Abstract

The evaluation of the aggregate risks to spatially distributed infrastructures and portfolios of buildings requires quantification of the estimated shaking over a region. To characterize the spatial dependency of ground motion intensity measures (e.g. peak ground acceleration), a common geostatistical tool is the semivariogram. Over the past decades, different fitting approaches have been proposed in the geostatistics literature to fit semivariograms and thus characterize the correlation structure. A theoretically optimal approach has not yet been identified, as it depends on the number of observations and configuration layout. In this article, we investigate estimation methods based on the likelihood function, which, in contrast to classical least-squares methods, straightforwardly define the correlation without needing further steps, such as computing the experimental semivariogram. Our outcomes suggest that maximum-likelihood based approaches may outperform least-squares methods. Indeed, the former provides correlation estimates, that do not depend on the bin size, unlike ordinary and weighted least-squares regressions. In addition, maximum-likelihood methods lead to lower percentage errors and dispersion, independently of both the number of stations and their layout as well as of the underlying spatial correlation structure. Finally, we propose some guidelines to account for spatial correlation uncertainty within seismic hazard and risk assessments. The consideration of such dispersion in regional assessments could lead to more realistic estimations of both the ground motion and corresponding losses.

Highlights

  • Many authors (e.g. Iervolino 2013; Weatherill et al 2015; Sokolov and Ismail-Zadeh 2016; Sokolov and Wenzel 2019) have demonstrated the importance of considering regional hazard estimates when evaluating the aggregate risks to spatially-distributed infrastructure and building portfolios

  • The semivariogram is empirically evaluated from observations by pooling all data with a given inter-site spacing h and using either the robust estimator proposed by Cressie (1985) or the classic method of moments proposed by Matheron (1962)

  • We introduce alternative methods to classic least-squares regression for the estimation of the correlation structure of earthquake ground motions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many authors (e.g. Iervolino 2013; Weatherill et al 2015; Sokolov and Ismail-Zadeh 2016; Sokolov and Wenzel 2019) have demonstrated the importance of considering regional hazard estimates when evaluating the aggregate risks to spatially-distributed infrastructure and building portfolios. The assessment of the seismic hazard over a geographical region requires the quantification of the expected ground shaking at a single location, and how this shaking could vary over distances of a few kilometres This variation is captured within spatial-correlation models. Goda 2011; Heresi and Miranda 2019) have taken into account such event-to-event correlation variability The consideration of this dispersion in regional probabilistic risk assessment could lead to more realistic estimations of both the ground motion and corresponding losses. This study is a continuation of our previous work (Schiappapietra and Douglas 2020) and it aims to provide guidelines for developers and users of spatial-correlation models To achieve this goal, we use simulations of spatially-correlated ground motion fields which, as opposed to real data, provide a controlled environment where the true model is known.

Spatial correlation modelling
Spatial variability of within‐event residuals
Var εij
Fitting methods for semivariogram models
Maximum likelihood estimation
Simulations set up
The effect of bin size
Least‐squares regression versus maximum‐likelihood method
Dependence on the number of stations
Randomly simulated locations
Station layouts of past earthquakes
Findings
Discussion
Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.