Ranking and calibration of ground-motion models using the stochastic area metric. 

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaleena Sunny ◽  
Marco De Angelis ◽  
Ben Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
Testing Methods ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Area Metric ◽  
Scenario Earthquakes ◽  
Ground Motion Variability ◽  
Ground Motion Models

<p>The selection and ranking of  Ground Motion Models (GMMs) for scenario earthquakes is a crucial element in seismic hazard analysis. Typically model testing and ranking do not appropriately account for uncertainties, thus leading to improper ranking. We introduce the stochastic area metric (AM) as a scoring metric for GMMs, which not only informs the analyst of the degree to which observed or test data fit the model but also considers the uncertainties without the assumption of how data are distributed. The AM can be used as a scoring metric or cost function, whose minimum value identifies the model that best fits a given dataset. We apply this metric along with existing testing methods to recent and commonly used European ground motion prediction equations: Bindi et al. (2014, B014), Akkar et al. (2014, A014) and Cauzzi et al. (2015, C015). The GMMs are ranked and their performance analysed against the European Engineering Strong Motion (ESM) dataset. We focus on the ranking of models for ranges of magnitude and distance with sparse data, which pose a specific problem with other statistical testing methods. The performance of models over different ranges of magnitude and distance were analysed using AM, revealing the importance of considering different models for specific applications (e.g., tectonic, induced). We find the A014 model displays good performance with complete dataset while B014 appears to be best for small magnitudes and distances. In addition, we calibrated GMMs derived from a compendium of data and generated a suite of models for the given region through an optimisation technique utilising the concept of AM and ground motion variability. This novel framework for ranking and calibration guides the informed selection of models and helps develop regionally adjusted and application-specific GMMs for better prediction. </p><p> </p>

Ranking and Selection of Earthquake Ground-Motion Models Using the Stochastic Area Metric

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaleena Sunny ◽  
Marco De Angelis ◽  
Benjamin Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Cumulative Distribution ◽  
Earthquake Ground Motion ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Area Metric ◽  
Few Data ◽  
Ground Motion Models ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract We introduce the cumulative-distribution-based area metric (AM)—also known as stochastic AM—as a scoring metric for earthquake ground-motion models (GMMs). The AM quantitatively informs the user of the degree to which observed or test data fit with a given model, providing a rankable absolute measure of misfit. The AM considers underlying data distributions and model uncertainties without any assumption of form. We apply this metric, along with existing testing methods, to four GMMs in order to test their performance using earthquake ground-motion data from the Preston New Road (United Kingdom) induced seismicity sequences in 2018 and 2019. An advantage of the proposed approach is its applicability to sparse datasets. We, therefore, focus on the ranking of models for discrete ranges of magnitude and distance, some of which have few data points. The variable performance of models in different ranges of the data reveals the importance of considering alternative models. We extend the ranking of GMMs through analysis of intermodel variations of the candidate models over different ranges of magnitude and distance using the AM. We find the intermodel AM can be a useful tool for selection of models for the logic-tree framework in seismic-hazard analysis. Overall, the AM is shown to be efficient and robust in the process of selection and ranking of GMMs for various applications, particularly for sparse and small-sized datasets.

A Suite of Alternative Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for Israel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soumya Kanti Maiti ◽  
Gony Yagoda-Biran ◽  
Ronnie Kamai
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Plate Boundary ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Engineering Applications ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT Models for estimating earthquake ground motions are a key component in seismic hazard analysis. In data-rich regions, these models are mostly empirical, relying on the ever-increasing ground-motion databases. However, in areas in which strong-motion data are scarce, other approaches for ground-motion estimates are sought, including, but not limited to, the use of simulations to replace empirical data. In Israel, despite a clear seismic hazard posed by the active plate boundary on its eastern border, the instrumental record is sparse and poor, leading to the use of global models for hazard estimation in the building code and all other engineering applications. In this study, we develop a suite of alternative ground-motion models for Israel, based on an empirical database from Israel as well as on four data-calibrated synthetic databases. Two host models are used to constrain model behavior, such that the epistemic uncertainty is captured and characterized. Despite the lack of empirical data at large magnitudes and short distances, constraints based on the host models or on the physical grounds provided by simulations ensure these models are appropriate for engineering applications. The models presented herein are cast in terms of the Fourier amplitude spectra, which is a linear, physical representation of ground motions. The models are suitable for shallow crustal earthquakes; they include an estimate of the median and the aleatory variability, and are applicable in the magnitude range of 3–8 and distance range of 1–300 km.

Are Near-Fault Fling Effects Captured in the New NGA West2 Ground Motion Models?

