4.4 Article

Repeatable Source, Site, and Path Effects on the Standard Deviation for Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Models

Journal

BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
Volume 101, Issue 5, Pages 2281-2295

Publisher

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0120090312

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Sinotech Engineering Consultants, Inc.
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Company
  3. California Department of Transportation
  4. Taiwan Earthquake Research Center (TEC)
  5. National Science Council (NSC) [NSC96-2119-M008-004]
  6. PGE/DOE [DE-FC28-05RW 12358]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we quantify the reduction in the standard deviation for empirical ground-motion prediction models by removing ergodic assumption. We partition the modeling error (residual) into five components, three of which represent the repeatable source-location-specific, site-specific, and path-specific deviations from the population mean. A variance estimation procedure of these error components is developed for use with a set of recordings from earthquakes not heavily clustered in space. With most source locations and propagation paths sampled only once, we opt to exploit the spatial correlation of residuals to estimate the variances associated with the path-specific and the source-location-specific deviations. The estimation procedure is applied to ground-motion amplitudes from 64 shallow earthquakes in Taiwan recorded at 285 sites with at least 10 recordings per site. The estimated variance components are used to quantify the reduction in aleatory variability that can be used in hazard analysis for a single site and for a single path. For peak ground acceleration and spectral accelerations at periods of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1.0, and 3.0 s, we find that the single-site standard deviations are 9%-14% smaller than the total standard deviation, whereas the single-path standard deviations are 39%-47% smaller.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available