On the Application of Genetic Programming for New Generation of Ground Motion Prediction Equations



The ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) generally predict ground-motion intensities such as peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and response spectral acceleration (SA), as a functional form of magnitude, site-to-source distance, site condition, and other seismological parameters. An adequate prediction of the expected ground motion intensities plays a fundamental role in practical assessment of seismic hazard analysis, thus GMPEs are known as the most potent elements that conspicuously affect the Seismic Hazard Analysis (SHA). Recently, beside two common traditional methodologies, i.e. empirical and physical relationships, the application of Genetic Programming, as an optimization technique based on the Evolutionary Algorithms (EA), has taken on vast new dimensions. During recent decades, the complexity of obtaining an appropriate predictive model leads to different studies that aim to achieve Genetic Programming-based GMPEs. In this chapter, the concepts, methodologies and results of different studies regarding driving new ground motion relationships based on Genetic Programming are discussed.


Ground Motion Genetic Programming Peak Ground Acceleration Gene Expression Programming Peak Ground Velocity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

327421_1_En_11_MOESM1_ESM.xls (247 kb)
IRANData 179Final (xls 247 kb)


  1. Ambraseys, N. N., and J. J. Bommer. “Attenuation relations for use in Europe: an overview.” Proceedings of Fifth SECED Conference on European Seismic Design Practice. of, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson, N. A., W. J. Silva, and R. Kamai. (2013). “Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Prediction equations based on the NGA-west2 data set.” Pacific Engineering Research Center Report 4.Google Scholar
  3. Alavi, A.H., Ameri, M., Gandomi, A.H., Mirzahosseini, M.R., 2011. Formulation of flow number of asphalt mixes using a hybrid computational method. Construction and Building Materials 25 (3), 1338–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alavi A.H., Gandomi A.H., “Prediction of Principal Ground-Motion Parameters Using a Hybrid Method Coupling Artificial Neural Networks and Simulated Annealing.” Computers & Structures, 89 (23–24): 2176–2194, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alavi A.H., Gandomi A.H., “A Robust Data Mining Approach for Formulation of Geotechnical Engineering Systems.” International Journal for Computer-Aided Engineering and Software-Engineering Computations, 28(3): 242–274, 2011.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Alavi A.H., Gandomi A.H., Modaresnezhad M., Mousavi M., “New Ground-Motion Prediction Equations Using Multi Expression Programming.” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15(4): 511–536, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Azarbakht, Alireza, Sahar Rahpeyma, and Mehdi Mousavi. (2014). “A New Methodology for Assessment of the Stability of round‐Motion prediction Equations.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 104(3), 1447–1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banzhaf, Wolfgang, et al. Genetic programming: an introduction. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brameier M. and Banzhaf W. (2007) Linear Genetic Programming. Number XVI in Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Brameier M. and Banzhaf W. (2001) A comparison of linear genetic programming and neural networks in medical data mining, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 5(1), 17--26.Google Scholar
  11. Boore, David M., and William B. Joyner. “The empirical prediction of ground motion.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 72.6B (1982): S43-S60.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, K.W (1985), “Strong motion attenuation relations: a ten-year perspective”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 1, pp. 759-804_1985.Google Scholar
  13. Cabalar, A.F. and Cevik, A. (2009). Genetic Programming-Based Attenuation Relationship: An Application of Recent Earthquakes in Turkey, Computers and Geosciences, 35(9), 1884-1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cramer, N. L. (1985, July). A representation for the adaptive generation of simple sequential programs. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (pp. 183-187).Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, J. (2011). Ground Motion Estimation Equations 1964–2010, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Elnashai, Amr S., and Luigi Di Sarno. Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elshorbagy, A., Corzo, G., Srinivasulu, S., & Solomatine, D. P. (2010). Experimental investigation of the predictive capabilities of data driven modeling techniques in hydrology-Part 2: Application. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14(10), 1943-1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fukushima, Y. and T. Tanaka (1990), “A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion in Japan”, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 80, pp. 757-783.Google Scholar
  19. Friedberg, R. M. (1958). A learning machine: Part I. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2(1), 2-13.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferreira, C., 2001b. Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving problems. Complex Systems 13 (2), 87–129.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferreira, C., 2001a. Gene expression programming in problem solving. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Online World Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Applications, 10–24. /
  22. Ferreira, C., 2002. Gene Expression Programming: Mathematical Modeling by an Artificial Intelligence. Angra do Heroisma, Portugal. /
  23. Fister, I., Gandomi, A.H., Fister, I.J., Mousavi, M., Farhadi, A., (2014), Soft Computing in Earthquake engineering: A short overview. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Hazard Mitigation 2 (2), 42-48.Google Scholar
  24. Gandomi, A. H., A. H. Alavi, M. Mousavi and S.M. Tabatabaei, (2011), A hybrid computational approach to derive new ground-motion prediction equations, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24 (4), 717-732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gandomi, A. H., Yang, X. S., Talatahari, S., & Alavi, A. H. (Eds.). (2013). Metaheuristic applications in structures and infrastructures.Google Scholar
  26. Gandomi M, Soltanpour M, Zolfaghari MR, Gandomi AH. (2015). Prediction of peak ground acceleration of Iran’s tectonic regions using a hybrid soft computing technique. Geoscience Frontiers.Google Scholar
