Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East

Abstract

Electronic Supplements 1. Table S1: Summary of the database used in regression analyses 2. Excel file including the full list of regression coefficients of the proposed GMPEs of R JB , R epi and R hyp and a macro for the computation of spectral ordinates for different earthquake scenarios 3. Matlab and Excel codes of the proposed GMPEs and a sample input file 2 AbstractThis article presents the latest generation of ground-motion models for the prediction of elastic response (pseudo-) spectral accelerations, as well as peak ground acceleration and velocity, derived using pan-European databases. The models present a number of novelties with respect to previous generations of models (Ambraseys et al., 1996(Ambraseys et al., , 2005Bommer et al., 2003;Akkar and Bommer, 2010), namely: inclusion of a non-linear site-amplification function that is a function of V S30 and reference peak ground acceleration on rock; extension of the magnitude range of applicability of the model down to M w 4; extension of the distance range of applicability out to 200km; extension to shorter and longer periods (down to 0.01s and up to 4s); and consistent models for both point-source (epicentral, R epi , and hypocentral distance, R hyp ) and finite-fault (distance to the surface projection of the rupture, R JB ) distance metrics. In addition, data from more than 1.5 times as many earthquakes, compared to previous pan-European models, have been used, leading to regressions based on approximately twice as many records in total. The metadata of these records have been carefully compiled and reappraised in recent European projects. These improvements lead to more robust ground-motion prediction equations than have previously been published for shallow (focal depths less than 30km) crustal earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. We conclude with suggestions for the application of the equations to seismic hazard assessments in Europe and the Middle East within a logic-tree framework to capture epistemic uncertainty.

The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability

“…During the course of this national hazard project, several high quality strong-motion datasets became available: the RESORCE European and Middle East Reference database for seismic ground-motions in Europe (Akkar et al 2014;Douglas et al 2014a) and the NGA-West2 dataset (Ancheta et al 2014;Gregor et al 2014). A major update of the broadband (mainly Japanese based) model of the Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008) model was also published (Cauzzi et al 2015).…”

New predictive equations and site amplification estimates for the next-generation Swiss ShakeMaps

“…We present in this appendix a comparison of EF13 with popular empirical predictive equations in use in Switzerland and in Europe, namely: the previously adopted model Cua & Heaton (2008) CH08, the recently published Pan-European predictive equations of Akkar et al (2014), ASB14, and the global broad-band prediction model of Cauzzi & Faccioli (2008), CF08. This appendix is not aimed at testing the Swiss stochastic prediction model against empirical GMPEs, as a rigorous testing would suffer from the assumptions necessary to accommodate the use of different calibration data sets, reference V S,30 and distance metrics.…”

“…Finally, a selection of historical and instrumental earthquake shaking scenarios obtained from SEDShakeMap35 and SEDShakeMap32 is presented and discussed. The Appendix is aimed at providing the reader with additional useful information as to the behaviour of the Swiss stochastic ground-motion prediction model through the comparison with popular empirical predictive equations in use in Switzerland and in Europe, namely: the previously adopted model Cua & Heaton (2008), CH08, the recently published Pan-European predictive equations of Akkar et al (2014), ASB14 and the global broad-band prediction model of Cauzzi & Faccioli (2008), CF08. formulated a stochastic ground-motion model for Switzerland (EF13) based on a typical earthquake scenario, path effects and site amplification referenced to a known velocity model (Poggi et al 2011).…”

Developments in Ground Motion Predictive Models and Accelerometric Data Archiving in the Broader European Region

“…in the Broader European Region Bommer et al (2010) and Akkar et al (2014c) give a detailed review on some of the selected pan-European (global) GMPEs. This paper not only focuses on the evolution of global GMPEs in Europe and surroundings but also discusses the progress in the local European GMPEs by presenting overall statistics on some of the key aspects in these predictive models.…”

“…The converse of this argument is also defendable: local GMPEs do not show reduced aleatory variability to speculate lesser contamination in their data. Figure 12.2 compares the period-dependent sigma trends between NGA-West1 4 (Power et al 2008), NGA-West2 4 ) and the most recent pan-European GMPEs (Akkar et al 2014c;Bindi et al 2014;Akkar and Bommer 2010;Ambraseys et al 2005). NGA-West1 and NGA-West2 GMPEs use wide spread shallow active crustal ground motions mainly from California, Taiwan (NGA-West1) and additionally from Japan, China and New Zealand (NGA-West2).…”