Risk analysis and risk-informed design of spatially distributed infrastructure systems for earthquake hazards require an understanding of and ability to model the spatial correlation of ground motion prediction errors. We assess this spatial correlation in Central and Eastern North America (CENA) by calculating ground motion residuals and semivariograms from earthquake recordings in the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-East database. Although data limitations prohibit the development of a reliable model to capture this correlation, we have made notable findings relevant to future risk analyses. The spatial correlation of ground motion prediction errors in CENA is larger than those previously published for shallow crustal regions, which agrees with the lower attenuation observed in CENA. Differences in correlation behavior is also observed between tectonic and induced event recordings. This is, in part, due to the characteristics of the system of stations in which they were recorded. In addition, the choice of ground motion model (GMM) used to calculate the predicted ground motions was found to have an impact on the resulting correlation of errors and we recommend that future CENA spatial correlation models be tailored to the specific infrastructure system and location that will be analyzed.
AbbasnejadfardMBastamiMFallahA (2020) Investigation of anisotropic spatial correlations of intra-event residuals of multiple earthquake intensity measures using latent dimensions method. Geophysical Journal International222: 1449–1469.
2.
AnchetaTDDarraghRBStewartJPSeyhanESilvaWJChiouBSJWooddellKEGravesRWKottkeARBooreDMKishidaTDonahueJL (May 2013) PEER NGA-West2 database. PEER report 2013/03, May. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
3.
AndersonJGHoughSE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America74: 1969–1993.
4.
AtkinsonGM (2020) The intensity of ground motions from induced earthquakes with implications for damage potential. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110: 2366–2379.
5.
AtkinsonGMBooreDM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96: 2181–2205.
BensiMT (2011) A Bayesian Network Methodology for Infrastructure Seismic Risk Assessment and Decision Support. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
8.
BooreDM (2015) Adjusting Ground-Motion Intensity Measures to a Reference Site for Which VS30 = 3000 m/sec. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
9.
BooreDMGibbsJFJoynerWBTinsleyJCPontiDJ (2003) Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake at the site of the interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard bridge collapse, West Los Angeles, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93: 2737–2751.
10.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30: 1057–1085.
11.
BowmanAWCrujeirasRM (2013) Inference for variograms. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis66: 19–31.
12.
BradleyBA (2014) Site-specific and spatially-distributed ground-motion intensity estimation in the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering61–62: 83–91.
13.
ChenYBakerJW (2019) Spatial correlations in CyberShake physics-based ground-motion simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109: 2447–2458.
14.
ChungDHBernreuterDL (October 1981) The effect of regional variation of seismic wave attenuation on the strong ground motion from earthquakes. Report no. NUREG/CR-1655, October. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15.
CoxBRathjeEPaineJChengTYustMZalachorisG (2017) Task 4 Tech Memo: Vs30 Map. Project 0-6916: Seismic Vulnerability and Post-Event Actions. Austin, TX: Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin.
16.
CremenGBakerJGuptaA (2017) Evaluation of ground motion intensities from induced earthquakes using “Did You Feel It?” data. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake, Santiago, 9–13 January.
17.
CressieNHawkinsDM (1980) Robust estimation of the variogram: I. Journal of the International Association for Mathematical Geology12: 115–125.
18.
CubaMALeuangthongOOrtizJM (2012) Detecting and quantifying sources of non-stationarity via experimental semivariogram modeling. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment26: 247–260.
19.
DuWWangG (2013) Intra-event spatial correlations for cumulative absolute velocity, Arias intensity, and spectral accelerations based on regional site conditions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103: 1117–1129.
20.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions. Volume 1: Methods and Guidelines for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motion in Eastern North America. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
21.
EspositoSIervolinoI (2011) PGA and PGV spatial correlation models based on European multievent datasets. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101: 2532–2541.
22.
EspositoSIervolinoI (2012) Spatial correlation of spectral acceleration in European data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America102: 2781–2788.
23.
Foulser-PiggottRStaffordPJ (2012) A predictive model for Arias intensity at multiple sites and consideration of spatial correlations. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics41: 431–451.
24.
GarakaninezhadABastamiM (2017) A novel spatial correlation model based on anisotropy of earthquake ground-motion intensity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 2809–2820.
25.
GodaKAtkinsonG (2009) Probabilistic characterization of spatially correlated response spectra for earthquakes in Japan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99: 3003–3020.
26.
GodaKAtkinsonG (2010) Intraevent spatial correlation of ground-motion parameters using SK-net data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100: 3055–3067.
27.
GodaKHongHP (2008) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and response spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98: 354–365.
28.
GouletCAnchetaTDCramerCDarraghRBSilvaWJHashashYMAHarmonJStewartJPWooddellKEYoungsRR (2014) PEER NGA-East Database. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
29.
GouletCBozorgniaYAbrahamsonNKuehnNMAl AtikLYoungsRGravesRWAtkinsonGM (2018) Central and Eastern North America Ground—Motion Characterization—NGA-East Final Report. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
30.
GrälerBPebesmaEHeuvelinkG (2016) Spatio-temporal interpolation using gstat. The R Journal8: 204–218.
31.
GuanYShermanMCalvinJA (2004) A nonparametric test for spatial isotropy using subsampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association99: 810–821.
32.
GuptaABakerJWEllsworthWL (2017) Assessing ground-motion amplitudes and attenuation for small-to-moderate induced and tectonic earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Seismological Research Letters88: 1379–1389.
33.
GuptaINNuttliOW (1976) Spatial attenuation of intensities for central U.S. earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America66: 743–751.
34.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2015) Referenced empirical ground-motion model for eastern North America. Seismological Research Letters86: 477–491.
35.
HeresiPMirandaE (2019) Uncertainty in intraevent spatial correlation of elastic pseudo-acceleration spectral ordinates. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17: 1099–1115.
36.
HoffmanH (2021) Violin Plot: MATLAB Central File Exchange. Natick, MA: The MathWorks, Inc.
37.
HoughSE (2014) Shaking from injection-induced earthquakes in the central and eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104: 2619–2626.
38.
HuangCTarbaliKGalassoC (2020) Correlation properties of integral ground-motion intensity measures from Italian strong-motion records. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics49: 1581–1598.
39.
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) (2020) USArray—Transportable Array. Washington, DC: IRIS.
40.
InfantinoMPaolucciRSmerziniCStupazziniM (2018) Study of the spatial correlation of earthquake ground motion by means of physics-based numerical scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 16th European conference on earthquake engineering, Thessaloniki, 18–21 June.
41.
JayaramNBakerJW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics38: 1687–1708.
42.
KuehnNMAbrahamsonNA (2020) Spatial correlations of ground motion for non-ergodic seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics49: 4–23.
43.
LothCBakerJW (2013) A spatial cross-correlation model of spectral accelerations at multiple periods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42: 397–417.
44.
MagistraleHRongYSilvaWJThompsonEM (2012) A site response map of the continental U.S. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September.
45.
ParkJBazzurroPBakerJ (2007) Modeling spatial correlation of ground motion Intensity Measures for regional seismic hazard and portfolio loss estimation. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering (ICASP10), Tokyo, Japan, 31 July–3 August.
46.
ParkerGAHarmonJAStewartJPHashashYMAKottkeARRathjeEMSilvaWJCampbellKW (2017) Proxy-based VS30 estimation in central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 117–131.
47.
PavelFVacareanuR (2017) Spatial correlation of ground motions from Vrancea (Romania) intermediate-depth earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 489–494.
48.
SchiappapietraEDouglasJ (2020) Modelling the spatial correlation of earthquake ground motion: Insights from the literature, data from the 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake sequence and ground-motion simulations. Earth-Science Reviews203: 103139.
49.
SilvaWJDarraghRB (1995) Engineering Characterization of Strong Ground Motion Recorded at Rock Sites. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
50.
SokolovVWenzelFJeanW-YWenK-L (2010) Uncertainty and spatial correlation of earthquake ground motion in Taiwan. Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences21: 905–921.
51.
SokolovVWenzelFWenK-LJeanW-Y (2012) On the influence of site conditions and earthquake magnitude on ground-motion within-earthquake correlation: Analysis of PGA data from TSMIP (Taiwan) network. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering10: 1401–1429.
52.
StaffordPJZurekBDNtinalexisMBommerJJ (2019) Extensions to the Groningen ground-motion model for seismic risk calculations: Component-to-component variability and spatial correlation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17: 4417–4439.
53.
StewartJPParkerGAHarmonJAAtkinsonGMBooreDMDarraghRBSilvaWJHashashYMA (2017) Expert Panel Recommendations for Ergodic Site Amplification in Central and Eastern North America. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
54.
WagenerTGodaKErdikMDaniellJWenzelF (2016) A spatial correlation model of peak ground acceleration and response spectra based on data of the Istanbul Earthquake Rapid Response and Early Warning System. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering85: 166–178.
55.
WangMTakadaT (2005) Macrospatial correlation model of seismic ground motions. Earthquake Spectra21: 1137–1156.
56.
ZafaraniHGhafooriSMMSoghratMShafieeM (2020) Spatial correlation of peak ground motions and pseudo-spectral acceleration based on the Sarpol-e-Zahab Mw 7.3, 2017 earthquake data. Annals of Geophysics63: 439.
57.
ZalachorisGRathjeEM (2019) Ground motion model for small-to-moderate earthquakes in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Earthquake Spectra35: 1–20.
58.
ZalachorisGRathjeEMPaineJG (2017) VS30 characterization of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas using the P-wave seismogram method. Earthquake Spectra33: 943–961.
