We compare the ability of various site-condition proxies (SCPs) to reduce the aleatory variability of ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Three SCPs (measured VS30, inferred VS30, local topographic slope) and two accelerometric databases (RESORCE and NGA-West2) are considered. An artificial neural network (ANN) approach including a random-effect procedure is used to derive GMPEs setting the relationship between peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), pseudo-spectral acceleration [PSA(T)], and explanatory variables (Mw, RJB, and VS30 or Slope). The analysis is performed using both discrete site classes and continuous proxy values. All “non-measured” SCPs exhibit a rather poor performance in reducing aleatory variability, compared to the better performance of measured VS30. A new, fully data-driven GMPE based on the NGA-West2 is then derived, with an aleatory variability value depending on the quality of the SCP. It proves very consistent with previous GMPEs built on the same data set. Measuring VS30 allows for benefit from an aleatory variability reduction up to 15%.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A., and YoungsR. R., 1992. A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random-effects model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am82, 505–510.
2.
AbrahamsonN. A., SilvaW. J., and KamaiR., 2014. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions, Earthquake Spectra30, 1025–1055.
3.
AkaikeH., 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle, in Proc. of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, Budapest, Hungary, 1, 267–281.
4.
AkkarS., SandıkkayaM. A., SenyurtM., AzariA. S., AyB. Ö., TraversaP., DouglasJ., CottonF., LuziL., HernandezB., and GodeyS., 2014. Reference database for seismic ground motion in Europe (RESORCE), Bull. Earthq. Eng12, 311–339.
5.
Al AtikL., AbrahamsonN., BommerJ. J., ScherbaumF., CottonF., and KuehnN., 2010. The variability of ground motions prediction models and its components, Seismol. Res. Lett81, 794–801.
6.
AllenT. I., and WaldD. J., 2009. On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (VS30), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am99, 935–943.
7.
AnchetaT. D., DarraghR. B., StewartJ. P., SeyhanE., SilvaW. J., ChiouB. S.-J., WooddellK. E., GravesR. W., KottkeA. R., BooreD. M., KishidaT., and DonahueJ. L., 2014. NGA-West2 database, Earthquake Spectra30, 989–1005.
8.
BardP-Y., CadetH., EndrunB., HobigerM., RenalierF., TheodulidisN., OhrnbergerM., FähD., SabettaF., Teves-CostaP., DuvalA. M., CornouC., GuillierB., WatheletM., SavvaidisA., KöhlerA., BurjanekJ., PoggiV., Gassner-StammG., HavenithH. B., HailemikaelS., AlmeidaJ., RodriguesI., VeludoI., LacaveC., ThomassinS., and KristekovaM., 2010. From non-invasive site characterization to site amplification: recent advances in the use of ambient vibration measurements, in Earthquake Engineering in Europe (GarevskiM. and AnsalA., eds.), Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering Books, New York, 105–123.
9.
BommerJ. J., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2006. Why do modern probabilistic seismic hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am96, 1967–1977.
10.
BooreD. M., StewartJ. P., SeyhanE., and AtkinsonG. M., 2014. NGA-West2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra30, 1057–1085.
11.
BorcherdtR. D., 1994. Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification), Earthquake Spectra10, 617–653.
12.
BrillingerD. R., and PreislerH. K., 1985. Further analysis of the Joyner-Boore attenuation data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am75, 611–614.
13.
CadetH., BardP-Y., DuvalA-M., and BertrandE., 2012. Site effect assessment using KiK-net data: Part 2 Site amplification Prediction Equation based on f0 and VSz, Bull. Earthq. Eng10, 451–489.
14.
CampbellK. W., 1989. Empirical Prediction Of Near-Source Ground Motion for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89–484.
15.
CastellaroS., MulargiaF., and RossiP. L., 2008. VS30: Proxy for seismic amplification?, Seism. Res Lett79, 540–543.
16.
ChiouB. S-J., and YoungsR. R., 2008. An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra24, 173–215.
17.
ChiouB.-S. J., and YoungsR. R., 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA ground motion model for average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthquake Spectra30, 1117–1153.
18.
ChoiY., and StewartJ. P., 2005. Nonlinear site amplification as function of 30 m shear wave velocity, Earthquake Spectra21, 1–30.
19.
DerrasB., 2010. Peak ground acceleration prediction using artificial neural networks approach: application to the Kik-Net data, International Review of Civil Engineering1, 243–252.
20.
DerrasB., BardP-Y., CottonF., and BekkoucheA., 2012. Adapting the neural network approach to PGA prediction: an example based on the KiK-net data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am102, 1446–1461.
21.
DerrasB., BardP-Y., and CottonF., 2014. Towards fully data-driven ground motion prediction models for Europe, Bull. Earthq. Eng12, 495–516.
22.
FotiS., CoxB. R., GarofaloF., HollenderF., BardP. Y., CornouC., OhrnbergerM., and SiciliaD., 2015. Uncertainties in VS profiles from geophysical tests and their influence on seismic ground response analyses: results from the InterPACIFIC blind test, 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 1–4 November 2015, Paper #352, Christchurch, New Zealand.
23.
GarofaloF., FotiS., HollenderF., BardP. Y., CornouC., CoxB. R., OhrnbergerM., SiciliaD., AstenM., Di GiulioG., ForbrigerT., GuillierB., HayashiK., MartinA., MatsushimaS., MerceratD., PoggiV., and YamanakaH., 2015a. InterPACIFIC project: comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part I: Intra-comparison of surface wave methods, submitted to Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering82, 222–240.
24.
GarofaloF., FotiS., HollenderF., BardP. Y., CornouC., CoxB. R., DechampA., OhrnbergerM., SiciliaD., and VergniaultC., 2015b. Interpacific project: comparison of invasive and non-invasive methods for seismic site characterization. Part II: intercomparison between surface-wave and borehole methods. Submitted to Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering82, 241–254.
25.
GregorN., AbrahamsonN. A., AtkinsonG. M., BooreD. M., BozorgniaY., CampbellK. W., ChiouB. S-J., IdrissI. M., KamaiR., SeyhanE., SilvaW., StewartJ. P., and YoungsR., 2014. Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra30, 1179–1197.
26.
HolzerT. L., PadovaniA. C., BennettM. J., NoceT. E., and TinsleyJ. C.III, 2005. Mapping NEHRP VS30 site classes, Earthquake Spectra21, 353–370.
27.
KamaiR., AbrahamsonN. A., and SilvaW. J., 2014. Nonlinear horizontal site amplification for constraining the NGA-West2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra30, 1223–1240.
28.
KokushoT., and SatoK., 2008. Surface-to-base amplification evaluated from KiK-net vertical array strong motion records, Soil Dyn Earthq Eng28, 707–716.
29.
LeeV. W., and TrifunacM. D., 2010. Should average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m of soil be used to describe seismic amplification?, Soil Dyn Earthq Eng30, 1250–1258.
30.
LemoineA., DouglasJ., and CottonF., 2012. Testing the applicability of correlations between topographic slope and VS30 for Europe, Bull. Seism Soc. Am102, 2585–2599.
SeyhanE., and StewartJ. P., 2014. Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations, Earthquake Spectra30, 1241–1256.
33.
ShannoD. F., and KettlerP. C., 1970. Optimal conditioning of quasi-Newton methods, Math. Comp24, 657–664.
34.
WaldD. J., and AllenT. I., 2007. Topographic Slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplifications, Bull. Seism Soc. Am97, 1379–1395.
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.
