2021 - Arteta Et Al - Ground-Motion Model For Subduction Earthquakes in Northern South America

Research Paper
Earthquake Spectra
Ground-motion model for 1–34
Ó The Author(s) 2021
subduction earthquakes in Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
northern South America DOI: 10.1177/87552930211027585

journals.sagepub.com/home/eqs
Carlos A Arteta, M.EERI1 , Cesar A Pajaro1, Vicente

Mercado1, Julián Montejo2, Mónica Arcila, M.EERI2 ,
and Norman A Abrahamson, M.EERI3
Abstract
Subduction ground motions in northern South America are about a factor of 2
smaller than the ground motions for similar events in other regions. Nevertheless,
historical and recent large-interface and intermediate-depth slab earthquakes of
moment magnitudes Mw = 7.8 (Ecuador, 2016) and 7.2 (Colombia, 2012) evidenced
the vast potential damage that vulnerable populations close to earthquake epicenters
could experience. This article proposes a new empirical ground-motion prediction
model for subduction events in northern South America, a regionalization of the glo-
bal AG2020 ground-motion prediction equations. An updated ground-motion data-
base curated by the Colombian Geological Survey is employed. It comprises
recordings from earthquakes associated with the subduction of the Nazca plate gath-
ered by the National Strong Motion Network in Colombia and by the Institute of
Geophysics at Escuela Politécnica Nacional in Ecuador. The regional terms of our
model are estimated with 539 records from 60 subduction events in Colombia and
Ecuador with epicenters in the range of 20.6° to 7.6°N and 75.5° to 79.6°W, with
Mw ø 4.5, hypocentral depth range of 4 < Zhypo < 210 km, for distances up to
350 km. The model includes forearc and backarc terms to account for larger
attenuation at backarc sites for slab events and site categorization based on natural
period. The proposed model corrects the median AG2020 global model to better
account for the larger attenuation of local ground motions and includes a partially
non-ergodic variance model.
Keywords
Ground motion model, subduction, South America, Colombia and Ecuador, forearc
and backarc, period-based site class
Date received: 10 February 2021; accepted: 27 May 2021
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Colombia
2
Colombian Geological Survey (SGC), Bogota, Colombia
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
Corresponding author:
Carlos A Arteta, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universidad del Norte, Km 5 Vı́a Puerto
Colombia, Área Metropolitana de Barranquilla, 081007, Colombia.
Email: carteta@uninorte.edu.co
2 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)
Introduction
Subduction ground motions recorded in Colombia and Ecuador are approximately one-
half as intense as those estimated by the global AG2020 ground-motion model (GMM)
developed by Abrahamson and Gulerce (2020). Figure 1a and b shows the geographic dis-
tribution of the global AG2020 model event term for the South American data. Note the
trend hinges around Southern Peru and Northern Chile, transitioning from average posi-
tive values in Chile to average negative values in Colombia and Ecuador. Drouet et al.
(2017) describe a similar trend when comparing the Montalva et al. (2017) GMM estimates
against Chile, Ecuador, and Colombia subduction ground-motion datasets, indicating
regional attenuation variations are considerable. This mismatch calls for a model that cor-
rects the median global model and variance for subduction earthquakes in northern South
America. Hence, we develop a regionalization of the global AG2020 GMM, using the local
ground-motion database for interface and intra-slab earthquakes of Colombia, including
interface earthquakes in Ecuador. The regional model increases by a factor of 7, the num-
ber of subduction events accounted for by the AG2020 GMM to evaluate the attenuation
in northern South America. The regionalization includes local long-distance path terms, as
well as site terms based on the predominant period (Tn) to represent the resonant charac-
teristics of the soil underlying each station. A partially non-ergodic variance model (i.e.
single-station sigma) is also estimated.
Colombia is divided into four main tectonic settings, which produce (1) crustal earth-
quakes associated with shallow to intermediate-depth faulting (depth \60 km), (2) inter-
face subduction earthquakes on the Pacific coast (with hypocentral depth Zhypo<60 km),
(3) intermediate-depth intra-slab earthquakes to the West of the Andes Mountains (Zhypo
.60 km), and (4) deeper events associated with the Bucaramanga Nest on the Northeast
of the country (Zhypo .100 km) (Arcila et al., 2020; Corredor, 2003; Ojeda and Havskov,
2001; Syracuse et al., 2016; Yarce et al., 2014). Ecuador is divided into three different tec-
tonic settings: (1) crustal (depth \50 km), (2) interface shallow subduction events (depth
\50 km) on the Pacific Coast with known capabilities of generating megathrust earth-
quakes (e.g. the 1906 Colombia-Ecuador Earthquake with Mw of 8.8 (Di Giacomo et al.,
2015, 2018), and (3) intra-slab earthquakes of intermediate depths related to the internal
ruptures of the subduction slabs (with depth in the range of 50–300 km) (Beauval et al.,
2013, 2018; Yepes et al., 2016). The interface and intra-slab events in both countries are
associated with the Nazca plate subduction process in the Pacific and the South American
plate. Figure 2a and b shows the epicenter of the subduction events, with moment magni-
tudes in the range 4.5 < Mw < 7.8, recorded by the national strong motion network at
the Colombian Geological Survey (SGC by its acronym in Spanish) between 1994 and
2020, including interface earthquakes recorded by the Institute of Geophysics at Escuela
Politécnica Nacional (IGEPN by its acronym in Spanish) in Ecuador.
Examples of the damaging historical slab and interface subduction events with maxi-
mum estimated macroseismic intensities over VIII in EMS-98 scale (European
Seismological Commission (ESC), 1998) are summarized in Table 6, available in
Appendix 1 of this article. Figure 2c shows the approximate location of these historical
events. In addition, examples of recently recorded intra-slab and interface subduction
events in the region (included in the dataset employed herein) are (1) the Mw 6.3 earth-
quake in Calima (Valle) in 1995 (lat. 4.0450, long. 276.5650, depth 70 km); (2) the Mw 6.7
earthquake in Génova (Quindı́o) in 1997 (lat. 3.8190°, long. 275.7040°, depth 200 km);
(3) the Mw 7.2 earthquake in La Vega (Cauca) in 2012 (lat. 1.9230°, long. 276.3970°,
depth 163.9 km); (4) the Mw 7.0 earthquake in Guaitarilla (Nariño) in 2013 (lat. 1.13°,
Arteta et al. 3
Figure 1. (a) Georeferentiation of the global AG2020 GMM event term for PGA for the South America
earthquakes, (b) event-term variation with latitude in South America, and (c) average of the total PGA
residual of the AG2020 global model estimates for earthquakes in Colombia and Ecuador.
Figure 2. Subduction earthquakes in Colombia and Ecuador: (a) interface, (b) intra-slab, and (c)
historical damaging events.
long. 277.4080°, depth 163 km); (5) the Mw 6.9 earthquake in Ecuador in 2016 (lat.
0.4520, long. 279.7330, depth 34.3 km), and (6) the Mw 7.8 earthquake in Muisne
(Pedernales) in 2016 (lat. 0.269, long. 279.9090, depth 11.3 km), which generated
extensive damage along the coast of Ecuador (Lanning et al., 2016). Several local GMMs
have been developed using recordings from the Colombian Geological Service (SGC)
through the national strong motion network of Colombia at SGC. These networks began
operation in June 1993, so there are only limited data available from large earthquakes.
Nevertheless, several authors have developed local GMMs calibrated for Colombia.
Martı́nez and Chica (1996) proposed equations accounting for the East–West and North–
South components of acceleration records for the Andean region in Colombia. Ojeda and
Martinez (1997) developed two empirical models to describe the attenuation of accelera-
tion in horizontal components, considering the system of continental faults and the sub-
duction zone as tectonics regions, governed by different seismological behaviors. Gallego
(2000) estimated peak ground acceleration (PGA) using seismological models of radiated
spectra; his analysis used the point-source stochastic model and the finite-fault model
developed by Singh et al. (1989), implemented for two tectonic settings representative for
Colombia: active shallow crustal, and subduction. The model developed by Bernal and
Cardona (2015) is a hybrid-source model that combines integral, composite, and stochas-
tic approaches to model strong motions using kinematic sources. This GMM is valid for
shallow crustal earthquakes, interface subduction earthquakes, and intra-slab (Benioff)
subduction earthquakes. Regarding worldwide attenuation models applicable to
Colombia, Arcila et al. (2020) tested the empirical data recorded by the SGC and IGEPN
against various GMMs, concluding that the models by Abrahamson et al. (2016),
Montalva et al. (2017) (using the preliminary version of 2016 available in OpenQuake)
and Zhao et al. (2006b) were most suitable for studying the attenuation from interface,
intra-slab (Benioff), and the Bucaramanga Nest earthquakes, respectively.
In the case of Ecuador, the only published regional GMM corresponds to that devel-
oped by Beauval et al. (2010) for the estimation of macro-seismic intensities. However, for
the recent national seismic hazard model, Beauval et al. (2018) conclude that the attenua-
tion models by Abrahamson et al. (2016), Montalva et al. (2017) and Zhao et al. (2006b)
simulate best the observed data for subduction earthquakes, presenting coherence and
consistency with the Colombian results for their national hazard model. Furthermore, the
work of Beauval et al. (2017) also included the Ghofrani and Atkinson (2014) model as a
good predictor for the Pedernales (2016) earthquake of Mw 7.8.
The lack of local models capable of simulating well the observed strong-motion seismi-
city in Colombia and Ecuador calls for developing a regional model that performs better
than the global models currently implemented in the national seismic hazard models in
northern South America. This article presents a partially non-ergodic ground-motion
model for predicting the 5% damped RotD50 (Boore, 2010) spectral accelerations, in the
period range of 0.01 < T < 10 s, from subduction events in Colombia and Ecuador. This
new GMM is a tool that will enable a better understanding of the attenuation process of
subduction earthquakes in Northern South America, with potential to improve newer
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) in the region.
Database description
In 2018, the SGC updated the Colombian strong-motion database (denoted herein as the
SGC-database), including Ecuadorian events, for the new national hazard model of
Colombia, developed along with the GEM Foundation (Arcila et al., 2020). This database
was later updated to develop the model presented herein to include events from 2019 and
2020. The updated SGC-database comprises 38 intra-slab events recorded between 1995
Arteta et al. 5
and 2019 with moment magnitude in the range of 4.1–7.5 and a maximum hypocentral
depth of 210 km. Predominant focal mechanisms for these events are normal and strike
slip as estimated following the methodologies suggested by Kaverina et al. (1996) and
Álvarez-Gómez (2019). The database also includes 39 interface events recorded between
1998 and 2020, with Mw between 4.4 and 7.8, with predominantly reverse focal
mechanisms.
The complete catalog contains 1245 triaxial records from intra-slab events and 1001
records from interface earthquakes. The following filtering and selection criteria were
applied to the initial SGC-database to obtain a set of reliable recordings for estimating the
coefficients of a regional GMM:
1. Remove recordings for misclassified interface events.

2. Remove recordings with total residual greater than 4 with respect to the global BC-
Hydro GMM (Abrahamson et al., 2016).
3. Remove recordings with Rhypo .350 km.
4. Remove recordings with PGA lower than 1e-4g.
The second criterion is also applied by Kishida et al. (2020) on the NGA Subduction
Project database. The third criterion was applied based on the seismic hazard deaggrega-
tion of capital cities in Colombia (Arcila et al., 2020), in which most of the hazard is con-
trolled by events at distances shorter than 300 km. For guaranteeing a high signal-to-noise
ratio, recordings with PGA lower than 1e-4g were removed (4th criterion). Given the
larger number of available events and recordings, for the intra-slab model, we considered
only those events recorded by at least three stations and those stations having at least three
recordings from the intra-slab subset. On the contrary, there was no minimum number of
recordings per event and station for the interface model, as the data is scarce; however, to
constrain the linear distance term, a reduced dataset which only included earthquakes and
stations with at least three records was used. The final dataset for regression analysis com-
prises 539 horizontal-component accelerograms pairs from 36 interface, and 24 intra-slab
earthquakes, recorded at 90 stations of the SGC and IGEPN. Table 7, available in
Appendix 1 of this article, summarizes the earthquakes and records selected for this study.
Magnitude, depth, and distance metrics

In this work, we use the national strong-motion database of Colombia and Ecuador pro-
cessed and described by Arcila et al. (2020), including locations from the ISC-EHB (2020)
catalog (Engdahl et al., 1998, 2020; Weston et al., 2018), and the magnitude (Mw) solution
from the focal mechanism estimated by the Global Centroid-Moment-Tensor (GCMT)
Project (Dziewonski et al., 1981; Ekström et al., 2012). In addition, we reconstructed the
strong-motion dataset for the 2016–2017 period and added all the available records in the
2018–2020 period from the Colombian accelerometer network. For events in the 2016–
2020 period to be included, a focal mechanism must be available from the GCMT, the
ANSS (NEIC) catalog (US Geological Survey (USGS), 2017), or directly estimated by the
SGC with data from the Colombian seismological network (SGC, 1993). These criteria
enabled the inclusion of events with available estimates of rupture planes and Mw or Mo to
avoid transformation between different magnitude types. We used the openquake gmpe-
smtk toolkit (Weatherill et al., 2014) to calculate the different geometrical properties and
distance metrics, including the hypocentral distance (Rhypo) and the rupture distance (Rrup).
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 3. Dataset scattergrams (interface, left; intra-slab, right): (a, b) distance versus magnitude and (c,
d) distance versus hypocentral depth.
For the calculation of Rrup distances, we generated planar ruptures following the scaling
relationship proposed by Strasser et al. (2010). We defined a focus-to-site distance criter-
ion, namely, Rhypo for intra-slab events, while Rrup is the preferred distance metric for inter-
face events. Values of Rhypo ranged between 20 and 350 km, which would include most
cities in the Andean region of Colombia for an event located to the West of the Andean
mountains.
Figure 3 shows scattergrams of distances versus magnitude, and depth versus hypocen-
tral distance for the processed data. The figure also shows the classification of the corre-
sponding station (s1 to s5 ); the employed classification criteria are explained in the
subsequent section. Figure 3a shows a scattergram of distances versus magnitude for inter-
face events. It shows scarcity of events for R \ 80 km, with an apparent gap of scenarios
in the range 5.7 \ Mw \ 6.7 for any distance. As for the intra-slab dataset, Figure 3b sug-
gests a well-distributed catalog of scenarios, with an apparent gap for Rhypo \ 100 km
and Mw . 5. Figure 3c confirms that the interface events are distributed between 4 and
40 km in depth. The intra-slab subset in Figure 3d shows a uniformly distributed dataset
between depth of 60 and 210 km. The reduced number of damaging scenarios, specifically
for the interface subduction setting, complicates the estimation of a purely local GMM
meant to perform outside the local dataset range if the model is to extrapolate ground-
motion estimates for large-magnitude and close-distance scenarios (e.g. for the historical
Mw 8.8 earthquake of 1906). To resolve this concern, we decided to regionalize the
AG2020 model by fixing the global linear-magnitude scaling term (to control the large-
Arteta et al. 7
magnitude scaling) and the geometrical spreading term (to control the short-distance
attenuation), which cannot be adequately constraint with our data.
Site classification
Site effects have been typically estimated based on the time-averaged shear-wave velocity
over the upper 30 m of the soil deposit, VS30 (e.g. Abrahamson et al., 2014; Abrahamson
and Silva, 2008; Boore and Atkinson, 2008; Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2008). The site fun-
damental period (Tn ) has been increasingly adopted as a proxy for the estimation of site
effects (Di Alessandro et al., 2012; Fukushima et al., 2007; Zhao and Xu, 2013). While
VS30 reflects the soil stiffness at shallow depths, Tn depends on the stiffness of the soil and
on the depth to bedrock of the deposit. Both measurements have been found to correlate
to site amplification (Zhao and Xu, 2013; Zhu et al., 2020). Several researchers have pro-
posed the combined use of VS30 along with Tn as a viable alternative for reducing uncer-
tainty in GMM predictions (Cadet et al., 2010; Idini et al., 2017; Kwak and Seyhan, 2020;
Luzi et al., 2011). Rodriguez-Marek et al. (2001) and Pitilakis et al. (2004), on the con-
trary, proposed the inclusion of the depth of the uppermost resonant layer in site classifi-
cation, recognizing the limited predictive capabilities of a single proxy for the estimation
of site amplification.
Most of the Colombian and Ecuadorian stations included in this study do not have
measurements of VS30. Although estimates of VS30 were obtained from geomorphological
inference, these estimates showed a lack of correlation with estimated fundamental periods
of the stations; furthermore, preliminary analyses showed that for the processed dataset,
an approach based on fundamental period would lead to lower within-event residuals as
compared to an approach based on the estimations of VS30. Therefore, for the estimation
of site effects, we introduce an approach based on the categorization of the seismic sta-
tions according to their identified Tn, following a procedure proposed by Fukushima et al.
(2003, 2007).
In order to categorize the sites, the damped horizontal-to-vertical response spectral
ratio (HVRSR) of 5% was determined for each of the seismic stations. For this estimation,
earthquake records with PGA greater than 50.0 3 1022 m/s2 were excluded to avoid
records of high amplitude, which might have induced nonlinear behavior of the underlying
soil (Kawase et al., 2019). The predominant period of each station (Tn ) was determined by
identifying the peak of the mean HVRSR; the amplitude of the peak of the mean HVRSR,
P*, was also determined for each station. The stations were subsequently classified into
different categories based on the predominant period of each station. The classification
was performed using a criterion similar to that proposed by Idini et al. (2017), which in
turn is a modification of a previous criterion proposed by Zhao et al. (2006a). Sites were
classified into five categories according to the adopted criterion. If the mean HVRSR was
lower than 2 for the entire period range and there was no clear peak in the response, the
station was classified as a low-impedance hard rock s1 . The remaining stations were classi-
fied into categories s2 , s3 , s4 , and s5 according to their predominant period, following the
limits in Table 1.
Table 1 shows corresponding approximate ranges of VS30 for each of the proposed
categories, as well as the average values of P* for each of the site categories obtained from
the stations database. These ranges of VS30 were estimated based on recent observations
of the Tn–VS30 relationship obtained for different sites in Colombia through microtremor
measurements performed by the SGC. Similar ranges of VS30 can be obtained for the
Table 1. Classification criteria for stations

Category Predominant Site description Approximate Average P*
period, Tn (s) range of VS30 (m/s)
s1 Not identifiable: Low-impedance Unknown –

HVRSR \2 hard rock
s2 Tn < 0.2 Rock/stiff soil VS30 ø 600 3.29
s3 0.2 \ Tn < 0.4 Hard soil 370 < VS30 \ 600 4.48
s4 0.4 \ Tn < 0.8 Medium soil 230 < VS30 \ 370 4.24
s5 Tn . 0.8 Soft soil VS30 \ 230 3.47
HVRSR: horizontal-to-vertical response spectral ratio.
Figure 4. Location and classification of recording station in Colombia and Ecuador: (a) interface dataset
and (b) intra-slab dataset.
selected Tn limits by using a simplifying approach as suggested by Zhao et al. (2006a) or

by using a correlation based on the predominant period as proposed by Hassani and
Atkinson (2016a). It should be pointed out that there is no unique relationship between
VS30 and Tn, since the resonant period of a site depends not only on the stiffness of the soil
but also on the depth to the bedrock and on the stratigraphy of the deposit. However, the
uncertainty of the VS30 estimates obtained using Tn is small in comparison with that for
the proxy-based methods (Hassani and Atkinson, 2016a). It should also be noted that site
descriptions in Table 1 (presented by Zhao et al., 2006a) are merely preliminary descrip-
tions since they are based on simplifying assumptions; it is possible that, given the natural
complexities and impedance contrasts within the profiles of soil deposits, the Tn of certain
sites might not correspond to the descriptions in the table.
Figure 4 shows the location and classification of the recording stations for interface and
intra-slab earthquakes in northern South America, uniformly covering western Colombia
and Ecuador for interface events and Central Colombia for slab events. The disparity in
the number and location of stations between interface and intra-slab events is due to the
filtering process, especially those associated with the minimum number of recordings per
Arteta et al. 9
Figure 5. PGA versus distance for different magnitude bins.
events and per stations, and the maximum distance filter. For example, the distance filter
applied to the database naturally selects those stations located toward the West for inter-
face events, and toward central Colombia for intra-slab events. Furthermore, regarding
the stations in Ecuador, those for interface events are the only remnants after the filtering
process. Table 8, available in Appendix 1 of this article, summarizes the location and meta-
data of each station.
Signal filtering, and minimum usable frequency

Each seismic record from the complete strong-motion database was processed, its base line
corrected, and filtered following the iterative process described in Arcila et al. (2020), an
adaptation of the procedure proposed by Ancheta et al. (2014). After processing the
horizontal-component accelerogram pairs, the minimum usable frequency was set as 1.25
times the lower high-pass frequency of filtering for each record, based on Chiou et al.’s
(2008) recommendations. Figure 5 shows PGA scaling with distance, exhibiting large scat-
ter for any given distance, and an apparent steeper slope for intra-slab events. The number
of recordings per usable period remains constant from PGA up to 2 s, approximately; for
periods greater than 3 s, there is a gradual drop in the number of usable recordings to 412
at T = 10 s, a reduction of about 23%.
Response spectra definition

The elastic response spectra RotD50 (Boore, 2010) (5% damped), an intensity measure-
ment independent of the instrument orientation, is estimated for each pair of horizontal
components. Spectral accelerations are calculated for the range of periods of interest
(e.g. 0.01 s < T < 10 s). Figure 6 shows sample median spectra binned by magnitude for
intra-slab events recorded in the distance range 100 < Rhypo < 200 km. Note the contrast-
ing behaviors exhibited by the response spectra for the proposed station categories. For
categories s2–s5, median spectra exhibit peaks within ranges of fundamental periods for
the corresponding category. Mean spectra for category s1, which correspond to a low-
impedance hard rock, depict lower values for the response accelerations (compared to
Figure 6. Sample median spectra for intra-slab events for events recorded between 100 and 200 km.
mean spectra for soil categories) and a low fundamental period, which is consistent with
the expected behavior for hard rock sites with low-impedance contrast.
Regression analysis
Global AG2020 model residual estimates
To confirm the need for a new GMM for Colombia and Ecuador, we calculate the resi-
duals of the AG2020 global model with respect to the local data in the SGC-database. The
AG2020 model is a set of attenuation equations developed as a part of the NGA-SUB
ground-motion model group. This is a global subduction model developed using a dataset
containing 8764 ground motion records from 113 subduction interface and 89 intra-slab
earthquakes worldwide, including events from Alaska, East Asia, Japan, South America,
and Central America, among other locations. Around 3920 records in the AG2020 data-
base are taken from interface events with an Mw span of 5–9.2, while the intra-slab subset
comprises 4850 records that have an Mw span of 5.0–7.8. The portion of the NGA-SUB
database used to develop the AG2020 GMM shares a total of eight subduction events with
our database.
To compare the performance of the AG2020 model, the total residual of the model with
respect to the local data, Di, is estimated as follows:
.
Di = lnðSaOBS, i Þ ln cSa GMPE, i = ln SaOBS, i c
Sa GMPE, i ð1Þ
where SaOBS,i is the observed 5% damped RotD50 spectral acceleration of the two hori-
zontal components of the Colombian and Ecuatorian dataset, and c Sa GMPE, i is the median
spectral acceleration prediction from the empirical model. Given that measurements of
Vs30 were not available for most of the stations, estimates of Vs30 were calculated based on
the predominant period of the stations (identified through HVRSR analysis), and using
the correlation proposed by Hassani and Atkinson (2016a). According to Hassani and
Atkinson, the uncertainty levels for these estimations are lower than the uncertainty levels
obtained after using other proxies proposed by the NGA-East such as topography or geo-
morphology. Figures 7 and 8 show these residuals for PGA and 5% damped response
spectra at 0.3 s, and 2.0 s, as functions of magnitude and distance. Figure 1c shows the dis-
tribution of average PGA residual on the epicenter of each event. Negative mean-residual
Arteta et al. 11
Figure 7. Comparison of residuals estimated using the AG2020 global model for intra-slab events in
Colombia.
Figure 8. Comparison of residuals estimated using the AG2020 global model for interface events in
Colombia and Ecuador.
bias indicates that the AG2020 global model tends to overestimate observations, especially
for larger distances. For intra-slab events, the global model loses prediction capabilities as
the magnitude increase, while the opposite happens for interface events. The residuals ver-
sus magnitude and distance trends, along with the observations described above, indicated
that a regionalization of the AG2020 global model was appropriate to represent the local
ground-motion data in northern South America.
Regionalization of global GMM models

The regionalization of a global GMM is a viable alternative for when empirical observa-
tions are limited, as is the case of the SGC strong motion database (Akkar and Cxağnan,
2010; Gülerce et al., 2016; Montalva et al., 2017; Scasserra et al., 2009). Typically, a func-
tional form of the global model is adopted, along with certain of its scaling parameters.
The general form of the mixed-effects regression model used in this work is

ln Saij = f Mi , rij , u + hi + eij ð2Þ
where Saij is the spectral acceleration at a given period; f(Mi, rij, u) is the attenuation equa-
tion as a function of magnitude M, distance r, and vector of model parameters u; eij is the
error term for the jth recording from the ith event and hi is the random effect for the ith
event (Abrahamson and Youngs, 1992). The term h represents between-event (or inter-
event) variations, while eij represents within-event (or intra-event) variations. The residuals
h and e are uncorrelated and are normally distributed with variances t2 and f2, respec-
tively (Al Atik et al., 2010). The total standard deviation of the ground-motion model s
can be expressed as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s= t 2 + f2 ð3Þ
Functional form of the regional subduction model for northern South America
(NSAm-SUB GMM)
Here we adopted a simplified version of the functional form of the intra-slab portion of
the AG2020 NGA-SUB GMM for subduction earthquakes, along with linear-magnitude
scaling and geometrical spreading scaling terms for both interface and intra-slab events.
The magnitude and path terms are subdivided into global (GL) and regional (REG) por-
tions, indicating which parameters are either taken from the AG2020 global model or are
estimated using regional data, respectively. The median model is described in Equation 4
for interface and intra-slab tectonic settings:
LnðSa Þ = u1 + fmagGL (M) + fmagREG (M) + fpathGL (M, R) + fpathREG

ð4Þ
+ fSoil + u6 FFABA
where uj = uj,e is event dependent, for example, u1,i is the intercept for the interface events
and u1,s for slab events:
Sa is the RotD50 spectral acceleration in units of g;

M is the moment magnitude;
Arteta et al. 13
R is the distance in kilometers, defined as rupture distance (Rrup) for interface, and
8 distance (Rhypo) for slab events
hypocentral
< 0 for interface events
>
FFABA = 0 Forearc sites, intra-slab events
>
:
1 Backarc sites, intra-slab events:
The global magnitude scaling is for the linear term which applies to the large-magnitude
scaling. The global magnitude scaling fmagGL (M) for the interface model is the same as that
presented by Abrahamson and Gulerce (2020). For the intra-slab model, the global magni-
tude scaling fmagGL (M) is a modified version of the AG2020 model (Equation 5), which
now includes a magnitude break at Mw = 6.5 and a zero slope for magnitudes greater
than 6.5. For the AG2020 global and South America models for slab events, the linear-
magnitude scaling term hinges at Mw = 7.5. The authors report that there were not
enough empirical data to constrain this value, so constraints from finite-fault simulations
were used. However, analysis of the dataset used herein showed an apparent reduction in
ground-motion intensity for Mw . 6.5. Note in Figure 7 that the increase in negative resi-
duals for the magnitude bins equal to or larger than 6.5 for intra-slab events. The regional
magnitude scaling term, fmagREG (M), includes a quadratic term to account for deviation
from linear magnitude scaling at spectral periods crossing the corner frequency for the
moderate magnitudes (Equation 6). Using this approach, the large-magnitude scaling is
constrained by the global model and the moderate magnitude scaling is constrained by the
local data as follows:
(
½u2 ðM C1 Þ for M<C1
fmagGL (M) = ð5Þ
0 otherwise
fmagREG (M) = u3 (10 M)2 ð6Þ
There are two parts to the path term: the geometrical spreading (log R term) and the
anelastic attenuation (linear R term). These two terms are correlated in most GMPE
regressions. Using the local data, we can only constrain one of the terms. Therefore, we
fixed the geometrical spreading term to the global model, where coefficient u4 from the
AG2020 model for the intra-slab model is slightly shifted toward positive values to avoid
having positive values on the regional linear distance term u5 (Equation 7). Equation 8
contains the linear regional path term, which accounts for region-specific damping along
the ray path (Q) relative to the assumed global geometrical spreading terms. Several cities
(and stations) in Colombia and Ecuador are located above the interface subduction region.
Hence, for short-distance large events, the rupture distance serves as a proxy for modeling
the energy release from a finite fault, instead of a point source:

fpathGL (M, Rhypo ) = ½u4 + 0:1(M 7) ln R + 10e0:4ðM6Þ ð7Þ
fpathREG (R) = u5 R ð8Þ
For the estimation of site effects, we introduce a definition of the fSoil (T ) term that is
discretized per station category, similar to the one proposed by Fukushima et al. (2003,
2007). Several authors have shown that such categorization can lead to an adequate repre-
sentation of the resonant characteristics of a group of sites, allowing for an adequate
description of the site amplification for the development of GMMs (Di Alessandro et al.,
2012; Fukushima et al., 2007; Idini et al., 2017; Zhao and Xu, 2013). Unlike previously
proposed functions, the amplification term that we are proposing is also proportional to
the mean amplification of the HVRSR, P*. Based on data for the KiK-Net network sta-
tions in Japan, Ito et al. (2020) recently found that there is a clear correlation between the
horizontal–vertical spectral relationship and the natural logarithm of the amplification of
the horizontal surface response. Building on this finding, we propose the following func-
tion for the estimation of site effects:
fSoil (T ) = ck (T )ln(P ) ð9Þ
where ck(T) is a period-dependent regression coefficient and k refers to the kth site cate-
gory. For the hard rock stations of low impedance, s1 , it is assumed that there is no
dynamic amplification (c1 (T ) = 0). In spite of the relatively large range of Tn values within
each of the proposed site categories, Zhao and Xu (2013) showed that this categorized Tn-
based approach would lead to statistically similar standard deviations as a VS30-based
approach. Furthermore, the fact that this study introduces an additional parameter (P*)
has led to a decrease in deviations of predicted spectra (for the data in this study), with
respect to a formulation based only on Tn.
In case there is no information available regarding the predominant period of a particu-
lar station, its categorization may be conducted according to Table 1 using estimates of
VS30. Furthermore, average values of P* may be used for a specific site in case no HVRSR
information is available; however, as expected, an accurate Tn and P* determination
should reduce the variability in the proposed GMMs.
A regression analysis was performed to adjust the period-dependent coefficients.
Recognizing that the frequency impacts the site amplification (Zhao et al., 2016a; Zhao
and Zhang, 2010), separate analyses were performed for the earthquake records corre-
sponding to different tectonic environments (intra-slab and interface) so that the fitted
models would correspond to a homogeneous tectonic environment. Figure 9 shows coeffi-
cients ck(T) of the site response term for the different tectonic environments. Table 2 con-
tains coefficients ck(T) for interface and intra-slab events. The coefficients exhibit similar
shapes with a peak within the range of fundamental period for the corresponding station
category, and an asymmetrical decay toward both short-period and long-period ranges of
the spectra. Similar patterns for period-dependent amplification terms have been reported
by Di Alessandro et al. (2012) and Kwak and Seyhan (2020); however, unlike the proposed
period-dependent amplification terms by Di Alessandro et al. and Kwak and Seyhan, the
soil term proposed in this work is affected by the natural logarithm of P* of each station
(see Equation 9). It is noted that the amplitude of ck(T) coefficients for interface events
(Figure 9a) decreases for sites having a longer Tn, while increasing for intra-slab events
(Figure 9b). It should be mentioned that, as observed by Hassani and Atkinson (2016b,
2018) and Zhu et al. (2020), site amplification does not scale linearly with Tn, as is typically
assumed for Vs30. Hassani and Atkinson (2018), for instance, found similar differences in
site amplification with respect to site fundamental frequency between glaciated and non-
glaciated sites in North America. These discrepancies in site amplification behavior may
be stemming from differences in impedance contrasts in the deposits, as well as from differ-
ences in the attenuation conditions for the sites.
The difference between the intra-slab ground motion in the forearc and backarc is mod-
eled as a constant. It does not apply for interface events. The physical effect being modeled
Arteta et al. 15
Figure 9. Linear site terms: (a) interface events and (b) intra-slab events.
Table 2. ck(T) coefficients for interface and intra-slab events

Period (s) s2,i s3,i s4,i s5,i s2,s s3,s s4,s s5,s
0.01 0.740 0.966 0.959 0.986 0.745 0.892 0.933 0.886

