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

net/publication/281490689

Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula

Article  in  Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · September 2015

DOI: 10.1785/0120140296

CITATIONS READS
15 1,443

8 authors, including:

Antonio Emolo Nitin Sharma

University of Naples Federico II National Geophysical Research Institute
77 PUBLICATIONS   1,042 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   229 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gaetano Festa Aldo Zollo

University of Naples Federico II University of Naples Federico II
133 PUBLICATIONS   1,924 CITATIONS    422 PUBLICATIONS   7,311 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

ALERT-ES View project

Multivariate geophysical study of the Shallow structure of the Solfatara volcano - Campi Flegrei, Italy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nitin Sharma on 05 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 5, pp. –, October 2015, doi: 10.1785/0120140296

Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula

by Antonio Emolo, Nitin Sharma,* Gaetano Festa, Aldo Zollo, Vincenzo Convertito,
Jung-Ho Park, Heon-Cheol Chi, and In-Seub Lim

Abstract Ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) play a crucial role for

estimating the seismic hazard in any region using either a deterministic or a probabi-
listic approach. Indeed, they represent a reliable and fast tool to predict strong ground
motion, given source and propagation parameters. In this article, we estimated GMPEs
for the South Korea peninsula. GMPEs were computed for peak ground displacement,
peak ground velocity, peak ground acceleration, and spectral accelerations (damping
at 5%) at 13 different periods from 0.055 to 5 s. We analyzed data from 222 earth-
quakes recorded at 132 three-component stations of the South Korea Seismic
Network, from 2007 to 2012, with local magnitude ranging between 2.0 and 4.9 and
epicentral distances varying from 1.4 to ∼600 km. A nonlinear mixed effects tech-
nique is used to infer the GMPE coefficients. This technique includes both fixed and
random effects and accounts for both inter- and intraevent dependencies in the data.
Station-specific corrective coefficients were estimated by a statistical approach and
were included in the final ground-motion prediction model. Finally, predictions for
peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration are compared with observations
recorded for an M L 5.1 earthquake that occurred in 2014, the data for which were
not included in the modeling.

Online Material: Figures showing final ground-motion prediction equation

models versus observations, and intra- and interevent residuals.

Introduction
The South Korea peninsula sits on an intraplate region
that experienced complex tectonic evolution with interactions
between nonextended and extended continental crusts, includ-
ing continental collisions and rifting (Chough et al., 2000).
The worldwide seismic-hazard map indicates that South Korea
is a moderate seismic-hazard zone, which corresponds to a
maximum acceleration on a rock site of 0:2–0:8 m=s2 with a
10% probability of exceedance in 50 years or, in other words,
having a 475 year return period (Giardini et al., 1999). Several
studies based on the analysis of the historical earthquake cata-
log of South Korea, which spans a time interval from A.D. 2 to
1904, indicate an average Gutenberg–Richter b-value smaller
than one. In particular, Seo et al. (2010) suggest a b-value of
0.93, whereas Houng and Hong (2013) provide a b-value of
0.73. On the other hand, the b-value estimated from the instru-
mental seismicity (1978–2011) is 0.81 (Houng and Hong,
2013). The maximum possible magnitude of both inland
and offshore earthquakes, as determined by Seo et al.
(2010), is between 6.3 and 6.5, whereas the average maximum
magnitude for historical events estimated by Houng and Hong
*Now at Indian Institute of Geomagnetism, Plot no. 5, New Panvel, Navi
Mumbai 410218, Maharashtra, India.
(2013) is about 7.4. The differences in the results are due to the
specific methodology and dataset used for magnitude estima-
tion. The last moderate event (MS 6.5) in northwestern Korean
Peninsula occurred on 19 March 1952 (Engdahl and Villase-
ñor, 2002).
South Korea is currently undergoing a rapid economic
development, with creation of new infrastructures such as
nuclear plants, skyscrapers, supercomputers and high tech-
nology centers, large hospitals, industries, defense facilities,
schools, and universities. Thus, because of the consequent
increase in vulnerability, seismic-risk assessment and rapid
seismic-response systems are extremely important for safety
actions. In this respect, it is important to analyze ground-
motion data recorded at the modern seismic network actually
operating in the country.
In this article, we present the first ground-motion predic-
tion equations (GMPEs) for the South Korean Peninsula
derived from ground-motion records. GMPEs are empirical
relations that describe the amplitude of ground motion at the
considered sites using magnitude, distance, local site effects,
and other possible predictor variables. Various studies
emphasized the development of new GMPEs or the updating
of existing ones, because they play a key role in seismic-

BSSA Early Edition / 1

2 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim
hazard estimations (e.g., Boore and Atkinson, 2008; Atkinson
and Boore, 2011; Boore et al., 2013; Kurzon et al., 2014). Up
to now, seismic engineers either have used South Korea
empirical GMPEs estimated in other countries or developed
site-specific ones (e.g., Choi et al., 2009; Kurzon et al., 2014).
We estimated the GMPEs for peak ground displacement
(PGD), peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration
(PGA), and 5% damped spectral acceleration (SA) at 13 differ-
ent periods in the interval between 0.055 and 5.0 s. The
regression coefficients were inferred through a nonlinear
mixed effects analysis (Lindstrom and Bates, 1990; Abraham-
son and Youngs, 1992; Sharma et al., 2013). This technique
was proposed as an alternative method to the standard nonlin-
ear regression analysis. In the latter case, all the dependencies
between response variables (e.g., PGA, PGV, etc.) and predic-
tive variables (e.g., magnitude, distance, and site effect) are
inferred from the data using either a one-stage or a two-stage
procedure (e.g., Joyner and Boore, 1993), and only the record-
to-record (or interevent) contribution to the total variance is
considered. Thus, this approach is regarded as a fixed effects
model. As an alternative, Brillinger and Preisler (1984) pro-
posed the random effect model, in which an additional term
explicitly accounts for both the peculiarities of individual
earthquakes (e.g., focal mechanism, source directivity effect,
etc.) and for the correlation between the records associated
with the same event. On the other hand, the mixed effects
model assumes that the error is composed by two different
contributions, the interevent and the intraevent terms, which
are considered to be independent, normally distributed varia-
bles with their own variances.
The interevent and intraevent standard deviations of the
ground-motion model represent the earthquake-to-earth-
quake variability and the variability among observations
within a single event, respectively (Abrahamson and Silva,
1997; Al Atik et al., 2010). The different approaches aimed
at separating the contribution of the single components to the
total standard error (i.e., interevent and intraevent terms),
mainly differ for the algorithm they implement. Here we used
the algorithm proposed by Lindstrom and Bates (1990),
implemented in the nlmefit function in the MATLAB
software package (see Data and Resources).
In this study, we adopted a two-step method to obtain
GMPEs (Emolo et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2013). In the first
step, we retrieved a model that does not explicitly include
any possible station effect (reference model). In the second
step, we introduced an additional parameter in the model that
accounts for a first-order station correction. As detailed
below, the station corrective coefficient is evaluated by ana-
lyzing the residual distribution at each station with respect to
the reference model. Residuals are defined here as the differ-
ence between the common logarithms of the observed and
predicted ground-motion parameters. The Z-test was then
used to check the null hypothesis of a zero-mean residuals
distribution: receivers, for which a statistically significant
deviation from zero was observed, are assumed to be subject
to a station effect (Emolo et al., 2011). Thus, based on the
BSSA Early Edition
Z-test results, we were able to assign a corrective coefficient
for each station, which allows reduction of the standard
deviation of the residual distribution. Specifically, we
assigned a coefficient 0 to all the stations with zero-mean
residual (i.e., predictions equal to the observations), a coef-
ficient
1 to stations with a positive deviation from zero
(i.e., predictions underestimate the observations), and a
coefficient −1 to stations with a negative deviation from zero
(i.e., predictions overestimate the observations). The addition
of this new parameter to the reference model provides the
final regression model. We prefer the final model as the best,
based on the improvement of both total standard deviation
and R2 statistics, which measure how well the regression
curve approximates real data points (Draper and Smith,
1996). As a validation test, we compared the predictions ob-
tained through the best model with respect to data recorded
during the M L 5.1 event that occurred on 1 April 2014 and
which was not included in the original dataset used to infer
the GMPE coefficients.
Dataset and Processing
In this study, we used waveforms recorded at the Korean
Seismic Network (KSN). The KSN is currently composed by
132 seismic stations equipped with both accelerometers and
weak-motion sensors (broadband or short period). Starting
from 1999, it has been upgraded from analog instruments to
24-bit digital recorders (Quanterra data loggers: Q4128,
Q730, and Q330 series) with broadband (Kinemetrics STS-
2 and Güralp CMG-40T-1 and CMG-3TB) and short-period
(Kinemetrics SS-1) velocity-type sensors for weak motion,
and accelerometers (Kinemetrics ES-T and ES-DH, and Gür-
alp CMG-5T) for strong motion. The network is owned by
four major organizations: Korea Meteorological Administra-
tion (KMA), Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral
Resources (KIGAM), Korea Electric Power Research Institute
(KEPRI), and Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS). Since
2003, these organizations have shared seismic data in real time
through the Korea Integrated Seismic System (KISS) platform
operated by KIGAM (Park et al., 2011).
The analyzed strong-motion data were recorded from
March 2007 to March 2012. The complete available database
(about 30,000 traces) was first analyzed in terms of signal-to-
noise ratio (SNR) and through visual inspection. We decided
to select only signals with SNR > 5 to obtain a good-quality
dataset. Adopting this selection criterion, we extracted
11,129 waveforms from 222 earthquakes recorded by the
three-component strong-motion seismic stations, distributed
almost all over South Korea both inland and offshore (Fig. 1).
For the selected events, the local magnitude ranges between
2:0 ≤ M L ≤ 4:9, whereas epicentral distance ranges from 1.4
to ∼600 km (Fig. 2). After a mean and trend removal, data
were band-pass filtered in the 0.1–20 Hz frequency band by a
zero-phase shift four-pole Butterworth filter to reduce both
low- and high-frequency noise. The waveforms were then cut
in a specific time window containing the event, starting 2 s
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula 3

Figure 1. The South Korea peninsula showing the distribution

of seismic events analyzed in this study as circles for which the
dimension is proportional to the local magnitude. Stations of the
Korean Seismic Network are marked as triangles. The black star
identifies the epicenter of the ML 5.1 earthquake that occurred
on 1 April 2014.
before the P-wave arrival, up to the time corresponding to
98% of the total energy associated with the waveform.
Signals were finally tapered by a cosine-type function. The
PGAs were then measured on the resulting waveforms. Data
Figure 2. Distribution of observations used in this study as a
function of the magnitude and epicentral distance.
were integrated once or twice to get ground velocity and
displacement, respectively. In particular, data were band-pass
filtered in the 0.1–10 Hz range for velocity and high-pass
filtered at 1 Hz for displacement. Acceleration response
spectra, assuming a 5% damping, were then computed from
the accelerograms, and spectral accelerations at the periods
T  0:055, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0,

Table 1
Regression Coefficients and Associated Uncertainty for the Reference Ground-Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE) Model
of Equation (4)
Parameter a  σa b  σb c  σc h  σh d  σd τ* σ† σT ‡ R2 §

