Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ground Motion Simulation Using the Hybrid Empirical Method: Issues and Insights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology

Part of the book series: Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering ((GGEE,volume 14))

Abstract

The widespread application of the hybrid empirical method (HEM) has made it a viable approach for developing ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) in regions where there are few strong motion recordings but ample weak motion data from small-to-moderate magnitude earthquakes. The HEM uses empirical estimates of ground motion in a host region to provide estimates of ground motion in a target region by taking into account differences in source, path, and site effect s between the two regions. Empirical ground motion estimates in the host region are transferred to the target region using adjustment factors that are calculated from regionally constrained seismological models using stochastic simulation. In this paper, I discuss the issues and demonstrate the epistemic uncertainty involved in applying the HEM using an example application to eastern North America (ENA) based on the Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA GMPE for western North America (WNA) and updated seismological models for ENA.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Assatourians K (2008) Stress parameter distribution on an earthquake fault based on a stochastic modeling approach. Ph.D. thesis, Carlton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson GM (2004) Empirical attenuation of ground motion spectral amplitudes in southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States. Bull Seismol Soc Am 94:1079–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson GM (2005) Ground motions for earthquakes in southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington: crustal, in-slab, and offshore events. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1027–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkinson GM (2007) Analysis of “Did you feel it?” intensity data to determine ground motion characteristics for the central/eastern United States. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, U.S. Geological Survey Award 07HQGR0071, final report

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson GM (2008) Ground motion prediction equations for eastern North America from a referenced empirical approach: implications for epistemic uncertainty. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:1304–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson GM, Assatourians K, Boore DM, Campbell K, Motazedian D (2009) A guide to differences between stochastic point-source and stochastic finite-fault simulation. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3192–3201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (1995) New ground motion relations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 85:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2181–2205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Atkinson G, Kaka S (2007) Relationships between felt intensity and instrumental ground motions for earthquakes in the central United States and California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:497–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Atkinson GM, Morrison M (2009) Observations on regional variability in ground-motion amplitudes for small-to-moderate earthquakes in North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2393–2409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Atkinson GM, Wald DJ (2007) “Did you feel it?” intensity data: a surprisingly good measure of earthquake ground motion. Seismol Res Lett 78:362–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boore DM (2003) Prediction of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure Appl Geophys 160:635–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boore DM (2005) SMSIM – Fortran programs for simulating ground motions from earthquakes: version 2.3 – a revision of OFR 96-80-A. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–509

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boore DM (2009) Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:3202–3216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (1992) Source spectra for the 1988 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquakes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:683–719

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s. Earthquake Spectra 24:99–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boore DM, Campbell KW, Atkinson GM (2010) Determination of stress parameters for eight well-recorded earthquakes in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:1632–1645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplification for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:327–341

    Google Scholar 

  20. Campbell KW (2001) Development of semi-empirical attenuation relationships for the CEUS. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, U.S. Geological Survey Award 01HQGR0011, final report

    Google Scholar 

  21. Campbell KW (2003) 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 93:1012–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell KW (2004) Erratum: 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 94:2418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Campbell KW (2007) Validation and update of hybrid empirical ground motion (attenuation) relations for the CEUS. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, U.S. Geological Survey Award 05HQGR0032, final report

    Google Scholar 

  24. Campbell KW (2008a) Hybrid empirical ground motion model for PGA and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra from shallow crustal earthquakes in stable continental regions: example for eastern North America. In: Proc 14th World Conf Earthq Eng, paper S03-001, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell KW (2008b) Comment on “Empirical-stochastic ground-motion prediction for eastern North America” by Behrooz Tavakoli and Shahram Pezeshk. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2094–2097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2006) Next generation attenuation (NGA) empirical ground motion models: can they be used in Europe? In: Proc 1st Eur Conf Earthq Eng Seismol, paper 458, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  27. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24:139–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chiou B, Youngs R, Abrahamson N, Addo K (2010) Ground-motion attenuation model for small-to-moderate shallow crustal earthquakes in California and its implications on regionalization of ground-motion prediction models. Earthquake Spectra 26:907–926

