English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Accelerometric data from the well-studied valley EUROSEISTEST are used to investigate ground motion uncertainty and variability. We define a simple local ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) and investigate changes in standard deviation () and its components, the between-event variability () and within-event variability (). Improving seismological metadata significantly reduces  (30–50%), which in turn reduces the total  Improving site information reduces the systematic site-to-site variability,   (20–30%), in turn reducing , and ultimately, . Our values of standard deviations are lower than global values from literature, and closer to path-specific than site-specific values. However, our data have insufficient azimuthal coverage for single-path analysis. Certain stations have higher ground-motion variability, possibly due to topography, basin edge or downgoing wave effects. Sensitivity checks show that 3 recordings per event is a sufficient data selection criterion, however, one of the dataset’s advantages is the large number of recordings per station (9–90) that yields good site term estimates. We examine uncertainty components binning our data with magnitude from 0.01 to 2 s; at smaller magnitudes,  decreases and   increases, possibly due to κ and source-site trade-offs Finally, we investigate the alternative approach of computing   using existing GMPEs instead of creating an ad hoc local GMPE. This is important where data are insufficient to create one, or when site-specific PSHA is performed. We show that global GMPEs may still capture  , provided that: (1) the magnitude scaling errors are accommodated by the event terms; (2) there are no distance scaling errors (use of a regionally applicable model). Site terms ( ) computed by different global GMPEs (using different site-proxies) vary significantly, especially for hard-rock sites. This indicates that GMPEs may be poorly constrained where they are sometimes most needed, i.e., for hard rock.

Understanding single-station ground motion variability and uncertainty (sigma): lessons learnt from EUROSEISTEST