In this study, we propose a new ground-motion model (GMM) for New Zealand (NZ) using a hybrid empirical method (HEM). Only a limited number of GMMs have been developed specifically using the NZ dataset. We utilized HEM to develop a GMM for shallow crustal earthquakes in NZ, aiming to predict PGA (peak ground acceleration) and PSA (pseudo spectral acceleration) at periods ranging from T = 0.01–10 s for moment magnitudes (Mw) of 4.0 to 8.0, and a rupture distance (Rrup) of up to 400 km, considering a reference site condition with VS30 = 760 m/s. We considered NZ the target region and Western North America (WNA) the host region. We utilized four GMMs from the NGA-West2 project for ground-motion modeling in WNA. A set of period-dependent adjustment factors were used to convert the GMMs from the host region to the target region. The adjustment factors were developed as the ratio between the stochastically simulated response spectrum in the target and host regions. Seismological parameters are required for stochastically simulating the response spectrum in both the host and target regions. These seismological parameters indicate the differences in source, path, and site effects between the two regions. The seismological parameters for target and host regions are adopted from Zhu et al. and Zandieh et al., respectively.
AbercrombieREBannisterSRistauJDoserD (2017) Variability of earthquake stress drop in a subduction setting, the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand. Geophysical Journal International208: 306–320.
2.
AbrahamsonNASilvaWJ (1997) Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters68(1): 94–127.
3.
AbrahamsonNASilvaWJKamaiR (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1025–1055.
4.
AkhaniMDavatgari-TafreshiMPezeshkS (2024) Adjusting Central and Eastern United States ground-motion models for use in the Coastal Plain considering the sediment thickness. Earthquake Spectra40(4): 2669–2691.
5.
AlidadiNPezeshkS (2024) Ground-motion model for small-to-moderate potentially induced earthquakes using an ensemble machine learning approach for CENA. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114: 2202–2215.
6.
AllmannBPShearerPM (2007) Spatial and temporal stress drop variations in small earthquakes near Parkfield, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth112(B4): B004395.
7.
AndersonJGHoughSE (1984) A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America74(5): 1969–1993.
8.
AtikLAAbrahamsonNBommerJJScherbaumFCottonFKuehnN (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismological Research Letters81(5): 794–801.
9.
AtikLAYoungsRR (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1301–1318.
10.
AtkinsonGM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America from a referenced empirical approach: Implications for epistemic uncertainty. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98(3): 1304–1318.
11.
AtkinsonGM (2022) Backbone ground-motion models for crustal, interface and slab earthquakes in New Zealand. GNS Science report 2022/11, September, North Island, New Zealand.
12.
AtkinsonGM (2023) Backbone ground-motion models for crustal, interface, and slab earthquakes in New Zealand from equivalent point-source concepts. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114(1): 350–372.
13.
AtkinsonGMBeresnevI (1997) Don’t call it stress drop. Seismological Research Letters68(1): 3–4.
14.
AtkinsonGMBooreDM (1995) Ground-motion relations for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85(1): 17–30.
15.
AtkinsonGMBooreDM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96(6): 2181–2205.
16.
AtkinsonGMSilvaW (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90(2): 255–274.
17.
BatesDMächlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv Preprint 1406:5823, 2014.
18.
BooreDM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73(6A): 1865–1894.
19.
BooreDM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics160: 635–676.
20.
BooreDM (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(4): 1830–1835.
21.
BooreDMJoynerWB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America87(2): 327–341.
22.
BooreDMThompsonEM (2014) Path durations for use in the stochastic-method simulation of ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2541–2552.
23.
BooreDMThompsonEM (2015) Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(2A): 1029–1041.
24.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014a) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1057–1085.
25.
BooreDMDi AlessandroCAbrahamsonNA (2014b) A generalization of the double-corner-frequency source spectral model and its use in the SCEC BBP validation exercise. Bullet in of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2387–2398.
26.
BoraSSCottonFScherbaumF (2019) NGA-West2 empirical Fourier and duration models to generate adjustable response spectra. Earthquake Spectra35(1): 61–93.
27.
BoraSSCottonFScherbaumFEdwardsBTraversaP (2017) Stochastic source, path and site attenuation parameters and associated variabilities for shallow crustal European earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15: 4531–4561.
28.
BozorgniaYAbrahamsonNAAl AtikL, et al. (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 973–987.
29.
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.
30.
BradleyBABoraSSLeeRLManeaEFGerstenbergerMCStaffordPJKaiserAE (2024) The ground-motion characterization model for the 2022 New Zealand national seismic hazard model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114(1): 329–349.
31.
BruneJN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research75(26): 4997–5009.
32.
BruneJN (1971) Correction [“Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquake”]. Journal of Geophysical Research76: 5002.
