Abstract
This paper aims at providing a quantitative evaluation of the performance of a set of empirical ground motion models (GMMs), by testing them in a magnitude and distance range (Mw = 5.5 ÷ 7.0 and Joyner-Boore source-to-site distance Rjb ≤ 20 km) which dominates hazard in the highest seismicity areas of Italy for the return periods of upmost interest for seismic design. To this end, we made use of the very recent release of the NESS2.0 dataset (Sgobba et al. NESS2.0: an updated version of the worldwide dataset for calibrating and adjusting ground motion models in near-source. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), 2021. https://doi.org/10.13127/NESS.2.0), that collects worldwide near-source strong motion records with detailed metadata. After selection of an ample set of GMMs, based on either their application in past seismic hazard assessment (SHA) studies or for their recent introduction, a quantification of between- and within-event residuals of predictions with respect to records was performed, with the final aim of shedding light on the performance of existing GMMs in the near-source of moderate-to-large earthquakes, also in view of their potential improvement by taking advantage of results from 3D physics-based numerical simulations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The NESS2.0 dataset is freely available at the website http://ness.mi.ingv.it/ (Last access: June 6th 2021). The records from ITACA were downloaded from the ITalian ACcelerometric Archive, http://itaca.mi.ingv.it (Last access: March 12th 2021). The records from SIMBAD were provided by Chiara Smerzini (Politecnico di Milano).
Code availability
All the computations have been done using MATLAB (http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/). The authors don’t give their consent to share their routines.
References
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 81:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.2.195
Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014a) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:359–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9461-4
Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Senyurt M, Azari AS, Ay BÖ (2014b) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8
Al Atik L, Abrahamson NA, 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. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.794
Ambraseys NN, Douglas J (2003) Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00153-7
Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ (1996) Prediction of horizontal response spectra in Europe. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 25:371–400
Baker JW, Rezaeian S, Goulet CA, Luco N, Teng G (2021) A subset of CyberShake ground-motion time series for response-history analysis. Earthq Spectra 37:1162–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020981970
Barani S, Spallarossa D, Bazzurro P (2009) Disaggregation of probabilistic ground-motion hazard in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2638–2661. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080348
Bindi D, Pacor F, Luzi L, Puglia R, Massa M, Ameri G, Paolucci R (2011) Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database. Bull Seismol Soc Am 9:1899–1920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9313-z
Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P (2014) Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5% - damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0s using the RESORSE dataset. Bull Earthq Eng 12:391–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9525-5
Boore DM (2010) Orientation—independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:1830–1835. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090400
Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30:1057–1085. https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M
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. https://doi.org/10.1193/062913eqs175m
Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, Bianchini A (2015) Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1587–1612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9685-y
Chiou BSJ, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1117–1153. https://doi.org/10.1193/072813EQS219M
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels
D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Russo E, Sgobba S, Lanzano G, Pacor F, Luzi L (2020) Italian Accelerometric Archive v 3.1 – Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile Nazionale. https://doi.org/10.13127/itaca.3.1
Douglas J, Edwards B (2016) Recent and future developments in earthquake ground motion estimation. Earth Sci Rev 160:203–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.07.005
Idriss IM (1991) Selection of earthquake ground motions at rock sites. Report prepared for the Structures Division, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis
Kale Ö, ve Akkar S (2013) A new procedure for selecting and ranking Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs): the Euclidean Distance-Based Ranking (EDR) Method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:1069–1084. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120134
Kotha SR, Weatherill G, Bindi D et al (2020) A regionally-adaptable ground-motion model for shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe. Bull Earthq En 18:4091–4125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00869-1
Lanzano G, Luzi L, Pacor F, Felicetta C, Puglia R, Sgobba S, D’Amico M (2019) A revised ground-motion prediction model for shallow crustal earthquakes in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109:525–540. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180210
Luzi L, Lanzano G, Felicetta C, D’Amico MC, Russo E, Sgobba S, Pacor F, and ORFEUS Working Group 5 (2020) Engineering Strong Motion Database (ESM) (Version 2.0). Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV). https://doi.org/10.13127/ESM.2
MPS Working Group (2004) Redazione della Mappa di Pericolosità Sismica Prevista dall’Ordinanza PCM del 20 Marzo 2003 n.3274, All. 1, Rapporto Conclusivo per il Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Milano-Roma, Italy, Aprile 2004
Pacor F, Felicetta C, Lanzano G, Sgobba S, Puglia R, D’Amico M, Russo E, Baltzopoulos G, Iervolino I (2018) NESS v1.0: A worldwide collection of strong-motion data to investigate near source effects. Seismol Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180149
Paolucci R, Smerzini C, Vanini M (2021) BB-SPEEDset: a validated dataset of broadband near-source earthquake ground motions from 3D physics-based numerical simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am (in Press). https://doi.org/10.1785/0120210089
Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F, Bonilla F (2011) Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK—net data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:1242–1258. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100252
Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1996) Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationary earthquake ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:337–352. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860020337
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 94:2164–2185. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120030147
Sgobba S, Felicetta C, Lanzano G, Ramadan F, D'Amico M, Pacor F. (2021) NESS2.0: an updated version of the worldwide dataset for calibrating and adjusting ground motion models in near-source. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) https://doi.org/10.13127/NESS.2.0
Smerzini C, Galasso C, Iervolino I, Paolucci R (2014) Ground motion record selection based on broadband spectral compatibility. Earthq Spectra 30:1427–1448. https://doi.org/10.1193/052312EQS197M
Strasser FO, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2008) Truncation of the distribution of ground-motion residuals. J Seismol 12:79–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-007-9073-z
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially supported by swissnuclear within the research activity “Development of advanced numerical approaches for earthquake ground motion prediction”, in the framework of the Sigma2 project, and by the Department of Civil Protection within the ReLUIS project WP18 “Normative contributions related to seismic action”. The authors are sincerely grateful to Sreeram Reddy Kotha for providing fruitful suggestions about the interpretations of results, and to Ezio Faccioli and Chiara Smerzini for their useful comments. Researchers of INGV are gratefully acknowledged for making the NESS2.0 dataset available. The authors also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and detailed remarks which contributed significantly to improve our manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors acknowledge that there are no conflicts of interest.
Consent for publication
The authors express their consent for publication of the manuscript in Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, Springer.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Paolucci, R., Chiecchio, A. & Vanini, M. The older the better? The strange case of empirical ground motion models in the near-source of moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 1325–1342 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01304-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01304-9