Making the most of available site information for empirical ground-motion prediction

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Volumn 99, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 1502-1520

  Douglas, John ^a   Gehl, Pierre ^a   Bonilla, Luis Fabian ^b   Scotti, Oona ^b   Régnier, Julie ^c   Duval, Anne Marie ^c   Bertrand, Etienne ^c  

^a BRGM   (France)

^b INSTITUT DE RADIOPROTECTION ET DE SÛRETÉ NUCLÉAIRE IRSN   (France)

^c Centre d'Etudes Techniques   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE LIMIT; CRUSTAL STRUCTURE; GROUND MOTION PREDICTION; GROUND-MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS; HIGH FREQUENCY; NEAR-SURFACE; ONE-DIMENSIONAL; QUARTER-WAVELENGTH; SEDIMENTARY BASIN; SHEAR-WAVE VELOCITY; SITE AMPLIFICATION; SITE EFFECTS; SITE INFORMATION; SOIL PROFILES; STANDARD PENETRATION TEST; STATISTICAL STUDY; STOCHASTIC METHODS; TOPOGRAPHIC SLOPE; VELOCITY PROFILES;

ACOUSTIC WAVE VELOCITY; EQUATIONS OF MOTION; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SHEAR WAVES; SOILS; STATISTICS;

AMPLIFICATION;

CRUSTAL STRUCTURE; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; GROUND MOTION; PENETRATION TEST; PREDICTION; S-WAVE; SEDIMENTARY BASIN; SEISMIC ATTENUATION; SITE EFFECT; SOIL PROFILE; STOCHASTICITY; VELOCITY PROFILE; WAVE VELOCITY;

