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.

Comparison of Near-Fault Velocity Pulse-Like Ground Motions from the 2018 Mw 6.4 Hualien, Taiwan, Earthquake with the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 Ground-Motion Models and Directivity Models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaofen Zhao ◽  
Zengping Wen ◽  
Junju Xie ◽  
Quancai Xie ◽  
Kuo-En Ching
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Spectral Shape ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Near Fault ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Shape Curve ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT Pulse-like ground motions cause severe damage in structures at certain periods. Hence, pulse effects need to be considered during probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and seismic design in the near-fault region. Traditional ground-motion models used to quantify the hazard posed by pulse-like ground motions may underestimate them, but they are relatively suitable for describing the residual ground motions after extracting pulses. Nevertheless, the applicability of Next Generation Attenuation-West2 Project (NGA-West2) models to pulse and residual ground motions has not been evaluated. Moreover, the applicability of recently developed directivity models, including the Shahi and Baker (2011; hereafter, SB2011), Chang et al. (2018; hereafter, Chang2018), and Rupakhety et al. (2011; hereafter, Rupakhety2011) models, has not been investigated for this event. Here, based on the abundance of pulse-like ground motions recorded during the Mw 6.4 Hualien earthquake, the applicability of NGA-West2 models and directivity models was quantitatively evaluated. In summary, (1) The applicability of NGA-West2 models to the observed original and residual ground motions varies significantly at different periods. The suggests that NGA-West2 models overestimate the original and residual ground motions for short periods (T<1.0  s), but are suitable for describing the residual ground motions yet underestimate the original ground motions for long periods (T≥1.0  s). (2) Pulse periods and amplification bands due to pulses are unusually larger than previous events. Similar to the Chang2018 model, the plateau of this event starts and ends at the periods of 0.70 and 1.1 times the pulse period. However, the Chang2018 and SB2011 models underestimate the constant ordinate of this plateau. Spectral ordinates of the spectral shape curve due to pulses for the short period (∼Tn<1.3  s) are smaller than the predictions from the Rupakhety2011 model. The trend was reversed for long periods (∼Tn>3.0  s). Compared with the Rupakhety2011 model, the peak location of the spectral shape curve is shifted to the long period. These results will be helpful for updating these models in the near future.

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.

Testing non-linear amplification factors used in ground motion models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina Loviknes ◽  
Danijel Schorlemmer ◽  
Fabrice Cotton ◽  
Sreeram Reddy Kotha
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Site Effects ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Building Codes ◽  
Linear Amplification ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Earthquake Predictability ◽  
Non Linear ◽  
Ground Motion Models

<p>Non-linear site effects are mainly expected for strong ground motions and sites with soft soils and more recent ground-motion models (GMM) have started to include such effects. Observations in this range are, however, sparse, and most non-linear site amplification models are therefore partly or fully based on numerical simulations. We develop a framework for testing of non-linear site amplification models using data from the comprehensive Kiban-Kyoshin network in Japan. The test is reproducible, following the vision of the Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP), and takes advantage of new large datasets to evaluate <span>whether or not</span> non-linear site effects predicted by site-amplification models are supported by empirical data. The site amplification models are tested using residuals between the observations and predictions from a GMM based only on magnitude and distance. When the GMM is derived without any site term, the site-specific variability extracted from the residuals is expected to capture the site response of a site. The non-linear site amplification models are tested against a linear amplification model on individual well-record<span>ing</span> stations. Finally, the result is compared to building codes where non-linearity is included. The test shows that for most of the sites selected as having sufficient records, the non-linear site-amplification models do not score better than the linear amplification model. This suggests that including non-linear site amplification in GMMs and building codes may not yet be justified, at least not in the range of ground motions considered in the test (peak ground acceleration < 0.2 g).</p>

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.

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.

scholarly journals A New Procedure for Evaluating Ground-Motion Models, with Application to Hydraulic-Fracture-Induced Seismicity in the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (5) ◽  
pp. 2380-2397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Cremen ◽  
Maximilian J. Werner ◽  
Brian Baptie
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Shale Gas ◽  
Hydraulic Fracture ◽  
Induced Seismicity ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Induced Earthquakes ◽  
Statistical Tool ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
Ground Motion Models

ABSTRACT An essential component of seismic hazard analysis is the prediction of ground shaking (and its uncertainty), using ground-motion models (GMMs). This article proposes a new method to evaluate (i.e., rank) the suitability of GMMs for modeling ground motions in a given region. The method leverages a statistical tool from sensitivity analysis to quantitatively compare predictions of a GMM with underlying observations. We demonstrate the performance of the proposed method relative to several other popular GMM ranking procedures and highlight its advantages, which include its intuitive scoring system and its ability to account for the hierarchical structure of GMMs. We use the proposed method to evaluate the applicability of several GMMs for modeling ground motions from induced earthquakes due to U.K. shale gas development. The data consist of 195 recordings at hypocentral distances (R) less than 10 km for 29 events with local magnitude (ML) greater than 0 that relate to 2018/2019 hydraulic-fracture operations at the Preston New Road shale gas site in Lancashire and 192 R<10  km recordings for 48 ML>0 events induced—within the same geologic formation—by coal mining near New Ollerton, North Nottinghamshire. We examine: (1) the Akkar, Sandikkaya, and Bommer (2014) models for European seismicity; (2) the Douglas et al. (2013) model for geothermal-induced seismicity; and (3) the Atkinson (2015) model for central and eastern North America induced seismicity. We find the Douglas et al. (2013) model to be the most suitable for almost all of the considered ground-motion intensity measures. We modify this model by recomputing its coefficients in line with the observed data, to further improve its accuracy for future analyses of the seismic hazard of interest. This study both advances the state of the art in GMM evaluation and enhances understanding of the seismic hazard related to U.K. shale gas development.

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>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document