Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 583–602 | Cite as

The pan-European engineering strong motion (ESM) flatfile: consistency check via residual analysis

  • D. BindiEmail author
  • S.-R. Kotha
  • G. Weatherill
  • G. Lanzano
  • L. Luzi
  • F. Cotton
Original Research

Abstract

We present the results of a consistency check performed over the flatfile extracted from the engineering strong motion (ESM) database. The flatfile includes 23,014 recordings from 2179 earthquakes in the magnitude range from 3.5 to 7.8 that occurred since the 1970s in Europe and Middle East, as presented in the companion article by Lanzano et al. (Bull Earthq Eng, 2018a). The consistency check is developed by analyzing different residual distributions obtained from ad-hoc ground motion prediction equations for the absolute spectral acceleration (SA), displacement and Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS). Only recordings from earthquakes shallower than 40 km are considered in the analysis. The between-event, between-station and event-and-station corrected residuals are computed by applying a mixed-effect regression. We identified those earthquakes, stations, and recordings showing the largest deviations from the GMPE median predictions, and also evaluated the statistical uncertainty on the median model to get insights on the applicable magnitude–distance ranges and the usable period (or frequency) range. We observed that robust median predictions are obtained up to 8 s for SA and up to 20 Hz for FAS, although median predictions for Mw ≥ 7 show significantly larger uncertainties with ‘bumps’ starting above 5 s for SA and below 0.3 Hz for FAS. The between-station variance dominates over the other residual variances, and the dependence of the between-station residuals on logarithm of Vs30 is well-described by a piece-wise linear function with period-dependent slopes and hinge velocity around 580 m/s. Finally, we compared the between-event residuals obtained by considering two different sources of moment magnitude. The results show that, at long periods, the between-event terms from the two regressions have a weak correlation and the overall between-event variability is dissimilar, highlighting the importance of magnitude source in the regression results.

Keywords

Ground motion prediction equation Residual analysis European strong motion data 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been developed within the European Plate Observing System (EPOS; https://epos-ip.org/) and the Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research Infrastructure Alliance for Europe (SERA; http://www.sera-eu.org) projects. Comments from B. Edwards and one anonymous reviewer helped us to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Akkar S, Sandıkkaya MA, Şenyurt M, Azari Sisi A, Ay BÖ, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Atik L, Youngs B (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1301–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambraseys NN (1990) Uniform magnitude re-evaluation of European earthquake associated with strong-motion records. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambraseys NN, Bommer JJ (1991) Database of European strong-motion records. Eur Earthq Eng 5:18–37Google Scholar
  5. Ambraseys N, Smit P, Berardi R, Rinaldis D, Cotton F, Berge-Thierry C (2000) Dissemination of European strong-motion data. CD-ROM collection. European Commission, Directorate General XII, Science, Research and Development, Environment and Climate Programme, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  6. Ambraseys NN, Smit P, Douglas J, Margaris B, Sigbjörnsson R, Olafsson S, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) Internet site for European strong-motion data. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 45:113–129Google Scholar
  7. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BS-J, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bastías N, Montalva GA (2016) Chile strong ground motion flatfile. Earthq Spectra 32:2549–2566.  https://doi.org/10.1193/102715EQS158DP CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bindi D, Cotton F, Kotha S, Bosse C, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2017a) Application-driven ground motion prediction equation for seismic hazard assessments in non-cratonic moderate-seismicity areas. J Seismol 21(5):1201–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggx217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boore DM (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(4):1830–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brillinger DR, Preisler HK (1985) Further analysis of the Joyner–Boore attenuation data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(2):611–614Google Scholar
  14. 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 30:1087–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E (2017) Anatomy of sigma of a global predictive model for ground motions and response spectra. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0278-4 Google Scholar
  16. Dawood HM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bayless J, Goulet C, Thompson E (2016) Flatfile for the KiK-net database processed using an automated protocol. Earthq Spectra 32:1281–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grünthal G, Wahlström R (2012) The European-Mediterranean earthquake catalogue (EMEC) for the last millennium. J Seismol 16(3):535–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotha SR, Bindi D, Cotton F (2016) Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and middle-east. Bull Earthq Eng 14:1245–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 Earth Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.01.051 Google Scholar
  20. Kuehn NM, Abrahamson NA (2018) Uncertainty in predictor variables on the estimation of ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170166 Google Scholar
  21. Lanzano G, D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Puglia R, Luzi L, Pacor F, Bindi D (2016) Ground motion prediction equations for region specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106(1):73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lanzano G, Sgobba S, Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Felicetta C, D’Amico M, Cotton F, Bindi D (2018a) The pan-European engineering strong motion (ESM) flatfile: compilation criteria and data statistics. Bull Earthq Eng. (submitted) Google Scholar
  23. Lanzano G, Puglia R, Russo E, Luzi L, Bindi D, Cotton F, D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Pacor F and ORFEUS WG5 (2018b) ESM strong-motion flat-file 2018. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ), Observatories and Research Facilities for European Seismology (ORFEUS). PID: 11099/ESM_flatfile_2018Google Scholar
  24. Luzi L, Puglia R, Russo E, D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Pacor F, Lanzano G, Çeken U, Clinton J, Costa G, Duni L et al (2016) The engineering strong-motion database: a platform to access pan-European accelerometric data. Seismol Res Lett 87:987–997.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moss RES (2011) Reduced sigma of ground-motion prediction equations through uncertainty propagation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:250–257.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muggeo VMR (2003) Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat Med 22:3055–3071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Puglia R, Russo E, Luzi L, D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Pacor F, Lanzano G (2018) Strong motion processing service: a tool to access and analyse earthquakes strong motion waveforms. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0299-z Google Scholar
  28. Rhoades DA (1997) Estimation of attenuation relations for strong-motion data allowing for individual earthquake magnitude uncertainties. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:1674–1678Google Scholar
  29. Zhao JX, Zhou SL, Gao PJ, Zhang YB, Zhou J, Lu M, Rhoades DA (2016) Ground-motion prediction equations for shallow crustal and upper mantle earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1552–1569.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia INGVMilanItaly
  3. 3.University of PotsdamPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations