Blind deconvolution methodology for site-response evaluation exclusively from ground-surface seismic recordings

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 47-57

  Zerva, A ^a   Petropulu, A P ^a   Bard, P Y ^b  

^a Drexel University   (United States)

^b UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

Author keywords

Blind deconvolution; Duration; Non minimum phase channels; Seismic recordings; Site response analysis; Time and frequency domain

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CONVOLUTION; FREQUENCY DOMAIN ANALYSIS; SEISMIC WAVES; TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS; TRANSFER FUNCTIONS;

BLIND DECONVOLUTION; NON-MINIMUM PHASE CHANNELS; SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS;

SEISMIC PROSPECTING;

DATA PROCESSING; DECONVOLUTION; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SITE EFFECT;

EID: 0032995335     PISSN: 02677261     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0267-7261(98)00005-0     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Archuleta R.J., Seale S.H., Sangas P.V., Baker L.M., Swain S.T. Garner Valley downhole array of accelerometers: instrumentation and preliminary data analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 82:1992;1592-1621.
2. Bard P-Y. Effects of surface geology on ground motion: recent results and remaining issues. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 1994.
3. Blakeslee S., Malin P. High-frequency site effects at two Parkfield downhole and surface stations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 81:1991;332-345.
4. Cramer C.H. Weak-motion observations and modeling for the Turkey Flat, U.S., site effects test area near Parkfield, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 85:1995;440-451.
5. Field E.H., Jacob K.H. A comparison and test of various site response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference-site dependent. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 85:1995;1127-1143.
6. Field E.H., Jacob K.H., Hough S.E. Earthquake site response estimation: a weak motion case study. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 82:1992;2283-2307.
7. Gagnepain-Beyneix J., Lepine J.C., Nercessian A., Hirn A. Experimental study of site effects in the Fort-de-France area (Martinique Island). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 85:1995;478-495.
8. Kato K., Aki K., Takemura M. Site amplification from coda waves: validation and application to S-wave site response. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 85:1995;467-477.
9. Lermo J., Chavez-Garcia F.J. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 83:1993;1574-1594.
10. Liu H.-P., Warrick R.E., Westerlund R.E., Sembera E.D., Wennerberg L. Observation of local site effects at a downhole-and-surface station in the Marina district of San Francisco. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 82:1992;1563-1591.
11. Seale S.H., Archuleta R.J. Site amplification and attenuation of strong ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 79:1989;1673-1696.
12. Su F., Aki K. Site amplification factors in central and southern California determined from coda waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 85:1995;452-466.
13. Safak E. Models and methods to characterize site amplification from a pair of records. Earthquake Spectra. 13:1997;97-129.
14. Boatwright J., Fletcher J.B., Fumal T.E. A general inversion scheme for source, site and propagation characteristics using multiply recorded sets of moderate-seized earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 81:1991;1754-1782.
15. Langston C.A. Structure under Mount Renier, Washington, inferred from teleseismic body waves. Journal of Geophysical Research. 84:1979;4749-4762.
16. Nakamura Y. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface. Quarterly of Railway Technology Research Institute, Japan 1998; 30(1).
17. Lachet C., Bard P.-Y. Numerical and theoretical investigations on the possibilities and limitations of the Nakamura's technique. Journal of Physics of the Earth. 42:1994;377-397.
18. Arya VK, Aggarwal JK, editors. Deconvolution of seismic data. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, 1982.
19. Zerva A, Petropulu AP, Abeyratne U. Blind deconvolution of seismic signals in site response analysis. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, Nice, France, 1995.
20. Pozidis H., Petropulu A.P. Cross-spectrum based blind channel identification. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing. 45:1997;2977-2993.
21. Zerva A. Spatial variability of seismic motions recorded over extended ground surface areas. In: Kausel E, Manolis GD, editors. Wave problems in earthquake engineering. Southampton: CMP, in press.
22. Oppenheim AV, Schafer RW. Discrete-time signal processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
23. Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975.
24. Kanai K. Semi-empirical formula for the seismic characteristics of the ground. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Japan. 35:1957;309-325.
25. Tajimi H. A statistical method of determining the maximum response of a building structure during an earthquake. In: Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, 1960.
26. Sawada Y. (The Subcommittee for the Geotechnical Survey of the Ashigara Valley Blind Prediction Test). Geotechnical data. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, Odawara, Japan, 1992.