See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250074950

Effect of Spatial Correlation on Estimated Ground-Motion Prediction Equations

Article  in  Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · April 2009

DOI: 10.1785/0120080172

CITATIONS READS
53 313

3 authors, including:

Katsuichiro Goda
The University of Western Ontario
249 PUBLICATIONS   4,789 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PREPARE: Enhancing PREParedness for East African Countries through Seismic Resilience Engineering View project

INSPIRE: Integrated Disaster Cycle Approach for Catastrophic Earthquake Impact Reduction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Katsuichiro Goda on 18 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 99, No. 2A, pp. 928–934, April 2009, doi: 10.1785/0120080172

Short Note
Effect of Spatial Correlation on Estimated Ground-Motion
Prediction Equations
by H. P. Hong, Y. Zhang, and K. Goda

Abstract The consideration of spatially correlated seismic hazard could be of im-

portance for seismic risk assessment. The estimation of this correlation for the peak
ground acceleration and the pseudospectral acceleration has been reported in the lit-
erature, although it is not presented as a necessary ingredient for developing ground-
motion prediction equations (GMPEs). In the present study, we show that spatial
correlation can be incorporated in the existing regression algorithms given by Joyner
and Boore for assessing a GMPE. The modified algorithms can be used to estimate
both GMPE coefficients and spatial correlation model parameters simultaneously. In
particular, they are used to investigate the influence of spatial correlation on GMPEs
and to assess parameters of an empirical spatial correlation model by considering a set
of 592 California records. Analysis results indicate that the effects of incorporating
spatial correlation on the estimated GMPEs are insignificant, and that spatial correla-
tion parameters obtained using the modified algorithm are similar to those estimated
based on statistical analysis of regression residuals.

Introduction
Infrastructures in a seismic region are subjected to si-
multaneous excitations caused by large earthquakes. Such
correlated seismic effects can be important in assessing seis-
mic risk for spatially distributed structures and can signifi-
cantly affect the probability distribution of seismic damage
costs in the tail regions (Goda and Hong, 2008b). The mo-
tions are often measured in terms of the peak ground accel-
eration (PGA) and the pseudospectral acceleration (PSA).
Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for these mea-
sures are developed and used for seismic hazard assessment.
The GMPEs contain both interevent variability and in-
traevent variability (Abrahamson and Youngs, 1992; Joyner
and Boore, 1993), where the latter is spatially correlated. Ka-
wakami and Sharma (1999) studied the spatial intraevent
variability of the PSA, whereas Kawakami and Mogi (2003),
Boore et al. (2003), and Wang and Takada (2005) investi-
gated the spatial intraevent correlation of the PGA. More
recently Goda and Hong (2008a) estimated the overall cor-
relation of the PSA considering interevent variability and
spatial intraevent variability and provided an empirical equa-
tion to predict the correlation, which depends on the natural
vibration period. The mentioned studies indicate that the de-
gree of correlation of the ground-motion parameters de-
creases with increasing distance between two sites, although
the rate of decrease differs for different studies.
It is noted that the analyses carried out by Kawakami
and Mogi (2003) and Boore et al. (2003) were based on the
ratios of the PGA at two recording stations, which require
adequate corrections of the PGA for different soil conditions
and for different source-to-site distances using an adopted
GMPE; those by Wang and Takada (2005) and Goda and
Hong (2008a) were based on statistical analysis of residuals
of a GMPE. The methods used by Wang and Takada (2005)
and Goda and Hong (2008a) are computationally efficient,
but strictly speaking, they invoke an inconsistent argument
because the residuals are calculated from GMPEs, which are
obtained by regression analysis considering that the residuals
are uncorrelated. The methods used by Kawakami and Mogi
(2003) and Boore et al. (2003) may suffer a similar problem
if the correction to the PGA (or any other ground-motion
measures) is carried out by using a GMPE, which is obtained
by considering the same independent residual assumption.
However, the magnitude of errors introduced by using the
(uncorrelated) residuals to assess the spatial correlation is un-
known, and the effects of considering spatial correlation on
the developed GMPE have not been investigated.
The main objectives of this study are to investigate the
influence of including spatial correlation in regression analy-
sis on GMPEs and to develop a spatial correlation model di-
rectly from regression analysis. The validity of this direct

928
Short Note
approach is assessed by comparing spatial correlation model
parameters, which are directly obtained from regression
analysis, with those derived from statistical analysis of re-
gression residuals. To achieve these objectives, the algo-
rithms given by Joyner and Boore (1993) for regression
analysis are modified to consider correlated residuals. More
specifically, an empirical parametric spatial correlation
model is incorporated in the covariance matrix of residuals,
which is associated with both interevent and intraevent varia-
bility. Details of the modification are given in the following
section. The modified algorithms are illustrated by consider-
ing a set of California records.
Incorporation of a Parametric Spatial Correlation
Model in Regression Analysis
A simple GMPE for ground-motion measures, such as
the PGA and PSA, is expressed as (Abrahamson and Youngs,
1992; Joyner and Boore, 1993)
ln Y ij
T n   f
Mj ; Rij ; λij ; T n   ηj
T n   εij
T n ; (1)
where Y ij
T n  is the ground-motion parameter at a vibration
period T n for the i-th site due to the j-th seismic event, and
f
Mj ; Rij ; λij ; T n  is a function of the earthquake magnitude
Mj , the site-to-source distance Rij , and a set of other ex-
planatory variables λij . The interevent variability ηj
T n  is
assumed to be normally distributed with zero mean and stan-
dard deviation ση
T n , and the intraevent variability εij
T n 
is assumed to be normally distributed with zero mean and
standard deviation σε
T n . Note that if the PGA is consid-
ered, equation (1) is no longer a function of T n .
Given a set of records, by considering that ηj
T n  is
an independent identically distributed normal variate, and
εij
T n  is an independent identically distributed normal vari-
ate, model parameters of the GMPE shown in equation (1)
can be determined based on the algorithms given by Joyner
and Boore (1993). If the spatial correlation of intraevent
variability is considered the algorithms can be modified to
accommodate an adopted empirical parametric spatial corre-
lation model, which is described in the following.
An empirical model for the spatial correlation of
ground-motion measures was proposed by Goda and
Hong (2008a):
ρT
Δ; T n1 ; T n2 
 ρ0
T n1 ; T n2 
ση
T n1 ση
T n2   ρε
Δ; T max σε
T n1 σε
T n2 
× ; (2)
σT
T n1 σT
T n2 
where ρT
Δ; T n1 ; T n2  represents the correlation coefficient
between ηj
T n1   εij
T n1  and ηj
T n2   εkj
T n2  for a
randomly selected seismic event and at two recording
stations separated by a distance Δ
km; σT
T n 2 
ση
T n 2  σε
T n 2 ; ρ0
T n1 ; T n2  represents the correla-
929
tion coefficient when Δ equals zero (i.e., ρT
0; T n1 ; T n2 ),
which is given by Baker and Cornell (2006); T max 
max
T n1 ; T n2 ; and the intraevent spatial correlation coeffi-
cient ρε
Δ; T n  is given by
ρε
Δ; T n   exp
αΔβ ; (3)
in which α and β are the model parameters , which could be
approximated by α  0:16 ln
T n   0:62 and β  0:50
for a set of California records. In particular if only a single
vibration period is of interest, equation (2) is simplified to
ρT
Δ; T n ; T n   ρη
T n   ρε
Δ; T n 1  ρη
T n ; (4)
where ρη
T n f ση
T n =σT
T n 2 g represents the inter-
event correlation coefficient that was considered by Wesson
and Perkins (2001).
To incorporate the spatial correlation in regression
analysis we use Joyner and Boore’s (1993) one-stage and
two-stage algorithms and consider that the parametric corre-
lation model shown in equations (2–4) is adequate. To sim-
plify the notation, the functional dependence on T n is not
shown explicitly in the following; thus, the spatial correlation
coefficient ρε
Δ; T n  shown in equation (3) is simply de-
noted by ρε
Δ.
The algorithms maximize the likelihood functions,
which are established based on an adopted GMPE by turning
a nonlinear regression problem into a linear regression prob-
lem using the Taylor series expansions, where the solution is
obtained iteratively (Joyner and Boore, 1993). In particular,
if the one-stage algorithm is considered for a single vibration
period, the problem is expressed as
Y  XB  e; (5)
where Y is an N × 1 vector containing ln Y ij (and some other
terms such as the soil amplification factor, which can be
treated as constant in each iteration), in which N is the total
number of data points; X is a matrix that depends on Mj and
Rij ; B is a vector of unknown model parameters to be solved;
and e is an N × 1 vector containing ηj  εij , which
is normally distributed with zero mean and covariance ma-
trix V. V is given by
V  σ2T v; (6)
and v is formed by zeros except for its block-diagonal sub-
matrix vk for the k-th earthquake and is given by
2 3
1 ρη  ρη
6 ρη 1  ρη 7
6 7
vk  6 . .. .. .. 7; k  1; …; N e ; (7)
4 .. . . . 5
ρη ρη  1
where vk is an N rk × N rk matrix, and its diagonal elements
are unity. Its off-diagonal elements are ρη ; N rk represents the
930 Short Note

