PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 28, 2023Earthquake Spectra24 citations

Machine learning–based ground motion models for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions

View Full Paper
FSFarhad SedaghatiSPShahram Pezeshk

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Data‐driven ground motion models (GMMs) for the average horizontal component from shallow crustal continental earthquakes in active tectonic regions are derived using a subset of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)‐West2 data set, including 14,518 recordings out of 285 earthquakes recorded at 2347 different stations. We use four different nonparametric supervised machine learning (ML) algorithms including Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Kernel‐Ridge Regressor (KRR), Random Forest Regressor (RFR), and Support Vector Regressor (SVR) to construct four individual models. Then, we use a weighted average ensemble approach to combine these four models into a robust model to predict various ground motion intensity measures such as peak ground displacement (PGD), peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA), and 5%‐damped pseudo‐spectral acceleration (PSA). The model input parameters are moment magnitude, rupture distance, V S 30 , and Z TOR . The ensemble modeling attempts to remove the drawbacks or deficiencies of different ML algorithms while capturing their advantages and accounts for epistemic uncertainty. Although no functional form is provided, the model can capture salient features observed in ground motions such as saturation as well as geometrical spreading, anelastic attenuation, and nonlinear site amplification. The response spectra and the magnitude, distance, V S 30 , and Z TOR scaling trends are consistent and comparable with the NGA‐West2 GMMs including several additional input parameters. We used a mixed‐effects regression analysis to split the total aleatory uncertainty into between‐event, within‐station, and event‐site–corrected components. The model is applicable to magnitudes from 3.0 to 8.0, rupture distances up to 300 km, and spectral periods of 0 to 10 s.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sedaghati et al. (2023) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa6759dc108d631866701dhttps://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231191759
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Simulation of Ground Motion Using the Stochastic Method2003 · 1,401 citations
  2. 2Nonlinear Site Response Effects on the Standard Deviations of Predicted Ground Motions2010 · 38 citations
  3. 3Orientation-Independent, Nongeometric-Mean Measures of Seismic Intensity from Two Horizontal Components of Motion2010 · 698 citations
  4. 4Crossed and Nested Mixed-Effects Approaches for Enhanced Model Development and Removal of the Ergodic Assumption in Empirical Ground-Motion Models2014 · 148 citations
  5. 5NGA‐West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes2013 · 1,780 citations