Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 1101–1108, June 2011, doi: 10.

1785/0120100246

Accounting for Site Characterization Uncertainties When

Developing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations
by Pierre Gehl, Luis Fabian Bonilla, and John Douglas

Abstract Current ground-motion prediction equations invariably assume that site

conditions at strong-motion stations, often characterized by the average shear-wave
velocity to a depth of 30 m (V S30 ), are known to a uniform accuracy. This is, however,
rarely the case. In this article, we present a regression procedure based on generalized
least-squares and maximum-likelihood approaches that take into account the varying
uncertainties on V S30 . Assuming that V S30 s for various groups of stations are known to
different accuracies, application of this procedure to a large set of records from the
Japanese KiK-net shows that the regression coefficients are largely insensitive to the
assumption of nonuniform uncertainties. However, this procedure allows the compu-
tation of a site-specific standard deviation (σ) that should be used for sites where V S30
is known to different accuracies (e.g., a site only specified by class or a site with a
measured V S profile). For sites with a measured V S profile, this leads to lower site-
specific σ than for a site that is poorly characterized because this technique explicitly
models the separation between the epistemic uncertainty in V S30 and the aleatory
variability in predicted ground motion.

Introduction
The accurate and robust estimation of the shaking to be
expected during a future earthquake is a key element in
seismic hazard assessment. For most applications this esti-
mation is made using ground-motion prediction equations
(GMPEs) connecting the magnitude, source-to-site distance,
and generally other parameters (e.g., local site conditions)
to the expected median strong-motion intensity parameter
(e.g., peak ground acceleration, PGA) and its associated
variability, characterized by a standard deviation σ. For
active tectonic regimes, these GMPEs are invariably derived
by regression analysis on available strong-motion data
(Douglas, 2003). The standard deviation of these GMPEs
has a great impact on the results obtained from seismic
hazard analysis, particularly at long return periods, and con-
sequently there have been many recent efforts seeking to
better understand σ and, ideally, to reduce it (Strasser et al.,
2009, and references therein). Local site effects have been
the focus of many recent studies that address the cause of
variability in earthquake ground motions. They are related
to variations of the near-surface geology or surface topogra-
phy at strong-motion stations (Lee and Anderson, 2000;
Atkinson, 2006; Bragato, 2008). This is a promising area
in which to concentrate efforts because, in theory at least,
local site conditions can be well characterized before an
earthquake. However, most previous studies have concluded
that, although site effects due to variations in near-surface
shear-wave velocities can have a dramatic effect on ground
motions recorded at individual sites, overall reductions in σ
through better site characterization are quite small; for
example, 6% if a term accounting for the average shear-
wave velocity to a depth of 30 m (V S30 ) is introduced into
the GMPE, according to Bragato (2008), who used data
from Europe and the Middle East. Despite this possible
small reduction in σ through better modeling of site effects,
it is still an important avenue to explore because any
decrease in σ can lead to a dramatic decrease in assessed
seismic hazard at long return periods (Bommer and Abra-
hamson, 2006, figure 3).
When deriving empirical GMPEs, the strong-motion
databases available are invariably nonoptimal; for example,
some information that would allow for better modeling of the
source, travel path, or site is not available. A common exam-
ple of this is that the detail and quality of the characterization
of the near-surface V S profile varies greatly from station to
station. This means that GMPE developers often have to
default to crude site classes when deriving their models
(Douglas et al., 2009). Douglas et al. (2009) present a tech-
nique that takes into account all available information to
estimate stochastic V S profiles and their confidence limits
for a given site. In addition, they suggest including this site
information when deriving GMPEs. The issue of the influ-
ence of specific uncertainties on the variability of GMPEs
has been addressed by Moss (2009, 2011), who used a Baye-
sian regression framework for his analysis.

1101
1102
The purpose of this article is to present a new regression
technique that can be coupled with the approach of Douglas
et al. (2009) to account for variations in the widths of the
confidence limits between stations when weighting data
within the regression. The regression technique is described
in the next section (Proposed Method for Regression
Analysis). The subsequent section (Verification with Data
from Joyner and Boore [1981]) presents some tests of the
technique using previously published datasets. Then, a data-
set from KiK-net is used to test the sensitivity of the GMPEs
and associated standard deviations to assumed uncertainties
in V S estimates, and the results are discussed. Finally, the
article ends with some brief conclusions.
Proposed Method for Regression Analysis
This section presents the regression technique developed
in this study to account for uncertainties in the V S profile.
The approach presented is based on generalized least-squares
and maximum-likelihood regression methods.
Introduction of Individual Uncertainties
In some GMPEs, site effects are accounted for by the
introduction of a term proportional to V S30 (Boore et al.,
1997). Thus, uncertainties in the near-surface site conditions,
modeled by uncertainties on V S30 , are mapped into the
standard deviations associated with the derived GMPEs.
Depending on the recording station, the knowledge of
V S30 is highly heterogeneous, ranging from practically none
to a V S profile that is accurate down to many hundreds of
meters (Douglas et al., 2009). Almost all existing GMPEs
do not account for this discrepancy and assume the same
uncertainty for all stations, this uncertainty usually being
based on the lowest degree of knowledge available among
the recording stations. A more accurate way to proceed
would be to introduce an individual uncertainty on V S30 for
each station, depending on the available site information.
Accounting for individual uncertainties would lower the
assessed variability of the derived GMPEs. Moreover, this
individual information, if properly used in the regression pro-
cedure, can help to weight the participation of each recorded
accelerogram (depending on the uncertainty associated with
the stations’ V S estimates).
However, the introduction of individual uncertainties
leads to associating different variances to the random vari-
ables, thus generating heteroscedasticity in the dataset.
Homoscedastic models can be solved using ordinary least-
squares regression, which makes the assumption of an error
term with constant variance (i.e., a diagonal variance–
covariance matrix with equal elements). Conversely, data
presenting heteroscedasticity must be regressed with general-
ized least-squares (GLS) regression, which involves weight-
ing by the inverse of the nondiagonal variance–covariance
matrix V, with variable elements.
P. Gehl, L. F. Bonilla, and J. Douglas
Let us consider a dataset where k earthquakes were each
recorded by ni stations, i ranging from 1 to k. Let us define
yi;j to be the common (base ten) logarithm of the considered
strong-motion parameter (e.g., PGA) generated by earth-
quake i and recorded by station j, with j ranging from 1
to ni . We then assume the following regression model, based
on the one introduced by Brillinger and Preisler (1985) and
developed by Abrahamson and Youngs (1992):
yi;j
α  βMi  γ logV S30;j 
 fri;j ; θ  ηi  χj  ϵi;j ; (1)
where Mi represents the i-th earthquake magnitude, V S30;j
refers to V S30 for station j, and ri;j stands for the distance
between the earthquake i and the recording station j.
Coefficients α, β, γ, and θ are the unknown parameters to
be determined by the regression. We introduce the interevent
variations (between-event residual; error term ηi ), the intrae-
vent variations (within-event residual; error term χj ), and the
record-to-record error term ϵi;j (random effects regression, as
introduced by Brillinger and Preisler [1985]). We then make
the assumption that all error terms just described here follow
a normal distribution with means equal to zero and the
following variances: σ2e for ηi, σ2S for χj, and σ20 for ϵi;j. This
procedure is well documented in appendix A of Joyner and
Boore (1993).
The next step deals with the introduction of the uncer-
tainty on V S30;j and is largely based on the approach proposed
by Rhoades (1997), who considers individual magnitude
uncertainties instead of uncertainties in V S30 . First, we define
LVj
logV S30;j  and assume here that the distribution of
LVj for a given station is normal, with a variance equal to
s2j (unlike the other variances introduced previously in this
article, this one is an input to the regression and is known
for each station). We can now define L^ Vj to be the exact
value of LVj and δj , its associated error term. Equation 1 then
becomes
yi;j
α  βMi  γ L^ Vj  fri;j ; θ  ηi  ζ j  ϵi;j ; (2)
where ζ j
γδ j  χj is also normally distributed, with a
variance equal to γ 2 s2j  σ2S .
Generalized Least-Squares Regression
We now focus on the resolution of the problem defined
in the previous subsection. Equation 2 can be rewritten in
matrix form as
Y
XB  e; (3)
where Y is a column vector containing the yi;j values,
ordered following the earthquake numbers; B is a column
vector containing the coefficients α, β, γ, and θ; X is the
Jacobian matrix of Y; and e is the vector of variations,
composed of a linear combination of ηi , ζ j , and ϵi;j .
Accounting for Site Characterization Uncertainties When Developing Prediction Equations
According to the GLS regression procedure, the solution
B
^ is given by
^
XT V1 X1 XT V1 Y;
B (4)
where V is the variance–covariance matrix. Here, V is non-
diagonal and contains nonequal elements. Diagonal elements
of V are equal to γ 2 s2j  σ2S  σ2e  σ20 , and nondiagonal
elements can take the following values:
1. σ2e , if the element concerns the same earthquake;
2. γ 2 s2j  σ2S , if the element concerns the same station; and
3. Zero in all other cases.
The problem is solved following an iterative scheme.
First, we evaluate F
XB with an initial guess for X and
B (known as B0 ), and then we estimate the following vector:
b
XT V1 X1 XT V1 Y  F: (5)
We then define B1
B0  b, we modify the values of X
and F accordingly, and we repeat equation 5 until conver-
gence toward a final value of B is obtained. This first step
assumes, however, that the variance–covariance matrix V
is fixed or known in advance, which is not true in this
problem. One solution is to design an iterative procedure that
performs the following two steps:
1. Determine a solution B, given an initial guess of V.
2. Given that value of B, estimate the best coefficients in
matrix V.
Once we have a first approximation of B (step 1), it is
indeed possible to estimate V using the maximum-likelihood
method (step 2, as described in the next subsection,
Maximum-Likelihood Method).
Maximum-Likelihood Method
The likelihood function of the sample of N observations
is given by


1
L
2πN=2 jVj1=2 exp  Y  XBT V1 Y  XB :
2 In this section, a test of the developed regression tech-
(6)
If we take the natural logarithm of equation 6, we obtain
N 1 1 based on this dataset, and it is possible to verify the imple-
ln L
 ln2π  ln jVj  Y  XBT V1 Y  XB:
2 2 2
(7)
The maximization of the quantity ln L with respect to the
variances σ2S , σ2e , and σ20 will then lead to the best estimate of
V. Maximizing ln L is equivalent to minimizing the follow-
ing simplified quantity (all the noncontributing constants can
be ignored):
1103
Q
ln jVj  Y  XBT V1 Y
XB: (8)
In this case, as the matrix V is more complex than a diagonal
or block-diagonal matrix, no straightforward analytical
expression of V1 can be found (unlike the procedure
described by Abrahamson and Youngs [1992]), and we
numerically invert V at each step and minimize the quantity
Q using a standard Nelder–Mead simplex method. Because
V is a block diagonal matrix with sparse off-diagonal
elements, its inversion using standard procedures is straight-
forward, and there are no numerical issues even for large
datasets such as used here (more than 3000 records). This
second step enables the definition of the matrix V, which
can then be used in step 1 (GLS regression) in order to update
the value of B, and so on. We assume that the algorithm has
converged when B is stabilized (less than a 103 difference
between two consecutive values of kBk∞ ).
This iterative procedure (alternating between GLS
regression and the maximum-likelihood method) has been
tested on a few well-studied datasets (see Verification with
Data from Joyner and Boore [1981] section), and conver-
gence was obtained within several iterations. Numerically
inverting the nondiagonal matrix V within this procedure
can take several hours to run on current desktop computers
for large datasets. It should be noted, however, that the
approach presented here, when the fixed and random effects
are estimated alternately, may not be applicable when non-
linear site amplification is considered (e.g., here we have
only the term γ logV S30 , which can be easily translated into
the linear term γLVj ). If the site term is nonlinear, then the
formulation to consider uncertainties in V S30 becomes less
straightforward. As an example, Stafford (2006, p. 339) pre-
sents an extension of Rhoades (1997) when there is a quad-
ratic M term and uncertainty in M, and the expression for the
likelihood is more complex. To consider nonlinear site
response that is a function of the amplitude of the input
motion, a direct but time-consuming numerical optimization
scheme to maximize the likelihood would have to be used
rather than the approach proposed here.
Verification with Data from Joyner and Boore (1981)
nique is made using the data of Joyner and Boore (1981),
which has often been used to test proposed regression tech-
niques. As a consequence there are many available results
mentation of our regression method against previous studies.
Joyner and Boore (1981) developed a GMPE for PGA using
data mainly from California, with the addition of a handful of
records from Alaska and Nicaragua (182 records from 23
earthquakes were used).
The main objective here is to check the accuracy of the
introduction of intraevent variations along with record-to-
record variations (i.e., the error term χj  ϵi;j ), without
introducing any consideration of site conditions for now.
1104 P. Gehl, L. F. Bonilla, and J. Douglas

7.5
This procedure was already carried out by Joyner and Boore
(1993) in their appendix A, using a one-stage maximum-
7
likelihood method with the following functional form

Moment magnitude (Mw)

(formulation of Brillinger and Preisler [1985]):
6.5
q
y
α  βM  6  log r2jb  h2 6
q
 γ r2jb  h2  ϵe  ϵS  ϵr ; (9) 5.5

where y stands for the common logarithm of the peak ground 5

acceleration (i.e., logPGA, given in g), and rjb represents
the Joyner–Boore distance, defined as the shortest distance to
the surface projection of the rupture surface. The coefficients
to be determined are α, β, γ, and h. Because equation 9 is
nonlinear in h, we linearize it using a first-order Taylor
expansion in the same manner as Joyner and Boore (1993,
equations 2–4). We can directly use our method, as described
in this article, by deleting the term logV S30  and setting the
variable s2 to 0 for all sites (implying no information is
available on any individual site uncertainties). The results
are compared with those reported by Joyner and Boore
(1993) in Table 1; an excellent agreement can be seen.
Convergence was obtained within eight steps.
Application to the KiK-net Dataset
In this section, the procedure is applied to a large set of
data from surface stations of the Japanese KiK-net (see Data
and Resources section) to investigate the impact of varying
V S uncertainties on the regression coefficients and associated
standard deviations. We reuse data processed and provided
by Cotton et al. (2008) and Rodriguez-Marek and Montalva
(2010), which includes 3874 accelerograms corresponding to
335 events recorded by 537 stations. The moment magnitude
(Mw ) of the events spans 4 to 7.3, and the distance to
the rupture (rrup ) ranges from roughly 0 to 340 km. The
magnitude–distance distribution is shown in Figure 1. An
estimate of V S30 is also available for each site: most of the
recordings come from National Earthquake Hazards Reduc-
tion Program (NEHRP) soil classes C and D (2405 and 1022
recordings, respectively), while other classes are much less
represented (399 in class B, 42 in class E, and 6 for class A).
Table 1
Comparison of Results between the Method of This
Article and That of Joyner and Boore (1993)*
Parameter This Article Joyner and Boore (1993, Appendix A)
α 0.454 0.454
β 0.255 0.256
γ 0:00216 0:00217
h 7.05 7.08
σ0 0.188 0.188
σe 0.081 0.085
σS 0.144 0.148
*Dataset from Joyner and Boore (1981).
4.5
4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Rupture distance (km)
Figure 1. Magnitude–distance distribution of the KiK-net data
used for regression analysis.
It is obvious that the studied dataset lacks large events, but
the objective here is not to develop new GMPEs for use in
seismic hazard assessment but to show the effects of the
introduction of measurement uncertainty on the regression
results.
Effect of Uniform Uncertainties in V S30 Estimates
Using these data, we can now perform a regression with
the following functional form, which is a simplified formu-
lation of Boore and Atkinson (2008):
q
y
α  βM  6  γM  62  log r2rup  h2
q V
 δ r2rup  h2  ζ log S30  ϵe  ϵS  ϵr : (10)
760
We then use the proposed regression method to carry out
the following analyses:
1. One regression of the model but without the V S30 term;
2. One regression of the exact model (zero uncertainty on
V S30 ); and
3. Three regressions assuming increasing uncertainty on
V S30 . (All stations are assigned the same standard devia-
tion s on logV S30 : first s
0:0434, then s
0:1520,
and finally s
0:2171). The value of 0.1520 has been
chosen because it approximately represents the average
uncertainty of logV S30  when only the soil class is
known. Indeed, in a previous study, Rathje et al. (2010)
proposed some parameters to use for shear-wave velocity
randomization, which range from 0.27 to 0.37 for σln V S :
thus, we chose σln V S
0:35 as an average value, which
σln V S
leads to s
ln10
0:1520. Similarly, 0.0434 corre-
sponds to σln V S
0:10, and s
0:2171 corresponds to
σln V S
0:50 to cover the range of possible uncertainties
in V S30 .
Accounting for Site Characterization Uncertainties When Developing Prediction Equations 1105

100
For each case, a GMPE is derived for PGA, as well as
90 s = 0.0434
spectral acceleration (SA) at different periods (0.1, 0.2,
s = 0.1520
0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 s). After a few steps, convergence is 80 s = 0.2171
achieved: the final results for SA (1 s) are presented in

σs decrease (%)
70
Table 2. As shown in Figure 2, the impact σs of accounting
60
for uncertainties on V S30 is greatest for SA (1 s) and minimal
for PGA. 50
First, it is worth noting that the regression model without 40
the V S30 term leads to higher σs (by 34% with respect to the 30
exact model), which constitutes an argument in favor of the
20
introduction of the V S30 term in the functional form. We can
also observe that regression coefficients for the functional 10
form with the V S30 term are unaltered by the introduction 0
of uniform uncertainty. This is expected because stations PGA SA 0.1s SA 0.2s SA 0.5s SA 1.0s SA 2.0s
with equal uncertainty on V S30 have the same weight in Acceleration
equation 5. Therefore, the coefficients remain identical. Figure 2. Decrease of σs for PGA and SA at different periods.
Regarding the aleatory variability associated with the
GMPEs, we witness a decrease of σs , the term related to uncertainty on V S30 is mostly noticeable at longer periods.
intraevent variability. On the contrary, terms σe and σ0 are Moss (2009, 2011) reached the same conclusion in his study.
not modified. This is a direct consequence of the structure The reason for this is that V S30 is the parameter used here to
of the variance–covariance matrix: in the models accounting model site effects, and the uncertainties on this value have
for uncertainty, the term σ2s is replaced by σ2S  ζ 2 s2 (s being the greatest impact at periods showing the highest depen-
the standard deviation of log V S30 ), whereas other terms in σ2e dence on V S30 (generally around 1.0 s, which corresponds to
and σ20 remain unchanged. Yet, this decrease in σs has no the period where the highest amplification occurs for NEHRP
consequence on the global uncertainty of the GMPE because class C soils [e.g., Ambraseys et al., 2005, figure 10b] that
p provide the majority of data used here).
σtotal is now expressed as σ20  σ2s  ζ 2 s2  σ2e , thus
integrating the uncertainty on V S30 . In the example of Table 2,
we see that assuming an s of 0.1520 leads to a reduction of
Effect of Individual Uncertainties on V S30
30% in σs , resulting in a 7.6% decrease of the expression
p While the previous subsection shows what happens
σ20  σ2S  σ2e . These results can be put in perspective
by similar studies from Moss (2009, 2011), who used a when the same uncertainty is assumed for all sites, we pro-
Bayesian regression to model the effects of variability on pose here to introduce uncertainties for only a subset of
V S30 on global uncertainty: an average coefficient of varia- stations. We choose to use the obvious distinction of NEHRP
site classes to carry out the following regressions:
tion of 27% on V S30 led to a 7% decrease for SA (1 s), which
is in line with the results shown here. 1. One with all stations from site classes A and B, having
We also plot the dependency of the σS decrease with s
0:1520 (405 records);
respect to the spectral period considered (see Fig. 2). It 2. One with all stations from site class C, having
appears that the effect of the introduction of measurement s
0:1520 (2405 records);

Table 2
Comparison of Results between the Model without the V S30 Term, the Exact
Model, and the Models Assuming Different Values of s for the KiK-net
Dataset for SA (1 s)
Parameter Model without V S30 Exact Model s
0:0434 s
0:1520 s
0:2171

α 3.079 2.855 2.855 2.855 2.856

β 0.731 0.728 0.728 0.728 0.728
γ 0:196 0:191 0:191 0:191 0:191
δ 0:0017 0:0016 0:0016 0:0016 0:0016
h 1.680 1.638 1.638 1.638 1.643
ζ - 0:896 0:896 0:896 0:896
σ0 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.203
σe 0.220 0.221 0.221 0.221 0.221
σs * 0.255 0.190 0.186 0.132 0.00004
*The numbers in italics are the different values of σs , which are the most affected by the
introduction of uncertainties.
1106 P. Gehl, L. F. Bonilla, and J. Douglas

1000
3. One with all stations from site class D, having
s
0:1520 (1022 records); and
500
4. One with all stations from site class E, having s
0:1520
(42 records).

For each regression, V S30 at all other sites is assumed to
be precisely known (i.e., s
0).
Table 3 displays the regression results for SA (1 s) and
compares the results to those for the exact model. Again, we
observe a decrease of σs , yet the reduction is smaller than in
the previous case (when uncertainty in V S30 was assumed for
all sites). This is expected, as a smaller number of records are
associated with uncertainty on V S30 (for instance, 2405 re-
cords out of a total of 3874 for class C and less for other
classes). On the other hand, we can see that when uncertainty
is no longer uniform, the regression coefficients are slightly
different from the exact model. Indeed, this is one of the aims
of the proposed regression scheme, as it gives more weight to
the records from sites with low uncertainty (compared to
those with higher uncertainty).
Plots (e.g., Fig. 3) of the predicted response spectra
using the different GMPEs show slight differences between
the model assuming no uncertainty and those assuming
nonuniform uncertainties. These differences are mostly
significant if spectra for higher fractiles (e.g., 1σ) are
considered. Hence this regression procedure could have an
impact on seismic hazard assessments for long return peri-
ods, which are highly sensitive to changes in σ.
Discussion of the Results
A first look at our results shows that the introduction of
measurement uncertainty on V S30 leads to a reduction of σs .
This seems quite counterintuitive because the introduction
of some uncertainty usually propagates to greater variability
in the final result. Yet, one has to keep in mind that the
global standard deviation of the GMPE (usually σtotal

p
σ20  σ2e  σ2S in an exact model) now becomes σtotal

p
σ20  σ2e  σ2S  ζ 2 s2 , when some uncertainty to V S30 is
added. In this example, ζ stands for the regression coefficient
SA 1.0s (cm/s²)
200
100
50
20
10
10 20 50 100
Rupture distance (km)
Figure 3. Predicted SA (1 s) with respect to rupture distance,
for a Mw 6:5 earthquake and a site with V S30
300 m=s. The dotted
line represents the GMPE without accounting for uncertainties on
V S30 , and the solid one is the model with s
0:1520 for class
C sites. The upper and lower sets of curves represent 1σ.
associated with the log V S30 term, and s is the standard
deviation of log V S30 .
This means that when we assume the same uncertainty
of V S30 for all stations (e.g., s
0:1520), the global
standard deviation of the GMPE is evaluated as σtotal

p
0:2032  0:2212  0:1322  0:8962 0:15202
0:355, ac-
cording to the results of Table 2 for SA (1 s). For the exact
model (no uncertainty), this standard deviation remains
p
σtotal
0:2032  0:2212  0:1902
0:355. Thus, as
expected, we find the same value for the final variability:
the introduction of uniform uncertainty does not change
the global uncertainty of the GMPE, yet it is useful in
discriminating σs into aleatory variability and epistemic
uncertainty.
Finally, if we use a more refined uncertainty model
(V S30 s at only a subset of stations are assumed to be uncer-
tain, as described in the previous subsection, Effect of Indi-
vidual Uncertainties on VS30), we can obtain different values

Table 3
Comparison of Results between the Exact and the Uncertain Models
(s
0:1520) with the KiK-net Dataset for SA (1 s)
Parameter Exact Model Classes A and B Class C Class D Class E

Nb of recordings - 405 2405 1022 42

α 2.855 2.848 2.868 2.851 2.857
β 0.728 0.727 0.729 0.727 0.728
γ 0:191 0:191 0:190 0:190 0:191
δ 0:0016 0:0016 0:0016 0:0016 0:0016
h 1.638 1.637 1.648 1.638 1.638
ζ 0:896 0:922 0:885 0:888 0:887
σ0 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.203 0.203
σe 0.221 0.221 0.220 0.222 0.221
σs 0.190 0.187 0.180 0.174 0.189
Accounting for Site Characterization Uncertainties When Developing Prediction Equations
of σtotal , depending on the information available for a given
site. For instance, let us use the results of Table 3 when the
uncertainty is only applied to class C sites. The standard de-
viation σtotal can be estimated with the following approaches:
1. If the studied site is a class C site, with
no accurate information on
p
0:2032  0:2202  0:1802  0:8852 0:15202

0:374.
2. If the studied site has a well-known shear-wave
velocity profile (no uncertainty):
p
0:203  0:220  0:180  0:885 0
0:349.
2 2 2 2
In this example, there are only two different values of s
(0 for 1469 records and 0.1520 for 2045 records from class C
sites). For different values of s, can σtotal be computed? If so,
how? To answer these questions, we conducted additional
analyses. First, the data were split into two random halves
(one half with s
0:0434 and one with s
0:2171), and
a regression was conducted (herein called the two-part test).
Second, the data were split into four quarters, each quarter
with a given value of s (0, 0.0434, 0.1520 and 0.2171), and a
regression was conducted (herein called the four-part test).
Finally, regression was conducted on data with random s
for each station, chosen from a normal distribution with
mean of 0.1520 and standard deviation 0.03 (herein called
the random test). It was found that the coefficients of the
GMPEs and σ0 and σe are similar enough to assume that
the value of σtotal is controlled by σs and s. For each test (plus
the results for class C reported in Table 3), σtotal s were com-
puted for each value of s present in the input data and the
values plotted (Fig. 4).
The curves in Figure 4 come from the same dataset but
use different values of s. The first observation is that these
curves do not show the same value of σtotal for s
0; this
difference, which is especially noticeable for the random test,
0.4
0.39
0.38
σ total
0.37
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.33
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Uncertainty s on log(VS30)
Figure 4. The σtotal from four tests for different values of s pre-
sent in the original dataset. Mean s for each test are: 0.0944 (class
C), 0.1027 (four-part), 0.1352 (two-part), and 0.1549 (random).
1107
is due to differences in the average s for the dataset. Higher
levels of average s tend to lead to lower estimates of σtotal for
the end member s
0. The four-part and class C tests have
almost identical average s and, therefore, can be compared. It
can be seen that it is possible to estimate σtotal by interpola-
tion for values of s not present in the original data; for
V S30 : σtotal

 example, for s
0:0434. However, this interpolation is only
roughly correct, and σtotal should not be estimated by extra-
polation to values of s much higher or lower than those
present in the dataset.
σtotal

These results are instructive because they show that the
2
introduction of individual uncertainties can lead to the esti-
mation of site-specific σs, based on the degree of knowledge
of the site conditions. This provides a refinement in the use of
GMPEs, compared to the strategy that consists of applying
the same uncertainty to all sites (usually the greatest, as a
limiting factor). To conclude, we could say that this regres-
sion approach does not lead to a reduction in the total σ, but it
is an appropriate way to separate the components of varia-
bility, thus giving an opportunity to refine GMPEs by putting
extra effort on the improvement of site characterization, for
example.
Conclusions
In this article, a new regression procedure has been
presented that allows GMPEs to be developed from strong-
motion data recorded at sites characterized to varying levels
(e.g., from rock/soil classification to measured V S profiles).
The impact on derived regression coefficients of applying
this procedure to large sets of data is limited, but it does have
a significant effect on the separation of standard deviation
into its different components (particularly site-to-site varia-
bility). In addition, the procedure provides parameters that
can be used to compute site-specific standard deviations,
taking into account the accuracy of the available site infor-
mation. These site-specific standard deviations are lower for
sites where detailed site information is available, as com-
pared to locations that are poorly characterized. This shows
the benefit of conducting geotechnical and geophysical in-
vestigations at a site of interest because these lower standard
deviations will lead to lower ground-motion estimates for
long return periods. The approach presented here assumes
a site term that is linear in log V S30 . Further development
of the regression method would be required if a more com-
plex site term was assumed.
two−part test
By way of a closing remark, a similar method to that
four−part test proposed here to account for uncertainties in site character-
class C test ization could be used to consider uncertainties in other inde-
random test pendent parameters used within GMPEs (e.g., source-to-site
distances).
0.2 0.25
Data and Resources
The KiK-net data used in this article come from the
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
1108
Prevention (NIED) data management center at www.kik
.bosai.go.jp (records collected between January 1996 and
October 2004). More information about the data format
can be found at www.k-net.bosai.go.jp/k-net/man/index_en
.html. Information from the Earthquake Research Institute
has been used to define distances to the rupture (wwweic.eri
.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index-e.html). Data from the web sites listed
here were last accessed in December 2005. These data were
provided by Guillaume Pousse and Adrian Rodriguez-
Marek. The data of Joyner and Boore (1981) were extracted
from the article.
Acknowledgments
This study was partly funded by a grant from the Réseau Accélérome-
trique Permanent (RAP) of France. We would like to thank Guillaume
Pousse and Adrian Rodriguez-Marek for sharing their valuable dataset with
us and Jérémy Rohmer for his comments on an early version of this article.
Finally, we thank associate editor Peter Stafford, Pier Luigi Bragato, and an
anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments on previous versions
of this article.
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and R. R. Youngs (1992) A stable algorithm for regres-
sion analyses using the random effects model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
82, no. 1, 505–510
Ambraseys, N. N., J. Douglas, S. K. Sarma, and P. M. Smit (2005).
Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow
crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East:
Horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration, Bull.
Earthq. Eng. 3, no. 1, 1–53, doi 10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0.
Atkinson, G. M. (2006). Single-station sigma, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96,
no. 2, 446–455, doi 10.1785/0120050137.
Bommer, J. J., and N. A. Abrahamson (2006). Why do modern probabilistic
seismic-hazard analyses often lead to increased hazard estimates? Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, no. 6, 1967–1977, doi 10.1785/0120060043.
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, no. 1, 99–138, doi 10.1193/1.2830434
Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal (1997) Equations for estimating
horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North
American earthquakes: A summary of recent work, Seismol. Res. Lett.
68, no. 1, 128–153.
Bragato, P. L. (2008) Limits for the improvement of ground-motion relations
in Europe and the Middle East by accounting for site effects, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 4, 2061–2065, doi 10.1785/0120070249
Brillinger, D. R., and H. K. Preisler (1985) Further analysis of the Joyner-
Boore attenuation data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 75, no. 2, 611–614.
Cotton, F., G. Pousse, F. Bonilla, and F. Scherbaum (2008). On the discre-
pancy of recent European ground-motion observations and predictions
from empirical models: Analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and
point-sources stochastic simulations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 5,
2244–2261, doi 10.1785/0120060084
Douglas, J. (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-
motion records: A review of equations for the estimation of peak
P. Gehl, L. F. Bonilla, and J. Douglas
ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates, Earth Sci. Rev.
61, no. 1–2, 43–104.
Douglas, J., P. Gehl, L. F. Bonilla, O. Scotti, J. Régnier, A. M. Duval, and
E. Bertrand (2009). Making the most of available site information for
empirical ground-motion prediction. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, no. 3,
1502–1520, doi 10.1785/0120080075.
Joyner, W. B., and D. M. Boore (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and
velocity from strong-motion records including records from the
1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 71, no. 6, 2011–2038.
Joyner, W. B., and D. M. Boore (1993). Methods for regression analysis of
strong-motion data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, no. 2, 469–487.
Lee, Y., and J. G. Anderson (2000). Potential for improving ground-motion
relations in southern California by incorporating various site
parameters, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, no. 6B, S170–S186, doi
10.1785/0120000509
Moss, R. E. (2009) Reduced uncertainty of ground motion prediction equa-
tions through Bayesian variance analysis, Tech. Rep. PEER Report
2009/105, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 63 pages.
Moss, R. E. (2011) Reduced sigma of ground motion prediction equations
through uncertainty propagation, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101, no. 1,
250–257.
Rathje, E. M., A. R. Kottke, and W. L. Trent (2010). Influence of input
motion and site property variabilities on seismic response analysis,
J. Geotech. Geoenvir. Eng. 136, no. 4, 607–619, doi 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000255
Rhoades, D. (1997) Estimation of attenuation relations for strong-motion
data allowing for individual earthquake magnitude uncertainties, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, no. 6, 1674–1678.
Rodriguez-Marek, A., and G. Montalva (2010) Uniform hazard spectra for
site-specific applications including uncertainties on site response, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Tech. Rep. Award Number 08HQGR0086, 64 pages.
Stafford, P. J. (2006). Engineering seismological studies and seismic design
criteria for the Buller region, South Island, New Zealand, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Strasser, F. O., N. A. Abrahamson, and J. J. Bommer (2009). Sigma: Issues,
insights, and challenges, Seismol. Res. Lett. 80, no. 1, 40–56, doi
10.1785/gssrl.80.1.40.
Bureau des Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM)
Risques Naturels et Sécurité de Stockage du CO2/Risques Sismiques
(RNSC/RIS)
3 avenue C. Guillemin, BP 36009
45060 Orléans Cedex 2, France
(P.G., J.D.)
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN)
Direction de l’Environnement et de l’Intervention/Service d’Analyse des
Risques liés à la Géosphère/Bureau d’Evaluation des Risques Sismiques
pour les Installations Nucléaires
(DEI/SARG/BERSSIN)
BP 17
92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
(L.F.B.)
Manuscript received 13 September 2010