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Douglas J, Aochi H, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2007) The importance of crustal structure in explaining the observed uncertainties in ground motion estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 5:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Douglas J, Bungum H, Scherbaum F (2006) Ground-motion prediction equations for southern Spain and southern Norway obtained using the composite model perspective. J Earthquake Eng 10:33–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fatehi A, Herrmann RB (2008) High-frequency ground-motion scaling in the Pacific Northwest and in northern and central California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:709–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Frankel A, Mueller C, Barnhard T, Perkins D, Leyendecker E, Dickman N, Hanson S, Hopper M (1996) National seismic hazard maps: documentation June 1996. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96–532

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lin PS (2007) A comparison study of earthquake strong-ground motions in California and Taiwan. Report PEER 2006/12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  35. Malagnini L, Mayeda K, Uhrhammer R, Akinci A, Herrmann RB (2007) A regional ground-motion excitation/attenuation model for the San Francisco region. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97:843–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Motazedian D, Atkinson G (2005) Stochastic finite-fault modeling based on a dynamic corner frequency. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:995–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Peruš I, Fajfar P (2009) Ground-motion prediction by a non-parametric approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:1395–1416

    Google Scholar 

  38. Petersen M, Frankel A, Harmsen S, Mueller C, Haller K, Wheeler R, Wesson R, Zeng Y, Boyd O, Perkins D, Luco N, Field E, Wills C, Rukstales K (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128

    Google Scholar 

  39. Power M, Chiou B, Abrahamson N, Bozorgnia Y, Shantz T, Roblee C (2008) An overview of the PGA project. Earthquake Spectra 24:3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Raoof M, Herrmann R, Malagnini L (1999) Attenuation and excitation of three-component ground motion in southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89:888–902

    Google Scholar 

  41. Samiezade-Yazd M, Herrmann RB, Malagnini L, Liu W (1997) A regional comparison of vertical ground motion in North America., Report 1434-94-G-2403, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri, http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/GroundMotion.

  42. Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G, Mollaioli F (2009) A comparison of NGA ground motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:2961–2978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H, Cotton F, Abrahamson NA (2005) Composite ground-motion models and logic trees: methodology, sensitivities, and uncertainties. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1575–1593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Shoja-Taheri J, Naserieh S, Ghofrani H (2010) A test of the applicability of NGA models to the strong ground motion data in the Iranian plateau. J Earthquake Eng 14:278–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stafford PJ, Strasser FO, Bommer JJ (2008) An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Bull Earthq Eng 6:149–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tavakoli B, Pezeshk S (2005) Empirical-stochastic ground-motion prediction for eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:2283–2296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tavakoli B, Pezeshk S (2008) Reply to “Comment on ‘Empirical-stochastic ground-motion prediction for Eastern North America’ by Behrooz Tavakoli and Shahram Pezeshk” by Kenneth W. Campbell. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2098–2100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zandieh A, Pezeshk S (2010) Investigation of geometrical spreading and quality factor functions in the New Madrid seismic zone. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100:2185–2195

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under award number 05HQGR0032. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official polices, either expressed or implied, of the US Government. I thank Dave Boore and Gail Atkinson for their insightful discussions and their interest and assistance in attempting to understand and resolve the issues discussed in this paper. John Douglas provided helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EQECAT, Inc., Beaverton, OR, USA

    K.W. Campbell

Authors
  1. K.W. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K.W. Campbell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Civil Engineering &, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 06531, Turkey

    Sinan Akkar

  2. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 06531, Turkey

    Polat Gülkan

  3. ORFEUS c/o Seismology Division, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institu, De Bilt, 3730 AE, Netherlands

    Torild van Eck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Campbell, K. (2011). Ground Motion Simulation Using the Hybrid Empirical Method: Issues and Insights. In: Akkar, S., Gülkan, P., van Eck, T. (eds) Earthquake Data in Engineering Seismology. Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0152-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation