Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 53–70 | Cite as

Robust attenuation relations for peak time-domain parameters of strong ground motions

  • Ali Kafaei Mohammadnejad
  • Seyyed Mohammad Mousavi
  • Mohammad Torabi
  • Mehdi Mousavi
  • Amir Hossein AlaviEmail author
Original Article


This study presents new attenuation models for the estimation of peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and peak ground displacement (PGD) using a hybrid method coupling genetic programming and simulated annealing, called GP/SA. The PGA, PGV, and PGD were formulated in terms of earthquake magnitude, earthquake source to site distance, average shear-wave velocity, and faulting mechanisms. A worldwide database of strong ground motions released by Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) was employed to establish the models. A traditional genetic programming analysis was performed to benchmark the proposed models. For more validity verification, the GP/SA models were employed to predict the ground-motion parameters of the Iranian plateau earthquakes. Sensitivity and parametric analyses were carried out and discussed. The results show that the GP/SA attenuation models can offer precise and efficient solutions for the prediction of estimates of the peak time-domain characteristics of strong ground motions. The performance of the proposed models is better than or comparable with the attenuation relationships found in the literature.


Time-domain ground-motion parameters Attenuation relationship Genetic programming Simulated annealing Nonlinear modeling 



The authors are thankful to Professor Mohammad Ghasem Sahab for his support and stimulating discussions.


  1. Aarts E (1989) Simulated annealing and Boltzmann machines: a stochastic approach to combinatorial optimization and neural computing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Akgun A, Dag S, Bulut F (2008) Landslide susceptibility mapping for a landslide-prone area (Findikli, NE of Turkey) by likelihood-frequency ratio and weighted linear combination models. Environ Geol 54(6):1127–1143Google Scholar
  3. Alavi AH, Gandomi AH (2011) A robust data mining approach for formulation of geotechnical engineering systems. Eng Comput 28(3):242–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Sahab MG, Gandomi M (2010) Multi expression programming: a new approach to formulation of soil classification. Eng Comput 26(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alavi AH, Ameri M, Gandomi AH, Mirzahosseini MR (2011) Formulation of flow number of asphalt mixes using a hybrid computational method. Constr Build Mater 25(3):1338–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ATC-63 (2008) Recommended methodology for quantification of building system performance and response parameters. 90% draft report. Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  8. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2007) Boore-Atkinson nga ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. PEER Report 2007/01, Pacific Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett KNZ 68:128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabalar AF, Cevik A (2009) Genetic programming-based attenuation relationship: an application of recent earthquakes in Turkey. Comput Geosci 35:1884–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell KW (1981) Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:2039–2070Google Scholar
  12. Campbell KW (2002) Strong-motion attenuation relations. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, part B. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 1003–1012Google Scholar
  13. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2007) Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. PEER Report 2007/02, Pacific Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Cerny V (1985) Thermodynamical approach to the traveling salesman problem: an efficient simulation algorithm. J Optim Theory Appl 45:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chu D, Kerh T, Wu CH (2003) Analysis of strong motion information at checking stations of Kaohsiung area by back-propagation neural networks. J Civil Eng Tech 7:45–62Google Scholar
  16. Conrads M, Dolezal O, Francone FD, Nordin P (2004) Discipulus-fast genetic programming based on AIM learning technology. Register Machine Learning Technologies Inc., LittletonGoogle Scholar
  17. Das SK, Biswal RK, Sivakugan N, Das B (2011) Classification of slopes and prediction of factor of safety using differential evolution neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 64(1):201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deschaine LM (2000) Using genetic programming to develop a C/C++ simulation model of a waste incinerator science applications. International Corp, Draft Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  19. Deschaine LM, Zafran FA, Patel JJ, Amick D, Pettit R, Francone FD, Nordin P, Dilkes E, Fausett LV (2000) Solving the unsolved using machine learning, data mining and knowledge discovery to model a complex production process. In: Ades M (ed) Proceedings of advanced technology simulation conference, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 61:43–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas J (2004) Ground motion estimation equations 1964–2003. Research Report Number: 04-001-SM, Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar
  22. Dunlop P, Smith S (2003) Estimating key characteristics of the concrete delivery and placement process using linear regression analysis. Civil Eng Environ Syst 20:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Folino G, Pizzuti C, Spezzano G (2000) Genetic programming and simulated annealing: a hybrid method to evolve decision trees. In: Proceedings of EuroGP’2000, 1802, pp 294–303Google Scholar
  24. Francone F (2004) Discipulus Lite™ Owner’s Manual, Version 4.0. Register Machine Learning TechnologiesGoogle Scholar
  25. Frank IE, Todeschini R (1994) The data analysis handbook. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2011) Multi-stage genetic programming: a new strategy to nonlinear system modeling. Inf Sci 181(23):5227–5239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gandomi AH, Sahab MG, Alavi AH, Heshmati AAR, Gandomi M, Arjmandi P (2008) Application of a coupled simulated annealing-genetic programming algorithm to the prediction of bolted joints behavior. Am Eur J Sci Res 3(2):153–162Google Scholar
  28. Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Mirzahosseini R, Moghdas Nejad F (2011) Nonlinear genetic-based models for prediction of flow number of asphalt mixtures. J Mater Civil Eng ASCE 23(3):248–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2002) Beware of q2! J Mol Graph Model 20(4):269–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Güllü H, Erçelebi E (2007) A neural network approach for attenuation relationships: an application using strong-ground-motion data from Turkey. Eng Geol 93:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gunaydın K, Gunaydın A (2008) Peak ground acceleration prediction by artificial neural networks for Northwestern Turkey. Math Prob Eng ID 919420. doi: 10.1155/2008/919420
  32. Haselton CB, Deierlein GG (2007) Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete frame. PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Engineering Research Center. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  33. Ingber L (1993) Simulated annealing: practice versus theory. Math Comput Model 8:29–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johari A, Habibagahi G, Ghahramani (2006) A prediction of soil–water characteristic curve using genetic programming. J Geotech Geoenviron ASCE 132(5):661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalkan E, Akbulut S, Tortum A, Celik S (2009) Prediction of the unconfined compressive strength of compacted granular soils by using inference systems. Environ Geol 58(7):1429–1440Google Scholar
  36. Kerh T, Chu D (2002) Neural networks approach and microtremor measurements in estimating peak ground acceleration due to strong motion. Adv Eng Softw 33:733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kerh T, Ting SB (2005) Neural network estimation of ground peak acceleration at stations along Taiwan high-speed rail system. Eng Appl Artif Intell 8:857–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kermani E, Jafarian Y, Baziar MH (2009) New predictive models for the v max/a max ratio of strong ground motions using genetic programming. Int J Civil Eng 7:236–249Google Scholar
  39. Khademi MH (2002) Attenuation of peak and spectral accelerations in the Persian plateau. In: Proceedings of twelfth European conference on earthquake engineering, Paper ref 330Google Scholar
  40. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimisation by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koza J (1992) Genetic programming, on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee S, Ryu JH, Lee MJ, Won JS (2003) Use of an artificial neural network for analysis of the susceptibility to landslides at Boun, Korea. Environ Earth Sci 44(7):820–833Google Scholar
  44. Luco N, Cornell CA (2007) Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 23:357–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E (1953) Equation of state calculations by fast computing mechanics. J Chem Phys 21(6):1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mirzaei N, Rezapour M, Siahkali Moradi A (2004) Attenuation relationships of seismic intensity in IRAN. J Earth Space Phys 30:1–10Google Scholar
  47. Mollahasani A, Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Rashed A (2011) Nonlinear neural-based modeling of soil cohesion intercept. KSCE J Civil Eng 15(5):831–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mousavi SM, Gandomi AH, Alavi AH, Vesalimahmood M (2010) Modeling of compressive strength of HPC mixes using a combined algorithm of genetic programming and orthogonal least squares. Struct Eng Mech 36(2):225–241Google Scholar
  49. Mousavi SM, Alavi AH, Gandomi AH, Mollahasani A (2011) A hybrid computational approach to formulate soil deformation moduli obtained from PLT. Eng Geol 123:324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nowroozi AA (2005) Attenuation relations for peak horizontal and vertical accelerations of earthquake ground motion in Iran: a preliminary analysis. JSEE 7:109–128Google Scholar
  51. Poudyal CP, Chang C, Oh HJ, Lee S (2010) Landslide susceptibility maps comparing frequency ratio and artificial neural networks: a case study from the Nepal Himalaya. Environ Earth Sci 61(5):1049–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Power MB, Chiou NA, Abrahamson N, Roblee C (2006) The next generation of ground motion attenuation models, NGA project: an overview. In: Proceedings of the eighth national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, paper no. 2022
  53. Rajabi AM, Khamehchiyan M, Mahdavifar MR, Del Gaudio V (2010) Attenuation relation of Arias intensity for Zagros Mountains region (Iran). Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:110–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silva S (2007) GPLAB, a genetic programming toolbox for MATLAB, ITQB/UNL[M].
  55. Smit P, Arzoumanian V, Javakhishvili Z, Arefiev S, Mayer-Rosa D, Balassanian S, Chelidze T (2000) The digital accelerograph network in the Caucasus. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on earthquake hazard and seismic risk reduction—advances in natural and technological hazards research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, YerevanGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith GN (1986) Probability and statistics in civil engineering. Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Yilmaz I (2010a) The effect of the sampling strategies on the landslide susceptibility mapping by conditional probability and artificial neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 60(3):505–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yilmaz I (2010b) Comparison of landslide susceptibility mapping methodologies for Koyulhisar, Turkey: conditional probability, logistic regression, artificial neural networks, and support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 61(4):821–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zare M, Ghafory-Ashtiany M, Bard PY (1999) Attenuation law for the strong-motions in Iran. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering, Tehran, pp 345–354Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Kafaei Mohammadnejad
    • 1
  • Seyyed Mohammad Mousavi
    • 2
  • Mohammad Torabi
    • 3
  • Mehdi Mousavi
    • 4
  • Amir Hossein Alavi
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of EntrepreneurshipUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Transportation Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringArak UniversityArakIran
  5. 5.Young Researchers Club, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations