Skip to main content
Log in

Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript


This article presents comparisons among the five ground-motion models described in other articles within this special issue, in terms of data selection criteria, characteristics of the models and predicted peak ground and response spectral accelerations. Comparisons are also made with predictions from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) models to which the models presented here have similarities (e.g. a common master database has been used) but also differences (e.g. some models in this issue are nonparametric). As a result of the differing data selection criteria and derivation techniques the predicted median ground motions show considerable differences (up to a factor of two for certain scenarios), particularly for magnitudes and distances close to or beyond the range of the available observations. The predicted influence of style-of-faulting shows much variation among models whereas site amplification factors are more similar, with peak amplification at around 1s. These differences are greater than those among predictions from the NGA models. The models for aleatory variability (sigma), however, are similar and suggest that ground-motion variability from this region is slightly higher than that predicted by the NGA models, based primarily on data from California and Taiwan.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Akkar et al. (2013a, b) also derived GMPEs using epicentral \((\hbox {R}_\mathrm{epi})\) and hypocentral \((\hbox {R}_\mathrm{hyp})\) distances and Bindi et al. (2013) also derived GMPEs using hypocentral (\(\hbox {R}_\mathrm{hyp})\) distance. These are not considered in this article.

  2. Bindi et al. (2013) also derived GMPEs using EC8 site classes rather than \(\hbox {V}_\mathrm{S30}\) directly. These models are not considered in this article.

  3. The expression ‘anelastic attenuation’ is only strictly valid for GMPEs for Fourier amplitudes and not response spectral ordinates.


  • Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82(1):505–510

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Earthq Spect 24(1):45–66. doi:10.1193/1.2924363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2013a) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2013b) Erratum: Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9508-6

  • Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Şenyurt M, Azari AS, Ay BÖ, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (2013c) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8

  • Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (2005) Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1):1–53. doi:10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P (2013) Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull Earthq Eng (submitted to this issue)

  • Bindi D, Parolai S, Grosser H, Milkereit C, Durukal E (2007) Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for northwestern Turkey using the aftershocks of the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake. Geophy Res Lett 34(L08305)

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Bungum H, Cotton F, Sabetta F, Abrahamson NA (2005) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic-hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(2):377–389. doi:10.1785/0120040073

    Article  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 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthq Spect 24(1):99–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford PJ (2013) Fourier spectral- and duration models for the generation of response spectra adjustable to different source-, propagation-, and site conditions. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9482-z

  • Building Seismic Safety Council (2009) 2009 NEHRP recommended seismic provisions For new buildings and other structures: part 1, provisions, Federal Emergency Management Agency (P-750), Washington

  • Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Rossi PL (2008) \(\text{ V }_{S30}\): Proxy for seismic amplification? Seismol Res Lett 79(4):540–543. doi: 10.1785/gssrl.79.4.540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou B, Darragh R, Gregor N, Silva W (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthq Spect 24(1):23–44. doi:10.1193/1.2894831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derras B, Cotton F, Bard P-Y (2013) Towards fully data driven ground-motion prediction models for Europe. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9481-0

  • Douglas J (2010) Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515–1526. doi:10.1007/s10518-010-9195-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J, Halldórsson B (2010), On the use of aftershocks when deriving ground-motion prediction equations, 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering: reaching Beyond Borders, paper ID 220.

  • Douglas J, Jousset P (2011) Modeling the difference in ground-motion magnitude-scaling in small and large earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 82(4):504–508. doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.4.504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermkes M, Kuehn NM, Riggelsen C (2013) Simultaneous quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in GMPEs using Gaussian process regression. Bull Earthq Eng (this issue)

  • Petersen MD, Frankel AD, Harmsen SC, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Wheeler RL, Wesson RL, Zeng Y, Boyd OS, Perkins DM, Luco N, Field EH, Wills CJ, Rukstales KS (2008) Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, Open-File Report 2008–1128, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 61 pp.

  • Power M, Chiou B, Abrahamson B, Bozorgnia Y, Shantz T, Roblee C (2008) An overview of the NGA project. Earthq Spect 24(1):3–21. doi:10.1193/1.2894833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1987) Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from Italian strong-motion records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77(5):1491–1513

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schmedes J, Archuleta RJ (2008) Near-source ground motion along strike-slip faults: Insights into magnitude saturation of PGV and PGA. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98(5):2278–2290. doi:10.1785/0120070209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Earthq Eng 6(2):149–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JP, Douglas J, Javanbarg MB, Di Alessandro C, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson NA, Boore DM, Campbell KW, Delavaud E, Erdik M, Stafford PJ (2012) Selection of a global set of ground motion prediction equations: Work undertaken as part of Task 3 of the GEM-PEER Global GMPEs project, PEER Report 2012/xx, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.

  • Strasser F, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ (2009) Sigma: issues, insights, and challenges. Seismol Res Lett 80(1):40–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2012) Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard Studies. NUREG-2117, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington

Download references


The work presented in this article was partially funded by the SHARE (Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe) Project funded under contract 226967 of the EC-Research Framework Programme FP7 and by the task ‘Reference database for seismic ground motion in Europe’ of the SIGMA (Seismic Ground Motion Assessment) project. We thank the personnel of the organisations operating seismological stations and freely disseminating their ground-motion data and related metadata, without which the derivation of the ground-motion models compared here would have been impossible. Finally, we thank an anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments on a previous version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Douglas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Douglas, J., Akkar, S., Ameri, G. et al. Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthquake Eng 12, 341–358 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: