Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A regionally adaptable ground-motion model for fourier amplitude spectra of shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Typical seismic ground-motion models predict the response spectral ordinates (GMM-SA), which are the damped responses of a suite of single-degree-of-freedom oscillators. Response spectra represent the response of an idealized structure to input ground-motion, but not the physics of the actual ground-motion. To complement the regionally adaptable GMM-SA of Kotha et al. (2020), we introduce a model capable of predicting Fourier amplitudes (GMM-FA); developed from the Engineering Strong Motion (ESM) dataset for pan-Europe. This GMM-FA reveals the very high variability of high frequency ground-motions, which are completely masked in a GMM-SA. By maintaining the development strategies of GMM-FA identical to that of the GMM-SA, we are able to evaluate the physical meaning of the spatial variability of anelastic attenuation and source characteristics. We find that a fully data-driven geospatial index, Activity Index (AIx), correlates well with the spatial variability of these physical effects. AIx is a fuzzy combination of seismicity and crustal parameters, and can be used to adapt the attenuation and source non-ergodicity of the GMM-FA to regions and tectonic localities sparsely sampled in ESM. While AIx, and a few other parameters we touch upon, may help understand the spatial variability of high frequency attenuation and source effects, the high frequency site-response variability—dominating the overall aleatory variance—is yet unresolvable. With the rapid increase in quantity and quality of ground-motion datasets, our work demonstrates the need to upgrade regionalization techniques, site-characterisation, and a paradigm shift towards Fourier ground-motion models to complement the traditional response spectra prediction models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig.1
Fig.2
Fig. 3
Fig.4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig.10
Fig.11
Fig.12
Fig.13
Fig.14
Fig.15
Fig.16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active Crustal regions. Earthq Spectra. 30:1025–1055. https://doi.org/10.1193/070913eqs198m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S et al (2014) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9506-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al Atik L, Abrahamson N, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81:794–801

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexis R, Sokos E, Lefils V, Briole P (2021) Seasonal variations in amplitudes and resonance frequencies of the HVSR amplification peaks linked to groundwater. Geophys J Int

  • Ancheta TD et al (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30:989–1005

    Google Scholar 

  • Atik LA, Youngs RR (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthq Spectra. 30:1301–1318

    Google Scholar 

  • Bard P-Y, Bora SS, Hollender F, Laurendeau A, Traversa P (2019) Are the Standard V S-Kappa Host-to-Target Adjustments the Only Way to Get Consistent Hard-Rock Ground Motion Prediction? Pure and Applied Geophysics:1–20

  • Basili R et al. (2019) NEAMTHM18 Documentation: the making of the TSUMAPS-NEAM Tsunami Hazard Model 2018

  • Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4 arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5823.pdf

  • Bayless J, Abrahamson NA (2019a) An empirical model for the interfrequency correlation of epsilon for fourier amplitude spectra. Bull Seismol Soc Am 109:1058–1070

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayless J, Abrahamson NA (2019) Summary of the BA18 Ground-Motion Model for Fourier Amplitude Spectra for Crustal Earthquakes in California. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 109:2088–2105

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Cotton F, Kotha SR, Bosse C, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2017a) Application-driven ground motion prediction equation for seismic hazard assessments in non-cratonic moderate-seismicity areas. J Seismolog 21:1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9661-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Kotha S-R, Weatherill G, Lanzano G, Luzi L, Cotton F (2019) The pan-European engineering strong motion (ESM) flatfile: consistency check via residual analysis. Bull Earthquake Eng. 17:583–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Kotha S (2020) Spectral decomposition of the Engineering Strong Motion (ESM) flat file: regional attenuation, source scaling and Arias stress drop. Bull Earthq Eng. 1–26

  • Bindi D, Parolai S, Grosser H, Milkereit C, Karakisa S (2006) Crustal attenuation characteristics in northwestern Turkey in the range from 1 to 10 Hz. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 96:200–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Picozzi M, Spallarossa D, Cotton F, Kotha SR (2019) Impact of magnitude selection on aleatory variability associated with ground-motion prediction equations: part II—analysis of the between-event distribution in Central Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Ama 109:251–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Spallarossa D, Pacor F (2017b) Between-event and between-station variability observed in the Fourier and response spectra domains: comparison with seismological models. Geophys J Int 210:1092–1104

