0 Suka0 Tidak suka

15 tayangan34 halamanGulerce_etal_2015

Jun 30, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

Gulerce_etal_2015

© All Rights Reserved

15 tayangan

Gulerce_etal_2015

© All Rights Reserved

- Seismic Hazard Assessment of Kashmir and Kangra valley region, western Himalaya, India
- JPN Fukushima Takahashi Yoshi s1
- New Attenuation Model Japan.pdf
- Fukushimaetal_JSeismology_2002
- Additional Questions on Probability
- 1B40 DA Lecture 2v2
- New Zealand fracking report
- Seismic Microzonation for the Northeast Texcoco Lake Area, Mexico 2013 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
- On the error of backcast estimates using conversion matrices under a change of classification
- PDK
- Petrosky
- 2009 MSHA Coal Refuse Disposal Facilities Manual - Blasting
- 2011-A New Probabilistic Method to Estimate the Long-term Wind Speed Characteristics at a Potential Wind Energy Conversion Site
- Regress 1
- Rodriguezmarek Tues 130pm Ven V
- Meriwell Case Forecasting
- Reservoir Earthquake - Printed
- MOISTURE-DEPENDENT THERMAL PROPERTIES OF COCOYAM CORMELS
- Montgomery Bowles
- Kendaraan Karyawan

Anda di halaman 1dari 34

PREPRINT

This preprint is a PDF of a manuscript that has been accepted for

publication in Earthquake Spectra. It is the final version that was

uploaded and approved by the author(s). While the paper has been

through the usual rigorous peer review process for the Journal, it has

not been copyedited, nor have the figures and tables been modified for

final publication. Please also note that the paper may refer to online

Appendices that are not yet available.

We have posted this preliminary version of the manuscript online in

the interest of making the scientific findings available for distribution

and citation as quickly as possible following acceptance. However,

readers should be aware that the final, published version will look

different from this version and may also have some differences in

content.

The DOI for this manuscript and the correct format for citing the paper are

given at the top of the online (html) abstract.

Once the final, published version of this paper is posted online, it will

replace the preliminary version at the specified DOI.

Motion Prediction Models

Zeynep Glerce

M.EERI,

M.EERI

Mailing address: MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT K1-308 ANKARA TURKEY 06531

Phone: (+90) 312 2107481

Fax: (+90) 312 2105401

E-mail address: zyilmaz@metu.edu.tr

Submission date for review copies: March 14, 2014

Submission date for revised copies: August 14, 2014 October 30, 2014

Submission date for camera-ready copy:

GLERCE-1

Motion Prediction Models

Zeynep Glerce a) M.EERI, Bahadr Kargolu a) and Norman A. Abrahamson

b)

M.EERI

The objective of this paper is to evaluate the differences between the Next

Generation Attenuation: West-1 (NGA-W1) ground motion prediction models

(GMPEs) and Turkish strong ground motion dataset and to modify the required

pieces of the NGA-W1 models for applicability in Turkey. A comparison dataset

is compiled by including strong motions from earthquakes occurred in Turkey and

earthquake metadata of ground motions consistent with the NGA-W1 database.

Random-effects regression is employed and plots of the residuals are used to

evaluate the differences in the magnitude, distance, and site amplification scaling.

Incompatibilities between the NGA-W1 GMPEs and Turkish dataset in small-tomoderate magnitude, large distance and site effects scaling are encountered. The

NGA-W1 GMPEs are modified for the misfit between the actual ground motions

and the model predictions using adjustments functions. Turkey-Adjusted NGAW1 models are compatible with the regional strong ground motion characteristics

and preserve the well-constrained features of the global models.

INTRODUCTION

The Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) project (Power et al., 2008) developed ground

motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic

regions. Even though the target area was Western US (WUS), the GMPEs were intended to

be applicable in other shallow crustal and active tectonic regions around the world. Slowly,

NGA GMPEs have been used in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) studies in

various regions, raising the issue of their applicability outside WUS. Recent studies by

Stafford et al. (2008), Scasserra et al. (2009), Shoja-Taheri et al. (2010), and Bradley (2013)

tested the applicability of the NGA-W1 GMPEs for Euro-Mediterranean Region, Italy, Iran,

and New Zealand. Scasserra et al. (2009) have taken a further attempt and modified the

distance scaling of the NGA-W1 GMPEs by re-regressing the model coefficients related to

a)

b)

Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ankara, TURKEY, 06531

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Geosciences Department, 245 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94105

the distance attenuation and the constant term for PGA, 0.2, 0.5, 1 and 2 second spectral

periods. Bradley (2013) found that the Chiou and Youngs (2008) model performed better

than the other NGA-W1 models in capturing the difference between small magnitude scaling

of the NGA-W1 and New Zealand datasets, especially after the small magnitude model

proposed by Chiou et al. (2010) was included. However, several other features of the Chiou

and Youngs (2008) GMPE had to be adjusted for New Zealand and coefficients of the

modified model were provided by Bradley (2013).

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the compatibility of the NGA-W1 GMPEs

in terms of magnitude, distance and site effects scaling with respect to the Turkish strong

ground motions. The NGA-W1 database (Chiou et al., 2008) includes only a small sample of

the available strong ground motions from the earthquakes that occurred in Turkey. Table 1

presents the subset of the NGA-W1 database that was used in each model. Only seven

earthquakes and, at most, 52 recordings were included in the datasets of the models due to

two fundamental reasons: i) the limitations of the NGA-W1 project (especially the magnitude

constraint), and ii) missing earthquake metadata and recording site information for strong

ground motions recorded in Turkey during the database compilation period (2000-2003).

Table 1. Number of earthquakes that occurred in Turkey and the number of recordings from these

events that was included in the NGA-W1 developers datasets.

Earthquake

Name

Izmir

Dursunbey

Erzincan

Dinar

Kocaeli

Dzce

aldran

Total

Event ID in

NGA-W1

Database

Year

Mw

44

47

121

134

136

138

141

1977

1979

1992

1995

1999

1999

1976

5.30

5.34

6.69

6.40

7.51

7.14

7.21

AS

2008

0

1

1

2

17

13

1

35

BA

2008

0

0

0

4

26

22

0

52

CB

2008

0

0

1

2

22

14

1

40

CY

2008

1

1

1

2

17

12

1

36

ID

2008

0

1

0

0

6

7

0

14

Turkey is one of the most seismically active regions in the world and many more strong

ground motion recordings are available. However, the earthquakes are recorded by different

agencies (mainly by AFAD: General Directorate of Disaster Affairs and KOERI: Kandilli

Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute) and a unified database, including the

complete earthquake source information, could not be established until recently. A

GLERCE-3

compilation of the Turkish earthquakes and strong motion data from the last 50 years was

completed as part of the Turkish Strong Motion Database (TSMD) Project (Akkar et al.,

2010). This expanded dataset of Turkish ground motions is used in this study to evaluate, and

modify as needed, the NGA-W1 models for applicability to Turkey. The TSMD is used as the

preliminary dataset, however, many parameters required for the NGA-W1 models were

missing and had to be estimated. Additionally, we screened the ground motion waveforms for

data quality and calculated the orientation-independent intensity measures. Details of the

database compilation efforts are elaborated in the following section.

Incompatibilities between the NGA-W1 GMPEs and Turkish strong motion dataset in smallto-moderate magnitude scaling, large distance scaling and site amplification scaling were

encountered during the evaluation of the residuals. These features are systematically

modified for all NGA-W1 GMPEs by introducing carefully designed adjustment functions to

keep the better-constrained features of the NGA-W1 GMPEs while reflecting the regional

ground motion characteristics. We propose the new set of Turkey-specific versions of the

NGA-W1 GMPEs, the TR-Adjusted NGA-W1 models that are applicable to M4-M8 events

and distances up to 200 km. Median predictions and standard deviations of the TR-Adjusted

models are compared with the regional and global GMPEs in the subsequent sections.

COMPILATION OF THE TURKISH COMPARISON DATABASE

The TSMD includes 4067 sets of recordings from 2996 events and almost 80% of the

recordings are from small magnitude events (Mw<5). We have not applied a criterion for

selecting well-recorded earthquakes for Mw 5 events since the since the amount of data

from moderate-to-large magnitude events is limited. All of the 173 earthquakes in the

database with magnitude 5 or larger were selected. Even if the NGA-W1 GMPEs are

applicable for moderate-to-large magnitude earthquakes (M5-M8), they are being

extrapolated for smaller magnitudes in PSHA applications, which commonly ignore any

stated magnitude limits in the GMPEs. The magnitude scaling of the models should be

compatible with the small magnitude scaling of the target regions dataset; therefore, smaller

magnitude events with 3 or more recordings were also included. No magnitude information

was available for 37 of the selected earthquakes; therefore, these events (with 151 recordings)

were discarded from the dataset. The moment magnitudes for 119 earthquakes were not

available; for these small magnitude earthquakes (ML<5), moment magnitudes were

estimated from local magnitude (ML) values using the regional magnitude conversion

GLERCE-4

relationships proposed by Akkar et al. (2010). One of the earthquakes in the dataset was

missing focal depth information; therefore, this event was removed. Also, style of faulting

classification for 47 events, which have 106 recordings, was missing. For 30 of these

earthquakes, the style-of-faulting was estimated by associating the event with other events in

the sequence or dominant fault mechanism in the region. These 30 events, with 68

recordings, were preserved in the dataset but the remaining 17 events with 38 records were

removed.

Unfortunately, no site information (VS30 or any site classification) could be found for 431 of

the recordings obtained from 50 different strong motion recording stations. Coordinates of

these stations were compared to the station coordinates in NGA-W1 (Chiou et al., 2008) and

NGA-W2 (Ancheta et al., 2014) datasets to search for the closest match. VS30 values of 9

stations (49 recordings) were estimated from NGA database, assuming that small errors

(0.001) in latitude and longitude of recording stations might occur due to measurement

errors and some stations might be duplicated or moved. Remaining 382 records with no VS30

value or no site class information were removed from the database.

Considering the applicable distance range of the NGA-W1 predictive models, 118 records

with rupture distance (Rrup) or Joyner-Boore distance (Rjb) larger than 200 km were discarded

from the dataset. Source-to-site distance metrics for 96 remaining records were missing.

Fortunately, these ground motions were recorded during small magnitude earthquakes;

therefore, the Rrup and Rjb were estimated from the hypocentral distance and epicentral

distance, respectively. At this stage, our Turkish comparison dataset included 288

earthquakes and 1179 strong motion records. The mainshock and aftershock classification of

the earthquakes in the dataset were performed by using rupture plane geometries in NGA-W1

database for Erzincan (1992), Dinar (1995), Kocaeli (1999), and Dzce (1999) earthquakes

based on the method proposed by Wooddell and Abrahamson (2014), and by using Gardner

and Knopoff (1974) methodology for other small-to-moderate magnitude earthquakes. The

entire TSMD (before the elimination of recordings) was analyzed for event classification.

Two types of events, Class 1 (mainshocks and aftershocks located away from the mainshock

rupture plane) and Class 2 (aftershocks located close to the mainshock rupture plane) were

declustered using a distance limit to the mainshock rupture (CRJB) of 20 km. Of the 288

events in the comparison data set, 156 events (%54) were classified as Class 1 events and 132

events (%46) were classified as Class 2.

GLERCE-5

Some of the parameters required for the NGA-W1 predictive models were missing in the

TSMD such as; depth to the engineering rock (denoted by Z1.0 and Z2.5) and depth to the top

of the rupture (Ztop). These values were estimated using Equations 1 to 3:

ln(Z1.0 ) 28.5 0.4775* ln(VS830 378.78 )

(1)

W

Z top Z hyp * sin( )

2

(2)

(3)

where Zhyp is the hypocentral depth, W is the fault width, is fault dip angle, Z1.0 and Z2.5 are

basin effect terms which represents depths to the 1.0 and 2.5 km/s shear wave velocities in

the soil profile, respectively. The Ztop was restricted to be positive. The depth of the

earthquakes was not used as a selection criterion during the establishment of the comparison

dataset. Approximately 10% of the recordings in the comparison dataset (156 out of 1142)

were from events with hypocentral depths greater than 20 km, however the Ztop values for 53

of these recordings are estimated (using Equation 3) as less than 20 km.

The data censoring is an important issue for the older data in the NGA-W2 dataset with small

dynamic range, but is less of an issue for the digital data with larger dynamic range.

Truncation for small magnitude data (less than 0.005g to 0.02g) was observed in PGAdistance plots of NGA-W2 dataset, especially for large magnitudes. To evaluate the same

issue, the PGA values for M3.5-M4.5 and M4.5-M5.5 events are plotted with respect to

distance in Figure S1 of the electronic supplement. For other magnitude ranges, the data is

too sparse. As Figure S1 indicates, the data censoring problem for small ground motions is

not observed in the Turkish comparison dataset for the M3.5 to M4.5 range with PGA values

as small as 0.0004g; however, there is an indication of truncation at 0.001g for distances

greater than 100 km for the M4.5 to M5.5 range. The distribution of the data below 0.00020.0001g is significantly affected from missing observations since a distance limitation of 200

km is applied in the dataset. Because the truncation is not seen at smaller magnitudes (M3.5 M4.5), we have not applied a distance truncation to the selected data.

Majority of the recordings in the selected dataset were processed by Akkar et al. (2010). We

aimed to preserve as much data as possible to obtain a representative dataset. Therefore, 284

unfiltered recordings were not excluded from the dataset. The waveform data of all ground

motion recordings were checked for data quality and 37 unfiltered recordings were

eliminated from the dataset due to spike, insufficient digitizer resolution, multi-event or Swave trigger problems. During the data quality check for the waveforms, we observed that

GLERCE-6

the initial excitation time of the three orthogonal components is not consistent for a large

number of processed records. This time lag results from the separate a-causal low-cut

filtering applied to the components of the record by adding zero pads in different lengths

(Glerce et al., 2012). We performed a systematic screening procedure on the waveforms and

shifted the short horizontal component by adding zero pads to align with the longer

horizontal component in each recording with a time lag.

Final dataset used in the comparison includes 1142 recordings from 288 events with the

earthquake metadata, source-to-site distance metrics for the recordings (RRup and RJB), VS30

values for the recording stations, and horizontal component spectral values in terms of

GMRotI50 (Boore et al., 2006) for 23 spectral periods between 0.01 and 10 seconds.

Calculated GMRotI50 values are consistent with the values in NGA-W1 database as shown

in Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) for two well-recorded, large magnitude earthquakes (1999

Kocaeli and Dzce Earthquakes). These figures indicate that the distance measures of the

mutual recordings are generally consistent for the Kocaeli Earthquake in both datasets;

however, some discrepancies may occur in the spectral values due to different filtering

procedures employed. The estimates of Rrup from the NGA-W1 and the TSMD datasets are

different due to different assumptions of the extent of the rupture for the Dzce earthquake

(Figure 1b). Figure 1(c) shows the mean and standard deviation of the average difference (in

natural log units) of common recordings in the TSMD and NGA-W1 dataset as a function of

period. At short periods (T<1 sec), the average difference in the spectral accelerations for the

two datasets is small (less than 5%). At periods between 1 and 5 seconds, the NGA-W1

spectral accelerations are, on average, up to 10% larger than the TSMD spectral

accelerations. The difference increases to 30% at a period of 10 seconds, but within a large

uncertainty range.

To be consistent with the data selection methods used by the NGA-W1 developers, for

Abrahamson and Silva (2008, AS08) and Chiou and Youngs (2008, CY08) models, the

aftershocks (Class 2 events) in the comparison dataset were included, whereas, these events

were excluded for Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), and Idriss

(2008) (BA08, CB08 and ID08) models. Because the ID08 model only includes the rock sites

(450 m/s < Vs30 < 900 m/s), only the data within this range was included in the analysis. The

response spectral values for the recordings in the dataset are used in the regression analysis if

the spectral frequency is greater than 1.25 times the high-pass corner frequency, consistent

GLERCE-7

with the constraints used for the NGA models. As a result, the size of the dataset used in the

analysis decreases as the spectral period increases. The resulting period dependence of the

number of recordings used in the regression analysis is shown in Figure 2. The significant

drop in the number of recordings at 2.6 seconds indicates that the results in the long-period

range are not well constrained by the empirical data.

recordings of TSMD and NGA-W1

(a)

(b)

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2

-0.4

0.01

0.1

10

Period (s)

(c)

Figure 1. GMRotI50 values at PGA in the NGA-W1 database and in the Turkish comparison dataset

(a) of the ground motions recorded during 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake, and (b) of the ground motions

recorded during 1999 Dzce Earthquake (only common recordings are plotted). (c) Mean and

standard deviation of the average difference of common recordings.

GLERCE-8

1400

Number of Records

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0.1

10

Period (s)

Figure 2. Period dependence of number of ground motions in the Turkish comparison dataset based

on the lowest useable frequency of the average horizontal component.

The magnitude-distance distributions for peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral

acceleration at T=3 seconds are shown in Figure 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. Figure 3 shows

that the recordings obtained from events with magnitudes bigger than 6.0 and recordings

from the moderate-to-large magnitude events within 30 kilometer from the rupture are rather

sparse. This feature of the dataset is not the outcome of the excluded data points as discussed

above, same phenomenon was also observed by Akkar et al. (2010) for the TSMD.

Moment Magnitude

Moment Magnitude

8

7

6

5

4

3

7

6

5

4

3

0.1

10

100

Distance (km)

0.1

10

100

Distance (km)

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Distribution of magnitude-distance pairs for (a) PGA and (b) T=3 sec

The preferred methodology for evaluating the misfit between the model predictions and

actual ground motion data is the analysis of model residuals. The actual spectral accelerations

GLERCE-9

and NGA-W1 model predictions for each recording (i) from each event (j) at each period (k)

are denoted by aijk and pijk, respectively. Total model residuals are calculated and separated

into three components: the mean offset representing the average bias of the actual data

relative to the model predictions (ck), the event terms (or inter-event residuals, Bjk), and the

intra-event residuals (Wijk) using random effects regression as given in Equation 4:

(4)

After calculating the residuals, the procedure described in Figure 4 is applied. As the first

step, the total inter-event residuals (ck+ Bjk) are plotted against moment magnitude to test the

ability of the NGA-W1 GMPEs to capture the magnitude scaling of the Turkish data (Step 1

in Figure 4). If a trend is observed, an adjustment function is fitted to the total event terms to

modify the original GMPE at each period. To define the adjustment function, the functional

forms and cut-off or hinge coefficients of the NGA-W1 models are taken into consideration

(Step 2 in Figure 4).

The mean offset (ck), event terms (Bjk) and the intraevent residuals (Wijk) are calculated

repeated

using the

modified

form

plotted

against

moment

magnitude.

1

4

2

If a trend is observed, an

adjustment function is fitted

to the event terms to modify

the original GMPE at each

period.

(Wijk) are plotted against the

distance and Vs30

5

If a trend is observed, an

adjustment function is fitted

to the intra-event residuals to

modify the original GMPE at

each period.

3

repeated

using the

modified

form

after the modifications is

neglected if small, or added

to the constant term of the

modified GMPE.

Residual analysis is repeated using the modified forms of the original model (Step 3 in Figure

4). Next, the intra-event residuals (Wijk) are plotted against Rrup and VS30 to test the ability of

the NGA-W1 models to capture the distance and site effects scaling of the actual data (Step 4

GLERCE-10

in Figure 4). If a trend is observed, adjustment functions are fitted to the intra-event residuals

to modify the original GMPE (Step 5 in Figure 4). Residual analysis is repeated using the

modified forms of the original model (Step 6 in Figure 4). The remaining mean offsets after

the modifications may be neglected if small, or may be added to the constant term of the

modified GMPE (Step 7 in Figure 4). Finally, standard deviations of the intra-event residuals

are compared to the intra-event standard deviations of the original NGA-W1 models. We note

that when using random effects to compute the residuals, the estimation of the event terms

may be sensitive to large changes in the distance attenuation. If there are large changes in the

distance scaling terms, then the event terms should be re-estimated using the revised distance

scaling; however, for the Turkey data, the distance scaling is not very different from the

NGA-W1 models so the event terms estimated in the first step are stable.

Steps 1-3: Magnitude Scaling of NGA-W1 GMPEs:

As the first step towards checking the compatibility of NGA-W1 models with the Turkish

comparison dataset, total inter-event residuals are plotted with respect to moment magnitude

for PGA as shown in Figure 5 (total inter-event residuals are presented by grey dots in each

figure). Figure 5 shows that the ground motions in the dataset are overestimated by all NGAW1 GMPEs significantly, especially for small-to-moderate magnitude earthquakes. The trend

is persistent for all spectral periods as seen in the 0.2, 0.5 and, 1 second residual plots

(provided in the electronic supplement in Figures S2-S3) for all models. Residual plots for all

periods suggested that the magnitude scaling of the Turkish comparison dataset is drastically

different than the NGA-W1 models and this feature needs to be fixed to consider the models

applicable in Turkey. On the other hand, preserving the well-constrained pieces of the NGAW1 models is critical, since the large magnitude earthquakes are poorly represented in the

Turkish comparison dataset (see Figure 3) and any changes on large magnitude scaling

parameters will have a major impact on the hazard calculations.

Fortunately, the magnitude scaling functions of the all NGA-W1 models except the Chiou

and Youngs (2008) (CY08) model includes linear magnitude scaling terms with either one

(AS08, BA08 and ID08) or two breaks (CB08) between small, moderate and large magnitude

earthquakes. The basic form of AS08 is given as an example in Equation 5:

2

f 1 ( M , Rrup )

2

GLERCE-11

(5)

where M is the moment magnitude, R is distance measure that includes the fictitious depth

term, a4 and a5 are the linear magnitude scaling coefficients for moderate (5<Mw<6.75) and

large (Mw6.75) magnitude events, and c1 is the break in the magnitude scaling (equal to 6.75

at all periods in AS08 model). The same magnitude break is used in the ID08 model for all

periods and in the BA08 model up to 5 seconds spectral periods. The hinge magnitude is

increased to 8.5 in BA08 model for periods longer than 5 seconds. The CB08 model used two

hinge magnitude values and a tri-linear magnitude scaling term with breaks at Mw=5.5 and

Mw=6.5. Considering the hinge magnitude values for all models, the misfit between the

actual data and predictions is modeled by Equation 6:

f 1 _ TA ( M )

c1 _ TA ( M M h ) for( M M h )

0 for( M M h )

(6)

where 1_ is the adjustment function coefficient determined separately for each model by

least-square regression and Mh is the hinge magnitude. To be consistent with the functional

forms of the models, Mh value is selected as 6.75 for AS08, BA08, CY08 and ID08 models

and 6.50 for CB08 model. The model fit to the residuals by Equation 6 is presented in Figure

5 by the black lines. Note that the selected adjustment function affects the magnitude scaling

only for small and moderate events; therefore, the well-constrained large magnitude scaling

of the NGA-W1 models are not modified. To develop a smooth model as a function of the

spectral period, c1_TA values are smoothed across period. Depending on the selected

functional form of the magnitude scaling by the model developers, the c1_TA coefficient can

be used to modify the original model coefficients or f1_TA term can be added to the GMPE

individually. In AS08 model, the linear magnitude coefficients (a4) are modified by adding

the c1_TA values. Similarly, the 3 coefficients of ID08 model are modified based on the

smoothed the c1_TA values. These modified coefficients (a4* and 3* and) are listed in Table

S1 of the electronic supplement. Since the hinge magnitude of the BA08 model depends on

the period, a direct modification of the linear magnitude scaling term for small-moderate

magnitude events (e5) is not possible. Tri-linear magnitude scaling of the CB08 model and

the functional form of the CY08 are also not suitable for direct modification of the magnitude

scaling; therefore, for BA08, CB08 and CY08 models, f1_TA term needs to be added to the

magnitude scaling. The smoothed c1_TA values for these models are also provided in Table S1

of the electronic supplement.

GLERCE-12

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-4

4

6

7

Magnitude (Mw)

6

7

Magnitude (Mw )

(b)

4

(a)

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

4

6

7

Magnitude (Mw )

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

6

7

Magnitude (Mw )

(c)

(d)

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

6

7

Magnitude (Mw )

(e)

Figure 5. Distribution of total inter-event residuals of PGA for the unmodified models by (a) AS08,

(b) BA08, (c) CB08, (d) CY08, and (e) ID08 (grey dots) with magnitude. The adjustment function

fitted to the total inter-event residuals is shown by black lines in each plot. The plots are truncated at

M=4 to improve the visibility.

GLERCE-13

Slope:-0.19450.1047

T-ratio: 1.86

Slope:-0.11990.083

T-ratio: 1.44

(a)

(b)

Slope:-0.31040.0916

T-ratio: 3.39

Slope:-0.33170.1073

T-ratio: 3.09

(c)

(d)

Slope: 0.16670.1260

T-ratio: 1.32

(e)

Figure 6. Distribution of total inter-event residuals of PGA after the modification of magnitude

scaling of the models by (a) AS08, (b) BA08, (c) CB08, (d) CY08, and (e) ID08 (grey dots) with

magnitude. Standard error of the slope and the T-ratio is calculated for 4<M<6 range where the data is

not sparse.

GLERCE-14

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. The median spectral displacement curves for vertical strike-slip magnitude 5 earthquakes at

30 km distance for rock sites (Vs30=760 m/s) for each model (a) before and (b) after the magnitude

scaling adjustment.

After the magnitude adjustment, the model residuals are re-calculated using the modified

forms of the NGA-W1 models. The total inter-event residuals after the magnitude adjustment

are plotted with respect to moment magnitude in Figure 6 for each model. Figure 6 shows

that the total inter-event residuals of the adjusted models are evenly distributed along the zero

line up to the hinge magnitude value; therefore, the magnitude scaling of the adjusted models

are compatible with the magnitude scaling of the Turkish strong motion dataset. For larger

magnitudes, especially for magnitudes 7 and above, the residuals are negative but within the

expected scatter. The event terms for these two data points (1999 Kocaeli and 1999 Dzce

Earthquakes) were also negative for the original NGA-W1 GMPEs indicating that the event

terms of these two earthquakes are below the global average for large magnitude events.

The slope of the residuals, the standard error of the slope, and the T-ratio are calculated after

the adjustment and displayed in Figure 6 for each model. Statistical analysis of the residuals

indicated that the slope of the remaining residuals after the magnitude adjustment is slightly

negative as expected, except for the ID08 model. For AS08, BA08 and ID08 models, the Tscore is insignificant (smaller than 2), but for CB08 and CY08 models, a higher t-score is

estimated (between 3-3.4). The selected adjustment function (Eq. 6) is constrained to zero at

large magnitudes; therefore, the adjustments did not eliminate the trends in the residuals

completely. An adjustment function without a hinge magnitude would have worked better

statistically. Given that there are only two large magnitude events in the Turkish dataset and

the ground motions for large magnitude earthquakes are not well constrained, we preferred an

GLERCE-15

adjustment function with the hinge magnitude and used the global models to define the

contents for large magnitude range.

The median spectral displacement plots for vertical strike slip and magnitude 5 earthquakes at

30 km distance for rock sites (VS30=760 m/s) for each model are shown in Figure 7 before

and after the magnitude scaling adjustment. Figure 7(a) shows that the AS08 and CB08

models have constant spectral displacement values at long periods before the adjustment. The

additional constraint used in AS08 model to preserve this shape (given in Equation 21 of

Abrahamson and Silva, 2008) had to be removed during the magnitude adjustment; but the

same behavior was captured by the f1_TA (M) function. The additional magnitude scaling

introduced by the f1_TA (M) function in each model is constrained so that the spectral

displacement values are approximately constant at long periods (Figure 7(b)).

Steps 4-6: Distance Scaling of NGA-W1 GMPEs and Large Distance Effects:

After the magnitude adjustment, the intra-event residuals for the modified form of the models

are plotted with respect to rupture distance for PGA in Figure 8 and for 0.2, 0.5, and 1 second

spectral periods in Figures S4-S5 of the electronic supplement, suggesting no trend within the

applicability range of the NGA-W1 models for tectonic regions other than Western US (100

kilometers, Power et al., 2008). Figure 8 indicates that the NGA-W1 models slightly

underestimate the ground motions in the Turkish comparison dataset for rupture distances

within the range of 100-200 km. We note that the truncation of below average ground

motions for M4.5 to M5.5 events at distances greater than 100 km could be part of the reason

for the slight positive trend in the residuals versus distance from 100-200 km.

The distance scaling of BA08, CB08 and ID08 models do not include a separate large

distance scaling term even though the regional differences in the attenuation were

acknowledged by the authors. Small underestimation of the data for large distances (100-200

km) was also observed in some of the residual plots for the original models provided by the

developers (e.g. Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2008). Because these models do not treat the large

distance scaling effects separately, we did not impose adjustment functions for the Turkish

dataset on BA08, CB08 and ID08 models for large distance scaling. On the other hand, AS08

and CY08 models used additional functions for the large distance scaling of moderate

magnitude events (the gamma term) based on the broadband data for small magnitude

earthquakes from California (Boatwright et al., 2003). Gamma term of AS08 model is in

form of Equation 7:

GLERCE-16

0 for( RRUP 100)

(7)

where a18 is the regressed coefficient and T6(M) is the magnitude taper defined in AS08 as:

1 for ( M 5.5)

0.5 for ( M 6.5)

(8)

Based on the functional form used by AS08 model, the misfit between the actual data and

model predictions is modeled by Equation 9:

2_ = {

0 ( < 100)

2_ ( 100) ( 100)

(9)

where Rrup is the rupture distance and 2_ is the adjustment model coefficient determined

separately for each GMPE by least-square regression. The magnitude taper of AS08 model

(Equation 8) was included in the adjustment function for the AS08 model, whereas only

Equation 9 is used for CY08 model. The 2_ coefficients were used to modify the original

large distance scaling coefficients (a18) in AS08 model and the modified coefficients (denoted

by a18*) are listed in Table S1. In CY08 model, the anelastic attenuation was modeled as

magnitude dependent for PGA using the California broadband data. For other spectral

periods, the gamma term for the PGA was scaled based on the relative difference in the

broadband data for other periods with respect to the PGA value. Functional form of the CY08

model does not allow us to modify the model coefficients directly; therefore Equation 9 was

added to the original CY08 model form individually. To arrive at a smooth model across the

period, the 2_ values estimated for CY08 model are smoothed and listed in Table S1.

After the distance adjustment, the intra-event residuals are re-calculated using the modified

forms of AS08 and CY08 models. Intra-event residuals of the modified AS08 and CY08

models for PGA are plotted with respect to rupture distance in Figure 9(a) and (b) showing

that the modified large distance scaling of both models are more compatible with the Turkish

comparison dataset after the adjustment.

GLERCE-17

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 8. Distribution of intra-event residuals of PGA for the unmodified models by (a) AS08, (b)

BA08, (c) CB08, (d) CY08, and (e) ID08 (grey open circles) with rupture distance. The adjustment

function fitted to the intra-event residuals is shown by black lines in (a) and (d).

GLERCE-18

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Distribution of intra-event residuals of PGA after the modification of distance scaling of the

models by (a) AS08 and (b) CY08 with rupture distance.