number of records for the k-th earthquake, and N e is the However, if the spatial correlation expressed in equation (4)
number of earthquakes. The solution is the one that maxi- ^ 1 shown in equation (11) is replaced by
is incorporated, B
mizes the following log-likelihood function L:
^ 1 
XT V1 X1 1 XT V1 Y1 ;
B (12)
1 1 1 1
N N 1
L   ln
2π  ln σ2T  ln jvj
2 2 2
where
1 T 1
 2 
Y  XB v
Y  XB; (8)
2σT 2 3
v11 0  0
6 0 v12  0 7
where j • j represents the determinant of a matrix. The maxi- 6 7
v1  σ2ε v1  σ2ε 6 .. .. .. .. 7 and (13)
mization requires iteration or use of a search algorithm in 4 . . . . 5
dealing with nonlinear terms. Joyner and Boore (1993) pro- 0 0    v1N e
vided an efficient algorithm to find the model parameters
(i.e., model parameters for a GMPE, ση , and σε ).
If the incorporation of the empirical spatial correlation 2 3
model expressed in equation (4) for assessing a GMPE is con- 1 ρε
Δ1;2     ρε
Δ1;N rk 
sidered, vk becomes 6 ρε
Δ2;1  1    ρε
Δ2;N rk  7
6 7
v1k 6 .. .. .. .. 7;
2 3 4 . . . . 5 (14)
1 ρ1;2    ρ1;N rk
ρε
ΔN rk ;1  ρε
ΔN rk ;2   1
6 ρ2;1 1    ρ2;N rk 7
6 7
vk  6 . .. .. .. 7; k  1; …; N e ; k  1; …; N e
4 .. . . . 5
ρNrk ;1 ρN rk ;2  1
is an N rk × N rk matrix for the k-th earthquake. In such a
(9) case, estimates of the parameters controlling distance depen-
dence, σε , α, and β are obtained such that the following log-
where ρi;j  ρj;i  ρη  ρε
Δi;j 
1  ρη , Δi;j is the dis-
likelihood function L1 is maximized:
tance between recording stations for the i-th and j-th records
due to the k-th seismic event, and ρε
Δi;j  is given in equa-
N N 1
tion (3). Therefore, the matrix v contains two additional L1   ln
2π  ln σ2ε  ln jv1 j
model parameters α and β as compared to equation (7), 2 2 2
1
and in general, an analytical inverse matrix is not available.  2 
Y1
X1 B1 v
1
1
Y1
X1 B1 : (15)
Because all remaining equations and matrices are the same as 2σε
those given by Joyner and Boore (1993), their algorithm is
still applicable except that the inverse of v is evaluated nu- In the second stage, the magnitude dependence is character-
merically, and the maximization of L is carried out for two ized as
additional parameters α and β.
In the two-stage algorithm, model parameters Y2  X2 B2  e2 ; (16)
controlling distance dependence and magnitude dependence
are determined in the first and second stages, respectively. where Y2 equals the estimated P, P, ^ obtained in the first
More specifically, in the first stage the distance depen- stage, X2 is the matrix relating Y2 to the vector B2, which
dence is expressed as (see equation (18) in Joyner and contains the parameters controlling magnitude dependence,
Boore (1993)): and e2 is a residual vector that is composed of P–P^ and ηj . If
the spatial correlation is not considered, the covariance ma-
Y1  X1 B1  e1 ; (10) trix associated with e2 , V2 , which is needed for the remaining
part of the two-stage algorithm, is given by
where Y1 is an N × 1 vector containing ln Y ij (and some
other terms, which can be treated as constant in each itera- 2 3
v21 0  0
tion); B1 contains the model parameters controlling distance 6 0 v22  0 7
dependence as well as the auxiliary N e × 1 vector P, which is 6 7
V2  6 .. .. .. .. 7; (17)
linearly related to the parameters controlling magnitude de- 4 . . . . 5
pendence and ηj , X1 is the matrix relating Y1 to B1 , and e1 is 0 0  v2Ne
an N × 1 vector containing εij . If the spatial correlation
among εij is ignored, the estimate of B1 , B ^ 1 , is given by where

