Regional ground‐motion prediction equations for amplitude‐, frequency response‐, and duration‐based parameters for Greece

Abstract

Summary Although all of the main properties of a ground motion cannot be captured through a single parameter, a number of different engineering parameters has been proposed that are able to reflect either one or more ground‐motion characteristics concurrently. For many of these parameters, especially regarding Greece, there are relatively few or no predictive models. In this context, we present a set of new regionally‐calibrated equations for the prediction of the geometric mean of the horizontal components of 10 amplitude‐, frequency response‐, and duration‐based parameters for shallow crustal earthquakes. These equations supersede previous empirical relationships for Greece since their applicability range for magnitude, and epicentral distance has been extended down to Mw 4 and up to 200 km, respectively, the incorporation of a term accounting for anelastic attenuation has been investigated, while their development was based on a ground‐motion dataset spanning from 1973 to 2014. For all ground‐motion parameters, we provide alternative optimal equations relative to the availability of information on the different explanatory variables. In all velocity‐based and contrary to the acceleration‐based parameters, the anelastic attenuation coefficient was found statistically insignificant when it was combined with the geometric decay and the coefficient accounting for saturation with distance. In the regressions where the geometric decay coefficient simultaneously incorporated the contribution of anelastic attenuation, its increase was found to be much less considerable in the velocity‐based than in the acceleration‐based parameters, implying a stronger effect of anelastic attenuation on the parameters that are defined via the acceleration time history.

Ground Motion Models for the Horizontal Components of Arias Intensity (AI) and Cumulative Absolute Velocity (CAV) Using the NGA-West2 Database

“…Bullock et al (2017) developed GMMs for AI and CAV using only recordings on rock from New Zealand, Alaska, and the NGA-West2 database. Chousianitis et al (2014Chousianitis et al ( , 2018 developed GMMs for AI and CAV, respectively, using Greek recordings. None of these studies developed GMMs for both AI and CAV using both the NGA-West2 database and a comprehensive set of seismological and site parameters, which is the subject of this paper.…”

Evaluation of the predictive Performance of Regional and Global Ground Motion Predictive Models against Greek Recorded Strong Motion Data.

“…The basin depth, required for some GMPMs from the NGA-West2 database, is not available, hence, it was set as 'unknown'. As observed, the number of investigated GMPMs is larger for peak response intensities than spectral accelerations due to consideration of earlier local GMPMs which do not predict adopt spectral values (Theodulidis and Papazachos, 1992;Skarlatoudis et al, 2003;Chousianitis et al, 2018). The rapid distance attenuation denoted by the GMPM of Boore et al (2021) is a specific feature of ground motion in Greece, which may be attributed to either regional and/or soil-structure interaction effects.…”

“…The models ofAkkar et al (2014) andCauzzi et al (2015) shows a somewhat less good fit, with respect to NGA-2 GMPMS, with a mean residual value exceeding unity for PGA, however, its match to PGV data is similar to that ofAbrahamson et al (2014). Regarding past regional GMPM models(Theodulidis and Papazachos, 1992;Skarlatoudis et al, 2003;Danciu and Tselentis, 2007;Chousianitis et al, 2018), they present large values of mean residuals and standard deviation for PGA, deviating significantly from the standard normal distribution. On the other hand, for PGV, their fit is improved and the GMPMs ofSkarlatoudis et al (2003) andChousianitis et al (2018) present an adequate accuracy, taking into account their simplicity.…”

“…The evaluation procedure shown for PGA and PGV has also been performed for spectral acceleration ordinates at periods of 0.15 sec, 0.4 sec, 1.0 sec and 2.5 sec. From this assessment, the GMPMs of Skarlatoudis et al (2003;, Theodulidis and Papazachos (1992) and Chousianitis et al (2018), have been excluded since they do not give estimates for spectral accelerations.…”

“…Regarding past regional GMPM models(Theodulidis and Papazachos, 1992;Skarlatoudis et al, 2003;Danciu and Tselentis, 2007;Chousianitis et al, 2018), they present large values of mean residuals and standard deviation for PGA, deviating significantly from the standard normal distribution. On the other hand, for PGV, their fit is improved and the GMPMs ofSkarlatoudis et al (2003) andChousianitis et al (2018) present an adequate accuracy, taking into account their simplicity. It should be mentioned though that most of the GMPMs considered exhibit improved comparison to the recorded data for PGV in comparison to PGA.…”