0.02 0.828 0.990 0.994 0.971 0.723 0.879 0.932 0.862
0.03 0.896 0.964 0.989 0.959 0.725 0.863 0.936 0.810
0.05 1.011 0.941 0.955 0.885 0.752 0.806 0.889 0.747
0.075 1.196 0.948 0.899 0.783 0.823 0.795 0.825 0.653
0.1 1.237 1.022 0.850 0.692 0.929 0.820 0.785 0.561
0.15 1.180 1.182 0.772 0.582 0.953 0.917 0.785 0.505
0.2 1.016 1.210 0.706 0.514 0.849 1.018 0.950 0.553
0.25 0.850 1.221 0.693 0.509 0.691 1.101 1.066 0.659
0.3 0.650 1.119 0.732 0.531 0.556 1.113 1.153 0.744
0.4 0.227 0.628 0.934 0.601 0.499 1.003 1.281 0.904
0.5 0.094 0.434 0.949 0.687 0.442 0.829 1.283 1.082
0.75 20.047 0.233 0.784 0.865 0.391 0.535 1.146 1.403
1 20.146 0.143 0.632 0.881 0.355 0.409 0.980 1.350
1.5 20.287 0.026 0.384 0.692 0.304 0.317 0.756 1.092
2 20.386 20.011 0.225 0.386 0.278 0.282 0.666 0.909
3 20.438 20.041 0.090 0.130 0.267 0.257 0.597 0.751
4 20.438 20.041 0.042 0.052 0.267 0.247 0.577 0.724
5 –0.438 20.041 0.022 0.012 0.267 0.247 0.567 0.724
6 20.438 20.041 0.022 0.012 0.267 0.247 0.567 0.724
7.5 20.438 20.041 0.022 0.012 0.267 0.247 0.567 0.724
10 20.438 20.041 0.022 0.012 0.267 0.247 0.567 0.724
Subindex i = interface; s = intra-slab, s1,i (T) = s1,s (T) = 0.
is the added damping (lower Q) for the ray paths that pass under the volcanoes. In
Colombia, if the waves propagate under the volcanoes, then there is a large reduction in
the high-frequency ground motions due to the lower Q; however, once past the volcanoes,
the attenuation is similar. Therefore, the effect of additional damping under the volcanoes
can be modeled by a constant term. It is not a change in the distance slope.
Coefficient results
Regional-model coefficients were estimated using the algorithm described in Abrahamson
and Youngs (1992), which uses an iterative maximum-likelihood approach. The details of
the implementation of the algorithm can be found in Abrahamson et al. (2016). To pro-
duce smooth spectra, the coefficients were smoothed one at a time and then held fixed to
estimate the remaining unsmoothed ones. This process was repeated to estimate parameter
ui in the following sequence: (1) u3, (2) u5, (3) u6, and (4) u1. Table 3 contains the final set
of smoothed coefficients.
Residuals and variance analysis

The within-event residuals, eij, of our model are contrasted against distance for PGA and
spectral periods of 0.3, 1.0, and 5.0 s in Figure 10. In general, the residuals are centered
around zero, although exhibiting a slight trend with distance larger than 70 km for PGA
of interface events. This is a feature inherited from the geometrical spreading adopted
from the global model. Fitting the distance trend in the local data for PGA would lead to
a change in the spectral shape that is not well constrained due to data scarcity. Figure 11
shows eij for each site category for PGA and spectral period of 1.0 s. Sites in the s2 cate-
gory transition from low positive residual at short periods to negative residual at longer
periods, pivoting around T = 0.5 s. The between-event residuals, hi, presented in Figure
12 show no apparent trend with magnitude, although the model for interface events tends
to under-predict the observed low-frequency ground motions for the large-magnitude
events. For the higher frequencies, the residuals are close to zero. These results show that
the model and its fitted parameters represent the observed data. In a later section, we show
the model extrapolation capabilities for estimating ground motions of large-magnitude
and close-distance scenarios, feature that is borrowed from the global model of AG2020.
The between-event, within-event, and total standard deviations (i.e. t, f, and s, respec-
tively) were estimated with the random-effect model described above. The variation of the
local (Northern South American, NSAm) t with spectral period is shown in Figure 13.
It is compared against the regional t for South America (SAm), the average t for
New Zealand and Taiwan (NZ&Tw), and the average global, fixed t as estimated by
Abrahamson and Gulerce (2020) in the AG2020 model. The Northern South American
between-event term is within reasonable limits (e.g. (mean, min, max) = (0.50, 0.44, 0.63)
for interface and (mean, min, max) = (0.39, 0.31, 0.49) for intra-slab) compared to other
subduction GMMs found in the literature (Abrahamson et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2016a,
2016b). Furthermore, for intra-slab events, the local t falls below the fixed global t of
the AG2020 model, and is similar to the average of the New Zealand and Taiwan
between-event standard deviations. For interface at shorter periods, the local t follows the
fixed global t of the AG2020 model, although it is about 10% larger, on average, for
T . 0.2 s. Note that the ‘‘bump in tau’’ peaking at about 0.07 s, apparent for the South
American region of the AG2020 model, is not observed in the local NSAm data. This sup-
ports the hypothesis of Abrahamson and Gulerce (2020) about regional site effects being
mapped into the event term. It is hypothesized that the so-called ‘‘bump in tau’’ is not pres-
ent in our model because of the better representation of the resonant properties of the
local sites.
Figure 14 shows the variation of the within-event standard deviation (f) with period,
comparing the local NSAm estimates with the regional SAm model (Abrahamson and
Gulerce, 2020) with and without distance dependence. Figure 14a shows f of the AG2020
Arteta et al.
Table 3. Smoothed regression coefficient for the median (units of g) northern South America subduction GMPE model
Period (s) u1,i u2,i u3,i u4,i u5,i u1,s u2,s u3,s u4,s u5,s u6,s
0.01 4.329 0.730 20.021 21.450 20.006 4.639 1.070 20.027 21.450 20.005 20.653
0.02 4.347 0.730 20.021 21.450 20.006 4.714 1.070 20.027 21.450 20.005 20.653
0.03 4.360 0.730 20.021 21.450 20.006 4.752 1.070 20.027 21.450 20.005 20.653
0.05 4.473 0.730 20.021 21.450 20.006 4.951 1.070 20.027 21.450 20.005 20.653
0.075 4.679 0.730 20.021 21.450 20.007 5.126 1.070 20.027 21.420 20.006 20.717
0.1 4.893 0.730 20.021 21.450 20.008 5.153 1.070 20.027 21.364 20.006 20.807
0.15 5.070 0.730 20.023 21.425 20.008 4.975 1.070 20.027 21.298 20.006 20.862
0.2 4.950 0.730 20.025 21.335 20.008 4.650 1.070 20.027 21.258 20.006 20.857
0.25 4.900 0.730 20.029 21.275 20.008 4.300 1.070 20.027 21.227 20.005 20.824
0.3 4.850 0.730 20.038 21.231 20.008 4.000 1.070 20.027 21.201 20.004 20.766
0.4 4.650 0.730 20.057 21.165 20.008 3.500 1.070 20.030 21.161 20.003 20.628
0.5 4.334 0.730 20.072 21.115 20.007 3.118 1.070 20.037 21.130 20.003 20.521
0.75 3.564 0.730 20.099 21.020 20.007 2.400 1.070 20.056 21.074 20.003 20.329
1 2.957 0.730 20.118 20.950 20.006 1.821 1.070 20.072 21.000 20.003 20.192
1.5 1.986 0.730 20.145 20.860 20.006 0.953 1.070 20.085 20.958 20.002 20.089
2 1.323 0.730 20.164 20.820 20.005 0.340 1.070 20.095 20.938 20.002 20.036
3 0.518 0.730 20.191 20.793 20.005 20.458 1.070 20.104 20.933 20.002 20.018
4 20.022 0.730 20.210 20.793 20.004 21.033 1.070 20.107 20.933 20.002 20.018
5 20.437 0.730 20.220 20.793 20.003 21.468 1.070 20.109 20.933 20.002 20.018
6 20.784 0.730 20.224 20.793 20.003 21.825 1.070 20.109 20.933 20.002 20.018
7.5 21.281 0.730 20.224 20.793 20.002 22.265 1.070 20.109 20.933 20.002 20.018
10 21.883 0.730 20.224 20.793 20.001 22.755 1.070 20.109 20.933 20.002 20.018
Subindex i = interface; s = intra-slab.
17
Figure 10. Within-event residuals as a function of distance for (a) interface events and (b) intra-slab events.
Figure 11. Within-event residuals as a function of soil category for (a) interface events and (b) intra-
slab events.
regional SAm model before including the variance associated with the ‘‘bump in tau.’’ The
NSAm f shows a monotonic increase with period in the high-frequency range that peaks
between 0.075 and 0.1 s, resembling the ‘‘bump in phi’’ shown by Abrahamson and
Gulerce (2020) due to site effects. This ‘‘bump in phi’’ is modeled by Abrahamson and
Gulerce by fixing the between-standard deviation to t = 0.47 for all periods and adding
the increase in t at short periods to the f-model. The f-models for the Japan and SAm
Arteta et al. 19
(a)
(b)
Figure 12. Between-event residuals as a function of magnitude for (a) intra-slab events and (b) interface
events.
(a) (b)
Figure 13. Regression results for the between-event standard deviation terms compared with other
regions: (a) interface events and (b) intra-slab events.
regions of the AG2020 model showed a strong dependence on distance; that is, the within-
event residual variance increases for sets of recordings measured at larger distances.
Figure 14b and c compares the f-model with distance dependence of the Japan and SAm
regions of the AG2020 model with a partition of our NSAm f-model for two distance
bins. The f-values of the local NSAm model at short distance (R < 150 km) are, on aver-
age, approximately 15% smaller than those at large distance (R . 200 km), although the
difference is larger for intra-slab events. For intra-slab and interface events, the regional
NSAm f-values are, on average, about 1.2 times greater than those of the Japan and
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 14. Comparison of the local (NSAm) within-event standard deviation and the regional Japan and
SAm term from the AG2020 model: (a) model with no distance dependence, (b) distance dependence
interface events, and (c) distance dependence intra-slab events.
SAm model in the AG2020 GMM,. The larger f in the NSAm data reflects more compli-
cated wave propagation in the region and more variability in site amplification. Similar to
the global model AG2020, we define a f-model that varies with distance as described in
Equation 10 as follows: 8 9
>
< f1 for R<150 > =
f f1
f = f1 + 2 ðR 150Þ for 150\R<200 ð10Þ
>
: 50 >
;
f2 for R.200
where R represents the rupture distance (Rrup) for the interface model and the hypocentral
distance (Rhypo) for the intra-slab model; the values of f1, f2 are period dependent and are
presented in Table 4 for the interface model and in Table 5 for the intra-slab model.
For the high-frequency range, where the bump in phi shows, our regional NSAm model and
the Japan and SAm model in the AG2020 GMM have similar maximum total standard devia-
tion s for interface events, (e.g. slightly below 1.0 for the short-distance bin and between 1.15
and 1.2 for the long-distance bin) (Figure 15a). For intra-slab, the NSAm model exhibit lower
s-values in the bump region when compared to the Japan and SAm model in the AG2020
GMM. For longer periods, the AG2020 model reduces monotonically with a steep slope to a
value of s = 0.7 at 10 s. After the ‘‘bump,’’ our model variation of s-values with period
tends to remain flat for the interface events or reduces at a lower rate for intra-slab events. At
10 s, the interface and intra-slab models have an average s close to 0.9. An interpolation func-
tion like that implement for the f-model can be used for the s-model for the shorter and lon-
ger distance range, where values of s1, s2 are also period dependent (see Tables 4 and 5 for the
interface and the intra-slab models, respectively).
Considering all the distance ranges, the total standard deviation of the local NSAm
interface model is in the range 0.87 < s < 1.06, while the intra-slab model is in the range
0.81 < s < 0.98, which we consider to be large enough to greatly impact hazard estima-
tions at a site. The within-event variance can be reduced by recognizing the components of
the error term eij (Al Atik et al., 2010):
eij = eS2S, j + eAmp, ij + eP2P, j + e0ij ð11Þ
where eS2S, is the site-to-site residual for the jth site; eij is the aleatory variability in the site
amplification at the jth station and the ith earthquake; eP2P,j is the path-to-path residual
for the jth site; and e0ij is the remaining aleatory within-event variability. Systematic site-
Arteta et al. 21
Table 4. Standard deviations of the interface model in LN units