^ 1 
XT X1 1 XT Y1 :
B (11) v2k  σ2η  σ2ε =N rk ; k  1; …; N e : (18)
1 1
Short Note 931

Table 1
Ground-Motion Prediction Equation Based on the Geometric Mean for a Set of 592 California Records

Ground-Motion Prediction Equation

ln Y  b1  b2
M  7  b3
M  72  b4  b5
M  4:5 ln
r2jb  h2 0:5   AFs , where bi , (i  1; …; 5) are the model parameters listed in the next
section of Table 1; M is the moment magnitude; rjb
km is the closest horizontal distance from the station to a point on the Earth’s surface that lies
directly above the rupture and is taken equal to the Joyner and Boore distance or the epicentral distance when the former is not available; h
km
represents a fictitious depth; and AFs represents the amplification factor due to linear and nonlinear soil behavior (see Hong and Goda [2007] and Boore
and Atkinson [2008]).
*
Regression Coefficients
Y (g) b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 h ση σε σT
PGA 1.096 0.444 0.0 1:047 0.038 5.7 0.190 0.433 0.473
1.143 0.398 0.0 1:125 0.064 5.6 0.150 0.438 0.463
PSA at 0.3 sec 1.473 0.571 0.0 0:842 0:007 4.9 0.188 0.486 0.521
1.554 0.458 0:032 0:946 0.026 5.0 0.157 0.489 0.514
PSA at 1.0 sec 0.481 0.644 0:229 0:843 0:002 4.9 0.326 0.559 0.647
0.806 0.834 0:150 0:914 0:009 5.8 0.251 0.570 0.623
PSA at 3.0 sec 1:203 1.255 0:235 0:511 0:100 2.5 0.408 0.557 0.691
0:969 1.631 0:123 0:428 0:159 3.7 0.285 0.569 0.636
*
The first entry is obtained by ignoring the spatial correlation (Hong and Goda, 2007), and the second entry is obtained by incorporating the spatial
correlation in regression analysis.

If the spatial correlation is considered, it can be shown that Impact of Spatial Correlation
v2k shown in equation (18) is replaced by on Regression Parameters
For the assessment of the influence of spatial correlation

X
N rk X
N rk  on a GMPE, we use a set of 592 California records (from
v2k  σ2η  σ2ε = wk;ij ; k  1; …; N e ; (19) 39 earthquakes), which was extracted from the Next Genera-
i1 j1
tion Attenuation (NGA) database of the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research (PEER) Center. The selected records
where wk;ij denotes the elements of the inverse matrix of v1k are for earthquakes with M ≥ 5:0 (with magnitude dependent
shown in equation (14). As expected, if ρε
Δi;j  for i ≠ j is distance cutoff limits) and are for the National Earthquake
ignored in equation (14), v1k , as well
P asrk its
Pinverse, becomes Hazards Reduction Program NEHRP site class B, C, or D
the N rk × N rk identity matrix,
N i1
N rk
j1 wk;ij   N rk ,
with the geomatrix’s classification I, A, or B (see PEER Cen-
and equation (19) reduces to equation (18). This indicates ter for details). These records are band-pass-filtered with the
that the only change required to incorporate the spatial cor- high-pass corner frequency less than 0.5 Hz (for the PSA at
relation in the second stage is the use of equation (19) instead T n greater than 2.0 sec, the high-pass corner frequency less
of equation (18). than 0.33 Hz is considered for T n from 2.0 to 3.0 sec, result-

Figure 1. Ground-motion prediction equations obtained by considering and ignoring spatial correlation: (a) PGA and (b) PSA at 1.0 sec.
932 Short Note

Figure 2. Comparison of the spatial correlation model parameters for the geometric mean: (a) α and (b) β.

ing in 484 records from 34 earthquakes). The detailed criteria
as well as a complete list of the selected records are available
in Hong and Goda (2007). Because the model parameters
given by Hong and Goda (2007, see Table 1) were calculated
based on the geometric mean of two orthogonal horizontal
components by using the two-stage algorithm, the numerical
results presented in this section are also carried out by using
the modified two-stage algorithm. However, a verification
analysis by using the one-stage algorithm for many cases
was carried out as well.
We carried out regression analysis with the spatial cor-
relation structure discussed in the previous section for the
same functional form of the GMPE shown in Table 1 and the
same set of records. The obtained GMPE parameters based on
the geometric mean are shown in Table 1 for the PGA and for
the PSA at T n equal to 0.3 sec, 1.0 sec, and 3.0 sec. Compar-
ison of the results shown in Table 1 suggests that there are
differences in the estimated model parameters by exclud-
ing or including the spatial correlation. By considering the
spatial correlation, the variability of interevent residuals de-
creases, the variability of intraevent residuals increases, and
the variability of overall residuals decreases. To visualize the
impact of the spatial correlation on the estimated GMPEs, a
plot of the median GMPEs for the PGA and PSA at T n at

Table 2
Results of Regression Analysis for a Randomly Oriented Horizontal Component (Based on 50 Runs)
*
Regression Coefficients

Y (g) b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 h (km) ση σε σT
PGA 1.059 0.383 0:006 1:083 0.056 5.7 0.187 0.463 0.500
(0.074) (0.095) (0.014) (0.068) (0.028) (0.40) (0.014) (0.008) (0.008)
1.087 0.337 0:011 1:144 0.077 5.6 0.151 0.467 0.491
(0.072) (0.096) (0.018) (0.069) (0.027) (0.38) (0.015) (0.008) (0.008)
PSA at 0.3 sec 1.460 0.555 0:011 0:838 0:006 4.8 0.186 0.528 0.560
(0.083) (0.123) (0.019) (0.089) (0.037) (0.35) (0.019) (0.009) (0.009)
1.510 0.470 0:034 0:914 0.019 4.8 0.161 0.530 0.554
(0.093) (0.137) (0.031) (0.087) (0.036) (0.34) (0.019) (0.008) (0.009)
PSA at 1.0 sec 0.494 0.547 0:249 0:905 0.021 5.1 0.320 0.611 0.690
(0.121) (0.196) (0.049) (0.118) (0.049) (0.69) (0.017) (0.010) (0.012)
0.728 0.703 0:189 0:943 0.010 5.6 0.263 0.617 0.671
(0.140) (0.211) (0.049) (0.127) (0.053) (0.67) (0.019) (0.010) (0.011)
PSA at 3.0 sec 1:184 1.150 0:262 0:582 0:073 2.7 0.402 0.611 0.732
(0.112) (0.207) (0.059) (0.108) (0.050) (0.45) (0.026) (0.012) (0.015)
0:980 1.461 0:161 0:527 0:118 3.8 0.296 0.621 0.689
(0.157) (0.249) (0.063) (0.134) (0.061) (0.73) (0.038) (0.012) (0.015)
*
The first and second sets of entries are obtained by ignoring and considering the spatial correlation in regression
analysis, respectively. The first value in a set denotes the mean and the value inside the parentheses denotes the
standard deviation.
Short Note 933