33.
CampbellKW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(3): 1012–1033.
34.
CampbellKW (2007) Validation and update of hybrid empirical ground motion (attenuation) relations for the CEUS. U.S. Geological Survey NEHRP, Award No. 05HQGR0032.
35.
CampbellKW (2014) An evaluation of eastern North American ground-motion models developed using the hybrid empirical method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(1): 347–359.
36.
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.
37.
CartwrightDELonguet-HigginsMS (1956) The statistical distribution of the maxima of a random function. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences237(1209): 212–232.
38.
ChiouBYoungsRAbrahamsonNAddoK (2010) Ground-motion attenuation model for small-to-moderate shallow crustal earthquakes in California and its implications on regionalization of ground-motion prediction models. Earthquake Spectra26(4): 907–926.
39.
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.
40.
Davatgari-TafreshiMBoraSSMirzaeiNGhofraniHKazemianJ (2021) Spectral models for seismological source parameters, path attenuation and site-effects in Alborz region of northern Iran. Geophysical Journal International227(1): 350–367.
41.
Davatgari-TafreshiMSingh BoraSGhofraniHMirzaeiNKazemianJ (2022) Region-and site-specific measurements of kappa (κ0) and associated variabilities for Iran. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America112(6): 3046–3062.
42.
Davatgari-TafreshiMBoraSS (2023) Empirical ground-motion models (GMMs) and associated correlations for cumulative absolute velocity, Arias intensity, and significant durations calibrated on Iranian strong motion database. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering21(9): 4139–4166.
43.
Davatgari-TafreshiMPezeshkS (2025) Hybrid empirical ground-motion model for the Alborz region of northern Iran. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering192: 109292.
44.
Davatgari-TafreshiMPezeshkSBoraSS (2024) Empirical models for Fourier amplitude spectrum of ground-motion calibrated on data from the Iranian plateau. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering22(8): 3845–3874.
45.
DouglasJAldama-BustosGTallett-WilliamsSDavíMTromansIJ (2024) Ground-motion models for earthquakes occurring in the United Kingdom. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering22: 4265–4302.
46.
DouglasJBungumHScherbaumF (2006) Ground-motion prediction equations for southern Spain and southern Norway obtained using the composite model perspective. Journal of Earthquake Engineering10(1): 33–72.
47.
EshelbyJD (1957) The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion, and related problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences241(1226): 376–396.
48.
GerstenbergerMCBoraSBradleyBADiCaprioCKaiserAManeaEFWotherspoonLM (2024) The 2022 Aotearoa New Zealand National seismic hazard model: process, overview, and results. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114(1): 7–36.
49.
HanksTCMcGuireRK (1981) The character of high-frequency strong ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America71(6): 2071–2095.
50.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2018) Adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation based on equivalent point-source simulations: Accounting for kappa effects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(2): 913–928.
HutchinsonJAZhuCBradleyBALeeRLWotherspoonLMDupuisMKaiserAE (2024) The 2023 New Zealand ground-motion database. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114(1): 291–310.
53.
JiangWTaoXTaoZ (2022) Seismology-based hybrid ground motion prediction models of PGA in Sichuan, China. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering156: 107220.
54.
JoynerWBWarrickREFumalTE (1981) The effect of Quaternary alluvium on strong ground motion in the Coyote Lake, California, earthquake of 1979. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America71(4): 1333–1349.
55.
KtenidouOJCottonFAbrahamsonNAAndersonJG (2014) Taxonomy of κ: A review of definitions and estimation approaches targeted to applications. Seismological Research Letters85(1): 135–146.
56.
LeeRLBradleyBAManeaEFHutchinsonJABoraSS (2024) Evaluation of empirical ground-motion models for the 2022 New Zealand National Seismic Hazard Model revision. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114(1): 311–328.
57.
MathWorksInc. (2024) MATLAB and Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox, Release 2024a. Natick, MA: The MathWorks, Inc.
58.
McVerryGHZhaoJXAbrahamsonNASomervillePG (2006) New Zealand acceleration response spectrum attenuation relations for crustal and subduction zone earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering39(1): 1–58.
59.
OthAKaiserAE (2014) Stress release and source scaling of the 2010–2011 Canterbury, New Zealand earthquake sequence from spectral inversion of ground motion data. Pure and Applied Geophysics171: 2767–2782.
60.
OthABindiDParolaiSDi GiacomoD (2011) Spectral analysis of K-NET and KiK-net data in Japan, Part II: On attenuation characteristics, source spectra, and site response of borehole and surface stations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(2): 667–687.
61.
PenningtonCNChenXAbercrombieREWuQ (2021) Cross validation of stress drop estimates and interpretations for the 2011 Prague, OK, earthquake sequence using multiple methods. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth126(3): e2020JB020888.
62.
PetersenMDFrankelADHarmsenSCMuellerCSHallerKMWheelerRLRukstalesKS (2008) Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps. Open-File Report 2008-1128, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
63.
PetersenMDMoschettiMPPowersPMMuellerCSHallerKMFrankelADZengYRezaeianSHarmsenSCBoydOSFieldNChenRRukstalesKSLucoNWheelerRLWilliamsRAOlsenAH (2014) Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. Open-File Report 2014-1091, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
64.
PetersenMDMuellerCSMoschettiMPHooverSMRukstalesKSMcNamaraDECochranES (2018) 2018 one-year seismic hazard forecast for the central and eastern United States from induced and natural earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters89(3): 1049–1061.
65.
PezeshkSDavatgari-TafreshiMHaji-SoltaniA (2024) Hybrid empirical ground-motion models for the island of Hawaii based on an updated strong ground-motion database. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America114(4): 2186–2201.
66.
PezeshkSZandiehAHaji-SoltaniA (2021) A ground-motion model for the Gulf Coast region of the United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(6): 3261–3277.
67.
PezeshkSZandiehAHaji-SoltaniA (2017) Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for the Gulf Coast region. USGS Final Report, Award No. G16AP0018, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
68.
PezeshkSZandiehATavakoliB (2011) Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(4): 1859–1870.
69.
PezeshkSZandiehACampbellKWTavakoliB (2018) Ground-motion prediction equations for central and eastern North America using the hybrid empirical method and NGA-West2 empirical ground-motion models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(4): 2278–2304.
70.
PinheiroJCBatesDM (1996) Unconstrained parametrizations for variance-covariance matrices. Statistics and Computing6: 289–296.
71.
Raghu KanthSTGIyengarRN (2007) Estimation of seismic spectral acceleration in peninsular India. Journal of Earth System Science116: 199–214.
72.
RenYZhouYWangHWenR (2018) Source characteristics, site effects, and path attenuation from spectral analysis of strong-motion recordings in the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(3B): 1757–1773.
73.
RietbrockAStrasserFEdwardsB (2013) A stochastic earthquake ground-motion prediction model for the United Kingdom. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(1): 57–77.
74.
SedaghatiFPezeshkS (2017) Partially nonergodic empirical ground-motion models for predicting horizontal and vertical PGV, PGA, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra using data from the Iranian plateau. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(2): 934–948.
75.
SeyhanEStewartJP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1241–1256.
76.
ShahjoueiAPezeshkS (2015) Alternative hybrid empirical ground-motion model for Central and Eastern North America using hybrid simulations and NGA-West2 models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(2): 734–754.
77.
ShahjoueiAPezeshkS (2016) Synthetic seismograms using a hybrid broadband ground-motion simulation approach: Application to Central and Eastern United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(2A): 686–705.
78.
ShibleHHollenderFBindiDTraversaPOthAEdwardsBGueguenP (2022) GITEC: A generalized inversion technique benchmark. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America112(2): 850–877.
79.
StaffordP (2022) A model for the distribution of response spectral ordinates from New Zealand crustal earthquakes based upon adjustments to the Chiou and Youngs (2014) response spectral model. GNS Science Rept 2022/15. doi: 10.21420/5098-0S19
80.
TavakoliBSedaghatiFPezeshkS (2018) An analytical effective point-source-based distance-conversion approach to mimic the effects of extended faults on seismic hazard assessment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(2): 742–760.
81.
ToroGRAbrahamsonNASchneiderJF (1997) Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties. Seismological Research Letters68(1): 41–57.
82.
van HoutteCKtenidouOJLarkinTHoldenC (2014) Hard-site κ0 (kappa) calculations for Christchurch, New Zealand, and comparison with local ground-motion prediction models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(4): 1899–1913.
83.
YenierEAtkinsonGM (2015a) An equivalent point-source model for stochastic simulation of earthquake ground motions in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(3): 1435–1455.
84.
YenierEAtkinsonGM (2015b) Regionally adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation based on equivalent point-source simulations: Application to central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(4): 1989–2009.
85.
ZandiehACampbellKWPezeshkS (2016) Estimation of κ0 implied by the high-frequency shape of the NGA-West2 ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106(3): 1342–1356.
86.
ZandiehAPezeshkSCampbellKW (2018) An equivalent point-source stochastic simulation of the NGA-west2 ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(2): 815–835.
87.
ZhuCBoraSBradleyBABindiD (2024) Spectral decomposition of ground motions in New Zealand using the generalized inversion technique. Geophysical Journal International238(1): 364–381.
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.
