Paper detail

On the Testing of Ground--Motion Prediction Equations against Small--Magnitude Data

Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE) are essential in probabilistic seismic hazard studies for estimating the ground motions generated by the seismic sources. In low seismicity regions, only weak motions are available in the lifetime of accelerometric networks, and the equations selected for the probabilistic studies are usually models established from foreign data. Although most ground-motion prediction equations have been developed for magnitudes 5 and above, the minimum magnitude often used in probabilistic studies in low seismicity regions is smaller. Desaggregations have shown that, at return periods of engineering interest, magnitudes lower than 5 can be contributing to the hazard. This paper presents the testing of several GMPEs selected in current international and national probabilistic projects against weak motions recorded in France (191 recordings with source-site distances up to 300km, 3.8\leqMw\leq4.5). The method is based on the loglikelihood value proposed by Scherbaum et al. (2009). The best fitting models (approximately 2.5\leqLLH\leq3.5) over the whole frequency range are the Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008), Akkar and Bommer (2010) and Abrahamson and Silva (2008) models. No significant regional variation of ground motions is highlighted, and the magnitude scaling could be predominant in the control of ground-motion amplitudes. Furthermore, we take advantage of a rich Japanese dataset to run tests on randomly selected low-magnitude subsets, and check that a dataset of ~190 observations, same size as the French dataset, is large enough to obtain stable LLH estimates. Additionally we perform the tests against larger magnitudes (5-7) from the Japanese dataset. The ranking of models is partially modified, indicating a magnitude scaling effect for some of the models, and showing that extrapolating testing results obtained from low magnitude ranges to higher magnitude ranges is not straightforward.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.