    Google Scholar 

  • Bindi D, Zaccarelli R, Kotha SR (2021) Local and moment magnitude analysis in the ridgecrest region, California: impact on interevent ground-motion variability. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 111:339–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ et al (2015) A SSHAC level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new-build nuclear site in South Africa. Earthq Spectra. 31:661–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Di Alessandro C, Abrahamson NA (2014a) A generalization of the double-corner-frequency source spectral model and its use in the SCEC BBP validation exercise. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104:2387–2398

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra. 30:1057–1085

    Google Scholar 

  • Bora SS, Cotton F, Scherbaum F (2019) NGA-west2 empirical fourier and duration models to generate adjustable response spectra. Earthq Spectra. 35:61–93. https://doi.org/10.1193/110317eqs228m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bora SS, Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Edwards B, Traversa P (2017) Stochastic source, path and site attenuation parameters and associated variabilities for shallow crustal European earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng. 15:4531–4561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0167-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford P (2014) Fourier spectral-and duration models for the generation of response spectra adjustable to different source-, propagation-, and site conditions. Bull Earthq Eng 12:467–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N, Stafford P (2016) On the relationship between fourier and response spectra: implications for the adjustment of empirical ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs). Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1235–1253

    Google Scholar 

  • Brune JN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J Geophys Res 75:4997–5009

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-west2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30:1087–1115. https://doi.org/10.1193/062913eqs175m

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y-S, Weatherill G, Pagani M, Cotton F (2018) A transparent and data-driven global tectonic regionalization model for seismic hazard assessment. Geophys J Int 213:1263–1280

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra. 30:1117–1153

    Google Scholar 

  • Chounet A, Vallée M, Causse M, Courboulex F (2018) Global catalog of earthquake rupture velocities shows anticorrelation between stress drop and rupture velocity. Tectonophysics 733:148–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Cong L, Mitchell B (1998) Lg coda Q and its relation to the geology and tectonics of the Middle East. In: Q of the Earth: Global, Regional, and Laboratory Studies. Springer, pp 563–585

  • Cotton F, Pousse G, Bonilla F, Scherbaum F (2008) On the discrepancy of recent European ground-motion observations and predictions from empirical models: Analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and point-sources stochastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2244–2261

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawood HM, Rodriguez-Marek A (2013) A method for including path effects in ground-motion prediction equations: an example using the Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake aftershocks. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 103:1360–1372

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaferia G, Cammarano F, Faccenna C (2019) Thermal structure of a vanishing subduction system: an example of seismically-derived crustal temperature along the Italian peninsula. Geophys J Int 219:239–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2018) Calibrating the backbone approach for the development of earthquake ground motion models Best Practice in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations: Issues and Challenges Towards Full Seismic Risk Analysis

  • Faccioli E, Paolucci R, Vanini M (2015) Evaluation of probabilistic site-specific seismic-hazard methods and associated uncertainties, with applications in the Po Plain, northern Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 105:2787–2807

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukushima Y (1996) Scaling relations for strong ground motion prediction models with M 2 terms. Bull Seismol Soc Am. 86:329–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnier S (2019) Viridis: Default color maps from “matplotlib”. 2018 URL https://github.com/sjmgarnier/viridis R package version 03 4:27

  • Goulet C et al. Effective amplitude spectrum (EAS) as a metric for ground motion modeling using Fourier amplitudes. In: 2018 Seismology of the Americas Meeting, 2018

  • Grad M, Tiira T, Group EW (2009) The Moho depth map of the European Plate. Geophys J Int. 176:279-292

  • Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2012) The European-mediterranean earthquake catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium. J Seismol. 16:535–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollender F, Roumelioti Z, Maufroy E, Traversa P, Mariscal A (2020) Can we trust high-frequency content in strong-motion database signals? Impact of housing, coupling, and installation depth of seismic sensors. Seismol Resh Lett 91:2192–2205

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren JM, Atkinson GM (2018) Effect of uncertainty in source parameters on ground-motion variability for potentially induced earthquakes in the central United States. Seismol Res Lett 89:702–711. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber PJ (1992) Robust estimation of a location parameter. In: Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, pp 492–518

  • Jacoby WG (2000) Loess: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Electoral Stud. 19:577–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis A, Reuter H, Nelson A, Guevara E (2008) Hole-Filled Seamless SRTM Data V4: International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT): http srtm csi cgiar org, accessed 31

  • Kahle D, Wickham H, Kahle MD (2019) Package ‘ggmap’

  • Kohrangi M, Kotha SR, Bazzurro P (2020) Impact of Partially Non-Ergodic Site-specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard on Risk Assessment of Single Buildings. Earthquake spectra (in-review)

  • Koller M (2016) robustlmm: an R package for robust estimation of linear mixed-effects models. J stat softw 75:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Bindi D, Cotton F (2016) Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and Middle-East. Bull Earthq Eng 14:1245–1263

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Bindi D, Cotton F (2017) From ergodic to region- and site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard assessment: method development and application at european and middle eastern sites. Earthquake Spectra 33:1433–1453. https://doi.org/10.1193/081016EQS130M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Cotton F, Bindi D (2018) A new approach to site classification: mixed-effects ground motion prediction equation with spectral clustering of site amplification functions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Cotton F, Bindi D (2019) Empirical models of shear-wave radiation pattern derived from large datasets of ground-shaking observations. Sci Rep. 9

  • Kotha SR, Weatherill G, Bindi D, Cotton F (2020) a regionally adaptable ground-motion model for shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe. Bull Earthq Eng 18:4091–4125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00869-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowsari M, Halldorsson B, Hrafnkelsson B, Snæbjörnsson JÞ, Jónsson S (2019) Calibration of ground motion models to Icelandic peak ground acceleration data using Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Bull Earthq Eng 17:2841–2870

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuehn NM, Abrahamson NA (2017) The effect of uncertainty in predictor variables on the estimation of ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 108:358–370. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehn NM, Scherbaum F (2016) A partially non-ergodic ground-motion prediction equation for Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 14:2629–2642

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanzano G et al. (2018) The pan-European engineering strong motion (ESM) flatfile: compilation criteria and data statistics. Bull Earthq Eng. 1–22

  • Loviknes K, Kotha SR, Cotton F, Schorlemmer D (2021) Testing nonlinear amplification factors of ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 111:2121–2137. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y, Stehly L, Paul A, Group AW (2018) High-resolution surface wave tomography of the European crust and uppermost mantle from ambient seismic noise. Geophys J Int 214:1136–1150

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayor J, Traversa P, Calvet M, Margerin L (2018) Tomography of crustal seismic attenuation in metropolitan France: implications for seismicity analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 16:2195–2210

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell BJ, Cong L, Ekström G (2008) A continent‐wide map of 1‐Hz Lg coda Q variation across Eurasia and its relation to lithospheric evolution. J Geophys Res: Solid Earth. 113

  • Mucciarelli M, Gallipoli MR, Lizza C, Vignola L (2017) Site condition at accelerometric stations in Southern Italy: observations gained from peculiar cases. Bull Earthq Eng 15:2367–2376

    Google Scholar 

  • Péquegnat C, Guéguen P, Hatzfeld D, Langlais M (2008) The French accelerometric network (RAP) and national data centre (RAP-NDC). Seismol Res Lett 79:79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin C, Manighetti I, Ampuero JP, Cappa F, Gaudemer Y (2016) Location of largest earthquake slip and fast rupture controlled by along-strike change in fault structural maturity due to fault growth Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid. Earth 121:3666–3685

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilz M, Cotton F (2019) Does the one-dimensional assumption hold for site response analysis? a study of seismic site responses and implication for ground motion assessment using kik-net strong-motion. Data Earthq Spectra 35:883–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilz M, Cotton F, Zaccarelli R, Bindi D (2019) Capturing Regional Variations of Hard‐Rock Attenuation in Europe Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

  • R Software Team (2013) R foundation for statistical computing Vienna, Austria 3

  • Radiguet M, Cotton F, Manighetti I, Campillo M, Douglas J (2009) Dependency of near-field ground motions on the structural maturity of the ruptured faults. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2572–2581

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritsema J, Deuss aA, Van Heijst H, Woodhouse J, (2011) S40RTS: a degree-40 shear-velocity model for the mantle from new Rayleigh wave dispersion, teleseismic traveltime and normal-mode splitting function measurements. Geophys J Int 184:1223–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Marek A et al (2013) A model for single-station standard deviation using data from various tectonic regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:3149–3163

