Recent research has highlighted the usefulness of cumulative absolute velocity in several contexts, including using the at the ground surface for earthquake early warning and using the at rock reference conditions for evaluation of the liquefaction risk facing structures. However, there are relatively few ground motion prediction equations for CAV, they are based on relatively small data sets, and they give relatively similar results. This study develops nine ground motion prediction equations for based on a global database of ground motion records from shallow crustal earthquakes. Its provision of nine models enables characterization of epistemic uncertainty for ranges of earthquake characteristics that are sparsely populated in the regression database. The functional forms provide different perspectives on extrapolation to important ranges of earthquake characteristics, particularly large magnitude events and short distances. The variability and epistemic uncertainty in the models are characterized. Spatial autocorrelation of the models’ errors is investigated. The models’ predictions agree with existing broadly applicable models at small to moderate magnitudes and moderate to long distances. These models can be used to improve hazard analysis of that incorporates the influence of epistemic uncertainty.
AndersonJGBruneJN (1999) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis without the ergodic assumption. Seismological Research Letters70(1): 19–28.
6.
AtkinsonGM (2006) Single-station sigma. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(2): 446–455.
7.
BakerJWBradleyBA (2017) Intensity measure correlations observed in the NGA-West2 database, and dependence of correlations on rupture and site parameters. Earthquake Spectra33(1): 145–156.
8.
BakerJWJayaramN (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthquake Spectra24: 299.
9.
BommerJJDouglasJScherbaumFCottonFBungumHFähD (2010) On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis. Seismological Research Letters81(5): 783–793.
10.
BooreDMStewartJSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1057–1085.
11.
BradleyBA (2012) Empirical correlations between cumulative absolute velocity and amplitude-based ground motion intensity measures. Earthquake Spectra28: 37–54.
12.
BradleyBA (2013) A New Zealand-specific pseudospectral acceleration ground-motion prediction equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(3): 1801–1822.
13.
BullockZKarimiZDashtiSPorterKLielABFrankeKW (2018) A physics-informed semi-empirical probabilistic model for the settlement of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Géotechnique69: 406–419.
14.
BullockZ (2019a) Ground motion models for arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity, peak incremental ground velocity, and significant duration in New Zealand. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering52: 193–207.
15.
BullockZ (2019b) Log-logistic uncertainty is more durable than lognormal uncertainty in ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109: 567–574.
16.
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.
17.
BullockZDashtiSLielABPorterKAKarimiZ (2019a) Assessment supporting the use of outcropping rock evolutionary intensity measures for prediction of liquefaction consequences. Earthquake Spectra35: 1899–1926.
18.
BullockZDashtiSKarimiZLielAPorterKFrankeK (2019b) Probabilistic models for residual and peak transient tilt of mat-founded structures on liquefiable soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering145: 04018108.
19.
CabanasLBenitoBHerráizM (1997) An approach to the measurement of the potential structural damage of earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics26(1): 79–92.
20.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (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 Spectra24(1): 139–171.
21.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2010) A ground motion prediction equation for the horizontal component of cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) based on the PEER-NGA strong motion database. Earthquake Spectra26: 635–650.
22.
CampbellKWBozorgniaY (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30: 1087.
23.
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.
24.
CavanaughJE (1997) Unifying the derivations for the Akaike and corrected Akaike information criteria. Statistics & Probability Letters33(2): 201–208.
25.
ChiouBSJYoungsRR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1117–1153.
26.
DanciuLTselentisGA (2007) Engineering ground-motion parameters attenuation relationships for Greece. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97(1B): 162–183.
27.
DashtiSKarimiZ (2017) Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate I: The liquefaction hazard in the vicinity of shallow-founded structures. Earthquake Spectra33(1): 241–276.
28.
DuWWangG (2013) A simple ground-motion prediction model for cumulative absolute velocity and model validation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(8): 1189–1202.
29.
FahjanYMAlcikHSariA (2011) Applications of cumulative absolute velocity to urban earthquake early warning systems. Journal of Seismology15(2): 355–373.
30.
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.
31.
Foulser-PiggottRStaffordPJ (2012) A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics41: 431–451.
32.
GreenRABommerJJ (in press) Smallest earthquake magnitude that can trigger liquefaction. Earthquake Spectra.
33.
GregorNAbrahamsonNAAtkinsonGMBooreDMBozorgniaYCampbellKWChiouBS-JIdrissIMKamaiRSeyhanESilvaWStewartJPYoungsR (2014) Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthquake Spectra30: 1179.
34.
GuéguenPBonillaLFDouglasJ (2019) Comparison of soil nonlinearity (In Situ Stress–Strain Relation and G/Gmax Reduction) observed in strong-motion databases and modeled in ground-motion prediction equations comparison of soil nonlinearity observed in strong-motion databases and modeled in GMPEs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(1): 178–186.
35.
JayaramNBakerJW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics38: 1687–1708.
36.
KarimiZDashtiS (2017) Ground motion intensity measures to evaluate II: The performance of shallow-founded structures on liquefiable ground. Earthquake Spectra33(1): 277–298.
37.
KatonaTJ (2012) Modeling of fatigue-type seismic damage for nuclear power plants. Computational Materials Science64: 22–24.
38.
KemptonJJStewartJP (2006) Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra22(4): 985–1013.
LillieforsHW (1967) On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association62: 399–402.
41.
MuinSMosalamKM (2017) Cumulative absolute velocity as a local damage indicator of instrumented structures. Earthquake Spectra33(2): 641–664.
42.
PorterKAFieldEHMilnerK (2012) Trimming the UCERF2 hazard logic tree. Seismological Research Letters83: 815–828.
43.
PorterKAFieldEHMilnerK (2017) Trimming a hazard logic tree with a new model-order-reduction technique. Earthquake Spectra33: 857.
44.
ReedJWKassawaraRP (1990) A criterion for determining exceedance of the operating basis earthquake. Nuclear Engineering and Design123(2–3): 387–396.
45.
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.
46.
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: 702–719.
47.
TravasarouTBrayJDAbrahamsonNA (2003) Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics32(7): 1133–1155.
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.