Table 3
Spatial Correlation Parameters α and β Based on Regression Analysis (This Study) and Based on
Statistical Analysis of Regression Residuals (Goda and Hong, 2008a)
Ground-Motion Parameter Regression Analysis (This Study) Statistical Analysis of Residuals (Goda and Hong, 2008a)

α β α β
PGA 0.85 0.41 0.77 0.52
PSA at 0.1 sec 1.19 0.33 1.0 0.47
PSA at 0.2 sec 1.20 0.37 0.96 0.49
PSA at 0.3 sec 1.09 0.42 0.81 0.53
PSA at 0.5 sec 0.60 0.47 0.52 0.52
PSA at 1.0 sec 0.43 0.56 0.41 0.58
PSA at 1.5 sec 0.39 0.59 0.37 0.64
PSA at 2.0 sec 0.32 0.59 0.28 0.61
PSA at 3.0 sec 0.32 0.56 0.20 0.72

1.0 sec is illustrated in Figure 1. The results indicate that the stable. To overcome this problem, one could repeat such an
influence of considering the spatial correlation on the esti- analysis many times, each with a new randomly selected set
mated GMPEs is negligible. of record components. The obtained results for 50 runs by
It should be noted that as a by-product from regression ignoring and considering the spatial correlation model are
analysis, one obtains the parameters α and β, which are de- shown in Table 2 and Figure 4 for the PGA and for the
picted in Figure 2, listed in Table 3, and compared with those PSA at T n equal to 0.3 sec, 1.0 sec, and 3.0 sec. These results
given by Goda and Hong (2008a). Note that the values of α are obtained by considering all 592 records. Comparison of
and β given by Goda and Hong (2008a) were evaluated by the results shown in Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the GMPE
considering six (out of 39) earthquakes (i.e., 1979 Imperial parameters for the two cases are in good agreement. This
Valley, 1983 Coalinga, 1987 Whittier–Narrows, 1989 Loma observation is true whether the spatial correlation is ignored
Prieta, 1994 Northridge, and 1999 Hector Mine), each with or incorporated in regression analysis. Because the standard
more than 25 available records. The figure indicates that the deviations associated with the GMPE parameters shown in
former is similar to the latter. This suggests that the use of Table 2 are significant, it is important to consider sufficient
uncorrelated residuals for assessing the spatial correlation runs when randomly selected components are employed for
provides valid estimates of α and β. More importantly, it is regression analysis. The results shown in Figure 4 and com-
beneficial to incorporate the empirical parametric spatial cor- pared with those obtained based on the geometric mean in-
relation model in regression analysis because the analysis dicate that the spatial correlation for a randomly oriented
results provide not only the parameters for the GMPE but horizontal component is smaller than that for the geometric
also the parameters for the spatial correlation model, which
is valuable for risk analysis of a portfolio of spatially distrib-
uted structures (Goda and Hong, 2008b).
To investigate the influence of the considered records
on the estimated spatial correlation, regression analysis was
repeated by only considering the records for the six earth-
quakes previously mentioned rather than all selected earth-
quakes. The obtained spatial correlation parameters are
depicted in Figure 3 and compared with those obtained by
considering all records. The comparison indicates that use
of one or the other set of records does affect the estimated
(intraevent) spatial correlation and that differences in the es-
timated spatial correlation are less than 0.1.
It must be emphasized that the results shown in Table 1
and Figures 2 and 3 are based on the geometric mean of two
orthogonal horizontal components rather than a randomly
oriented horizontal component. To investigate the spatial cor-
relation for the latter, we randomly selected a component
from each record and used these selected components to de-
Figure 3. Comparison of the spatial correlation based on all
velop the GMPEs by ignoring and considering the spatial cor- events with that based on major six events (for comparison purpose,
relation. However, the analysis results based on a single run the samples given by Goda and Hong [2008a] are also included in