Next step is to evaluate the site effects scaling of the NGA-W1 models by plotting the intraevent residuals of the models modified for magnitude and distance. Plots of intra-event

residuals for PGA with respect to the shear-wave velocity for the top 30 meters (VS30) for

each model are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows that the AS08, BA08, CB08, and CY08

models under-predict the ground motions in the Turkey comparison dataset at stiff

soil/engineering rock sites. The slope of the residuals, the standard error of the slope, and the

T-ratio are calculated and displayed in Figure 10 for each model. Statistical analysis of the

residuals indicated that the slopes of the intra-event residuals are negative for all models. For

BA08, CB08 and ID08 models, the T-score is insignificant (smaller than 2), but for AS08 and

CY08 models, significantly higher T-scores are estimated. The trends in the residuals for

BA08 and CB08 models are negligible, but for AS08 and CY08 models which included the

aftershocks in their datasets, the underestimation is quite noticeable. This observation is

expected because approximately 40% of the data for AS08 and CY08 models datasets consist

of data from Taiwan (1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake and its aftershocks) and correlation between

the VS30 and the deeper shear-wave velocity profiles, which controls the amplification of the

recording stations in Taiwan and in Western US, could be different. The trends in AS08 and

CY08 models are also visible for other spectral periods as seen in the residual plots for 0.2,

0.5 and, 1 seconds (provided in the electronic supplement Figure S6-S7). A linear adjustment

function for AS08 and CY08 models for the site effects is chosen as given below:

3_

30

= 3_ (

)

450

(10)

GLERCE-19

where VS30* is the shear wave velocity definition used by AS08 model and 3_ is the

regression coefficient.

Linear site amplification coefficients of AS08 and CY08 models (a10 and 1) cannot be

modified directly, since the hinge VS30 value used in Equation 10 (450 m/s) is not equal to the

period dependent VS30,LIN values of AS08 model. Also, the linear site term of CY08 model is

normalized by a higher hinge VS30 (1130 m/s). Instead, Equation 10 should be added to the

models separately. The smoothed c3_TA coefficients for AS08 and CY08 models are provided

in Table S1 (electronic supplement). Figure 11 presents the intra event residuals of the

modified models for PGA with respect to VS30 (Figure 11(a) for AS08 model and Figure

11(b) for CY08 model). Distribution of the residuals for the adjusted models shows no trends

up to VS30 = 600 m/s, however, the residuals are still negative for VS30 between 600 and 800

m/s. We chose to maintain a smooth scaling with VS30, which does not accommodate the bias

in this higher velocity range.

Step 7: Remaining Mean Offsets and the Constant Terms of NGA-W1 GMPEs:

The mean offset values (ck) for NGA-W1 GMPEs before and after the adjustments are shown

in Figure 12(a) and 12(b), respectively. In both figures, the mean offsets follow the same

trend up to 2 seconds: they are approximately equal to one negative ln unit before the

adjustment and very close to zero after the modifications. For periods longer than 2 seconds,

the mean offsets are more scattered and lay on the positive side due to the reduced number of

recordings used for comparison at those periods. We believe that the remaining mean offset

values after the adjustments are insignificantly small; therefore, the constant terms of the

NGA-W1 models are not modified.

Final check for standard deviations:

After the modifications, the inter-event and intra-event residuals are re-calculated for the TRadjusted models and the standard deviations for both set of residuals are evaluated. Figures

13 (a) and (b) compare the magnitude dependence of the within-event standard deviations of

the original and TR-adjusted models for PGA and T=1 sec, respectively. Solid lines in both

figures represent the averaged values for the AS08, CB08 and CY08 models that provided

separate and terms. Both figures indicate that the intra-event standard deviations of the

adjusted models are comparable with the original NGA-W1 models for magnitudes up to 6.5.

GLERCE-20

(a)

(b)

Slope: -0.0007320.0001 T-ratio: 5.70

(c)

(d)

Slope: -0.00050.0004 T-ratio: 1.40

(e)

Figure 10. Distribution of intra-event residuals of PGA for the unmodified models by (a) AS08, (b)

BA08, (c) CB08, (d) CY08, and (e) ID08 (grey dots) with VS30. The adjustment function fitted to the

intra-event residuals is shown by black lines in (a) and (d).

GLERCE-21

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Distribution of intra-event residuals of PGA after the modification of linear site

amplification scaling of the models by (a) AS08 and (b) CY08 with VS30.

For larger magnitudes, for which Turkish dataset is very sparse of data, the values of the

adjusted models deviate from the original model values. Since the data is very limited at large

magnitudes, the values are not statistically reliable; therefore, the intra-event standard

deviation coefficients of the original models should be used without any modification.

Figures 13(c) and (d) present the standard deviation of the inter-event residuals for PGA and

T=1 sec. Again, the solid lines in both figures represent the averaged values for the AS08,

CB08 and CY08 models that provided separate and terms. A much larger difference is

observed in the inter-event standard deviations of the adjusted models with respect to the

values. Difference in the inter-event standard deviations have been observed in the previous

studies for other regions such as New Zealand (Brendon, 2013) but the cause for this

difference has not been identified. Because the NGA-W1 database is statistically more stable

than the Turkish dataset, we recommend the use of between-event standard deviation

coefficients of the original models until further evaluation of the underlining reason for the

difference is completed.

GLERCE-22

BA08

ID08

CB08

1.5

0.5

0.5

Mean Offset

Mean Offset

1.5

AS08

CY08

0

-0.5

-1

BA08

ID08

CB08

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-1.5

-2

0.01

AS08

CY08

0.1

1

Period (s)

10

-2

0.01

(a)

0.1

1

Period (s)

10

(b)

Figure 12. Mean offset values for (a) original models, (b) Turkey-Adjusted models.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 13. Magnitude dependence of intra-event standard deviations of the original and TRAdjusted models for a) PGA and b) T=1 sec. Magnitude dependence of inter-event standard

deviations of the original and TR-Adjusted models for c) PGA and d) T=1 sec.

GLERCE-23

The average median response spectra of the NGA-W1 models (broken black lines) and

Turkey-Adjusted NGA-W1 models (solid black lines) are compared for different scenarios in

Figure 14. Median predictions of NGA-W2 models are also provided in Figure 14 (gray

lines). Figures 14(a) and (b) show the median predictions for magnitude 5 strike-slip

earthquakes at the rupture distance of 10 kilometers for average rock (VS30=760 m/s) and

average soil (VS30=270 m/s) conditions, respectively. For both of these scenarios, the TRAdjusted NGA-W1 models are significantly lower than the NGA-W1 and NGA-W2 models,

since the small-to-moderate magnitude scaling of TR-adjusted models are modified. Figures

14(c) and (d) present the median predictions for magnitude 7 strike-slip earthquakes at the

same distance for the same site conditions given in Figures 14(a) and (b). The median

predictions of the TR-Adjusted models are only slightly different from the NGA-W1 and

NGA-W2 models for large magnitude earthquakes due to the effect of linear site

amplification scaling adjustment. For large magnitude events at long distances (M7, D150

km rock and soil scenarios provided in Figures 14(e) and (f)), the TR-adjusted NGA-W1

model predictions are quite similar to NGA-W1 models in the short period range; however,

they are closer to the NGA-W2 model predictions, especially for the longer periods.

The median response spectra of the TR-adjusted NGA-W1 models and the Akkar and anan

(2010) (AC10) model are presented in Figures 15(a) through 15(f) for the same scenarios.

AC10 model is the regional model that was developed using a subset of the same database

(TSMD, Akkar et al, 2010); therefore, agreement of the median predictions for the range

well-constrained by the Turkish dataset (M4 to M6) is expected. For the small magnitude

scenarios provided in Figures 15(a) and (b), predictions of the TR-adjusted models and AC10

model are very similar indicating that the small-to-moderate magnitude scaling of the Turkish

ground motions are captured by the magnitude adjustment functions. A significant difference

is observed in Figures 15(c) and (d); predictions of the TR-adjusted NGA-W1 models are

very close to the predictions of global models for large magnitudes, but significantly higher

than the predictions AC10 model. The spectral shapes for large magnitudes at large distances

provided in Figure 15(e) and (f) are quite different. This difference is related to the

constraints in the magnitude scaling from small to large magnitudes; in the TR-Adjusted

models the large magnitude scaling is constrained by the global data, whereas in the AC10

model the large magnitude scaling is estimated from the sparse Turkish dataset.

GLERCE-24

0.1

0.1

Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.01

TR_NGA

TR_NGA

0.001

0.01

0.001

NGA_W1

NGA_W2

NGA_W2

0.0001

0.01

NGA_W1

0.1

10

0.0001

0.01

0.1

10

Period (s)

Period (s)

(a)

(b)

1

0.1

0.1

Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.01

0.01

TR_NGA

NGA_W1

NGA_W1

NGA_W2

NGA_W2

0.001

0.01

0.1

TR_NGA

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Period (s)

Period (s)

(c)

(d)

1

TR_NGA

TR_NGA

NGA_W1

NGA_W1

NGA_W2

NGA_W2

0.1

Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.01

0.01

0.1

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

Period (s)

Period (s)

(e)

(f)

Figure 14. Median predictions of NGA-W1, NGA-W2 and TR-Adjusted NGA_W1 models for

following scenarios; (a) M5, D10km, Vs30=760 m/s, (b) M5, D10km, Vs30=270 m/s, (c) M7,

D10km, Vs30=760 m/s, (d) M7, D10km, Vs30=270 m/s, (e) M7, D150km, Vs30=760 m/s, and (f)

M7, D150km, Vs30=270 m/s.

GLERCE-25

TR_NGA

TR_NGA

AC_2010

AC_2010

Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.1

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.01

0.01

0.001

0.1

0.0001

0.01

0.1

Period (s)

Period (s)

(a)

(b)

Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.1

0.1

0.01

TR_NGA

TR_NGA

AC_2010

AC_2010

0.001

0.01

0.1

0.01

0.01

0.1

Period (s)

Period (s)

(c)

(d)

1

TR_NGA

TR_NGA

AC_2010

AC_2010

0.1

Sa (g)

Sa (g)

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.01

0.01

0.1

0.001

0.01

0.1

Period (s)

Period (s)

(e)

(f)

Figure 15. Median predictions of TR-Adjusted NGA_W1 and Akkar and agnan (2010) (same

dataset) models for following scenarios; (a) M5, D10km, Vs30=760 m/s, (b) M5, D10km, Vs30=270

m/s, (c) M7, D10km, Vs30=760 m/s, (d) M7, D10km, Vs30=270 m/s, (e) M7, D150km, Vs30=760

m/s, and (f) M7, D150km, Vs30=270 m/s.

GLERCE-26

The proposed modifications on the NGA-W1 models based on the Turkish ground motion

dataset (small magnitude scaling, regionalization of the VS30 and large distance terms) were

also amended by the revision within the NGA-W2 project (Gregor et al., 2014). In order to

compare the small magnitude adjustments proposed for the Turkish dataset with the small

magnitude modifications published after the NGA-W1 project (Chiou et al. (2010) and NGAW2 models), the magnitude scaling of NGA-W1, NGA-W2, and TR-NGA-W1 models for

vertical strike-slip events at Rrup=30 km and for VS30=760 m/s are presented in Figure 16,

individually for each model. Figure 16(a) and (b) compares the AS08 and BA08 models with

the Turkey adjusted versions and the updated NGA-W2 models by the same developer

groups (Abrahamson, Silva and Kamai, 2014 (ASK14) model and Boore, Stewart, Seyhan

and Atkinson, 2014 (BSSA14) model). Both figures indicate that the magnitude scaling of all

models is indifferent above the hinge magnitude value (M>6.75). The NGA-W1 and W2

models are only slightly different than each other for magnitudes larger than the small

magnitude break point (M>5 for ASK14 and M>5.5 for BSSA14); however, TR-Adjusted

models deviate from the global models for small-to-moderate magnitude range (4<M<6.75)

significantly. For smaller magnitudes (M<4), predictions of NGA-W2 models and TRAdjusted NGA-W1 models are similar. CB08 and CY08 models are compared with the

updated CB14 (Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2014) and CY14 (Chiou and Youngs, 2014) models

in addition to the TR-adjusted versions in Figure 16(c) and (d), respectively. Magnitude

scaling of the NGA-W2 and TR-adjusted NGA-W1 models is very similar for these two

models with more flexible functional forms, except for the small difference in 5<M<6.75

range. The updated model by Idriss (2014, ID14) has approximately the same magnitude

scaling with the previous version (ID08); therefore, both models are significantly different

than the TR-adjusted version (Figure 16(e)). The average magnitude scaling of NGA-W2 and

TR-adjusted NGA-W1 models are noticeably different as shown in Figure 16(f); with TRadjusted models being smaller and smoother for magnitudes smaller than 6.75. The

interaction between the constraints of the magnitude scaling functions of the original models

and the applied adjustment functions has a significant effect on the difference between the

predictions of the NGA-W2 and TR-NGA-W1 models, especially within the M5-M6 range.

Magnitude corrections applied to the NGA-W1 models are in good agreement with the

magnitude scaling of NGA-W2 models, but they are not consistent in the M3-M4 range.

GLERCE-27

0.1

0.1

PGA (g)

PGA (g)

0.01

TR_AS08

AS08 (NGA_W1)

ASK14 (NGA_W2)

0.001

0.0001

3

5

6

Magnitude

0.01

TR_BA08

BA08 (NGA_W1)

BSSA14 (NGA_W2)

0.001

0.0001

3

0.1

0.1

0.01

TR_CB08

CB08 (NGA_W1)

CB14 (NGA_W2)

0.001

0.0001

3

5

6

Magnitude

TR_CY08

CY10_SM

CY08 (NGA_W1)

CY14 (NGA_W2)

0.001

0.0001

8

0.1

0.1

PGA (g)

PGA (g)

0.01

TR_ID08

ID08 (NGA_W1)

ID14 (NGA_W2)

5

6

Magnitude

(d)

0.0001

0.01

(c)

0.001

(b)

PGA (g)

PGA (g)

(a)

5

6

Magnitude

5

6

Magnitude

0.01

Average (TR_NGA_W1)

Average (NGA_W1)

Average (NGA_W2)

0.001

0.0001

8

5

6

Magnitude

(e)

(f)

Figure 16. Magnitude scaling of vertical strike-slip events for Rrup=30 km and VS30=760 m/s of; (a)

AS08, TR-AS08 and ASK14 models, (b) BA08, TR-BA08 and BSSA14 models, (c) CB08, TR-CB08

and CB14 models, (d) CY08, TR-CY08 and CY14 models, (e) ID08, TR-ID08 and ID14 models, and

(f) average of NGA-W1, TR-NGA-W1 and NGA-W2 models.

GLERCE-28

The dataset is sparse below M4 (see Figure 3) thus we recommended that the adjusted models

are used in M>4 range.

All NGA-W2 models except for the ID14 model acknowledged the regional differences in

large distance scaling; however, regional terms were developed for regions like Taiwan,

Japan, China and Italy with significant amount of data in the NGA-W2 database. The number

of Turkish recordings in the NGA-W2 database is sparse (only 55 recordings); therefore,

individual anelastic attenuation terms are not provided for the Turkey. BSSA14 model

combined the recordings from Turkey with the recordings from China (defined as high Q

regions) and provided a China-Turkey modification on their c3 term. In ASK14 model,

Turkish recordings were grouped with ground motions from Iran under the Middle East

subgroup; however, separate anelastic attenuation or site amplification coefficients are not

provided for Middle East region after the evaluations. Similarly, CB14 and CY14 models did

not find a difference between the large distance scaling of California and Turkish ground

0.1

0.1

TR_AS08

ASK14 (NGA_W2)

AS08 (NGA_W1)

0.01

0.001

1

PGA (g)

PGA (g)

motions.

TR_CY08

CY14 (NGA_W2)

CY08 (NGA_W1)

0.01

0.001

10

100

Rupture Distance (km)

(a)

10

100

Rupture Distance (km)

(b)

PGA (g)

1

0.1

TR_BA08

BSSA14 (NGA_W2)

BA08 (NGA_W1)

0.01

0.001

1

10

100

Rupture Distance (km)

(c)

Figure 17. Distance scaling of vertical strike-slip events (M=7 and VS30=760 m/s) of; (a) AS08, TRAS08, ASK14 models, (b) CY08, TR-CY08, CY14 models, c) BA08, TR-BA08, BSSA14 models

GLERCE-29

Results of this study support the findings of NGA-W2 project: the distance scaling of the

Turkish dataset is not significantly different than the distance scaling of NGA-W1 and W2

models. The anelastic attenuation terms of AS08 and CY08 were only slightly modified for

Turkey and the effect of this modification is insignificant as shown in Figure 17.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A large number of global and regional GMPEs were developed in the last 20 years that are

applicable to shallow crustal and active tectonic regions. Constructing the GMPE logic tree

for PSHA applications is a controversial issue since: (i) local GMPEs are developed from the

regional datasets so they are expected to reflect the regional tectonic characteristics better

than the others, (ii) the uncertainties introduced by local GMPEs are higher than those of the

global GMPEs because they are based on statistically less stable and limited datasets. The

objective of this study is to introduce another alternative to local and global GMPEs by

regionalizing the global GMPEs that are developed for the same tectonic region as the target

area. Our study is inspired by the work of Scasserra et al. (2009) on the Italian strong motion

database (ITACA); however, a much larger dataset including the ground motions recorded

from the earthquakes that occurred in Turkey in the last 50 years is used. NGA-W1 GMPEs

are selected as the starting point and the earthquake metadata of the ground motions

consistent with the NGA-W1 database is compiled. Using the random-effects regression with

a constant term, model residuals between the actual strong motion data and NGA-W1 model

predictions are calculated for a period range of 0.01-10 seconds.

Plots of the residuals are used to evaluate the differences in the magnitude, distance, and site

amplification scaling between the Turkish dataset and the NGA-W1 models. Inter-event

residuals indicated that the ground motions in the dataset are overestimated by all 5 NGA-W1

models. We have only modified the small-to-moderate magnitude scaling of the NGA-W1

GMPEs in order to preserve the well-constrained large magnitude scaling of the global

dataset. No trends in the residuals are observed in the intra-event residuals vs. rupture

distance plots up to 100 kilometers; therefore, the distance scaling of the NGA-W1 models is

not adjusted. The large distance scaling (between 100 and 200 km) of the AS08 and CY08

models with separate gamma terms are modified. Regional differences in those parameters

were also recognized by the NGA-W2 model developers. Median predictions for scenarios

important for engineering applications (large magnitude and short distance) after the

adjustments were almost identical to the median predictions of the original GMPEs. The

GLERCE-30

slight difference in the median predictions arises from the small adjustments applied to the

site effects scaling of the AS08 and CY08 models. Even if the median predictions for large

magnitudes at short distances remained unchanged, the constant bias in the model predictions

was removed after the adjustments. Therefore, we believe that the new set of TurkeyAdjusted NGA-W1 models proposed in this study is suitable for ground motion

characterization studies in Turkey.

Some important pieces of the NGA-W1 GMPEs such as the style of faulting and hanging

wall effects could not be evaluated since the majority (65-70%) of the events in the Turkish

database consists of strike slip earthquakes. Also, the non-linear site response effects

incorporated in the models are adopted without a change. These features may be tested in the

future once the dataset is enriched by dip-slip mechanism events and site-response simulation

results representative of the deeper shear-wave profiles of the recording stations in Turkey

are available. Further analyses are required to address the possible data censoring issues in

the Turkish dataset. A standard deviation model for the ground motions in the Turkish dataset

that acknowledges the repeatable path effects is under development. We recommend the use

of standard deviations of the original NGA-W1 models until the single-station sigma model

of Turkey is developed.

It is not the intention of this paper to suggest that the TR-Adjusted NGA-W1 models should

be used in place of the NGA-W2 models. We proposed the TR-Adjusted NGA-W1 models as

an alternative to NGA-W1 models and regional GMPEs developed for Turkey.

Implementation process of the NGA-W2 models in US is currently ongoing; however, we

foresee that the NGA-W1 models will be slowly replaced with the new versions in other

regions such as Turkey. During this time of transition, we believe that the TR-adjusted NGAW1 models will be a convenient and reasonable alternative for PSHA studies in Turkey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Emre Akyz, Katie E. Wooddell and Robert B. Darragh and for their

help and guidance during the database compilation. Efforts of Nick Gregor on incorporating

the Turkey-Adjusted NGA-W1 models in HAZ43 software are gratefully acknowledged. We

appreciate the anonymous reviewers and members of the PEER-NGA working group for

valuable suggestions during the review process.

GLERCE-31

REFERENCES

Abrahamson, N. A. and Silva, W. J., 2008. Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGA groundmotion relations, Earthquake Spectra 24, 6797.

Abrahamson, N., Atkinson, G., Boore, D., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K., Chiou, B., Idriss, I. M., Silva,

W., Youngs, R., 2008. Comparisons of the NGA ground-motion relations, Earthquake Spectra

24, 4566.

Abrahamson, N. A., Silva W. J., and Kamai, R., 2014. Summary of the ASK14 Ground-Motion

Relation for Active Crustal Regions, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1025 - 1057.

Akkar, S. and Cagnan, Z., 2010. A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its

comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bulletin of the Seismological

Society of America 100, 2978-2995.

Akkar, S., anan, Z., Yenier, E., Erdoan, ., Sandkkaya, A., Glkan, P., 2010. The recently

compiled Turkish strong motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters.

Journal of Seismology 14, 457 479.

Ancheta, T.D., Darragh, R. B., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., Silva, W., Chiou, B. S. J., Wooddell, K. E.,

Graves, R. W., Kottke, A. R., Boore, D. M., Kishida, T., Donahue, J. L., 2014. NGA-West 2

Database, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1007 - 1025.

Boatwright, J., Bundock, H., Luetgert, J., Seekins, L., Gee, L., and Lombard, P., 2003. The

dependence of PGA and PGV on distance and magnitude inferred from northern California

ShakeMap data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 20432055.

Boore, D. M., Watson-Lamprey, J. and Abrahamson, N. A., 2006. GMRotD and GMRotI:

Orientation-independent measures of ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 12021511.

Boore, D. M. and Atkinson, G. M., 2008. Ground-motion prediction equations for the average

horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.0 1s and

10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra 24, 99139.

Boore, D. M., Stewart, J. P., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G. A., 2014. NGA-West 2 Equations for

Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Earthquake

Spectra 30, 1057 - 1087.

Bradley, B. A., 2013. A New Zealand-Specific pseudospectral acceleration ground-motion prediction

equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.

103, 18011822.

Campbell, K. W. and 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, 139173.

Campbell, K. W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2014. NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average

Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra,

Earthquake Spectra 30, 1087 - 1117.

Chiou, B., Darragh, R., Gregor, N. and Silva, W., 2008. NGA project strong motion database,

Earthquake Spectra 24, 2344

Chiou, B. S. J. and Youngs, R. R., 2008. Chiou-Youngs NGA ground motion relations for the

geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters,

Earthquake Spectra 24, 173217.

Chiou, B. S. J., and Youngs, R. R., 2014. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the

Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake

Spectra 30, 1117 - 1155.

GLERCE-32

Gardner, J. K. and Knopoff, L., 1974. Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California, with

aftershocks removed, Poissonian? Bull. of the Seis. Soc. of America 64, 1363-1367.

Glerce, Z., Kargolu, B. and Akyz E., 2012. Comparison of the NGA-W1 vertical-to-horizontal

spectral acceleration ratio prediction equations with Turkish strong ground motion database,

Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15th WCEE), 24-28

September 2012, Lisbon.

Glerce, Z. and Akyz, E., 2013. NGA-W1 Vertical-to-Horizontal Spectral Acceleration Ratio

Prediction Equations Adjusted for Turkey, Seismological Research Letters 84, 678 - 688.

Gregor, N., Abrahamson, N. A., Atkinson, G. M., Boore, D. M., Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K.W.,

Chiou, B., Idriss, I. M., Kamai, R., Seyhan, E., Silva, W., Stewart, J. P., Youngs, R., 2014.

Comparison of the NGA-W2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1179 - 1199.

Idriss, I. M., 2008. An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral values generated

by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 24, 217243.

Idriss, I. M., 2014. An NGA-West2 Empirical Model for Estimating the Horizontal Spectral Values

Generated by Shallow Crustal Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1155 - 1179.

Power, M., Chiou, B., Abrahamson, N., Bozorgnia, Y., Shantz, T., and Roblee, C., 2008. An overview

of the NGA project, Earthquake Spectra 24, 321.

Scasserra, G., Stewart, J. P., Bazzurro, P. Lanzo, G. and Mollaioli, F., 2009. A comparison of NGA

ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data, Bull. of the Seis. Soc. of Am. 99, 2961-2978.

ShojaTaheri, J., Naserieh, S., and Hadi, G., 2010. A test of the applicability of NGA models to the

strong ground-motion data in the Iranian plateau, J. Earthquake. Engineering 14, 278292.

Stafford, P. J., Strasser, O. and Bommer, J. J., 2008. An evaluation of the applicability of the NGA

models to ground-motion prediction in the Euro-Mediterranean region. Bulletin of Earthquake

Engineering 6, 149-177.

Wooddell, K.E. and Abrahamson, N. A., 2014. Classification of Mainshocks and Aftershocks in the

NGA-West2 Database, Earthquake Spectra 30, 1257 - 1269.

GLERCE-33

- Seismic Hazard Assessment of Kashmir and Kangra valley region, western Himalaya, IndiaDiunggah olehSujit Dasgupta
- JPN Fukushima Takahashi Yoshi s1Diunggah olehIRMA FERNANDEZ
- New Attenuation Model Japan.pdfDiunggah olehjulesjusayan
- Fukushimaetal_JSeismology_2002Diunggah olehDave Juvida
- Additional Questions on ProbabilityDiunggah olehPeh Wee Loon
- 1B40 DA Lecture 2v2Diunggah olehRoy Vesey
- New Zealand fracking reportDiunggah olehChad Whitehead
- Seismic Microzonation for the Northeast Texcoco Lake Area, Mexico 2013 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake EngineeringDiunggah olehLuis Arturo Reséndiz
- On the error of backcast estimates using conversion matrices under a change of classificationDiunggah olehpaundpro
- PDKDiunggah olehji73if94
- PetroskyDiunggah olehLiiz Corte
- 2009 MSHA Coal Refuse Disposal Facilities Manual - BlastingDiunggah olehFernando Andres Mackay
- 2011-A New Probabilistic Method to Estimate the Long-term Wind Speed Characteristics at a Potential Wind Energy Conversion SiteDiunggah olehmoro1381
- Regress 1Diunggah olehmarkp_cnm
- Rodriguezmarek Tues 130pm Ven VDiunggah olehndimuzio
- Meriwell Case ForecastingDiunggah olehHarishankarSethuraman
- Reservoir Earthquake - PrintedDiunggah olehjade_rp
- MOISTURE-DEPENDENT THERMAL PROPERTIES OF COCOYAM CORMELSDiunggah olehAZOJETE UNIMAID
- Montgomery BowlesDiunggah olehlarg140884646
- Kendaraan KaryawanDiunggah olehEmut Manabung
- OUTPUT.docDiunggah olehst.aminah
- Alumni GivingDiunggah olehDenver Jaqin
- Re GresiDiunggah olehRemak Riska
- TMT-BAREMOSDiunggah olehMarysabel Mendoza Apaza
- Professional Realty WordDiunggah olehKamal Ahmmad Munna
- SPSS 15.0 AlgorithmsDiunggah olehdocsms
- Data Mining Tutorial CompleteDiunggah olehrookieanalytics
- Auto KoliDiunggah olehBunga Alfausta Amallia
- jawaban SPSS (toetor satoe poenja).docxDiunggah olehEldhi Aprian
- Question no. 4 (A).docxDiunggah olehambreen fatima

- Iast.lect04Diunggah olehTakis Apostolides
- sensors-18-00309Diunggah olehMd. Tuhin Khan
- svgexport-27Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- svgexport-27Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- 2DTrussSolution_viaMatlabDiunggah olehKrishna Buraka
- Class1Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Bridge MeasureDiunggah olehThanh Nhan Le
- Burj Khalifa ImportantDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- encryption source codeDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Source Code Example root finding visual studioDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Dr. Turer ce5802-2018Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Chapt 1Diunggah olehDickson Lee
- newton raphson alcoa graphical method c#Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- ETAP1600 User Guide.pdfDiunggah olehorlyboy
- metu Thesis templateDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Abrahamson_SHA_stateoftheart (1).pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- BmwDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Sdcard 30c3 PubDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- info_iec60815-1{ed1.0}enDiunggah olehRafael Feria
- TempDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- TM_chap15_strain.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- Kinematics of CM ers02 Deformation StrainDiunggah olehAchmad Rachmad Tullah
- Assignment 4Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- WeekI.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- WeekI.pdfDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- CE 7014 Week1 IntroDiunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- CE 7014 Chap2 Part1Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- CE 7014 Chap2 Part 5Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5
- CE 7014 Chap2 Part 4Diunggah olehAnonymous ep7LE5ZdP5

- Dante's Peak EssayDiunggah olehJess Flook Patterson
- Structure Report to Bal Kumari KarkiDiunggah olehMishal Limbu
- Adapting Earthquake Actions in Eurocode 8 for Performance-based Seismic DesignDiunggah olehSouliman Alkhoder
- 91538503 Final Project Report of Base IsolationDiunggah olehSucharu Sharma
- Structural Steel DesignDiunggah olehcoolkaisy
- blazed Learnset ChangesDiunggah olehAnumod Illath
- Adakites From Collision-modified LithosphereDiunggah olehkototoko
- FRP Composite ProjectDiunggah olehsatyavijet3631
- “Then a Star Fell:” Folk-Memory of a Celestial Impact Event in the Ancient Egyptian Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor?Diunggah olehLloyd Graham
- Determination of the Structure Fundamental PeriodDiunggah olehRaleigh Gesulga Labarrete
- PRD in Power TransformerDiunggah olehMuhammad Aftabuzzaman
- Quaternary Geology of AlaskaDiunggah olehBaculites
- BrancoGuerreiro 2011Diunggah olehIvan
- Quake SeriesDiunggah olehSean Cotter
- Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA).pptxDiunggah olehKevin M. Blache
- SeisFacies-2004Diunggah olehSk Singh
- CivilEngineeringSOI.pdfDiunggah olehJatinder Bhatia
- A Report on Integral Abutment BridgeDiunggah olehsanket panchal
- Design of Reinforcement for Steel Members-1Diunggah olehIho1
- UNIT_4_TOS1Diunggah olehStructure department
- Haiti Earthquake of 2010Diunggah olehbakthi
- phivolcsDiunggah olehozner15
- Social Studies Task CardsDiunggah olehJohn Stepp
- Fundamentals of Physical GeologyDiunggah olehEdwin Guevara R
- Design Procedures for Marine Renewable EnergyDiunggah olehAsad Hafudh
- 4. Mechanism & Causes LandslideDiunggah oleharwan_sipil
- Peak Ground Acceleration - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaDiunggah olehinsane88
- underground tanksDiunggah olehBhaskar Reddy
- 2010 SEAOC Convention ProceedingsDiunggah olehPE Eng
- Quantitative assessment of liquefaction potential in selected areas in Christchurch, New ZealandDiunggah olehAndreas Giannakogiorgos

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.