  27. Gandomi A.H., Alavi A.H. (2012). A New Multi-Gene Genetic Programming Approach to Nonlinear System Modeling. Part II: Geotechnical and Earthquake Engineering Problems. Neural Computing and Applications 21(1), 189--201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gepsoft- Modeling made easy-data mining software (accessed 15.07.08).
  29. Goldberg, D.E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, First Edition, Addison-Wesley publication, Inc. Reading, MA, 432.Google Scholar
  30. Gandomi, A.H., Alavi, A.H., Arjmandi, P., Aghaeifar, A., Seyednour, R., 2010. Modeling of compressive strength of hpc mixes using a combined algorithm of genetic programming and orthogonal least squares. Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures 5 (5), 735–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Idriss, I. M. (1978). Characteristics of earthquake ground motions, state-of-the-arts report, earthquake engineering and soil dynamics’. In Proceeding of the ASCE Geotechnical Engineering Division specialty conference: Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamic, Vol.III. pp:1151–1265 Google Scholar
  32. Joyner, William B., and David M. Boore. “Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion.” Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Geotech. Eng. Div. Specialty Conf. 1988.Google Scholar
  33. Joyner, W. B., and D. M. Boore. “Recent developments in strong-motion attenuation relationships.” NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION SP (1996): 101-116.Google Scholar
  34. Johari, A., Habibagahi, G., and Ghahramani, A. (2006). Prediction of Soil-Water by Characteristic Curve Using Genetic Programming, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(5), 661-665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krishnan, S., Chen, J., Komatitsch, D., Tromp, J., 2006. Case studies of damage to tall steel moment-frame buildings in Southern California during large San Andreas earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 1523–1537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Komatitsch D, Liu Q, Tromp J, Su ss P, Stidham C, Shaw JH. Simulations of ground motion in the Los Angeles basin based upon the spectral-element method. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2004;94:187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koza, J.R. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 840.Google Scholar
  38. Kermani, E., Jafarian, Y., and Baziar, M.H. (2009). New Predictive Models for the Ratio v of Strong Ground Motions using Genetic Programming, International Journal of Civil Engineering, 7(4), 246-239.Google Scholar
  39. Langdon, W.B., et al. (2008). “Genetic programming: An introduction and tutorial, with a survey of techniques and applications.” Computational Intelligence: A Compendium. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 927--1028.Google Scholar
  40. McGuire, R.K. (1995). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis and Design Earthquakes: Closing the Loop, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85(5), 1275-1284.Google Scholar
  41. McGuire, R. K., 2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis, Monograph MNO-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
  42. McGarr, A. (1984), “Scaling of ground motion parameters, state of stress, and focal depth”, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 89, pp. 6969-6979.Google Scholar
  43. Midorikawa, S., M. Matsuoka and K. Sakugawa (1994), “Site effects on strong-motion records during the 1987 Chibaken-toho-oki_Japan earthquake”, The 9 th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Vol. 3, pp. 85-90.Google Scholar
  44. Mohammadnejad A.K., Mousavi S.M., Torabi M., Mousavi M., Alavi A.H. (2012). Robust Attenuation Relations for Peak Time-Domain Parameters of Strong Ground-Motions. Environmental Earth Sciences, 67(1):53-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nordin, P. (1997). Evolutionary program induction of binary machine code and its applications. Munster: Krehl.Google Scholar
  46. Oltean, M. and, Gross, C., 2003. A comparison of several linear genetic programming techniques. Advances in Complex Systems 14(4), 1--29.Google Scholar
  47. OpenSHA (2009). Open Seismic Hazard Analysis Computer Platform,
  48. Petersen, M. D., Frankel, A. D., Harmsen, S. C., Mueller, C. S., Haller, K. M., Wheeler, R. L., Wesson, R. L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O. S., Perkins, D. M., Luco, N., Field, E. H., Wills, C. J., and Rukstales, K. S., 2008. Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps, USGS Open-File Report 2008-1128.Google Scholar
  49. Power, Maurice, et al. “An overview of the NGA project.” Earthquake Spectra 24.1 (2008): 3-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Papageorgiou AS, Aki K. A specific barrier model for the quantitative description of inhomogeneous faulting and the prediction of strong ground motion, Part I: description of the model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 1983;73:693–722.Google Scholar
  51. Rahpeyma, S., A. Azarbakht and M. Mousavi. (2013) “A new Peak-Ground-Acceleration prediction model by using genetic optimization techniques for Iran’s plateau database”. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 15(3) p153-170Google Scholar
  52. Samuel AL (1983) AI, where it has been and where it is going. In: IJCAI, pp 1152–1157Google Scholar
  53. Silva, S. (2007). GPLAB_A Genetic Programming Toolbox for MATLAB, Version3,
  54. Scherbaum, F., Delavaud, E., and Riggelsen, C. (2009). Model Selection in Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Information-Theoretic Perspective, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99(6), 3234-3247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trifunac, M. D., and A. G. Brady. “Correlations of peak acceleration, velocity and displacement with earthquake magnitude, distance and site conditions.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 4.5 (1976): 455-471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Torres, R. D. S., Falcão, A. X., Gonçalves, M. A., Papa, J. P., Zhang, B., Fan, W., & Fox, E. A. (2009). A genetic programming framework for content-based image retrieval. Pattern Recognition, 42(2), 283-292.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yang, X. S., Gandomi, A. H., Talatahari, S., & Alavi, A. H. (Eds.). (2013). Metaheuristics in Water, Geotechnical and Transportation Engineering. Elsevier, Waltham, MA, 2013.Google Scholar
  58. Youngs, R.R., S.J. Chiou, W.J. Silva, and J.R. Humphrey (1997), “Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes”, Seism. Res. Lett., Vol. 68, pp. 58-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arak UniversityArakIran
  2. 2.Earthquake Engineering Research CenterUniversity of IcelandReykjavíkIceland

Personalised recommendations