@article{DouglasAkkarAmerietal.2014,
  author    = {Douglas, John and Akkar, Sinan and Ameri, Gabriele and Bard, Pierre-Yves and Bindi, Dino and Bommer, Julian J. and Bora, Sanjay Singh and Cotton, Fabrice and Derras, Boumediene and Hermkes, Marcel and Kuehn, Nicolas Martin and Luzi, Lucia and Massa, Marco and Pacor, Francesca and Riggelsen, Carsten and Sandikkaya, M. Abdullah and Scherbaum, Frank and Stafford, Peter J. and Traversa, Paola},
  title     = {Comparisons among the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of response spectral accelerations due to earthquakes in Europe and the Middle East},
  series = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1570-761X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10518-013-9522-8},
  pages     = {341 -- 358},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {This article presents comparisons among the five ground-motion models described in other articles within this special issue, in terms of data selection criteria, characteristics of the models and predicted peak ground and response spectral accelerations. Comparisons are also made with predictions from the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) models to which the models presented here have similarities (e.g. a common master database has been used) but also differences (e.g. some models in this issue are nonparametric). As a result of the differing data selection criteria and derivation techniques the predicted median ground motions show considerable differences (up to a factor of two for certain scenarios), particularly for magnitudes and distances close to or beyond the range of the available observations. The predicted influence of style-of-faulting shows much variation among models whereas site amplification factors are more similar, with peak amplification at around 1s. These differences are greater than those among predictions from the NGA models. The models for aleatory variability (sigma), however, are similar and suggest that ground-motion variability from this region is slightly higher than that predicted by the NGA models, based primarily on data from California and Taiwan.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BindiKothaWeatherilletal.2018,
  author    = {Bindi, Dino and Kotha, Sreeram Reddy and Weatherill, Graeme and Lanzano, Giovanni and Luzi, Lucia and Cotton, Fabrice},
  title     = {The pan-European engineering strong motion (ESM) flatfile},
  series = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1570-761X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10518-018-0466-x},
  pages     = {583 -- 602},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {We present the results of a consistency check performed over the flatfile extracted from the engineering strong motion (ESM) database. The flatfile includes 23,014 recordings from 2179 earthquakes in the magnitude range from 3.5 to 7.8 that occurred since the 1970s in Europe and Middle East, as presented in the companion article by Lanzano et al. (Bull Earthq Eng, 2018a). The consistency check is developed by analyzing different residual distributions obtained from ad-hoc ground motion prediction equations for the absolute spectral acceleration (SA), displacement and Fourier amplitude spectra (FAS). Only recordings from earthquakes shallower than 40 km are considered in the analysis. The between-event, between-station and event-and-station corrected residuals are computed by applying a mixed-effect regression. We identified those earthquakes, stations, and recordings showing the largest deviations from the GMPE median predictions, and also evaluated the statistical uncertainty on the median model to get insights on the applicable magnitude-distance ranges and the usable period (or frequency) range. We observed that robust median predictions are obtained up to 8 s for SA and up to 20 Hz for FAS, although median predictions for Mw ≥ 7 show significantly larger uncertainties with 'bumps' starting above 5 s for SA and below 0.3 Hz for FAS. The between-station variance dominates over the other residual variances, and the dependence of the between-station residuals on logarithm of Vs30 is well-described by a piece-wise linear function with period-dependent slopes and hinge velocity around 580 m/s. Finally, we compared the between-event residuals obtained by considering two different sources of moment magnitude. The results show that, at long periods, the between-event terms from the two regressions have a weak correlation and the overall between-event variability is dissimilar, highlighting the importance of magnitude source in the regression results.},
  language  = {en}
}