Period t ,i f1,i f2,i s1,i s2,i fs2s,i fss,i sss,i
0.01 0.452 0.726 0.817 0.855 0.934 0.729 0.522 0.690

0.02 0.448 0.739 0.832 0.864 0.945 0.729 0.522 0.688
0.03 0.439 0.777 0.841 0.893 0.949 0.746 0.574 0.723
0.05 0.439 0.798 0.854 0.911 0.960 0.763 0.659 0.792
0.075 0.446 0.836 0.892 0.948 0.997 0.796 0.674 0.808
0.1 0.444 0.753 0.965 0.874 1.062 0.738 0.630 0.771
0.15 0.459 0.708 0.982 0.844 1.084 0.628 0.650 0.796
0.2 0.519 0.730 0.962 0.896 1.093 0.588 0.647 0.830
0.25 0.559 0.830 0.916 1.001 1.073 0.597 0.668 0.871
0.3 0.535 0.806 0.944 0.967 1.085 0.584 0.630 0.826
0.4 0.508 0.704 0.850 0.868 0.990 0.591 0.592 0.780
0.5 0.509 0.715 0.867 0.877 1.005 0.604 0.585 0.775
0.75 0.536 0.627 0.821 0.824 0.981 0.551 0.499 0.732
1 0.598 0.658 0.822 0.889 1.016 0.565 0.445 0.745
1.5 0.631 0.675 0.804 0.924 1.022 0.588 0.404 0.749
2 0.592 0.716 0.807 0.929 1.000 0.600 0.478 0.761
3 0.570 0.696 0.759 0.899 0.949 0.602 0.543 0.787
4 0.525 0.748 0.731 0.914 0.900 0.603 0.589 0.789
5 0.494 0.747 0.775 0.895 0.919 0.629 0.510 0.710
6 0.455 0.791 0.807 0.913 0.927 0.632 0.480 0.662
7.5 0.440 0.746 0.831 0.866 0.940 0.636 0.444 0.625
10 0.468 0.724 0.791 0.862 0.919 0.640 0.390 0.609
Table 5. Standard deviations of the intra-slab model in LN units

Period t ,s f1,s f2,s s1,s s2,s fs2s,s fss,s sss,s
0.01 0.364 0.707 0.834 0.795 0.909 0.556 0.569 0.676

0.02 0.356 0.699 0.848 0.784 0.920 0.566 0.576 0.678
0.03 0.359 0.704 0.856 0.790 0.928 0.572 0.583 0.684
0.05 0.340 0.725 0.873 0.801 0.937 0.587 0.586 0.678
0.075 0.318 0.791 0.902 0.853 0.957 0.595 0.627 0.703
0.1 0.308 0.855 0.977 0.909 1.024 0.604 0.706 0.770
0.15 0.351 0.853 0.995 0.922 1.056 0.614 0.711 0.793
0.2 0.358 0.793 0.983 0.870 1.046 0.628 0.667 0.757
0.25 0.345 0.782 0.942 0.855 1.003 0.609 0.626 0.715
0.3 0.358 0.731 0.972 0.814 1.035 0.641 0.635 0.729
0.4 0.382 0.600 0.889 0.712 0.967 0.614 0.528 0.652
0.5 0.416 0.656 0.913 0.777 1.003 0.619 0.560 0.698
0.75 0.452 0.748 0.880 0.874 0.989 0.623 0.527 0.695
1 0.466 0.694 0.850 0.836 0.969 0.630 0.494 0.679
1.5 0.453 0.581 0.839 0.737 0.953 0.585 0.508 0.680
2 0.422 0.552 0.841 0.695 0.941 0.576 0.512 0.664
3 0.398 0.573 0.809 0.697 0.901 0.570 0.470 0.616
4 0.405 0.549 0.757 0.682 0.859 0.570 0.412 0.578
5 0.415 0.578 0.781 0.711 0.885 0.588 0.462 0.621
6 0.427 0.627 0.813 0.758 0.918 0.607 0.501 0.658
7.5 0.446 0.680 0.825 0.813 0.938 0.635 0.519 0.684
10 0.486 0.691 0.761 0.845 0.903 0.598 0.544 0.730
to-site variability is an epistemic uncertainty, and single-station within-event residual at the

jth station for the ith earthquake, eS,i, is defined as follows:
eS, ij = eij eS2S, j = eAmp, ij + eP2P, j + e0ij ð12Þ
The within-event single-station sigma, fSS, is the standard deviation of the eS,ij term, and
the single-station standard deviation of the GMM, sss, is station standard deviation of the
GMM, defined as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sss = t 2 + ;2SS ð13Þ
A second random-effects regression was used to decompose the within-event variance

(;2 ) to the within-site variance (;2SS ) and the between-site variance (;2S2S ) using the
Abrahamson and Youngs (1992) approach but grouping the data by site rather than by
earthquake. The distribution of the number of recordings per station are summarized in
Table 8, available in the Appendix 1 to this article. Approximately 38% of the stations
have two or three recordings, so there is an uncertainty in the partitioning of the f into
fSS and fS2S. Figure 16 shows the variation of fSS and sss with spectral period. The
single-station standard deviation is, on average, 14% smaller than the total standard
deviation of the model for interface events, and 19% smaller for intra-slab. The results are
in the range of models for other regions (Abrahamson et al., 2016; Atkinson, 2006; Lin
et al., 2011; Rodriguez-Marek et al., 2011), indicating that the range in site effects at
Colombian and Ecuadorian sites are similarly represented by the site categorization pre-
sented herein, as are the site-response effects represented at other regions by the Vs30
proxy. Conducting site-specific site response studies will result in a great impact on
Northern South America hazard results; however, according to Al Atik et al. (2010), a
penalty for using the lower single-station sigma in hazard analysis is that epistemic uncer-
tainty in the site amplification is required, which can be estimated by conducting site-
specific site-response studies that include uncertainty in the site profile.
The values of fSS from the Colombian data set range between 0.56 and 0.80 (Tables 4
and 5) which are larger than the fSS value of 0.42 for the BC-Hydro subduction GMPE,
but the BC-Hydro data used for the single-station f is mainly from Taiwan and Japan.
The small number of recordings per station is not the cause for the larger fSS from the
local data. The maximum-likelihood method accounts for the variations in the number of
recordings per station. This difference in the fSS values shows that using a global value of
fSS in a partially non-ergodic GMM’s will not be applicable to all regions.
Examples of median spectra and comparison with the global model

Figure 17 shows examples of spectra estimated with the NSAm SUB GMM at the median
level. The average value of P* of each category was used to generate these spectra.
Figure 17a and b shows spectra variations with soil category for interface, and intra-slab
events, respectively, for Mw = 6.5 at 100 km, for forearc sites (in the case of the slab sce-
nario). The ‘‘low-impedance hard rock sites’’ represented by s1 exhibit low amplification,
peaking at T = 0.25 and 0.15 s for interface and intra-slab ground motions, respectively.
The generic soil sites (categories s3 and s4) exhibit maximum amplification values of about
two at peak with respect to category s2. Category s5 spectra exhibit less amplification and
a major period shift at the peak, with respect to category s2 which corresponds to stiff soil
Arteta et al. 23
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Comparison of the local (NSAm) total standard deviation and the regional Japan and SAm
term from the AG2020 model: (a) interface events and (b) intra-slab events.
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Regression results for the local (NSAm) single-station standard deviation term: (a) interface
events and (b) intra-slab events.
or rock sites. Note the resemblance of the estimated spectral shape to the median recorded
spectra presented in Figure 6. Figure 17c shows example median spectra at rock sites for
short-distance (Rrup = 25 km) interface scenarios. The moment magnitude range of inter-
est include an event magnitude outside the available dataset in northern South America
(e.g. M = 8 and 9), showing the extrapolation capabilities of our model, which is a main
feature inherited from the AG2020 model. Figure 17d gives an example of backarc
attenuation for two values of Rhypo. For the shorter period range (T < 0.4 s), backarc-
recorded ground motions are approximately one-half as intense as those recorded in the
forearc, for the longer period range, the difference disappears, a feature consistent with
the work by Zhao et al. (2016a) for intra-slab events in Japan.
Figure 18 compares the scaling with magnitude and distance for PGA and 2-s spectral
acceleration between the local NSAm and the global AG2020 models. The comparison is
made for rock sites, that is, s2-sites for the NSAm GMM and Vs30 = 720 m/s for the
AG2020 GMM. For the high frequencies, the magnitude and distance scaling of both
models is similar, although the magnitude break at Mw = 6.5, imposed to the intra-slab
local model, reduces the scaling to attenuate more the ground-motion estimates of the
local model for large-magnitude events (Figure 18b). The models deviate for the lower fre-
quencies, but converge for the large-magnitude scaling of interface earthquakes (Figure
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 17. Example of median spectra of the NSAm model: (a) variation of response spectra with soil
category for Mw 6.5 and Rrup = 100 km for interface events; (b) variation of response spectra with soil
category for Mw 6.5 and Rhypo = 100 km for intra-slab events; (c) variation of response spectra with
magnitude for interface events at rock sites, s2, and Rrup = 25 km; (d) backarc attenuation for a Mw 6.0
intra-slab events located at 80 and 160 km on rock sites, s2.
18a) and large-distance scaling for intra-slab events (Figure 18d). Figure 18a shows the
local interface model exhibits a steeper scaling for M \ 8, a feature controlled by the local
data, whereas Figure 18a shows that, below the magnitude break, the intra-slab local
model exhibits an approximately constant shift from the global model, which scales the
ground motion by a factor of two to four.
Summary
In this article, we presented a new ground-motion prediction model, denoted NSAm SUB
GMM, for the prediction of 5% damped ROTD50 spectral acceleration of subduction
earthquakes in Colombia and Ecuador using a soil natural period and a peak HVRSR
amplification to estimate soil site response within the ground motion. The NSAm SUB
GMM is a tool that will enable improved understanding of the attenuation process of sub-
duction earthquakes in northern South America, with a reasonable potential of improving
newer PSHAs in the region. Our model was developed as a regionalization of the AG2020
global model (Abrahamson and Gulerce, 2020), based on 539 horizontal-component
recordings from 60 subduction earthquakes recorded between 1994 and 2020 at 90 stations
in Colombia and Ecuador. The events moment magnitude ranged between 4.5 and 7.8,
with distances between 20 and 350 km. The extrapolation of the model outside the range
of the database used to estimate its parameters is constrained by the large-magnitude and
short-distance scaling from the global GMPE given by AG2020.
Arteta et al. 25
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 18. Comparison of spectral acceleration scaling of the NSAm and the global AG2020 model for
rock sites, s2, and PGA and T = 2 s : (a) magnitude scaling for interface events at 100 km; (b) magnitude
scaling for intra-slab events at 80 km; (c) distance scaling for Mw 6.0 interface events; (d) distance scaling
for Mw 6.0 intra-slab events.
User guidance
The NSAm SUB GMM models the horizontal-component RotD50, 5% damped, spectral
acceleration of interface and intra-slab subduction earthquakes for spectral periods up to
10 s. The input parameters required to use the NSAm SUB GMM are (1) the moment
magnitude, Mw; (2) the rupture (for interface) or hypocentral (for intra-slab) distance to
the site, Rrup or Rhypo (km); (3) a site category based on natural period according to Table
1; and (4) a fore/back arc flag for intra-slab events, for example, FFABA = 0 for forearc
sites and FFABA = 1 for backarc sites. ‘‘Category s2 can be used to represent sites which
have been typically characterized as ‘‘generic rock’’ in previous models for Colombia; this
category includes sites with a Vs of around 760 m/s. Average values of P* found in Table
1 may be used to characterize such ‘‘generic rock’’ stations in case no HVRSR information
is available’’. The range of magnitudes for the application of the NSAm SUB GMM is
4.5 < Mw < 9.5, for interface earthquakes, and 4.5 < Mw 8.0 for intra-slab events. The
large-magnitude extrapolation is feasible thanks to the constraints imposed by the global
model. The distance range is 10 < Rrup < 450 km for interface earthquakes and
70 < Rhypo < 450 km for intra-slab. This model is only intended for applications in
Colombia and Ecuador. For other regions, without region-specific models, the global
GMMs should be considered.
Data and resources

The uncorrected accelerograms used in this study are available in ASCII format
from the national strong motion network of Colombia at SGC through the website
\https://www2.sgc.gov.co/sgc/sismos/Paginas/Consulta-experta.aspx..
The seismic catalog of historical earthquakes used in this study are available in the
official site of SGC through the website \http://sish.sgc.gov.co/visor/..
The information from the national strong motion network of Ecuador at the
IGEPN can be retrieved through the website \https://www.igepn.edu.ec/solicitud-
de-datos/formulario-descarga-de-datos..
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Colombian Geological Survey for providing access to the recordings of the
Colombian strong motion database, especially those within the group for the evaluation and moni-
toring of seismic activity. Discussions with Fernando Dı́az-Parra at the Colombian Geological
Survey helped in the characterization of the seismic stations, and the influence of local effects in
GMMs. The work by undergraduate students Daniel Gómez, Pedro González, Natalia Lora, and
Juliana Rivera at Universidad del Norte is greatly appreciated. The authors recognize the valuable
guidance of Julio Garcı́a in the compilation of the strong motion databases.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the special cooperation agreement #03 of
2020 between the Colombian Geological Survey, and Fundación Universidad del Norte (SCOA#03-
2020-SGC-UNINORTE), with the principal goal of developing GMMs compatible for the northwes-
tern part of South America.
ORCID iDs
Carlos A Arteta https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5630-8387
Mónica Arcila https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2158-401X
References
Abrahamson NA and Gulerce Z (2020) Regionalized ground-motion models for subduction
earthquakes based on the NGA-SUB database. PEER report no. 2020/25. Berkeley, CA: Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), December 2020, University of California,
Berkeley.
Abrahamson NA and Silva WJ (2008) Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion
relations. Earthquake Spectra 24(1): 67–97.
Abrahamson NA and Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the
random effects model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 82(1): 505–510.
Abrahamson NA, Gregor N and Addo K (2016) BC hydro ground motion prediction equations for
subduction earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 32(1): 23–44.
Abrahamson NA, Silva WJ and Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for
active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1025–1055.
Akkar S and C xağnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey, and its
comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 100(6): 2978–2995.
Al Atik L, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F and Kuehn N (2010) The
variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismological Research
Letters 81(5): 794–801.
Arteta et al. 27
Álvarez-Gómez JA (2019) FMC—Earthquake focal mechanisms data management, cluster and

classification. SoftwareX 9: 299–307.
Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW,
Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T and Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthquake
Spectra 30(3): 989–1005.
Arcila M, Garcı́a J, Montejo J, Eraso J, Valcárcel J, Mora M, Viganò D, Pagani M and Dı́az F
(2020) Modelo Nacional de Amenaza Sı´smica Para Colombia. Bogotá: Servicio Geológico
Colombiano y Fundación Global Earthquake Model.
Atkinson GM (2006) Single-station sigma. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 96(2):
446–455.
Beauval C, Marinière J, Laurendeau A, Singaucho JC, Viracucha C, Vallée M, Maufroy E, Mercerat
D, Yepes H, Ruiz M and Alvarado A (2017) Comparison of observed ground-motion attenuation
for the 16 April 2016 Mw 7.8 Ecuador megathrust earthquake and its two largest aftershocks with
existing ground-motion prediction equations. Seismological Research Letters 88(2A): 287–299.
Beauval C, Marinière J, Yepes H, Audin L, Nocquet JM, Alvarado A, Baize S, Aguilar J, Singaucho
J-C and Jomard H (2018) A new seismic hazard model for Ecuador. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 108(3A): 1443–1464.
Beauval C, Yepes H, Bakun WH, Egred J, Alvarado A and Singaucho J-C (2010) Locations and
magnitudes of historical earthquakes in the Sierra of Ecuador (1587–1996). Geophysical Journal
International 181(3): 1613–1633.
Beauval C, Yepes H, Palacios P, Segovia M, Alvarado A, Font Y, Aguilar J, Troncoso L and Vaca
S (2013) An earthquake catalog for seismic hazard assessment in Ecuador. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 103(2A): 773–786.
Bernal GA and Cardona OD (2015) Calibración de Funciones de Atenuación Basadas En El Espectro
de Fuente Radiado Y Su Aplicación En Colombia (ed AH Barbat). Barcelona: Centre Internacional
de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria (CIMNE).
Boore DM (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from
two horizontal components of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100(4):
1830–1835.
Boore DM and Atkinson GM (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. Earthquake Spectra 24(1): 99–138.
Cadet H, Bard P-Y and Rodriguez-Marek A (2010) Defining a standard rock site: Propositions
based on the KiK-net database. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100(1): 172–195.
Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Y (2008) NGA ground motion model for the geometric mean
horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% damped linear elastic response spectra for
periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s. Earthquake Spectra 24(1): 139–171.
Chiou BSJ, Darragh RB, Gregor N and Silva WJ (2008) NGA project strong-motion database.
Earthquake Spectra 24(1): 23–44.
Colombian Geological Survey (SGC) (1993) Red Sismologica Nacional de Colombia [Data set].
International Federation of Digital Seismograph Networks. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7914/
SN/CM (accessed August 14, 2017).
Colombian Geological Survey (SGC) (n.d.) Sistema de Información de Sismicidad Histórica de
Colombia. Available at: http://sish.sgc.gov.co/visor/ (accessed 3 February 2021).
Corredor F (2003) Seismic strain rates and distributed continental deformation in the northern
Andes and three-dimensional seismotectonics of northwestern South America. Tectonophysics
372(3–4): 147–166.
Di Alessandro C, Bonilla LF, Boore DM, Rovelli A and Scotti O (2012) Predominant-period site
classification for response spectra prediction equations in Italy. Bulletin of the Seismological
Di Giacomo D, Bondár I, Storchak DA, Engdahl ER, Bormann P and Harris J (2015) ISC-GEM:
Global Instrumental Earthquake Catalogue (1900–2009), III. Re-computed MS and mb, proxy
MW, final magnitude composition and completeness assessment. Physics of the Earth and
Planetary Interiors 239: 33–47.
Di Giacomo D, Engdahl ER and Storchak DA (2018) The ISC-GEM Earthquake Catalogue (1904–
2014): Status after the extension project. Earth System Science Data 10(4): 1877–1899.
Drouet S, Montalva G, Dimaté M, Castillo L, Fernandez G, Morales C and Weatherhill G (2017) Building
a ground-motion logic tree for South America within the GEM-SARA project framework. In:
Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, 9–13 January.
Dziewonski AM, Chou TA and Woodhouse JH (1981) Determination of earthquake source
parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 86(B4): 2825–2852.
Ekström G, Nettles M and Dziewoński AM (2012) The global CMT project 2004–2010: Centroid-
moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 200–201: 1–9.
Engdahl ER, Di Giacomo D, Sakarya B, Gkarlaouni CG, Harris J and Storchak DA (2020) ISC-
EHB 1964–2016, an improved data set for studies of earth structure and global seismicity. Earth
and Space Science 7(1): e2019EA000897.
Engdahl ER, Van der Hilst R and Buland R (1998) Global teleseismic earthquake relocation with
improved travel times and procedures for depth determination. Bulletin of the Seismological
European Seismological Commission (ESC) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (European
Seismological Commission (ESC): Sub commission on engineering seismology, working group
macroseismic scales; ed G Grünthal), vol. 15. Luxembourg: Conseil de l’Europe, Cahiers du
Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie.
Fukushima Y, Berge-Thierry C, Volant P, Griot-Pommera D.-A and Cotton F, 2003. Attenuation
relation for West Eurasia determined with recent near-fault records from California, Japan and
Turkey. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 7: 573–598.
Gallego M (2000) Estimación de Riesgo Sı´smico en la República de Colombia. México: Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México.
Ghofrani H and Atkinson GM (2014) Ground-motion prediction equations for interface
earthquakes of M7 to M9 based on empirical data from Japan. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 12(2): 549–571.
Gülerce Z, Kargoığlu B and Abrahamson NA (2016) Turkey-adjusted NGA-W1 horizontal ground
motion prediction models. Earthquake Spectra 32(1): 75–100.
Hassani B and Atkinson GM (2016a) Applicability of the site fundamental frequency as a VS30
proxy for central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
106(2): 653–664.
Hassani B and Atkinson GM (2016b) Site-effects model for central and eastern North America
based on peak frequency. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 106(5): 2197–2213.
Hassani B and Atkinson GM (2018) Site-effects model for central and eastern North America based
on peak frequency and average shear-wave velocity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 108(1): 338–350.
Idini B, Rojas F, Ruiz S and Pastén C (2017) Ground motion prediction equations for the Chilean
subduction zone. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 15(5): 1853–1880.
ISC-EHB (2020) ISC-EHB dataset. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31905/PY08W6S3 (accessed
August 14, 2017).
Ito E, Nakano K, Nagashima F and Kawase H (2020) A method to directly estimate S-wave site
amplification factor from horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of earthquakes (eHVSRs). Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America 110(6): 2892–2911.
Kaverina AN, Lander AV and Prozorov AG (1996) Global creepex distribution and its relation to
earthquake-source geometry and tectonic origin. Geophysical Journal International 125(1):
249–265.
Kawase H, Nagashima F, Nakano K and Mori Y (2019) Direct evaluation of S-wave amplification
factors from microtremor H/V ratios: Double empirical corrections to ‘‘Nakamura’’ method. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 126: 105067.
Kishida T, Darragh RB, Chiou BS-J, Bozorgnia Y, Mazzoni S, Contreras V, Boroschek R, Rojas F,
and Stewart JP. (2020) Chapter 3: Ground Motions and Intensity Measures. In: Data Resources
Arteta et al. 29
for NGASubduction Project, PEER Report 2020/02, J.P. Stewart (editor), Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California (headquarters).
Kwak DY and Seyhan E (2020) Two-stage nonlinear site amplification modeling for Japan with VS30
and fundamental frequency dependency. Earthquake Spectra 36: 1359–1385.
Lanning F, Haro A, Liu M, Monzoä n A, Monzoä n-Despang H, Schultz A, Tola A, Diaz-Fanas
G, Antonaki N, Nikolaou S, Vera-Grunauer X, Gilsanz R, Diaz V, Franco G, Stone H, Ahmed
B, Chian SC, Hughes F, Jirouskova N, Kaminski S and Lopez J (2016) EERI Earthquake
Reconnaissance Team Report: M7.8 Muisne, Ecuador Earthquake on April 16, 2016. Oakland,
CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI).
Lin PS, Chiou B, Abrahamson NA, Walling M, Lee CT and Cheng CT (2011) Repeatable source,
site, and path effects on the standard deviation for empirical ground-motion prediction models.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 101(5): 2281–2295.
Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Gallipoli MR, Bindi D and Mucciarelli M (2011) Proposal for a soil
classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to Vs,30. Bulletin of Earthquake
Engineering 9(6): 1877–1898.
Martı́nez S and Chica A (1996) Ecuación de Atenuación de la Energıá Sı´smica Para Colombia.
Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
Montalva GA, Bastı́as N and Rodriguez-Marek A (2017) Ground-motion prediction equation for
the Chilean subduction zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 107(2): 901–911.
Ojeda AE and Havskov J (2001) Crustal structure and local seismicity in Colombia. Journal of
Seismology 5(4): 575–593.
Ojeda AE and Martinez SA (1997) Modelo Para la Atenuación de la Energı́a Sı́smica en Colombia a
Partir de los Sismos Registrados Por la Red Nacional de Acelerógrafos. Paper presented at the
XII Jornadas Estructurales de la Ingenierıá de Colombia, September 1997, Bogota.
Pitilakis K, Gazepis C and Anastasiadis A (2004) Design response spectra and soil classification for
seismic code provisions. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–6 August.
Rodriguez-Marek A, Bray JD and Abrahamson NA (2001) An empirical geotechnical seismic site
response procedure. Earthquake Spectra 17(1): 65–87.
Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F and Bonilla F (2011) Analysis of single-station
standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
101(3): 1242–1258.
Scasserra G, Stewart JP, Bazzurro P, Lanzo G and Mollaioli F (2009) A comparison of NGA
ground-motion prediction equations to Italian data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 99(5): 2961–2978.
Singh SK, Ordaz MG, Anderson JG, Rodriguez ME, Quaas R, Mena E, Ottaviani M and Almora
D (1989) Analysis of near-source strong-motion recordings along the Mexican subduction zone.
Strasser FO, Arango MC and Bommer JJ (2010) Scaling of the source dimensions of interface and
intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with moment magnitude. Seismological Research Letters
81(6): 941–950.
Syracuse EM, Maceira M, Prieto GA, Zhang H and Ammon CJ (2016) Multiple plates subducting
beneath Colombia, as illuminated by seismicity and velocity from the joint inversion of seismic
and gravity data. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 444: 139–149.
US Geological Survey (USGS) (2017) Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Comprehensive
Catalog of Earthquake Events and Products. Earthquake Hazards Program, US Geological
Survey. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7MS3QZH (accessed March 6, 2020).
Weatherill G, Pagani M and Garcia J (2014) OpenQuake ground motion toolkit—User guide.
Technical report, Global Earthquake Model (GEM), Pavia, June 2014.
Weston J, Engdahl E, Harris J, Di Giacomo D and Storchak D (2018) ISC-EHB: Reconstruction of
a robust earthquake dataset. Geophysical Journal International 214(1): 474–484.
Yarce J, Monsalve G, Becker TW, Cardona A, Poveda E, Alvira D and Ordoñez-Carmona O (2014)
Seismological observations in Northwestern South America: Evidence for two subduction
segments, contrasting crustal thicknesses and upper mantle flow. Tectonophysics 637: 57–67.
Yepes H, Audin L, Alvarado A, Beauval C, Aguilar J, Font Y and Cotton F (2016) A new view for
the geodynamics of Ecuador: Implication in seismogenic source definition and seismic hazard
assessment. Tectonics 35(5): 1249–1279.
Zhao JX and Xu H (2013) A comparison of VS30 and site period as site-effect parameters in
response spectral ground-motion prediction equations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 103(1): 1–18.
Zhao JX and Zhang J (2010) Side-effect of using response spectral amplification ratios for soft soil
sites—Earthquake source-type dependent amplification ratios. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 30(4): 258–269.
Zhao JX, Irikura K, Zhang J, Fukushima Y, Somerville PG, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T,
Takahashi T and Ogawa H (2006a) An empirical site-classification method for strong-motion
stations in Japan using H/V response spectral ratio. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 96(3): 914–925.
Zhao JX, Jiang F, Shi P, Xing H, Huang H, Hou R, Zhang Y, Yu P, Lan X, Rhoades DA,
Somerville PG, Irikura K and Fukushima Y (2016a) Ground-motion prediction equations for
subduction slab earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions.
Zhao JX, Liang X, Jiang F, Xing H, Zhu M, Hou R, Zhang Y, Lan X, Rhoades DA, Irikura K,
Fukushima Y and Somerville PG (2016b) Ground-motion prediction equations for subduction
interface earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions.
Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK,
Somerville PG, Fukushima Y and Fukushima Y (2006b) Attenuation relations of strong ground
motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 96(3): 898–913.
Zhu C, Pilz M and Cotton F (2020) Which is a better proxy, site period or depth to bedrock, in
modelling linear site response in addition to the average shear-wave velocity? Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 18(3): 797–820.
Appendix 1
Table 6. Database of historical subduction earthquakes with EMS-98 intensity over VIII
Tectonic Date Local Time Longitude Latitude Magnitude Zhypo Max
Environment (dd/mm/yyyy) (hh: mm) (deg) intensity
(deg) (Mw) (km) (EMS-98)
Interface 31/01/1906 10:36 –79.35 0.99 8.8 20.0 X

Inslab 04/02/1938 21:12 –75.69 4.68 7 (Ms) 150 VIII
Interface 19/01/1958 09:07 –79.49 1.01 7.6 27.5 VIII
Inslab 20/12/1961 08:25 –75.51 4.49 6.8 (Ms) 163.0 VIII
Inslab 30/07/1962 15:18 –76.35 5.17 6.5 64 VIII
Interface 26/09/1970 07:02 –77.49 6.21 6.6 15.0 VIII
Interface 09/04/1976 02:09 –79.57 0.83 6.6 17.4 VIII
Inslab 23/11/1979 18:40 –76.16 4.73 7.2 110.0 VIII
Interface 12/12/1979 02:59 –79.276 1.555 8.1 23.6 X
Interface 19/11/1991 15:28 –77.33 4.5 7.2 18.5 VIII
Inslab 08/02/1995 13:40 –76.56 4.06 6.4 71 VIII
Interface 15/11/2004 04:06 –77.47 4.69 7.2 15.0 VIII
Data available from: Colombian Geological Survey (SGC) (n.d.).
Table 7. Database of subduction earthquakes recorded in Colombia between 1995 and 2020
Tectonic Date Time UTC Longitude Latitude Magnitude Zhypo No. of
environment (dd/mm/yyyy) (HH: mm:ss) (deg; positive E) (deg; positive N) (Mw) (km) records
Arteta et al.
Intraslab 08/02/1995 18:40:27 276.591 4.051 6.3 74 15

Intraslab 19/08/1995 21:43:33 275.589 5.105 6.5 120 8
Intraslab 11/09/1996 06:28:47 276.533 4.178 5.3 109 10
Intraslab 19/02/1997 18:25:14 276.447 4.497 5.8 103 20
Intraslab 02/09/1997 12:13:25 275.716 3.804 6.7 206 25
Intraslab 11/12/1997 07:56:30 275.767 3.910 6.3 178 20
Interface 04/08/1998 18:59:20 280.313 20.590 7.1 20 2
Interface 08/11/2000 07:00:00 277.802 7.091 6.5 17 1
Intraslab 22/09/2001 03:23:39 275.912 3.848 5.9 174 11
Interface 22/08/2003 05:29:15 277.870 3.084 5.0 31 1
Interface 15/11/2004 09:06:56 277.471 4.707 7.2 15 9
Intraslab 08/03/2005 15:59:43 275.951 4.409 5.0 61 11
Intraslab 21/04/2005 03:39:24 276.263 4.985 5.2 102 12
Interface 23/01/2006 20:50:46 277.776 6.861 6.2 23 2
Interface 24/01/2006 02:15:44 277.680 6.834 5.3 25 1
Interface 29/01/2006 17:49:14 277.730 6.769 5.2 16 1
Interface 10/09/2007 01:49:14 277.947 2.959 6.7 29 13
Intraslab 13/09/2008 09:32:01 275.519 4.798 5.7 133 12
Intraslab 08/09/2009 08:26:01 276.634 4.634 4.8 84 7
Intraslab 18/12/2009 14:30:03 276.271 3.053 5.1 164 4
Intraslab 29/01/2010 17:52:23 276.007 4.660 4.9 131 6
Interface 25/11/2010 04:19:40 279.974 0.381 5.3 26 1
Interface 17/08/2011 08:02:04 277.638 5.651 5.0 21 1
Interface 13/09/2011 04:38:48 277.592 5.667 5.2 15 2
Interface 13/09/2011 04:49:35 277.564 5.654 5.5 13 2
Intraslab 30/09/2012 16:31:35 276.397 1.923 7.2 164 4
Intraslab 09/02/2013 14:16:08 277.408 1.130 7.0 147 4
Intraslab 27/08/2013 23:22:05 276.683 3.747 4.8 69 5
Interface 09/03/2014 20:29:55 279.559 1.518 5.6 26 3
Interface 16/06/2014 06:39:32 279.385 1.648 5.7 7 4
Intraslab 21/02/2015 22:26:46 276.180 4.670 5.2 95 17
(continued)
31
32
Table 7. Continued
Tectonic Date Time UTC Longitude Latitude Magnitude Zhypo No. of

environment (dd/mm/yyyy) (HH: mm:ss) (deg; positive E) (deg; positive N) (Mw) (km) records
Interface 30/05/2015 06:26:05 279.570 1.220 5.4 13 6

Interface 22/01/2016 02:41:12 278.220 4.860 5.0 37 4
Interface 16/04/2016 23:58:37 279.930 0.350 7.8 21 17
Interface 18/05/2016 07:57:03 279.790 0.430 6.7 16 27
Interface 18/05/2016 16:46:44 279.62 0.5 6.9 30 27
Interface 06/12/2016 04:51:01 277.250 4.740 5.0 36 8
Intraslab 28/12/2016 05:05:05 277.110 1.830 4.7 150 8
Interface 01/01/2017 06:35:48 279.340 2.520 4.5 22 4
Interface 12/01/2017 16:06:32 277.930 6.050 5.2 5 5
Interface 21/03/2017 08:31:19 277.520 6.290 5.0 7 6
Interface 24/03/2017 09:00:56 279.410 3.310 5.2 10 8
Interface 19/10/2017 02:39:10 279.560 0.950 4.6 0 4
Intraslab 04/11/2017 00:16:36 276.030 2.480 5.1 157 18
Interface 28/01/2018 12:09:52 279.580 7.350 4.8 10 2
Interface 18/02/2018 14:55:32 278.830 7.580 4.7 10 3
Intraslab 19/02/2018 01:50:36 276.620 4.100 4.8 103 24
Intraslab 23/04/2018 15:42:10 275.540 5.190 5.4 110 19
Interface 22/05/2018 13:36:16 278.430 0.500 5.0 33 5
Interface 27/07/2018 06:01:05 277.590 6.020 4.5 10 9
Intraslab 24/10/2018 20:02:47 276.350 4.740 4.6 103 23
Interface 23/11/2018 17:40:47 277.940 7.060 4.9 10 7
Intraslab 23/03/2019 19:21:17 276.220 4.560 6.1 122 22
Interface 31/03/2019 13:28:30 278.290 5.670 5.0 10 9
Interface 24/05/2019 16:12:46 277.510 6.990 5.0 10 10
Intraslab 25/08/2019 20:30:19 278.040 2.730 5.0 62 12
Interface 24/09/2019 10:16:04 278.930 5.800 4.5 1 2
Interface 07/12/2019 07:40:45 279.360 7.040 4.8 0 4
Interface 17/01/2020 04:32:06 279.560 2.120 4.7 20 5
Interface 20/01/2020 18:00:05 278.640 7.270 5.1 4 7
Earthquake Spectra 00(0)
Arteta et al. 33
Table 8. Database of station

Station ID Station Station Tn (s) Soil P* No. of
longitude latitude category records
(deg) (deg)
EC_01 278.611 21.269 0.22 3 2.20 3

EC_05 279.646 0.991 0.80 4 3.38 3
EC_06 279.952 22.054 0.14 1 1.49 3
EC_07 278.125 0.347 0.58 4 5.42 3
EC_08 278.106 0.349 0.64 4 5.04 3
EC_09 278.618 20.926 0.34 3 2.92 3
EC_10 280.846 22.243 1.20 5 2.26 3
EC_12 278.847 1.293 0.44 4 2.94 3
EC_13 279.529 22.181 0.28 3 3.30 3
EC_14 280.735 20.941 0.36 3 2.81 3
EC_15 278.256 0.24 1.50 5 4.34 3
EC_16 280.057 0.068 0.48 4 7.03 3
EC_17 280.46 21.038 0.38 3 5.57 3
EC_18 279.124 20.263 0.48 4 8.68 3
EC_19 277.723 0.772 1.20 5 6.05 3
EC_20 278.492 20.212 0.38 3 1.97 3
EC_21 278.495 20.145 0.24 3 1.86 3
EC_22 279.725 0.935 0.42 4 4.11 2
EC_23 278.614 20.046 0.40 3 7.86 2
EC_24 278.968 0.077 0.48 4 6.84 2
EC_25 278.106 20.371 0.42 4 6.61 2
EC_26 278.371 20.073 0.32 3 2.35 2
EC_27 279.478 0.313 0.50 4 3.70 2
EC_28 279.547 0.661 0.30 3 2.19 2
EC_29 279.91 22.251 0.76 4 6.03 2
EC_30 279.899 22.199 0.86 5 4.34 2
EC_31 279.899 22.154 0.34 3 6.33 2
RNAC_1 276.5804 7.9003 0.50 4 1.94 4
RNAC_12 275.897 5.663 0.16 1 1.95 5
RNAC_14 275.8125 5.2614 0.12 2 5.83 9
RNAC_146 275.1577 5.3908 0.34 3 8.91 5
RNAC_148 275.72 4.81 0.62 4 5.87 5
RNAC_15 –77.359 8.646 0.16 2 2.70 5
RNAC_152 274.9391 6.2902 0.32 1 1.95 4
RNAC_153 275.9069 2.3848 0.20 2 1.64 8
RNAC_157 276.5917 2.4573 1.00 5 4.46 7
RNAC_166 276.414 3.228 0.30 3 4.50 9
RNAC_172 277.9975 1.2156 0.34 3 5.14 3
RNAC_174 275.7191 5.4263 0.50 1 1.14 4
RNAC_176 276.952 1.5678 0.52 4 3.49 12
RNAC_185 275.9342 4.2582 0.22 3 3.20 4
RNAC_187 274.9389 5.9992 0.62 4 2.48 4
RNAC_202 276.091 3.624 0.25 1 1.60 4
RNAC_206 276.322 4.219 0.18 2 2.30 11
RNAC_209 278.7426 1.822 0.50 4 4.81 2
RNAC_214 276.546 5.746 0.14 2 2.73 7
RNAC_217 277.345 1.226 0.38 1 1.59 3
RNAC_219 277.8249 0.9414 0.22 3 4.70 4
RNAC_227 276.208 4.574 0.64 4 8.31 4
RNAC_228 275.1197 5.0324 0.48 1 1.51 5
RNAC_242 276.2097 7.0174 0.16 2 1.37 8
(continued)
Table 8. Continued
Station ID Station Station Tn (s) Soil P* No. of

longitude latitude category records
(deg) (deg)
RNAC_244 275.6525 1.5825 0.50 1 1.84 5

RNAC_245 275.4938 2.1867 0.36 3 3.53 6
RNAC_246 278.1668 3.0027 0.10 1 1.80 5
RNAC_248 –75.3829 5.226 0.92 1 1.96 4
RNAC_249 275.235 4.447 0.25 3 1.62 16
RNAC_250 276.6734 3.2148 0.20 2 5.09 8
RNAC_252 277.3318 4.01 0.22 3 1.97 14
RNAC_253 275.5244 5.0715 0.56 4 4.66 23
RNAC_257 275.5893 6.276 0.30 3 2.45 8
RNAC_273 275.4707 5.0578 0.24 1 1.35 4
RNAC_274 274.8691 5.5635 0.15 2 2.70 4
RNAC_276 275.2461 3.9093 0.30 3 3.35 7
RNAC_277 276.2825 4.9056 0.26 3 3.48 12
RNAC_279 277.322 1.189 1.00 5 1.36 2
RNAC_280 277.2563 1.2097 1.00 5 3.21 5
RNAC_285 277.3597 4.9653 0.24 3 1.47 12
RNAC_287 276.6761 2.5403 0.40 3 4.51 9
RNAC_289 277.8085 7.1422 0.24 3 8.08 10
RNAC_292 276.5192 5.7487 0.16 2 3.52 5
RNAC_306 276.53 3.3721 0.88 5 3.55 15
RNAC_313 275.3525 4.9604 0.22 3 4.66 4
RNAC_317 274.3211 4.8449 0.80 4 2.57 7
RNAC_322 277.4054 6.2236 0.58 4 2.57 22
RNAC_326 278.7268 1.8237 0.82 1 1.44 3
RNAC_327 278.745 1.824 0.06 2 2.32 5
RNAC_328 275.5326 7.7517 0.25 3 7.64 3
RNAC_332 273.6934 4.1111 1.00 5 6.20 4
RNAC_333 276.3451 3.9834 0.10 2 1.75 11
RNAC_335 278.727 1.824 1.00 5 1.98 3
RNAC_37 275.4352 2.7058 0.44 1 1.52 5
RNAC_4 275.6604 4.5561 0.50 4 5.47 15
RNAC_6 275.4179 2.7225 0.44 4 1.57 6
RNAC_65 275.6276 4.509 0.16 2 2.21 16
RNAC_66 276.517 3.4941 0.30 3 2.83 5
RNAC_7 274.08 4.641 1.30 5 3.00 8
RNAC_83 276.708 3.657 0.15 1 1.73 16
RNAC_87 276.561 3.884 0.18 1 1.61 13
RNAC_90 275.5676 5.2968 0.58 1 1.95 8
RNAC_91 275.6179 4.6862 0.58 4 4.95 4

2021 - Arteta Et Al - Ground-Motion Model For Subduction Earthquakes in Northern South America

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 - Arteta Et Al - Ground-Motion Model For Subduction Earthquakes in Northern South America

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Paper

northern South America DOI: 10.1177/87552930211027585

Carlos A Arteta, M.EERI1 , Cesar A Pajaro1, Vicente

1. Remove recordings for misclassified interface events.

Magnitude, depth, and distance metrics

Table 1. Classification criteria for stations

s1 Not identifiable: Low-impedance Unknown –

selected Tn limits by using a simplifying approach as suggested by Zhao et al. (2006a) or

Figure 5. PGA versus distance for different magnitude bins.

Signal filtering, and minimum usable frequency

Response spectra definition

Regionalization of global GMM models

LnðSa Þ = u1 + fmagGL (M) + fmagREG (M) + fpathGL (M, R) + fpathREG

Sa is the RotD50 spectral acceleration in units of g;

fmagREG (M) = u3 (10 M)2 ð6Þ

fpathREG (R) = u5 R ð8Þ

fSoil (T ) = ck (T )ln(P ) ð9Þ

Table 2. ck(T) coefficients for interface and intra-slab events

0.01 0.740 0.966 0.959 0.986 0.745 0.892 0.933 0.886

Residuals and variance analysis

(a) (b) (c)

eij = eS2S, j + eAmp, ij + eP2P, j + e0ij ð11Þ

Table 4. Standard deviations of the interface model in LN units

0.01 0.452 0.726 0.817 0.855 0.934 0.729 0.522 0.690

Table 5. Standard deviations of the intra-slab model in LN units

0.01 0.364 0.707 0.834 0.795 0.909 0.556 0.569 0.676

to-site variability is an epistemic uncertainty, and single-station within-event residual at the

eS, ij = eij eS2S, j = eAmp, ij + eP2P, j + e0ij ð12Þ

A second random-effects regression was used to decompose the within-event variance

Examples of median spectra and comparison with the global model

Data and resources

Declaration of conflicting interests

Álvarez-Gómez JA (2019) FMC—Earthquake focal mechanisms data management, cluster and

Interface 31/01/1906 10:36 –79.35 0.99 8.8 20.0 X

Intraslab 08/02/1995 18:40:27 276.591 4.051 6.3 74 15

Tectonic Date Time UTC Longitude Latitude Magnitude Zhypo No. of

Interface 30/05/2015 06:26:05 279.570 1.220 5.4 13 6

Table 8. Database of station

EC_01 278.611 21.269 0.22 3 2.20 3

Station ID Station Station Tn (s) Soil P* No. of

RNAC_244 275.6525 1.5825 0.50 1 1.84 5

You might also like

fSoil (T ) = ck (T )ln(P ) ð9Þ