    Google Scholar 

  • Roumelioti Z, Hollender F, Guéguen P (2020) Rainfall-induced variation of seismic waves velocity in soil and implications for soil response: what the ARGONET (Cephalonia, Greece) vertical array data reveal. Bull Seismol Soc Am 110:441–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahakian V, Baltay A, Hanks T, Buehler J, Vernon F, Kilb D, Abrahamson N (2019) Ground‐Motion Residuals, Path Effects, and Crustal Properties: A Pilot Study in Southern California Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

  • Stafford PJ (2017) Interfrequency correlations among fourier spectral ordinates and implications for stochastic ground-motion simulationinterfrequency correlations among fourier spectral ordinates and implications. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2774–2791

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart JP (2000) Variations between foundation-level and free-field earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 16:511–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Traversa P et al. (2020) RESIF RAP and RLBP dataset of earthquake ground motion in mainland France Seismological Research Letters

  • Venables W, Ripley B (2002) Modern applied statistics (Fourth S., editor) New York. Springer

  • Weatherill G, Crowley H, Lemoine A, Roullé A, Tourlière B, Kotha SR, Cotton F (2020a) Modelling Seismic Site Response at Regional Scale for the 2020 European Seismic Risk Model (ESRM20). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering in-preparation

  • Weatherill G, Kotha SR, Cotton F (2020) Re-thinking Site Amplification in Regional Seismic. Risk Assessment Earthquake spectra. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019899956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill G, Kotha SR, Cotton F (2020c) A Regionally-Adaptable "Scaled-Backbone'" Ground Motion Logic Tree for Shallow Seismicity in Europe: Application in the 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

  • Weatherill G, Kotha SR, Cotton F, Bindi D, Danciu L (2020d) Updated GMPE logic tree and rock/soil parameterisation for ESHM18 vol Deliverable 25.4. Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe (SERA),

  • Weatherill G, Pagani M, Garcia J (2016) Exploring earthquake databases for the creation of magnitude-homogeneous catalogues: tools for application on a regional and global scale. Geophys J Int 206:1652–1676

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H, Chang W, Henry L, Pedersen T, Takahashi K, Wilke C, Woo K (2019a) R Package ‘ggplot2’v. 3.1. 1 Cran R

  • Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K (2019b) dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.8. 0.1. ed,

  • Youngs R, Abrahamson N, Makdisi F, Sadigh K (1995) Magnitude-dependent variance of peak ground acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:1161–1176

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaccarelli R, Bindi D, Strollo A, Quinteros J, Cotton F (2019) Stream2segment: an open-source tool for downloading, processing, and visualizing massive event-based seismic waveform datasets. Seismol Res Lett 90:2028–2038

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu C, Weatherill G, Cotton F, Pilz M, Kwak DY, Kawase H (2020) An open-source site database of strong-motion stations in Japan: K-NET and KiK-net

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the very thorough review of Grace. A. Parker, which helped in improving the readability of the manuscript. The authors are also extend thanks to the anonymous reviewer for their inputs. The contributions of Sreeram Reddy Kotha (corresponding author) in this research are funded by the SIGMA2 consortium (EDF, CEA, PG&E, SwissNuclear, Orano, CEZ, CRIEPI) under grant–2017–2021. The model development has benefitted immensely from feedback provided by the collaborators in Horizon 2020 “Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe (SERA)” project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Grenoble Alpes, University of Savoie Mont Blanc, IRD, CNRS, Univ. Gustave Eiffel, ISTerre, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Sreeram Reddy Kotha

  2. Helmholtz Centre Potsdam, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, 14467, Potsdam, Germany

    Sreeram Reddy Kotha, Dino Bindi & Fabrice Cotton

  3. University of Potsdam, Institute of Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany

    Fabrice Cotton

Authors
  1. Sreeram Reddy Kotha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dino Bindi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabrice Cotton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sreeram Reddy Kotha.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 7630 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotha, S.R., Bindi, D. & Cotton, F. A regionally adaptable ground-motion model for fourier amplitude spectra of shallow crustal earthquakes in Europe. Bull Earthquake Eng 20, 711–740 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01255-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01255-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation