Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades: Peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Due to the limited observational datasets available for the derivation of ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) there is always epistemic uncertainty in the estimated median ground motion. Since the quality and quantity of strong-motion datasets is constantly increasing it would be expected that the epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction (related to lack of knowledge and data) is decreasing. This article is a continuation of the study of Douglas (Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515-1526, 2010) for ground-motion parameters other than peak ground acceleration (PGA) and elastic response spectral acceleration (SA). The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration is investigated by plotting predictions from dozens of GMPEs for these parameters against date of publication for three scenarios. In agreement with the previous study, all ground-motion parameters considered show high epistemic uncertainty (often even higher than previously reported for PGA and SA), suggesting that research efforts for the development of GMPEs for these parameters should continue and that it is vital that this uncertainty is accounted for in seismic hazard assessments. The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of relative significant duration, however, appears to be much lower than any other strong-motion parameter, which suggests that currently available GMPEs for this intensity measure are sufficiently mature.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1339-1356
Number of pages18
JournalBulletin of Earthquake Engineering
Volume10
Issue number5
Early online date26 May 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2012

Fingerprint

ground motion
prediction
predictions
strong motion
hazard assessment
seismic hazard
plotting
Uncertainty
Hazards
spectral sensitivity
hazards
parameter
derivation

Keywords

  • Arias intensity
  • epistemic uncertainty
  • ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs)
  • peak ground displacement
  • peak ground velocity
  • relative significant duration
  • strong-motion data

Cite this

@article{8911d59139b3428394cf1632c804accf,
title = "Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades: Peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration",
abstract = "Due to the limited observational datasets available for the derivation of ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) there is always epistemic uncertainty in the estimated median ground motion. Since the quality and quantity of strong-motion datasets is constantly increasing it would be expected that the epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction (related to lack of knowledge and data) is decreasing. This article is a continuation of the study of Douglas (Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515-1526, 2010) for ground-motion parameters other than peak ground acceleration (PGA) and elastic response spectral acceleration (SA). The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration is investigated by plotting predictions from dozens of GMPEs for these parameters against date of publication for three scenarios. In agreement with the previous study, all ground-motion parameters considered show high epistemic uncertainty (often even higher than previously reported for PGA and SA), suggesting that research efforts for the development of GMPEs for these parameters should continue and that it is vital that this uncertainty is accounted for in seismic hazard assessments. The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of relative significant duration, however, appears to be much lower than any other strong-motion parameter, which suggests that currently available GMPEs for this intensity measure are sufficiently mature.",
keywords = "Arias intensity, epistemic uncertainty, ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs), peak ground displacement, peak ground velocity, relative significant duration, strong-motion data",
author = "John Douglas",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1007/s10518-012-9359-6",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "1339--1356",
journal = "Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering",
issn = "1570-761X",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades

T2 - Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

AU - Douglas, John

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Due to the limited observational datasets available for the derivation of ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) there is always epistemic uncertainty in the estimated median ground motion. Since the quality and quantity of strong-motion datasets is constantly increasing it would be expected that the epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction (related to lack of knowledge and data) is decreasing. This article is a continuation of the study of Douglas (Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515-1526, 2010) for ground-motion parameters other than peak ground acceleration (PGA) and elastic response spectral acceleration (SA). The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration is investigated by plotting predictions from dozens of GMPEs for these parameters against date of publication for three scenarios. In agreement with the previous study, all ground-motion parameters considered show high epistemic uncertainty (often even higher than previously reported for PGA and SA), suggesting that research efforts for the development of GMPEs for these parameters should continue and that it is vital that this uncertainty is accounted for in seismic hazard assessments. The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of relative significant duration, however, appears to be much lower than any other strong-motion parameter, which suggests that currently available GMPEs for this intensity measure are sufficiently mature.

AB - Due to the limited observational datasets available for the derivation of ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) there is always epistemic uncertainty in the estimated median ground motion. Since the quality and quantity of strong-motion datasets is constantly increasing it would be expected that the epistemic uncertainty in ground-motion prediction (related to lack of knowledge and data) is decreasing. This article is a continuation of the study of Douglas (Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515-1526, 2010) for ground-motion parameters other than peak ground acceleration (PGA) and elastic response spectral acceleration (SA). The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity and relative significant duration is investigated by plotting predictions from dozens of GMPEs for these parameters against date of publication for three scenarios. In agreement with the previous study, all ground-motion parameters considered show high epistemic uncertainty (often even higher than previously reported for PGA and SA), suggesting that research efforts for the development of GMPEs for these parameters should continue and that it is vital that this uncertainty is accounted for in seismic hazard assessments. The epistemic uncertainty in the prediction of relative significant duration, however, appears to be much lower than any other strong-motion parameter, which suggests that currently available GMPEs for this intensity measure are sufficiently mature.

KW - Arias intensity

KW - epistemic uncertainty

KW - ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs)

KW - peak ground displacement

KW - peak ground velocity

KW - relative significant duration

KW - strong-motion data

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84868009701&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10518-012-9359-6

DO - 10.1007/s10518-012-9359-6

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 1339

EP - 1356

JO - Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

JF - Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

SN - 1570-761X

IS - 5

ER -