Impact of Magnitude Selection on Aleatory Variability Associated with Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations: Part II—Analysis of the Between‐Event Distribution in Central Italy

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 251-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dino Bindi ◽  
Matteo Picozzi ◽  
Daniele Spallarossa ◽  
Fabrice Cotton ◽  
Sreeram Reddy Kotha
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Aleatory Variability ◽  
Event Distribution

scholarly journals What is the impact of the August 24, 2016 Amatrice earthquake on the seismic hazard assessment in central Italy?

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maura Murru ◽  
Matteo Taroni ◽  
Aybige Akinci ◽  
Giuseppe Falcone
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Assessment ◽  
Central Italy ◽  
Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
The Impact

<p>The recent Amatrice strong event (M<sub>w</sub>6.0) occurred on August 24, 2016 in Central Apennines (Italy) in a seismic gap zone, motivated us to study and provide better understanding of the seismic hazard assessment in the macro area defined as “Central Italy”. The area affected by the sequence is placed between the M<sub>w</sub>6.0 1997 Colfiorito sequence to the north (Umbria-Marche region) the Campotosto area hit by the 2009 L’Aquila sequence M<sub>w</sub>6.3 (Abruzzo region) to the south. The Amatrice earthquake occurred while there was an ongoing effort to update the 2004 seismic hazard map (MPS04) for the Italian territory, requested in 2015 by the Italian Civil Protection Agency to the Center for Seismic Hazard (CPS) of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia INGV. Therefore, in this study we brought to our attention new earthquake source data and recently developed ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Our aim was to validate whether the seismic hazard assessment in this area has changed with respect to 2004, year in which the MPS04 map was released. In order to understand the impact of the recent earthquakes on the seismic hazard assessment in central Italy we compared the annual seismic rates calculated using a smoothed seismicity approach over two different periods; the Parametric Catalog of the Historical Italian earthquakes (CPTI15) from 1871 to 2003 and the historical and instrumental catalogs from 1871 up to 31 August 2016. Results are presented also in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA), using the recent ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) at Amatrice, interested by the 2016 sequence.</p>

scholarly journals Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Malaysia Due to Subduction Zone Earthquakes in Sumatran Region

IEEE Access ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 23920-23937
Author(s):  
M. S. Liew ◽  
Kamaluddeen Usman Danyaro ◽  
Mazlina Mohamad ◽  
Lim Eu Shawn ◽  
Aziz Aulov
Keyword(s):  
Subduction Zone ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Subduction Zone Earthquakes

scholarly journals Ground motions in urban Los Angeles from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302110039
Author(s):  
Filippos Filippitzis ◽  
Monica D Kohler ◽  
Thomas H Heaton ◽  
Robert W Graves ◽  
Robert W Clayton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Earthquake Sequence ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Spectral Accelerations

We study ground-motion response in urban Los Angeles during the two largest events (M7.1 and M6.4) of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence using recordings from multiple regional seismic networks as well as a subset of 350 stations from the much denser Community Seismic Network. In the first part of our study, we examine the observed response spectral (pseudo) accelerations for a selection of periods of engineering significance (1, 3, 6, and 8 s). Significant ground-motion amplification is present and reproducible between the two events. For the longer periods, coherent spectral acceleration patterns are visible throughout the Los Angeles Basin, while for the shorter periods, the motions are less spatially coherent. However, coherence is still observable at smaller length scales due to the high spatial density of the measurements. Examining possible correlations of the computed response spectral accelerations with basement depth and Vs30, we find the correlations to be stronger for the longer periods. In the second part of the study, we test the performance of two state-of-the-art methods for estimating ground motions for the largest event of the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, namely three-dimensional (3D) finite-difference simulations and ground motion prediction equations. For the simulations, we are interested in the performance of the two Southern California Earthquake Center 3D community velocity models (CVM-S and CVM-H). For the ground motion prediction equations, we consider four of the 2014 Next Generation Attenuation-West2 Project equations. For some cases, the methods match the observations reasonably well; however, neither approach is able to reproduce the specific locations of the maximum response spectral accelerations or match the details of the observed amplification patterns.

scholarly journals Selection of Ground Motion Prediction Equations for the Global Earthquake Model

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan P. Stewart ◽  
John Douglas ◽  
Mohammad Javanbarg ◽  
Yousef Bozorgnia ◽  
Norman A. Abrahamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Selection Procedure ◽  
Empirical Models ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Intensity Measures ◽  
Earthquake Model

Ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) relate ground motion intensity measures to variables describing earthquake source, path, and site effects. From many available GMPEs, we select those models recommended for use in seismic hazard assessments in the Global Earthquake Model. We present a GMPE selection procedure that evaluates multidimensional ground motion trends (e.g., with respect to magnitude, distance, and structural period), examines functional forms, and evaluates published quantitative tests of GMPE performance against independent data. Our recommendations include: four models, based principally on simulations, for stable continental regions; three empirical models for interface and in-slab subduction zone events; and three empirical models for active shallow crustal regions. To approximately incorporate epistemic uncertainties, the selection process accounts for alternate representations of key GMPE attributes, such as the rate of distance attenuation, which are defensible from available data. Recommended models for each domain will change over time as additional GMPEs are developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document