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 1629-1645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronnie Kamai ◽  
Norman Abrahamson
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Vertical Component ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Pass Filter ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Finite Fault ◽  
Maximum Period ◽  
Ground Motion Models

We evaluate how much of the fling effect is removed from the NGA database and accompanying GMPEs due to standard strong motion processing. The analysis uses a large set of finite-fault simulations, processed with four different high-pass filter corners, representing the distribution within the PEER ground motion database. The effects of processing on the average horizontal component, the vertical component, and peak ground motion values are evaluated by taking the ratio between unprocessed and processed values. The results show that PGA, PGV, and other spectral values are not significantly affected by processing, partly thanks to the maximum period constraint used when developing the NGA GMPEs, but that the bias in peak ground displacement should not be ignored.

scholarly journals Seismic hazard evaluation

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Somerville
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Earthquake Source ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ground Motion Models

This paper reviews concepts and trends in seismic hazard characterization that have emerged in the past decade, and identifies trends and concepts that are anticipated during the coming decade. New methods have been developed for characterizing potential earthquake sources that use geological and geodetic data in conjunction with historical seismicity data. Scaling relationships among earthquake source parameters have been developed to provide a more detailed representation of the earthquake source for ground motion prediction. Improved empirical ground motion models have been derived from a strong motion data set that has grown markedly over the past decade. However, these empirical models have a large degree of uncertainty because the magnitude - distance - soil category parameterization of these models often oversimplifies reality. This reflects the fact that other conditions that are known to have an important influence on strong ground motions, such as near- fault rupture directivity effects, crustal waveguide effects, and basin response effects, are not treated as parameters of these simple models. Numerical ground motion models based on seismological theory that include these additional effects have been developed and extensively validated against recorded ground motions, and used to estimate the ground motions of past earthquakes and predict the ground motions of future scenario earthquakes. The probabilistic approach to characterizing the ground motion that a given site will experience in the future is very compatible with current trends in earthquake engineering and the development of building codes. Performance based design requires a more comprehensive representation of ground motions than has conventionally been used. Ground motions estimates are needed at multiple annual probability levels, and may need to be specified not only by response spectra but also by suites of strong motion time histories for input into time-domain non-linear analyses of structures.

Hard as a rock? Looking for typical and atypical reference sites in the Greek network

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga-Joan Ktenidou ◽  
Faidra Gkika ◽  
Erion-Vasilis Pikoulis ◽  
Christos Evangelidis
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Site Response ◽  
Time Budget ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Spectral Ratio ◽  
Reference Sites ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Variability

<p>Although it is nowadays desirable and even typical to characterise site conditions in detail at modern recording stations, this is not yet a general rule in Greece, due to the large number and geographical dispersion of stations. Indeed, most of them are still characterised merely through geological descriptions or proxy-based parameters, rather than through in-situ measurements. Considering: 1. the progress made in recent years with sophisticated ground motion models and the need to define region-specific rock conditions based on data, 2. the move towards large open-access strong-motion databases that require detailed site metadata, and 3. that Greek-provenance recordings represent a significant portion of European seismic data, there are many reasons to improve our understanding of site response at these stations. Moreover, it has been shown recently in several regions that even sites considered as rock can exhibit amplification and ground motion variability, which has given rise to more scientific research into the definition of reference sites. For Greece, in-situ-characterisation campaigns for the entire network would impose unattainable time/budget constraints; so, instead, we implement alternative empirical approaches using the recordings themselves, such as the horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio technique and its variability. We present examples of 'well-behaved', typical rock sites, and others whose response diverges from what is assumed for their class.</p><p> </p>

Ranking of Ground-Motion Models (GMMs) for Use in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for Iran Based on an Independent Data Set

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoya Farajpour ◽  
Milad Kowsari ◽  
Shahram Pezeshk ◽  
Benedikt Halldorsson
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT We apply three data-driven selection methods, log-likelihood (LLH), Euclidean distance-based ranking (EDR), and deviance information criterion (DIC), to objectively evaluate the predictive capability of 10 ground-motion models (GMMs) developed from Iranian and worldwide data sets against a new and independent Iranian strong-motion data set. The data set includes, for example, the 12 November 2017 Mw 7.3 Ezgaleh earthquake and the 25 November 2018 Mw 6.3 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake and includes a total of 201 records from 29 recent events with moment magnitudes 4.5≤Mw≤7.3 with distances up to 275 km. The results of this study show that the prior sigma of the GMMs acts as the key measure used by the LLH and EDR methods in the ranking against the data set. In some cases, this leads to the resulting model bias being ignored. In contrast, the DIC method is free from such ambiguity as it uses the posterior sigma as the basis for the ranking. Thus, the DIC method offers a clear advantage of partially removing the ergodic assumption from the GMM selection process and allows a more objective representation of the expected ground motion at a specific site when the ground-motion recordings are homogeneously distributed in terms of magnitudes and distances. The ranking results thus show that the local models that were exclusively developed from Iranian strong motions perform better than GMMs from other regions for use in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in Iran. Among the Next Generation Attenuation-West2 models, the GMMs by Boore et al. (2014) and Abrahamson et al. (2014) perform better. The GMMs proposed by Darzi et al. (2019) and Farajpour et al. (2019) fit the recorded data well at short periods (peak ground acceleration and pseudoacceleration spectra at T=0.2  s). However, at long periods, the models developed by Zafarani et al. (2018), Sedaghati and Pezeshk (2017), and Kale et al. (2015) are preferable.

