Analysis of Regional Ground Motion Variations for Engineering Application

Chapter
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 17)

Abstract

An important question for many ground motion hazard analyses is the degree to which ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed for one region may have bias for a different region. A closely related problem is the applicability of multi-regional GMPEs to a particular region, even if that region contributed some fraction of the database. It is well known that ground motions show distinct characteristics for stable continental regions, subduction zones, and active tectonic regions with shallow crustal earthquakes. Here I consider variations among active regions with shallow crustal earthquakes. For such regions having sufficient data that meaningful comparisons are possible, I review four approaches for evaluating regional variations: (1) direct comparisons of medians from GMPEs; (2) analysis of variance; (3) overall goodness of fit metrics; and (4) verification of specific GMPE attributes relative to regional data. For engineering application, the objective of the comparison should be to evaluate whether median predictions show statistically similar trends with respect to magnitude-scaling, distance-scaling, and site effects across the range of magnitudes and distances controlling the seismic hazard, as well as consistent standard deviation terms.

Keywords

Ground Motion Spectral Acceleration Standard Normal Variate Ground Motion Prediction Equation Italian Data 
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.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGA ground motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(S1):67–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seism Soc Am 82:505–510Google Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2007) Prediction of elastic displacement response spectra in Europe and the Middle East. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 36:1275–1301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Smit P, Sarma SK (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 Earthquake Eng 3(1):1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bommer JJ (2006) Empirical estimation of ground motion: advances and issues. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on the effects of surface geology on seismic motion, vol 1. Grenoble, France, pp 115–135Google Scholar
  6. 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 and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(S1):99–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5%-damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(S1):139–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiou BS-J, Darragh R, Dregor D, Silva WJ (2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra 24(S1):23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2008) An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 24(S1):173–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas J (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectra ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61:43–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas J (2004a) An investigation of analysis of variance as a tool for exploring regional differences in strong ground motions. J Seism 8:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglas J (2004b) Use of analysis of variance for the investigation of regional dependence of strong ground motion. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Paper 29 (electronic file)Google Scholar
  13. Douglas J (2006) Errata of and additions to “Ground motion estimation equations 1964–2003”. Intermediary Report BRGM/RP-54603-FR, Bureau de recherches géologiques et minièresGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglas J (2007) On the regional dependence of earthquake response spectra. ISET J Earthquake Technol 44(1):71–99Google Scholar
  15. Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F (2009a) A comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seism Soc Am 99(5):2961–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Kayen RE, Lanzo G (2009b) Database for earthquake strong motion studies in Italy. J Earthquake Eng 13(6):852–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 Seism Soc Am 94(6):2164–2185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 Earthquake Eng 6:149–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations