## 5 Suites of Earthquakes Consistent with the Lebanese DRS
### Step 2. Obtaining Suites of Spectrum-Consistent Earthqu
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Id.** & **Station Code** & **Event ID** & **Location** & **Date** & **Magnitude** \\ \hline E1 & UJAP & EMSC-20140524\_0000020 & Dead Sea & 24 May 2014 & 4.3 (M\({}_{\text{L}}\)) \\ E2 & GHAJ & EMSC-20180704\_000036 & Dead Sea & 7 April 2018 & 4.1 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\  & MSBI & EMSC-20180704\_0000512 & Dead Sea & 7 April 2018 & 4.7 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E3 & UJAP & EMSC-20190626\_0000058 & Dead Sea & 26 June 2019 & 4.0 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E4 & MSBI & EMSC-20190626\_0000058 & Dead Sea & 26 June 2019 & 4.0 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E5 & IZR & IL-1984-0002 & Dead Sea & 24 August 1984 & 5.3 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\  & KRKR & SY-1996-0001 & Jordan–Syria & 24 December 1996 & 5.5 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E6 & SUAN & SY-1996-0001 & Jordan–Syria & 24 December 1996 & 5.5 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\  & 3101 & TK-2006-0033 & Jordan–Syria & 29 March 2006 & 4.1 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E7 & 3103 & EIL & EMSC-20110220\_0000203 & Red Sea & 20 February 2011 & 3.7 (M\({}_{\text{L}}\)) \\ E8 & EIL & EMSC-20200415\_0000051 & Syrian Coast & 15 April 2020 & 4.7 (m\({}_{\text{b}}\)) \\ E9 & CMRD & EMSC-20200403\_0000177 & Syrian Coast & 3 April 2020 & 4.7 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E10 & KRTD & EMSC-20130726\_0000002 & Central Turkey & 26 July 2013 & 4.3 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\ E12 & BOXY & EMSC-20120511\_0000032 & Cyprus Region & 11 May 2012 & 5.3 (M\({}_{\text{W}}\)) \\  & KRFTD & & & & \\  & OSC1 & EMSC-20170108\_0000026 & Cyprus Region & 8 January 2017 & 4.1 (M\({}_{\text{L}}\)) \\ E13 & OSC2 & EMSC-20170108\_0000026 & Cyprus Region & 8 January 2017 & 4.1 (M\({}_{\text{L}}\)) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Suite of earthquakes chosen to obtain the accelerograms consistent with the design spectra. values for mismatch tolerance. The matter of ground motion selection and modification for new building projects in the United States was recently addressed by the Building Seismic Safety Council in FEMA P-1050 [49] as also discussed in [50]. Although a 10% lower bound is suggested by BSSC for scaled earthquakes, no specific values are given instead for matched earthquakes, the spectra of which are only required not to fall below the target spectrum. It is also worth noting that some codes provide a lower and an upper tolerance bound such as the Italian Code [51] that provides a 10% and a 30% lower and upper tolerance limit, respectively. The absence of a prescribed upper tolerance bound may have an impact on the seismic design, since it allows the designer to refer to sets of spectrum-consistent earthquakes that may have very different violence levels, although matching the same target spectrum; this matter was discussed for instance in [9] with reference to EC8. In this study, 10% upper and lower bounds were adopted (mismatch tolerance equal to 0.1). This choice is also in accordance with what was assumed in other studies [50]. The number of maximum iterations was set to 200 for a scale factor of 1. The default value was adopted for the other parameters appearing in Table 9, which are related to the Abraham-Hancock algorithm [26]. Typically, the higher the maximum number of waves for the wavelet model, the better the matching outcome, although considering more than ten waves have no significant effect on the results. On the other hand, 20 additional waves (or sub-iterations) are enough to prevent divergence in the Abraham-Hancock algorithm, as shown in [42]. Better convergence can even be reached when the off-diagonal terms of the response-to-time matrix do not exceed the 0.7 value recommended by SeismoMatch, and the design spectrum is split into sub-groups, the recommended number of which is 250 [42]. Suites of SCEs were finally found according to IBC and EC8. They are presented in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.