of the randomly selected components may not be sufficiently the figure).
 934
Figure 4. Comparison of the spatial correlation for a randomly
oriented horizontal component (based on the mean of 50 runs)
with that based on the geometric mean of two orthogonal horizontal
components.
mean, which is consistent with the results reported by Goda
and Hong (2008a).
Conclusions
It is shown that the intraevent spatial correlation of
ground-motion parameters can be incorporated in the popu-
lar algorithms given by Joyner and Boore (1993) for devel-
oping ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE). This is
advantageous because the use of the modified algorithms
provides not only GMPE parameters but also parameters for
the spatial correlation model, which is valuable for seismic
risk analysis of a portfolio of spatially distributed structures.
The modified algorithms are applied to a set of 592 Cal-
ifornia records. The results indicate that the differences in
the estimated GMPE parameters by excluding or including
the spatial correlation are insignificant and that the obtained
parameters for an empirical spatial correlation model are
similar to those based on statistical analysis of regression
residuals, which were reported previously for the same set
of records.
Data and Resources
We acknowledge that strong ground motion data are
obtained from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) data-
View publication stats
Short Note
base (http://peer.berkeley.edu/nga/index.html) sponsored by
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center.
Acknowledgments
The financial support of the Natural Science and Engineering Re-
search Council of Canada and the University of Western Ontario are grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and R. R. Youngs (1992). A stable algorithm for re-
gression analysis using the random effects model, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 82, 505–510.
Baker, J. W., and C. A. Cornell (2006). Correlation of response spec-
tral values for multicomponent ground motions, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 96, 215–227.
Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson (2008). Ground-motion prediction
equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and
5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthq.
Spectra 24, 99–138.
Boore, D. M., J. F. Gibbs, W. B. Joyner, J. C. Tinsley, and D. J. Ponti (2003).
Estimated ground motion from the 1994 Northridge, California, earth-
quake at the site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega boulevard bridge
collapse, west Los Angeles, California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93,
2737–2751.
Goda, K., and H. P. Hong (2008a). Spatial correlation of peak ground mo-
tions and response spectra, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 354–365.
Goda, K., and H. P. Hong (2008b). Estimation of seismic loss for spatially
distributed buildings, Earthq. Spectra 24, 889–910.
Hong, H. P., and K. Goda (2007). Orientation-dependent ground-motion
measure for seismic hazard assessment, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97,
1525–1538.
Joyner, W. B., and D. M. Boore (1993). Methods for regression analysis of
strong-motion data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 469–487.
Kawakami, H., and H. Mogi (2003). Analyzing spatial intraevent variability
of peak ground accelerations as a function of separation distance, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1079–1090.
Kawakami, H., and S. Sharma (1999). Statistical study of spatial variation of
response spectrum using free field records of dense strong ground mo-
tion arrays, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28, 1273–1294.
Wang, M., and T. Takada (2005). Macrospatial correlation model of seismic
ground motions, Earthq. Spectra 21, 1137–1156.
Wesson, R. L., and D. M. Perkins (2001). Spatial correlation of probabilis-
tic earthquake ground motion and loss, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 91,
1498–1515.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Western Ontario
Canada N6A 5B9
hongh@eng.uwo.ca
Manuscript received 4 July 2008