In seismic design, intensity measures are selected on the basis of how well these parameters correlate with the damage caused by earthquakes and on our ability to predict these intensity measures for a given earthquake scenario. As an index for the energy content of ground motions, Arias Intensity has proved to be efficient in several applications, including the prediction of earthquake-induced slope failure and damage in structures, and to a lesser extent liquefaction triggering. In this article, the Kiban-Kyoshin network (KiK)-net database is used to present ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for Arias Intensity of shallow crustal and subduction zone earthquakes. The proposed GMPEs are applicable for M 4-9. The predictive models incorporate the average shear-wave velocity over the upper 30 meters (VS30) for the prediction of site effects. The proposed relationships include additional attenuation for paths that cross the volcanic fronts and different attenuation for forearc and backarc regions of Japan.
AbrahamsonNYoungsR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America82(1): 505–510.
2.
Al AtikLAbrahamsonNBommerJJScherbaumFCottonFKuehnN (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismological Research Letters81(5): 794–801.
3.
Al AtikLYoungsRR (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1301–1318.
4.
AriasA (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: HansenRJ (ed.) Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 438–483.
5.
BahrampouriMRodriguez-MarekAShahiSDawoodH (2020) An updated database for ground motion parameters for KiK-net records. Earthquake Spectra37(1):505–522.
BenitoBHerraizM (1997) An approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics26: 79–92.
8.
BooreDMThompsonEM (2015) Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(2A): 1029–1041.
9.
BullockZDashtiSLielAPorterKKarimiZBradleyB (2017) “Ground-motion prediction equations for Arias Intensity, cumulative absolute velocity, and peak incremental ground velocity for rock sites in different tectonic environments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(5): 2293–2309.
10.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1087–1115.
11.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2019) Ground motion models for the horizontal components of Arias intensity (AI) and cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) using the NGA-West2 database. Earthquake Spectra35(3): 1289–1310.
12.
DawoodHMRodriguez-MarekA (2013) A method for including path effects in ground-motion prediction equations: An example using the Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake aftershocks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(2B): 1360–1372.
13.
DouglasJ (2019) Ground Motion Prediction Equations 1964–2019. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Available at: http://www.gmpe.org.uk/gmpereport2014.pdf (accessed 2 July 2020).
14.
Foulser-PiggottRGodaK (2015) Ground-motion prediction models for Arias Intensity and cumulative absolute velocity for Japanese earthquakes considering single-station sigma and within-event spatial correlation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(4): 1903–1918.
15.
Foulser-PiggottRStaffordPJ (2012) A predictive model for Arias Intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41(3): 431–451.
16.
GreenRAMitchellJK (2003) A closer look at Arias Intensity-based liquefaction evaluation procedures. In: Proceedings of 7th Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13–15 February, paper no. 94, 9 p. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.
17.
HarpELWilsonRC (1995) Shaking intensity thresholds for rock falls and slides: Evidence from 1987 Whittier Narrows and Superstition Hills earthquake strong-motion records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(6): 1739–1757.
JinAAkiK (2005) High-resolution maps of Coda Q in Japan and their interpretation by the brittle-ductile interaction hypothesis. Earth, Planets and Space57(5): 403–409.
20.
KayenREMitchellJK (1997) Assessment of liquefaction potential during earthquakes by Arias Intensity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering123(12): 1162–1174.
LeeJGreenRA (2010) An empirical arias intensity relationship for rock sites in stable continental regions. In: JOINT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 7th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering (7CUEE) and 5th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering (5ICEE)March 3–5, 2010, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
23.
LinP-SChiouBAbrahamsonNWallingMLeeC-TChengC-T (2011) Repeatable source, site, and path effects on the standard deviation for empirical ground-motion prediction models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(5): 2281–2295.
24.
MackieKStojadinovicB (2002) Optimal probabilistic seismic demand model for typical highway overpass bridges. In: Proceedings of 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, 9–13 September, paper no. 467, pp. 9–13. The Netherlands:Elsevier Science Ltd.
25.
McVerryGHZhaoJXAbrahamsonNASomervillePG (2000) Crustal and subduction zones attenuation relations for New Zealand earthquakes. In: Proceedings of 12th world conference of earthquake engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 January–4 February.
Rodriguez-MarekACottonFAbrahamsonNAAkkarSAl AtikLEdwardsBMontalvaGADawoodHM (2013) A model for single-station standard deviation using data from various tectonic regions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(6): 3149–3163.
28.
Rodriguez-MarekAMontalvaGACottonFBonillaF (2011) Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(3): 1242–1258.
29.
SammonJW (1969) A nonlinear mapping for data structure analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computers100(5): 401–409.
30.
SandıkkayaMAAkkarS (2017) Cumulative absolute velocity, Arias Intensity and significant duration predictive models from a pan-European strong-motion dataset. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15(5): 1881–1898.
31.
ScherbaumFKuehnNMOhrnbergerMKoehlerA (2010) Exploring the proximity of ground-motion models using high-dimensional visualization techniques. Earthquake Spectra26(4): 1117–1138.
32.
StaffordPJ (2014) Crossed and nested mixed-effects approaches for enhanced model development and removal of the ergodic assumption in empirical ground-motion models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(2): 702–719.
33.
StaffordPJBerrillJBPettingaJR (2009) New predictive equations for Arias Intensity from crustal earthquakes in New Zealand. Journal of Seismology13(1): 31–52.
TrifunacMDBradyAG (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America65(3): 581–626.
36.
WilsonRCKeeferDK (1985) Predicting areal limits of earthquake-induced landsliding. In: ZionyJI (ed.) Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region—An Earth-science Perspective (United States Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1360). Reston, VA: United States Geological Survey, pp. 316–345.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