Exploring the Proximity of Ground-Motion Models Using High-Dimensional Visualization Techniques

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 1117-1138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Scherbaum ◽  
Nicolas M. Kuehn ◽  
Matthias Ohrnberger ◽  
Andreas Koehler
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
High Dimensional ◽  
Logic Tree ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Metric Set ◽  
Motion Characteristics ◽  
Visualization Techniques ◽  
Ground Motion Models

Logic trees have become a popular tool to capture epistemic uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis. They are commonly used by assigning weights to models on a purely descriptive basis (nominal scale). This invites the creation of unintended inconsistencies regarding the weights on the corresponding hazard curves. On the other hand, for human experts it is difficult to confidently express degrees-of-beliefs in particular numerical values. Here we demonstrate for ground-motion models how the model and the value-based perspectives can be partially reconciled by using high-dimensional information-visualization techniques. For this purpose we use Sammon's (1969) mapping and self-organizing mapping to project ground-motion models onto a two-dimensional map (an ordered metric set). Here they can be evaluated jointly according to their proximity in predicting similar ground motions, potentially making the assignment of logic tree weights consistent with their ground motion characteristics without having to abandon the model-based perspective.

Residual analysis of large strong-motion flatfiles as a tool for detecting data error and anomalies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Mascandola ◽  
Giovanni Lanzano ◽  
Francesca Pacor
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Site Response ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Consistency Check ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Tree Classifier ◽  
The Common ◽  
Ground Motion Models

<p>The rapid increase of seismic waveforms, due to the increment of seismic stations and continuous real-time streaming to data centres, leads to the need for automatic procedures aimed at supporting data processing and data quality control. In this study, we propose a semi-automatic procedure for the consistency check of large strong-motion datasets, classifying the anomalies observed on the residuals analysis and identifying the possible causes.</p><p>The data collected in the strong-motion databases are usually arranged as parametric tables (called flatfiles), used to disseminate the Intensity Measures (IMs) and the associated metadata of the processed waveforms. This is the current practice for the ITalian ACcelerometric Archive (ITACA, D’Amico et al., 2020) and Engineering Strong Motion (ESM; Lanzano et al. 2019a) databases. The adopted criteria for flatfile compilation are designed to collect IMs and related metadata in a uniform, updated, and traceable way, with the aim of providing datasets useful to develop Ground Motion Models (GMMs) for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) and engineering applications. Therefore, the consistency check of the flatfiles is a crucial task to improve the quality of the products provided by the waveform services.</p><p>The proposed procedure is based on the residual distributions obtained from ad-hoc ground motion prediction equations for the ordinates of the 5% damped acceleration response spectra. In this study, we focus on the active shallow crust events in ITACA, considering the ITA18 ground motion model (Lanzano et al., 2019b) as a reference for Italy. The total residuals, computed as logarithm difference between observations and predictions, are decomposed in between-event, between-station and event-and-station corrected residuals by applying a mixed-effect regression (Bates et al., 2015). This is the common practice for the (partial) removal of the ergodic assumption in empirical GMMs (e.g., Stafford 2014), where the contribution of the systematic corrective effects of event and station on aleatory variability are identified and shifted to the epistemic uncertainty. Afterward, the proposed procedure is applied to raise a warning in case of anomalous residual values. Warnings are provided when the normalized residuals exceed a certain threshold, in three ranges of periods (i.e., 0.01-0.15 s, 0.15-1 s, 1-5 s). The causes of warnings may be several and may concern the event, the site, the waveform, or a combination of them. Among the possible sources of anomalous trends, the more common are: preliminary or inaccurate event localization or magnitude, wrong soil category assigned based on proxies, misleading tectonic regime assigned to the earthquake, and fault directivity that may cause strong-ground motion amplification in certain directions. Warnings may also raise for peculiarities in the site-response (e.g., large amplifications/de-amplifications at certain frequency-bands) and to the occurrence of near-source effects in the waveforms (see Pacor et al., 2018). Based on the raised warnings, a decision tree classifier is developed to identify the common anomaly sources and to support the consistency check of the semi-automatic procedure.</p><p>This study may help to enhance the waveform services and related products, besides reducing the variability of ground motion models and guiding decisions for site characterization studies and network maintenance.</p>

An Overview of the NGA Project

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice Power ◽  
Brian Chiou ◽  
Norman Abrahamson ◽  
Yousef Bozorgnia ◽  
Thomas Shantz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Research Program ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Attenuation ◽  
Attenuation Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

The “Next Generation of Ground-Motion Attenuation Models” (NGA) project is a multidisciplinary research program coordinated by the Lifelines Program of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Southern California Earthquake Center. The objective of the project is to develop new ground-motion prediction relations through a comprehensive and highly interactive research program. Five sets of ground-motion models were developed by teams working independently but interacting with one another throughout the development process. The development of ground-motion models was supported by other project components, which included (1) developing an updated and expanded PEER database of recorded ground motions, including supporting information on the strong-motion record processing, earthquake sources, travel path, and recording station site conditions; (2) conducting supporting research projects to provide guidance on the selected functional forms of the ground-motion models; and (3) conducting a program of interactions throughout the development process to provide input and reviews from both the scientific research and engineering user communities. An overview of the NGA project components, process, and products is presented in this paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document