolai S, Bergamo P, Di Giulio G, Maraschini M, Milana G, Picozzi M, Puglia R (2011) Surface wave surveys for seismic site characterization of accelerometric stations in ITACA. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9306-y
  17. Luzi L, Bindi D, Franceschina G, Pacor F, Castro RR (2005) Geotechnical site characterisation in the Umbria Marche area and evaluation of earthquake site-response. Pure Appl Geoph 162: 2133–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Luzi L, Sabetta F, Hailemikael S, Bindi D, Pacor F, Mele F (2008) ITACA (ITalian ACcelerometric Archive): a web portal for the dissemination of Italian strong motion data. Seismol Res Lett 79(5): 717–723. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.79.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menke W (1989) Geophysical data analysis: discrete inverse theory. In: Dmowska R, Holton JR (Eds) Int Geophys Series, vol 45. Academic Press, New York, 289 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Pacor F, Paolucci R, Ameri G, Massa M, Puglia R (2011) Italian strong motion records in ITACA: overview and record processing, Bull Earth Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-011-9295-x
  21. Paolucci R, Pacor F, Puglia R, Ameri G, Cauzzi C, Massa M (2011) Record processing in ITACA, the new Italian strong-motion database. In: Akkar S, Gulkan P, Van Eck T (eds) Earthquake data in engineering seismology. Predictive models, data management and networks. Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering series, Vol. 14, Chapter 8. Springer, pp 99–113Google Scholar
  22. Rovelli A, Caserta A, Marra F, Ruggiero V (2002) Can seismic waves be trapped inside an inactive fault zone? The case study of Nocera Umbra, Central Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 92: 2217–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rovelli A, Scognamiglio L, Marra F, Caserta A (2001) Edge diffracted 1-sec surface waves observed in a small-size intramountain basin (Colfiorito, central Italy). Bull Seismol Soc Am 91: 1851–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1996) Estimation of response spectra and simulation of non-stationary earthquake ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(2): 337–352Google Scholar
  25. Wessel P, Smith WHF (1991) Free software helps map and display data. Eos Trans AGU 72(41): 445–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zoback ML (1992) First- and second-order patterns of stress in the lithosphere: the world stress map project. J Geophys Res 97(B8): 11,703–11,728Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Bindi
    • 1
    • 2
  • F. Pacor
    • 2
  • L. Luzi
    • 2
  • R. Puglia
    • 2
  • M. Massa
    • 2
  • G. Ameri
    • 2
  • R. Paolucci
    • 3
  1. 1.Deutsches Geo Forschungs Zentrum GFZCentre for Disaster Managment (CEDIM)PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaMilanItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations