A new non-ergodic ground-motion model (GMM) for effective amplitude spectral (EAS) values for California is presented in this study. EAS, which is defined in Goulet et al. (2018), is a smoothed rotation-independent Fourier amplitude spectrum of the two horizontal components of an acceleration time history. The main motivation for developing a non-ergodic EAS GMM, rather than a spectral acceleration GMM, is that the scaling of EAS does not depend on spectral shape, and therefore, the more frequent small magnitude events can be used in the estimation of the non-ergodic terms.

The model is developed using the California subset of the NGAWest2 dataset Ancheta et al. (2013). The Bayless and Abrahamson (2019b) (BA18) ergodic EAS GMM was used as backbone to constrain the average source, path, and site scaling. The non-ergodic GMM is formulated as a Bayesian hierarchical model: the non-ergodic source and site terms are modeled as spatially varying coefficients following the approach of Landwehr et al. (2016), and the non-ergodic path effects are captured by the cell-specific anelastic attenuation attenuation following the approach of Dawood and Rodriguez-Marek (2013). Close to stations and past events, the mean values of the non-ergodic terms deviate from zero to capture the systematic effects and their epistemic uncertainty is small. In areas with sparse data, the epistemic uncertainty of the non-ergodic terms is large, as the systematic effects cannot be determined.

The non-ergodic total aleatory standard deviation is approximately 30 to 40% smaller than the total aleatory standard deviation of BA18. This reduction in the aleatory variability has a significant impact on hazard calculations at large return periods. The epistemic uncertainty of the ground motion predictions is small in areas close to stations and past event.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

This preprint is available for download as a PDF.

Loading...

Posted 18 Mar, 2021

###### No community comments so far

###### Reviewers invited

Invitations sent on 14 Mar, 2021

###### Reviews received

Received 14 Mar, 2021

###### First submitted

On 28 Feb, 2021

###### Editor assigned

On 28 Feb, 2021

Posted 18 Mar, 2021

###### No community comments so far

###### Reviewers invited

Invitations sent on 14 Mar, 2021

###### Reviews received

Received 14 Mar, 2021

###### First submitted

On 28 Feb, 2021

###### Editor assigned

On 28 Feb, 2021

A new non-ergodic ground-motion model (GMM) for effective amplitude spectral (EAS) values for California is presented in this study. EAS, which is defined in Goulet et al. (2018), is a smoothed rotation-independent Fourier amplitude spectrum of the two horizontal components of an acceleration time history. The main motivation for developing a non-ergodic EAS GMM, rather than a spectral acceleration GMM, is that the scaling of EAS does not depend on spectral shape, and therefore, the more frequent small magnitude events can be used in the estimation of the non-ergodic terms.

The model is developed using the California subset of the NGAWest2 dataset Ancheta et al. (2013). The Bayless and Abrahamson (2019b) (BA18) ergodic EAS GMM was used as backbone to constrain the average source, path, and site scaling. The non-ergodic GMM is formulated as a Bayesian hierarchical model: the non-ergodic source and site terms are modeled as spatially varying coefficients following the approach of Landwehr et al. (2016), and the non-ergodic path effects are captured by the cell-specific anelastic attenuation attenuation following the approach of Dawood and Rodriguez-Marek (2013). Close to stations and past events, the mean values of the non-ergodic terms deviate from zero to capture the systematic effects and their epistemic uncertainty is small. In areas with sparse data, the epistemic uncertainty of the non-ergodic terms is large, as the systematic effects cannot be determined.

The non-ergodic total aleatory standard deviation is approximately 30 to 40% smaller than the total aleatory standard deviation of BA18. This reduction in the aleatory variability has a significant impact on hazard calculations at large return periods. The epistemic uncertainty of the ground motion predictions is small in areas close to stations and past event.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

This preprint is available for download as a PDF.

Loading...