SELECTION OF THE MOST APPROPRIATE GROUND MOTION PREDICTION EQUATION FOR LOCAL SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS

Abstract

Together with the ever-increasing number of global and local Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) and the complexity of the functional forms, incompatibility problems arise in the selection of the most appropriate GMPE for a specific location. Obviously, associated with the incompatibility issues, practitioners face a compromise over the precision of prediction because the functional form of the considered GMPE might be developed by considering all the influential parameters, which might not be available for the considered location. Hence, a modification is required to adjust the considered GMPE to local conditions by using the local ground motion data. The sensitivity of the parameters of the selected GMPEs to the local seismic propagation patterns can be determined only after the adjustment. The local propagation patterns, on the other hand, can only be identified by analyzing the indigenous data. Together with the attempts to solve the incompatibility problem, the selection of the most appropriate GMPE becomes the selection of the most suitable functional form.

The aim of this study is to select the most appropriate GMPE for Eskişehir through the guidance of the above statements. A number of GMPEs are selected according to the criteria of wider utilization and recognition. All the candidate GMPEs were subjected to adjustments, including some minor modifications and the calibration of the coefficients by using the indigenous data. Then, a number of statistical and visual procedures were applied including the performance test of the adjusted GMPEs with the records of the two largest earthquakes that occurred in the region. The study highlights the influence of the local seismic behavior on the performance of various functional forms of the candidate GMPEs. 

Keywords

• Eskişehir,Ground Motion Prediction Equation,LLH method,EDR method,Residual Analysis

References

1. [1] Campbell KW.. 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. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2003; 93:1012–1033.
2. [2] Douglas J An investigation of analysis of variance as a tool for exploring regional differences in strong ground Motions. J Seismol 2004; 8:485-486
3. [3] Douglas J. On the regional dependence of earthquake response spectra. ISET J Earthq Technol 2007; 44:71–99.
4. [4] Hintersberger E, Scherbaum F, Hainzl S. Update of likelihood-based ground-motion model selection for seismic hazard analysis in Western Central Europe. Bull Earthquake Eng 2007;5:1-16.
5. [5] Stafford PJ, Strasser FO, Bommer JJ. An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean Region. Bull Earthquake Eng 2008; 6:149–177.
6. [6] Stewart JP, Scasserra G, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F, Bazzurro P. Critical evaluation of Italian strong motion data and comparison to NGA ground motion prediction equations, Report No. UCLA SGEL 2008/03, University of California, Los Angeles, 2008
7. [7] Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F. A comparison of NGA ground motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2009; 99:2961-298.
8. [8] Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Scherbaum F. et al. On the Selection of Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Seismic Hazard Analysis. Seismol Res Lett 2010; 81:783-793.

9. [9] Delavaud E, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N. Testing the global applicability of ground motion prediction equations for active shallow crustal regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2012; 102:707-721.
10. [10] Douglas J, Akkar S, Ameri G, Bard PY, Bindi D et al. Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthquake Eng 2014; 12:341-358.
11. [11] Gülerce Z, Kargıoglu B., Abrahamson N.A. Turkey-Adjusted NGA-W1 Horizontal Ground Motion Prediction Models. Earth Spectra 2015; 32:75-100.
12. [12] Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP et al (2013). PEER NGA-West2 Database, PEER Report No. 2013/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2013; 134 pp.
13. [13] Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P. Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull Earthquake Eng 2014a,b; 12: 391–430.
14. [14] Akkar S, Cağnan Z, Yenier E, Erdoğan E, Sandikkaya MA, Gülkan P. The recently compiled Turkish strong-motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters. J Seismol 2010; 14: 457-479.
15. [15] Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Bommer JJ. Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthquake Eng 2013; 12: 359-387.
16. [16] Akkar S, Cağnan Z. A local ground motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2010; 100:2978-2995.
17. [17] Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R. Summary of the Abrahamson, Silva, and Kamai NGA-West2 ground-motion relations for active crustal regions. 2014; Earthq Spectra 30:1025–1056.
18. [18] Boore DM, Stewart J, Seyhan E, Atkinson G. NGA-West2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 2014; 30:1057–1086.
19. [19] Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y. Campbell–Bozorgnia NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear response spectra. Earthq Spectra 2014; 30:1087–1116.
20. [20] Chiou BSJ, Youngs R. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA ground motion model for average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 2014; 30:1117–1154.
21. [21] Idriss I. An NGA-West2 empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated by shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 2014; 30:1155–1178.
22. [22] Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit P. Equations For The Estimation Of Strong Ground Motions From Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Using Data From Europe And The Middle East: Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration And Spectral Acceleration. Bull Earthquake Eng 2005; Vol. 3, 1-53.
23. [23] Akkar S, Bommer JJ. Empirical Equations for the Prediction of PGA, PGV, and Spectral Accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean Region, and the Middle East. Seismol Res Lett 2010; 81:195-206.
24. [24] Kalkan E. and G¨ulkan P. Site-Dependent Spectra Derived From Ground Motion Records İn Turkey; Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(4) 1111–1138
25. [25] Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H. Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: Application to Central Europe and rock sites. J Seismol 2006; 10:137-156.
26. [26] Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C. Model Selection in Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Information-theoretic Perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 2009; 99:3234-3247.
27. [27] Kale Ö, Akkar S. A new procedure for selecting and ranking ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs): the euclidean-distance based ranking (EDR) method, Bull Seismol Soc Am. 2013; 103:1069 - 1084.
28. [28] Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA. The Variability of Ground-Motion Prediction Models and Its Components. Bull Earthquake Eng 2006; 96:1967-1977.