PGD (m) –6.97±0.18 0.98±0.03 –0.94±0.09 7.7±3.6 –0.0012±0.0003 0.16 0.38 0.41 0.61
PGV (m=s) –5.62±0.18 0.91±0.03 –0.75±0.10 7.3±4.6 –0.0020±0.0003 0.15 0.41 0.43 0.56
PGA (m=s2 ) −3.16±0.19 0.75±0.04 −0.72±0.09 3.7± 4.0 −0.0034± 0.0003 0.18 0.47 0.50 0.48
SA at 0.055 s (m=s2 ) −2.66±0.19 0.68±0.04 −0.57±0.09 2.1±4.5 −0.0046±0.0003 0.19 0.49 0.53 0.46
SA at 0.1 s (m=s2 ) −3.15±0.19 0.75±0.04 −0.48±0.09 3.9±6.4 −0.0039±0.0003 0.18 0.48 0.51 0.45
SA at 0.15 s (m=s2 ) −3.79±0.18 0.85±0.04 −0.45±0.09 4.2±6.2 −0.0035±0.0003 0.17 0.43 0.46 0.51
SA at 0.2 s (m=s2 ) −4.18±0.18 0.94±0.03 −0.52±0.08 4.8±5.5 −0.0029±0.0003 0.16 0.41 0.44 0.57
SA at 0.3 s (m=s2 ) −4.54±0.17 0.99±0.03 −0.64±0.08 5.9±4.6 −0.0020±0.0003 0.15 0.39 0.42 0.61
SA at 0.4 s (m=s2 ) −4.61±0.18 1.00±0.03 −0.79±0.09 7.5±4.2 −0.0012±0.0003 0.16 0.38 0.41 0.61
SA at 0.5 s (m=s2 ) −4.73±0.18 1.02±0.03 −0.89±0.09 8.2±3.7 −0.0008±0.0003 0.16 0.36 0.39 0.64
SA at 0.75 s (m=s2 ) −4.95±0.18 1.02±0.03 −0.98±0.09 8.9±3.4 −0.0005±0.0003 0.16 0.34 0.38 0.65
SA at 1.0 s (m=s2 ) −5.00±0.18 0.98±0.03 −1.02±0.09 8.9±3.3 −0.0004±0.0003 0.16 0.35 0.38 0.63
SA at 1.5 s (m=s2 ) −4.95±0.18 0.84±0.03 −0.99±0.08 8.6±3.3 −0.0004±0.0003 0.16 0.35 0.39 0.56
SA at 2.0 s (m=s2 ) −4.83±0.17 0.71±0.03 −0.94±0.08 7.8±3.3 −0.0001±0.0003 0.16 0.34 0.38 0.48
SA at 3.0 s (m=s2 ) −4.84±0.16 0.57±0.03 −0.81±0.08 6.3±3.3 −0.0002±0.0003 0.17 0.34 0.38 0.38
SA at 5.0 s (m=s2 ) −5.11±0.17 0.59±0.03 −0.83±0.09 6.9±3.8 −0.0004±0.0003 0.17 0.37 0.41 0.38

PGD, peak ground displacement; PGV, peak ground velocity; PGA, peak ground acceleration; SA, spectral acceleration.
*Interevent standard deviation.
†
Intraevent standard deviation.
‡Total standard deviation.
§
Correlation coefficient.

BSSA Early Edition

4 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim
3.0, and 5.0 s were picked. In all cases, the selected ground-
motion parameter is the maximum value between the two
horizontal components.
Computation of Ground-Motion Prediction Equations
A general formulation of an empirical GMPE is
Y ij  fM i ; Rij ; θ
ξij ;
in which Y ij is the response variable for event i recorded at
station j, which generally corresponds to the logarithm (natu-
ral or common) of the observed ground-motion parameter;
f· is the ground-motion model; and ξij is a random variable
describing the expected variability of the ground motion. The
predictive parameters M and R correspond to the magnitude
and the source-to-site distance, respectively, whereas θ is the
vector of model coefficients that must be inferred from the
available database.
For the analysis presented in this study, the GMPEs were
obtained through a nonlinear mixed effects regression tech-
nique. As described in the Introduction, this model assumes
that the total variability of the ground motion can be parti-
tioned into two terms, ηi and ϵij , leading to
Y ij  fMi ; Rij ; θ
ηi
εij ;
in which ηi is the random effect contribution for the ith event
and represents the interevent variability, and ϵij represents
the intraevent variability. The ηi and ϵij are assumed to be
independent, normally distributed variables with standard
errors τ and σ, respectively. Therefore, the total standard
deviation of the ground-motion model σ T can be written as
p
















σT  σ 2
τ2 :
In practice, the nonlinear mixed effects regression tech-
nique used in this study is an optimizing iterative procedure
in which, starting from an initial model, a two-step algorithm
is used to estimate the random effects, the variances, and the
model parameters. In particular, it uses a least-squares esti-
mation for the nonlinear fixed effects model and a maximum-
likelihood estimation for the linear mixed effects model
(Lindstrom and Bates, 1990). The algorithm to calculate in-
terevent and intraevent variability is described in Abraham-
son and Youngs (1992).
In the present application, we assumed that earthquake
local magnitude (M L ) and epicentral distance (Repi ) represent
the predictor variables, which account for source and propa-
gation effects such as geometrical and anelastic attenuation
contributions. Following Emolo et al. (2011) and Sharma
et al. (2013), we first defined a reference model and then
applied a station-effect correction. The reference model is
formulated as
BSSA Early Edition
q




















log Y  a
bM
c log R2epi
h2
d Repi ; 4
in which Y is the ground-motion parameter of interest, that is,
PGD (in m), PGV (in m=s), PGA (in m=s2 ), and SA at the
selected periods (in m=s2 ), whereas the epicentral distance
Repi is measured in kilometers. The pseudodepth h was
introduced to avoid unrealistic high values at short distances
(Joyner and Boore, 1981). The regression coefficients (a, b,
1 c, h, and d), together with their associated uncertainty and
the inter- and intraevent residuals, are detailed in Table 1 for
the reference GMPEs. In Figure 3, we show the comparison
between the available data and the inferred reference model
for three different local magnitude values (ML 2.5, 3.5, and
4.5) and for some ground-motion parameters considered in
this study. In addition, in the same figure, we display the
histograms for the inter- and intraevent residuals. The main
contribution to the residuals is provided by the intraevent
component (σ) that is larger than the interevent standard error
(τ) for all the considered ground-motion parameters. More-
over, the intraevent residual distributions seem to be peaked
around zero, and their dispersion appears to be small if com-
pared with the overall dispersion of the data (Figs. 3 and 4).
Site Contribution and Corrected Ground-Motion
Model
2
It is well known that site effects and local geology
beneath the recording site play a significant role in the am-
plification and attenuation of ground motion. Thus, it is very
important to include the site-effect contribution in a ground-
motion prediction model. Because of the lack of local geo-
logical information such as, for instance, the average V S30
(i.e., the shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m of the crust)
at recording sites, we implemented the technique proposed
by Emolo et al. (2011) to account for a first-order station-
3
specific effect. It should be noted that the station effects con-
sidered here are not solely based on average V S30 values, but
include in a more general way all the effects concurring to a
systematic site amplification and attenuation. The approach
of Emolo et al. (2011) is based on the analysis of the residual
distribution at each station with respect to the reference
model of equation (4). Residuals are defined as
Resij  log Y obs pre
ij − log Y ij ; 5
in which Y obs and Y pre , respectively, refer to the observations
and predictions by the reference model at station j for the ith
event. The presence of station effects is identified by per-
forming a Z-test, at 95% level of confidence, on the residual
distribution at each recording site, aimed at testing the null
hypothesis of a zero-mean residuals distribution. We assume
that a deviation from the expected zero-mean value can be
reasonably ascribed to a station effect that can be included
in the predictive model using a dummy variable indicated as
s in the following description. Because of the residual def-
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula 5

Figure 3. The reference model of equation (4) is compared, as a function of the epicentral distance, with strong-motion parameters
analyzed in this study. Curves are plotted for magnitude 2.5 (dotted line), 3.5 (dashed line), and 4.5 (continuous line). The gray dots represent
the entire data set analyzed in this study. Interevent and intraevent residual distributions are also shown for each ground-motion parameter.
The reference model is displayed for (a) peak ground displacement (PGD), (b) peak ground velocity (PGV), (c) peak ground acceleration
(PGA), (d) spectral acceleration (SA) at 0.2 s, (e) SA at 0.5 s, and (f) SA at 1 s.

inition (equation 5), a positive deviation from the zero-mean
value can be interpreted as an underestimation of the model
prediction with respect to the observations, whereas a neg-
ative deviation is interpreted as an overestimation of the
model prediction. Thus, by Z-test, we can assign at each sta-
tion a dummy variable s, which assumes a value of −1, 0, or
1, depending on the sign of the mean residual (negative, zero,
or positive, respectively). Table A1 summarizes the findings
from the residuals analysis for all the stations. Once each
recording site was classified as described previously, we
BSSA Early Edition
moved to a station-dependent model including an additional
term e to equation (4), which becomes
q




















log Y  a
bM
c log R2epi
h2
d Repi
e s:
6
The analysis is then reiterated to obtain the new coeffi-
cients for the final model that includes station effects. The
inferred coefficients and their associated uncertainties are
6 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim

Figure 4. Distribution of residuals as a function of (left) epicentral distance and (right) magnitude. Gray dots represent residuals from the
reference model (equation 4), whereas black crosses are the residuals from the final model (equation 6). Residuals for the final models are
distributed around zero, and scatter is reduced.

listed in Table 2. The total standard deviation is reduced once
the station effect is accounted for in the modeling. In particu-
lar, there is a considerable reduction in the intraevent stan-
dard deviation, whereas no significant improvement in
interevent standard deviation is retrieved. This could be
ascribed to the fact that intraevent residuals are mainly asso-
ciated with the site classification (Al Atik et al., 2010), hence
confirming the effectiveness of the technique proposed for
obtaining station-specific effects. Furthermore, to test the
reliability of modeling the source and propagation effects
just through the event magnitude and distance parameters,
we analyzed the distribution of residuals as a function of the
magnitude and epicentral distance. No significant trend is ob-
served in Figure 4, but residuals distribute around zero after
accounting for station effects, which justifies the improvement
in the model fitness.
BSSA Early Edition
We present our final GMPEs (equation 6) in Figure 5a,b,
and c for PGV, PGA, and SA at 1 s, respectively. Here, the
GMPEs for three different local magnitude values (M L 2.5,
3.5, and 4.9) are compared with observations and shown to-
gether with the inter- and intraevent distributions. Ⓔ Results
for the remaining ground motion are provided in Figures S1
through S13, available in the electronic supplement to this
article. It should be noted that our final model could also
be used to estimate ground-motion parameters at any generic
site different from those used for the regression. To this aim,
one could simply assume s  0 in equation (6), and then
correct the predictions using a multiplicative coefficient that
accounts for specific site conditions. Such coefficients are in
general based on direct measures of V S30 (e.g., Borcherdt,
1994; Thompson et al., 2011) or on V S30 values obtained
from the topography (Wald and Allen, 2007). For instance,
 Table 2
Regression Coefficients and Associated Uncertainty for the Final GMPE Model of Equation (6)
Parameter a  σa b  σb c  σc h  σh d  σd e  σe τ* σ† σT ‡ R2 § ΔR2 ‖

PGD (m) −7.16±0.13 0.96±0.06 −0.80±0.06 4.6±2.5 −0.0013±0.0002 0.261±0.005 0.14 0.29 0.33 0.74 17.6
PGV (m=s) −5.75±0.13 0.89±0.03 −0.66±0.06 4.5±3.0 −0.0019±0.0002 0.289±0.005 0.14 0.30 0.33 0.73 23.3
PGA (m=s2 ) −3.07±0.14 0.73±0.03 −0.76±0.06 1.7±2.3 −0.0029±0.0002 0.326±0.006 0.17 0.34 0.38 0.69 30.4
SA at 0.055 s (m=s2 ) −2.52±0.15 0.65±0.03 −0.65±0.07 3.7±3.2 −0.0039±0.0002 0.351±0.006 0.19 0.34 0.39 0.69 32.6
SA at 0.1 s (m=s2 ) −3.02±0.13 0.73±0.03 −0.55±0.06 1.9±3.2 −0.0032±0.0002 0.353±0.006 0.16 0.34 0.38 0.69 35.4
SA at 0.15 s (m=s2 ) −3.79±0.13 0.83±0.03 −0.45±0.06 2.1±3.6 −0.0030±0.0002 0.299±0.005 0.16 0.31 0.35 0.71 27.6
SA at 0.2 s (m=s2 ) −4.27±0.12 0.93±0.03 −0.47±0.06 2.3±3.5 −0.0028±0.0002 0.277±0.006 0.14 0.31 0.34 0.74 22.9
SA at 0.3 s (m=s2 ) −4.67±0.13 0.98±0.03 −0.54± 0.06 3.2±3.4 −0.0020±0.0002 0.244±0.006 0.14 0.31 0.35 0.74 16.8
SA at 0.4 s (m=s2 ) −4.81±0.14 0.98±0.03 −0.66±0.06 4.4±3.2 −0.001±0.0002 0.226±0.006 0.14 0.32 0.35 0.72 14.9
SA at 0.5 s (m=s2 ) −4.91±0.13 1.00±0.03 −0.76±0.06 5.1±2.8 −0.0008±0.0002 0.229±0.005 0.15 0.29 0.32 0.74 13.5
SA at 0.75 s (m=s2 ) −5.08±0.13 0.99±0.03 −0.89±0.06 5.8±2.5 −0.0004±0.0002 0.197±0.005 0.15 0.29 0.32 0.74 11.4
SA at 1.0 s (m=s2 ) −5.15±0.14 0.95±0.03 −0.92±0.07 6.8±2.6 −0.0003±0.0002 0.208±0.005 0.14 0.29 0.32 0.72 12.5
SA at 1.5 s (m=s2 ) −5.01±0.14 0.82±0.03 −0.95±0.06 6.6±2.5 −0.0001±0.0002 0.217±0.005 0.14 0.29 0.32 0.66 16.3
SA at 2.0 s (m=s2 ) −4.84±0.13 0.68±0.03 −0.91±0.06 6.4±2.5 0.0002±0.0002 0.210±0.005 0.15 0.29 0.31 0.59 19.6
SA at 3.0 s (m=s2 ) −4.84±0.13 0.54±0.03 −0.79±0.06 5.2±2.6 0.0001±0.0002 0.194±0.005 0.16 0.29 0.32 0.50 23.2
SA at 5.0 s (m=s2 ) −4.89±0.16 0.58±0.03 −0.86±0.08 6.9±3.3 −0.0004±0.0003 0.231±0.009 0.15 0.34 0.37 0.47 18.7

*Interevent standard deviation.

†
Intraevent standard deviation.
‡
Total standard deviation.
§Correlation coefficient.
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula

‖
Percentage improvement of the correlation coefficient with respect to the reference.

BSSA Early Edition

7
8 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim

Figure 5. Final ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) (equation 6) for some selected ground-motion parameters. (left)
The final model is compared to observations (solid lines) for three different magnitude values: (top) M L 4.9, (middle) ML 3.5, and (bottom)
ML 2.5. The dashed lines in each panel delimit the one standard deviation interval. Corresponding interevent and intraevent residual dis-
tributions are also shown in the middle and right columns, respectively. Selected ground-motion parameters displayed here are (a) PGV,
(b) PGA, and (c) SA at 1 s. Ⓔ Similar figures for the other ground-motion parameters analyzed in this study are provided in the electronic
supplement. (Continued)

a similar approach is implemented in ShakeMap (Wald et al.,
1999) and GRSMap (Convertito et al., 2010) tools.
To cross-check and increase the confidence of users, we
compare our final model for PGA with respect to the GMPE
by Bommer et al. (2007) for local magnitudes M L 2.5, 3.5,
and 4.9 (Fig. 6). Even if the their model is valid within sim-
ilar magnitude and distance ranges as ours, it clearly under-
estimates the values predicted by GMPE as retrieved here.
However, this is not completely surprising because the data-
set used in the present study was not included in the dataset
used to infer their model.
As a validation test, we compare our model with ob-
served PGAs recorded for the ML 5.1 earthquake that oc-
curred on 1 April 2014. Acceleration time histories from
this event were not used in this study for estimating the
GMPE coefficients. The predictions from our GMPEs match
the observations quite well within one standard error (Fig. 7),
thus confirming again the robustness of GMPEs retrieved in
this study. In the same figure, we also represent the GMPE by
Choi et al. (2009). This model is able to well reproduce real
BSSA Early Edition
data up to ∼200 km, differently from our GMPEs, which well
reproduce observations also at larger distances.
Finally, we estimated the response spectra at two differ-
ent epicentral distances, 100 and 220 km, for an M L 5.1
event. In Figure 8, we compare them with response spectra
computed from the acceleration time series recorded for the
2014 ML 5.1 earthquake at Gyukyeolbido Island (GBI) and
Seoul (SEO) stations, which are located at similar epicentral
distances. The largest spectral amplitudes are found for peri-
ods in the 0.05–0.3 s range, and they become negligible for
periods larger than 1.5 s. However, predictions obtained by
GMPEs retrieved in this study seem to reproduce observa-
tions quite well within one standard deviation range.
Conclusions
In this article, we presented the first GMPEs for South
Korea retrieved from observed data. GMPEs are obtained
for PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5% damped SAs at 13 periods within
0.055 and 5 s. To this end, we analyzed strong-motion wave-
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula 9

Figure 5. Continued.

BSSA Early Edition

10 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim

Figure 6. Comparison of the PGA final GMPE from this study with respect to the Bommer et al. (2007) GMPE for three different
magnitude values: (top) M L 4.9, (middle) M L 3.5, and (bottom) M L 2.5.

forms from 222 earthquakes recoded at the Korean Seismic
Network from March 2007 to March 2012. The records cor-
respond to seismic events with local magnitude up to 4.9 and
epicentral distances up to ∼600 km. GMPEs were derived by
adopting the nonlinear mixed effects regression analysis,
which allows total variability to be separated into the contri-
butions of interevent and intraevent errors. Moreover,
because information about local geology at the recording
sites was not available, we introduced, in the predictive equa-
tions, a station-effect term that is based on the results of a
statistical Z-test performed on the residual distributions.
We obtained a significant improvement in the model fit, find-
ing that the reduction in the total standard deviation is mainly
associated with a reduction of the intraevent component. For
any recording site and for all ground-motion parameters con-
sidered in this study, we provide, the appropriate values of
the station-effect term (Table A1). We are aware that this
BSSA Early Edition
term must be considered in a broader sense with respect to
the standard site-effect term because it is not based on any
geological characteristic at recording sites, such as V S30 . The
results obtained in this study are promising, and the retrieved
GMPEs can be adopted for the probabilistic seismic-hazard
evaluation and earthquake early warning applications in
South Korea. Our GMPEs can be used for any site different
from those included in the analyzed data by simply selecting
the dummy parameter s equal to zero in equation (6). Finally,
we check the reliability of our models by comparing predic-
tions with strong-motion records for the M L 5.1 earthquake
that occurred on 1 April 2014, the data from which were not
used for estimating the GMPEs. Because of the characteristics
of the adopted database and results presented here, it should
be noticed that our GMPEs can be confidently applicable up
to at least 300 km of epicentral distance and for the maxi-
mum local magnitude of approximately M L 5.
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula 11

http://quake.kigam.re.kr/eng/index.html (last accessed Sep-

tember 2014). Figures were generated with Generic Mapping
Tools (Wessel and Smith, 1991). Most of the analyses were
performed using MATLAB (www.mathworks.com/products/
matlab; last accessed December 2014) R2011B release.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Associate Editor John Douglas and two
anonymous reviewers for the care with which they revised our manuscript
and for their constructive comments, which greatly improved the article. The
work was partially supported by the project NERA, Network of European
Research Infrastructures for Earthquake Risk Assessment and Mitigation,
funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme
for Research (FP7) under Grant Agreement 262330.

Figure 7. The final PGA GMPE (black thick line) is compared
with the observed PGAs (gray dots) associated with the M L 5.1
earthquake that occurred on 1 April 2014. One standard deviation
interval is displayed as gray lines. Data from the 2014 earthquake
were not included in the database used to infer GMPEs. Data are also
compared with predictions provided by the Choi et al. (2009) model
for PGA (black dashed lines).
Data and Resources
Waveforms used in this study were provided by Korea
Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM)
research center. The Korean seismic bulletin is available at
References
Abrahamson, N. A., and W. J. Silva (1997). Empirical response spectral
attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Seismol. Res.
Lett. 68, 94–127.
Abrahamson, N. A., and R. R. Youngs (1992). A stable algorithm for
regression analysis using the random effect model, Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 82, 505–510.
Al Atik, L., N. A. Abrahamson, J. J. Bommer, F. Scherbaum, F. Cotton, and
N. Kuehn (2010). The variability of ground-motion prediction models
and its components, Seismol. Res. Lett. 81, 794–801.
Atkinson, G., and D. M. Boore (2011). Modification to existing ground-mo-
tion prediction equations in the light of new data, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 101, 1121–1135.
Bommer, J. J., P. J. Stafford, J. E. Alarcón, and S. Akkar (2007). The in-
fluence of magnitude range on empirical ground-motion prediction,
Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 2152–2170, doi: 10.1785/0120070081.
Boore, D. M., and G. Atkinson (2008). Ground-motion prediction equations
for the average component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA
at spectral periods between 0.01 and 10.0s, Earthq. Spectra 24,
99–138.

Figure 8. Response spectra, 5% damping, predicted for an M L 5.1 (black lines), together with one standard deviation interval (dashed
lines), are compared with respect to the response spectra computed from acceleration time histories recorded at stations (a) GBI and (b) SEO,
during the 1 April 2014 M L 5.1 earthquake. Real response spectra are displayed as gray lines. The recording sites correspond to Gyukyeol-
bido Island (GBI) and Seoul (SEO) and are located at epicentral distances of ∼100 and 220 km, respectively.

BSSA Early Edition

12 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim
Boore, D. M., J. P. Stewart, E. Seyhan, and G. Atkinson (2013). NGA-West
2 equations for predicting response spectral accelerations for shallow
crustal earthquakes, PEER Report 2013/05, Pacific Earthquake Engi-
neering Research Center, Berkeley, California.
Borcherdt, R. D. (1994). Estimates of site-dependent response spectra
for design (methodology and justification), Earthq. Spectra 10,
617–654.
Brillinger, D. R., and H. K. Preisler (1984). An exploratory analysis of the
Joyner–Boore attenuation data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 1441–
1450.
Choi, I. K., M. Nakajima, Y. S. Choun, and Y. Ohtori (2009). Development
of the site-specific uniform hazard spectra for Korean nuclear power
plant sites, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239, 790–799.
Chough, S. K., S.-T. Kwon, J.-H. Ree, and D. K. Choi (2000). Tectonic and
sedimentary evolution of the Korean peninsula: A review and new
view, Earth Sci. Rev. 52, 175–235.
Convertito, V., R. De Matteis, L. Cantore, A. Zollo, G. Iannaccone, and M.
Caccavale (2010). Rapid estimation of ground-shaking maps for seis-
mic emergency management in the Campania region of southern Italy,
Nat. Hazards 52, 97–115, doi: 10.1007/s11069-009-9359-2.
Draper, N. R., and H. Smith (1996). Applied Regression Analysis, Third Ed.,
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, New York, 407 pp.
Emolo, A., V. Convertito, and L. Cantore (2011). Ground-motion predictive
equations for low magnitude earthquakes in the Campania–Lucania
area, southern Italy, J. Geophys. Eng. 8, 46–60, doi: 10.1088/1742-
2132/8/1/007.
Engdahl, E. R., and A. Villaseñor (2002). Global seismicity: 1900–1999, in
International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology,
Part A, W. H. K. Lee, H. Kanamori, P. C. Jenning, and C. Kissilinger
(Editors), Chapter 41, Academic Press, New York, New York, 665–
690.
Giardini, D., G. Grünthal, K. Shedlock, and P. Zhang (1999). Global seismic
hazard map (GSHAP), International Decade on Natural Disaster
Reduction, United Nations, http://seismo.ethz.ch/GHSHAP/ (last ac-
cessed September 2014).
Houng, S., and T.-K. Hong (2013). Probabilistic analysis of the Korean his-
torical earthquake records, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103, 2782–2796.
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, 2011–2038.
Joyner, W. B., and D. M. Boore (1993). Methods for regression analysis of
strong-motion data, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 469–487.
BSSA Early Edition
Kurzon, I., F. L. Vernon, Y. Ben-Zion, and G. Atkison (2014). Ground-
motion prediction equations in the San Jacinto fault zone: Significant
effects of rupture directivity and fault zone amplification, Pure Appl.
Geophys. 171, 3045–3081.
Lindstrom, M. J., and D. M. Bates (1990). Nonlinear mixed-effects models
for repeated measures data, Biometrics 46, 673–687.
Park, J.-H., H.-C. Chi, I.-S. Lim, and B. Jeong (2011). Korea Integrated
Seismic System tool (KISStool) for seismic monitoring and data
sharing at the local data center, presented at 2011 Fall Meeting,
AGU, San Francisco, California, 5–9 December 2011, Abstract
S53A-2270.
Seo, J.-M., I.-K. Choi, and H.-M. Rhee (2010). A study of historical earth-
quake catalog and Gutenberg–Richter parameter values of the Korean
Peninsula, Nucl. Eng. Tech. 42, 55–64.
Sharma, N., V. Convertito, N. Maercklin, and A. Zollo (2013). Ground
motion prediction equations for “The Geysers” geothermal area based
on induced seismicity records, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 103, 117–130.
Thompson, E. M., L. G. Baise, R. E. Kayen, E. C. Morgan, and J. Kakla-
manos (2011). Multiscale site-response mapping: A case study of
Parkfield, California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 101, 1081–1100, doi:
10.1785/0120100211.
Wald, D. J., and T. I. Allen (2007). Topographic slope as a proxy for
seismic site conditions and amplification, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.
97, 1379–1395.
Wald, D. J., V. Quitoriano, T. H. Heaton, H. Kanamori, C. W. Scrivner, and
C. B. Worden (1999). TriNet ShakeMaps: Rapid generation of instru-
mental ground motion and intensity maps for earthquakes in southern
California, Earthq. Spectra 15, 537–555.
Wessel, P., and W. H. F. Smith (1991). Free software helps map and display
data, Eos Trans. AGU 72, 445–446.
Appendix
In this appendix, we provide the values of the dummy
variable s (see equation 6) for each station of the Korean
Seismic Network and for all ground-motion parameters
we considered (Table A1). For stations having an insufficient
number of observations to apply the Z-test to determine the
s-value, we arbitrarily assigned it as the one estimated at the
closest receiver for which the results of the Z-test were
available.
 Table A1
List of the Dummy Variable s (Equation 6) for Each Seismic Station and Ground-Motion Parameter Considered in This Study
Station s-value
Latitude Longitude SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at
Number Code (° N) (° E) PGD PGV PGA 0.055 s 0.1 s 0.15 s 0.2 s 0.3 s 0.4 s 0.5 s 0.75 s 1s 1.5 s 2s 3s 5s

1* ADO 36.57 128.71 −1 −1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 −1

2 ADO2 36.57 128.71 −1 −1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 −1
3 AND 36.57 128.71 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 −1 −1 0 0 0 0 1 −1
4 ANM 36.54 126.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
5 BAR 37.98 124.71 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
6 BON 36.55 127.80 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
7* BRD 37.97 124.63 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 −1 1 1 1 −1
8 BSA 35.10 129.03 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 −1
9 BUS 35.25 129.11 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
10 BUY 36.27 126.92 1 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
11 CEA 36.82 127.26 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
12* CEJ 36.64 127.44 −1 −1 −1 0 0 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1
13 CHC 37.78 127.81 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
14 CHJ 36.87 127.97 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
15 CHO 35.82 127.15 1 1 0 −1 1 1 1 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 −1
16 CHR 35.54 128.49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 CHS 36.18 129.09 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
18 CHY 36.94 128.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
19 CIG 36.08 128.54 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula

20 CPR 36.22 127.97 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1

21 CWO 38.08 127.52 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1
22 DACB 37.83 124.71 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1

BSSA Early Edition

23 DAG 35.77 128.90 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1
24 DAG2 35.77 128.90 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1
25 DAU 35.89 128.62 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 −1
26 DDC 37.89 127.06 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
27 DEI 37.23 126.02 −1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 1 −1
28 DGY 37.69 128.67 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
29 DGY2 37.69 128.67 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
30 EUS 36.35 128.69 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
31 GAH 37.71 126.89 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
32 GAHB 37.71 126.45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
33 GBI 36.63 125.56 −1 −1 0 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
34 GIC 36.13 128.13 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 −1 0 0 1 1 1 1 −1
35* GOS 33.29 126.16 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 −1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
36 GSG 37.55 126.85 −1 −1 1 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
37 GUM 36.23 128.29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
38 GUS 36.04 126.78 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
39 GWJ 35.10 126.53 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
40 GWL 37.12 128.49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
41 HAC 35.56 128.17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
(continued)
13
 14

Table A1 (Continued)
Station s-value
Latitude Longitude SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at
Number Code (° N) (° E) PGD PGV PGA 0.055 s 0.1 s 0.15 s 0.2 s 0.3 s 0.4 s 0.5 s 0.75 s 1s 1.5 s 2s 3s 5s

42 HAD 35.08 127.77 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

43 HAN 34.57 126.57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
44 HES 37.47 127.88 −1 −1 0 1 0 −1 −1 −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
45* HOC 37.68 127.88 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1 1 1 −1 0 −1 1 1 1 0
46 HUK 34.68 125.45 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
47 HUK2 34.68 125.45 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
48 HWCB 38.22 127.67 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 −1
49 ICN 37.29 127.42 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
50 IJA 37.29 127.42 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 −1
51 IMS 35.61 127.29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
52 INC 37.47 126.62 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
53 JAH 34.68 126.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
54 JAS 35.66 127.52 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
55 JDO 34.47 126.32 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 −1
56 JEC 37.15 128.19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
57 JEO 35.94 127.29 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
58 JES 37.43 128.67 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
59 JEU 35.49 126.93 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
60 JIN 35.16 128.03 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
61 JJU 33.43 126.55 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
62 JMJ 37.90 128.83 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
63 JUR 37.61 127.09 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 −1
64* KAN 37.74 128.89 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 0

BSSA Early Edition

65 KAW 37.08 128.86 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
66 KCH 35.61 127.92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
67* KMS 36.10 127.48 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 0 1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1
68 KMSA 36.10 127.48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
69 KOH 34.61 127.27 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 1
70 KOHB 34.62 127.28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
71* KOJ 36.47 127.14 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
72 KOJ2 36.47 127.14 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
73* KUJ 34.88 128.60 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1
74 KWJ 35.16 126.99 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
75 MAN 35.09 128.57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
76 MAS 35.17 128.57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
77 MGY 36.66 128.06 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
78* MIY 35.49 128.74 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 0 1 1 −1 1 −1 −1 0 −1
79 MIYA 35.49 128.74 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
80 MOK 34.82 126.38 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 −1 −1 0 0 1 1 1 1 −1
81* MOP 34.81 126.38 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
82 MUS 37.89 126.76 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
83 NAH 34.82 127.93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
84 NAJ 35.03 126.83 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
(continued)
A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim
 Table A1 (Continued)
Station s-value
Latitude Longitude SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at SA at
Number Code (° N) (° E) PGD PGV PGA 0.055 s 0.1 s 0.15 s 0.2 s 0.3 s 0.4 s 0.5 s 0.75 s 1s 1.5 s 2s 3s 5s

85 NAW 35.40 127.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1

86 NOW 37.62 127.09 −1 −1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 −1
87* OKEB 37.62 128.98 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 0 −1 1 −1 1 0 0 0 −1
88* PHA 36.19 129.37 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 −1 0 −1 0 −1 −1 −1
89 PHA2 36.19 129.37 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
90 POR 36.32 126.56 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
91 PTK 36.98 127.10 −1 −1 1 1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 0 1 1 1 −1
92 PUA 35.72 126.72 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
93 PYC 37.73 128.42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
94 SAC 35.41 127.88 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
95 SAJ 36.41 128.16 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 1 −1
96 SCH 35.06 127.24 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
97 SEHB 38.27 128.25 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
98 SEO 37.49 126.92 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
99 SES 36.79 126.45 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
100 SGP 33.26 126.50 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 −1
101 SHHB 37.35 126.70 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
102 SKC 38.29 128.52 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
103* SMKB 35.69 126.56 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1 1
104 SOD 37.57 126.97 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
105 SSP 33.39 126.88 1 1 −1 −1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for South Korea Peninsula

106 SWO 37.27 126.97 −1 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1

107 TBA 37.12 128.95 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1

BSSA Early Edition

108 TEJ 36.37 127.37 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
109 TOH 37.50 129.12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
110 TOY 34.85 128.44 −1 −1 1 1 0 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 1 −1
111 UJN 36.99 129.41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
112 ULJ 36.70 129.41 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
113 ULJ2 36.70 129.41 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
114 ULL 37.47 130.90 1 1 0 −1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
115 ULS 35.55 129.32 0 0 0 −1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
116 USN 35.56 129.32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
117 WAN 34.39 126.70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
118 WJU 37.40 128.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 0 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1
119 WJU2 37.40 128.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1 −1 0 −1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1
120* YAP 37.48 127.49 0 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 1 0 0 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1
121 YAPA 37.48 127.49 0 1 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
122* YAY 38.02 128.82 −1 −1 −1 1 1 1 −1 1 1 −1 1 −1 1 1 1 1
123 YCH 36.65 128.47 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
124 YEG 35.28 126.48 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
125 YES 34.74 127.74 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
126 YJD 37.47 126.43 1 1 0 −1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 −1
127 YNCB 38.04 126.93 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1 −1
(continued)
15
 16 A. Emolo, N. Sharma, G. Festa, A. Zollo, V. Convertito, J.-H. Park, H.-C. Chi, and I.-S. Lim

Dipartimento di Fisica
Università degli Studi Federico II
Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio 6
Via Cintia
SA at

−1
−1
−1
−1
−1
5s
80126 Napoli, Italy
antonio.emolo@unina.it
(A.E., N.S., G.F., A.Z.)
SA at

1
−1
1
−1
0
3s
SA at

1
0
1
−1
0
2s
SA at

Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia

1.5 s

1
0
1
−1
0

Osservatorio Vesuviano
Via Diocleziano 328
80124 Napoli, Italy
SA at

1
1
1
1
0
1s

(V.C.)
0.75 s
SA at

1
1
1
1
−1
SA at
0.5 s

0
1
1
0
−1

Earthquake Research Center

Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources
PGD, peak ground displacement; PGV, peak ground velocity; PGA, peak ground acceleration; SA, spectral acceleration.
SA at

Gwahang-no 124, Yuseong-gu, 305-350

0.4 s

−1
1
1
0
0

Deajeon, South Korea

s-value

(J.-H.P., H.-C.C., I.-S.L.)

SA at
0.3 s

0
1
1
1
1
Table A1 (Continued)

SA at
0.2 s

−1
1
1
1
1

Manuscript received 3 October 2014;

Published Online 1 September 2015
0.15 s
SA at

1
1
1
1
1
SA at
0.1 s

0
−1
1
1
1
0.055 s
SA at

−1
−1
1
1
1

*Stations for which too few data were available for applying the Z-test.
PGA

−1
−1
1
1
1
PGV

1
1
1
0
1
PGD

−1
1
1
0
1
Longitude

128.95
129.41
128.52
128.46
127.60
(° E)
Station
Latitude

35.97
36.52
36.87
37.17
35.10
(° N)

YOW
YOD
YOC

YSU
Code

YOJ
Number

128
129
130
131
132

BSSA Early Edition

View publication stats