Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the differences between the Next Generation Attenuation: West-1 (NGA-W1) ground motion prediction models (GMPEs) and the Turkish strong ground motion data set and to modify the required pieces of the NGA-W1 models for applicability in Turkey. A comparison data set is compiled by including strong motions from earthquakes that occurred in Turkey and earthquake metadata of ground motions consistent with the NGA-W1 database. Random-effects regression is employed and plots of the residuals are used to evaluate the differences in magnitude, distance, and site amplification scaling. Incompatibilities between the NGA-W1 GMPEs and Turkish data set in small-to-moderate magnitude, large distance, and site effects scaling are encountered. The NGA-W1 GMPEs are modified for the misfit between the actual ground motions and the model predictions using adjustments functions. Turkey-adjusted NGA-W1 models are compatible with the regional strong ground motion characteristics and preserve the well-constrained features of the global models.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

N. A.

and Silva

W. J.

2008. Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGA ground-motion relations, Earthquake Spectra 24, 67–97.

Abrahamson

Atkinson

Boore

Bozorgnia

Campbell

Chiou

Idriss

I. M.

Silva

and Youngs

2008. Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations, Earthquake Spectra 24, 45–66.

Abrahamson

N. A.

Silva

W. J.

and Kamai

2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground-motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1025–1057.

Akkar

and Çağnan

2010. A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100, 2978–2995.

Akkar

Çağnan

Yenier

Erdoğan

Ö.

Sandıkkaya

and Gülkan

2010. The recently compiled Turkish strong motion database: Preliminary investigation for seismological parameters, Journal of Seismology 14, 457–479.

Ancheta

T. D.

Darragh

R. B.

Stewart

J. P.

Seyhan

Silva

Chiou

B. S. J.

Wooddell

K. E.

Graves

R. W.

Kottke

A. R.

Boore

D. M.

Kishida

and Donahue

J. L.

2014. NGA-West 2 database, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1007–1025.

Boatwright

Bundock

Luetgert

Seekins

Gee

and Lombard

2003. The dependence of PGA and PGV on distance and magnitude inferred from northern California ShakeMap data, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 2043–2055.

Boore

D. M.

Watson-Lamprey

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2006. GMRotD and GMRotI: Orientation-independent measures of ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96, 1202–1511.

Boore

D. M.

and Atkinson

G. M.

2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.0 1 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 99–139.

10.

Boore

D. M.

Stewart

J. P.

Seyhan

and Atkinson

G. A.

2014. NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1057–1087.

11.

Bradley

B. A.

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 America 103, 1801–1822.

12.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

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 Spectra 24, 139–173.

13.

Campbell

K. W.

and Bozorgnia

2014. NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear acceleration response spectra, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1087–1117.

14.

Chiou

Darragh

Gregor

and Silva

2008. NGA project strong motion database, Earthquake Spectra 24, 23–44

15.

Chiou

B. S. J.

and Youngs

R. R.

2008. Chiou-Youngs NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters, Earthquake Spectra 24, 173–217.

16.

Chiou

B. S. J.

and Youngs

R. R.

2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1117–1155.

17.

Gardner

J. K.

and Knopoff

1974. Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 64, 1363–1367.

18.

Gülerce

Kargıoglu

and Akyüz

2012. Comparison of the NGA-W1 vertical-to-horizontal spectral acceleration ratio prediction equations with Turkish strong ground motion database, Proceedings of 15^th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15^th WCEE), 24–28 September, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.

19.

Gülerce

and Akyüz

2013. NGA-W1 vertical-to-horizontal spectral acceleration ratio prediction equations adjusted for Turkey, Seismological Research Letters 84, 678–688.

20.

Gregor

Abrahamson

N. A.

Atkinson

G. M.

Boore

D. M.

Bozorgnia

Campbell

K. W.

Chiou

Idriss

I. M.

Kamai

Seyhan

Silva

Stewart

J. P.

and Youngs

2014. Comparison of the NGA-W2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1179–1199.

21.

Idriss

I. M.

2008. An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 24, 217–243.

22.

Idriss

I. M.

2014. An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1155–1179.

23.

Power

Chiou

Abrahamson

Bozorgnia

Shantz

and Roblee

2008. An overview of the NGA project, Earthquake Spectra 24, 3–21.

24.

Scasserra

Stewart

J. P.

Bazzurro

Lanzo

and Mollaioli

2009. A comparison of NGA ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99, 2961–2978.

25.

Shoja–Taheri

Naserieh

and Hadi

2010. A test of the applicability of NGA models to the strong ground-motion data in the Iranian plateau, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14, 278–292.

26.

Stafford

P. J.

Strasser

and Bommer

J. J.

2008. An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 6, 149–177.

27.

Wooddell

K. E.

and Abrahamson

N. A.

2014. Classification of mainshocks and aftershocks in the NGA-West2 Database, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1257–1269.

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.

0.00 MB

0.94 MB

Turkey-Adjusted NGA-W1 Horizontal Ground Motion Prediction Models

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material