ASIA; EURASIA; EUROPE; FAR EAST; FRANCE; JAPAN; NORTH AMERICA; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 69549116970     PISSN: 00371106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/0120080075     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abercrombie, R. E. (1997). Near-surface attenuation and site effects from comparison of surface and deep borehole recordings, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, no. 3, 731-744.
2. Abrahamson, N., and W. Silva (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson and Silva NGAgroundmotion relations, Earthq. Spectra 24, no. 1, 67-97, doi 10.1193/1.2924360.
3. Ambraseys, N. N. (1995). The prediction of earthquake peak ground acceleration in Europe, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 24, no. 4, 467-490.
4. Anderson, J. G., and S. E. Hough (1984). A model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, no. 5, 1969-1993.
5. Anderson, J. G., Y. Lee, Y. Zeng, and S. Day (1996). Control of strong motion by the upper 30 meters, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, no. 6, 1749-1759.
6. Andrus, R. D., P. Piratheepan, B. S. Ellis, J. Zhang, and C. H. Juang (2004). Comparing liquefaction evaluation methods using penetration-VS relationships, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 24, no. 9-10, 713-721.
7. Bard, P. Y., A. M. Duval, E. Bertrand, J. F. Vassiliades, S. Vidal, P. Foin, P. Guéguen, C. Thibault, B. Guyet, F. Dunand, S. Bonnefoy-Claudet, J. P. Méneroud, and G. Vettori (2005). Le risque sismique á Nice: Rapport méthodologique, résultats et perspectives opérationnelles, Final GEM-GEP Report, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC), Conseil général des Ponts et Chaussées (CGPC), Ministère de l'équipement, des transports, de l'aménagement du territoire, du tourisme et de la mer (METATTM), Ministère de l'Ecologie et du Développement Durable (MEDD), Communauté d'Agglomération Nice Côte d'Azur (CANCA), 52 pp.
8. Barker, T. G., and J. L. Stevens (1983). Shallow shear-wave velocity and Q structures at the El Centro strong-motion accelerograph array, Geophys. Res. Lett. 10, no. 9, 853-856.
9. Beresnev, I. A., and K. L. Wen (1996). Nonlinear soil response-a reality?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, no. 6, 1964-1978.
10. Berge-Thierry, C., F. Cotton, O. Scotti, D. A. Griot-Pommera, and Y. Fukushima (2003). New empirical response spectral attenuation laws for moderate European earthquakes, J. Earthq. Eng. 7, no. 2, 193-222.
11. Bernreuter, D. L., J. C. Chen, and J. B. Savy (1986). A methodology to correct for the effect of the local site's characteristics in seismic hazard analysis, in Proc. of the 3rd U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, I, 245-255.
12. Boore, D. M. (2003). Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method, PureAppl.Geophys. 160, no. 3-4, 635-676, doi 10.1007/ PL00012553.
13. Boore, D. M. (2004). Can site response be predicted?, J. Earthq. Eng. 8, no. 1 (Special Issue), 1-42.
14. Boore, D. M. (2005). SMSIM-Fortran programs for simulating ground motions from earthquakes: Version 2.3-A revision of OFR 96-80-A, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 00-509, modified version, describing the program as of 15 August 2005 (Version 2.30).
15. Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson (2007). Boore-Atkinson NGA ground-motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters, PEER Report 2007/ 01, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
16. Boore, D. M., and G. M. Atkinson (2008). Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between0.01sand 10.0 s, Earthq. Spectra 24, no. 1, 99-138, doi 10.1193/1.2830434.
17. Boore, D. M., and W. B. Joyner (1991). Estimation of ground motion at deep-soil sites in eastern North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 81, no. 6, 2167-2185.
18. Boore, D. M., and J. B. Joyner (1997). Site amplifications for generic rock sites, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, no. 2, 327-341.
19. Borcherdt, R. D. (1994). Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification), Earthq. Spectra 10, no. 4, 617-653.
20. Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM) (2008a). Carte géologique imprimée, http://infoterre.brgm.fr/ (last accessed December 2008).
21. Bureau de RecherchesGéologiquesetMinières (BRGM) (2008b). La Banque du Sous-Sol, http://infoterre.brgm.fr/ (last accessed December 2008).
22. Campbell, K. W., and Y. Bozorgnia (2008). NGA ground-motion model for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD, and 5% damped linear elastic responsespectra for periods ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthq. Spectra 24, no. 1, 139-171, doi 10.1193/1.2857546.
23. Chandler, A. M., N. T. K. Lam, and H. H. Tsang (2005). Shear-wave velocity modelling in crustal rock for seismic hazard analysis, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 25, no. 2, 167-185.
24. Chandler, A. M., N. T. K. Lam, and H. H. Tsang (2006). Near-surface attenuation modelling based on rock shear-wave velocity profile, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 26, no. 11, 1004-1014.
25. Chiou, B. S. J., and R. R. Youngs (2008). An NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra, Earthq. Spectra 24, no. 1, 173-215, doi 10.1193/1.2894832.
26. Comité Européen de Normalisation (2005). Eurocode 8, design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Standard NF EN 1998-1.
27. Cotton, F., F. Scherbaum, J. J. Bommer, and H. Bungum (2006). Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: Application to central Europeandrock sites, J. Seism. 10, no. 2, 137-156, doi 10.1007/s10950-005-9006-7.
28. Douglas, J. (2003). Earthquake ground-motion estimation using strongmotion records: A review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates, Earth-Sci. Rev. 61, no. 1-2, 43-104.
29. Dowrick, D. J. (2003). Earthquake Risk Reduction, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.
30. Draper, N. R., and H. Smith (1998). Applied Regression Analysis, Third Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
31. Drouet, S., S. Chevrot, F. Cotton, and A. Souriau (2008). Simultaneous inversion of source spectra, attenuation parameters, and site responses: Application to the data of the FrenchAccelerometric Network, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, no. 1, 198-219, doi 10.1785/0120060215.
32. Duval, A. M., P. Y. Bard, B. Le Brun, C. Lacave-Lachet, J. Riepl, and D. Hatzfeld (2001). H/V technique for site response analysis synthesis of data from various surveys, Boll. Geofis. Teor. Appl. 42, no. 3-4, 267-280.
33. European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre (2007). Euro-Med accelerometric networks in the Euro-Med region, http://www.emsc-csem.org/index.php?page=projects&sub=accelero (last accessed December 2008).
34. Field, E. H. (2000). A modified ground-motion attenuation relationship for southern California that accounts for detailed site classification and a basin-depth effect, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, no. 6B, S209-S221.
35. Fukushima, Y., L. F. Bonilla, O. Scotti, and J. Douglas (2007). Site classification using horizontal-to-vertical response spectral ratios and its impact when deriving empirical groundmotion prediction equations, J. Earthq. Eng. 11, no. 5, 712-724, doi 10.1080/ 13632460701457116.
36. Fuller, W. A. (1987). Measurement Error Models, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
37. Fumal, T. E., and J. C. Tinsley (1985). Mapping shear-wave velocities of near-surface geologic materials, in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective, U.S. Geol. Surv. Profess. Pap. 1360, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 127-149.
38. Groupe de Travail Réseau Accélérometrique Permanent (RAP) (2007). Reconnaissance géotechnique des stations du RAP: Phase pilote, Technical Report, Réseau Accélérometrique Permanent, Unité Mixte de Recherche Laboratoire de Géophysique Interne et Tectonophysique (UMR LGIT), Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM), Centre d'Études Techniques de l'Équipement Nice (CETE Nice), Institut de radioprotection et de sûreté nucléaire (IRSN), Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD), Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC).
39. Hasancebi, N., and R. Ulusay (2007). Empirical correlations between shearwave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 66, no. 2, 203-213, doi 10.1007/ s10064-006-0063-0.
40. Huo, J., and Y. Hu (1991). Attenuation laws considering the randomness of magnitude and distance, Earthq. Res. China 5, no. 1, 17-36.
41. Idriss, I. M. (2008). An NGA empirical model for estimating the horizontal spectral valuesgenerated by shallow crustal earthquakes, Earthq. Spectra 24, no. 1, 217-242, doi 10.1193/1.2924362.
42. Joyner, W. B., and T. E. Fumal (1984). Use of measured shear-wave velocity for predicting geologic site effects on strong ground motion, in Proc. of 8th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, II, pp 777-783.
43. Joyner, W. B., R. E. Warrick, and T. E. Fumal (1981). The effect of quaternary alluvium on strong ground motion in the Coyote Lake, California, earthquake of 1979, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, no. 4, 1333-1349.
44. Kamiyama, M., and E. Yanagisawa (1986). A statistical model for estimating response spectra of strong earthquake ground motions with emphasis on local soil conditions, Soils Found. 26, no. 2, 16-32.
45. Laske, G., A. Dziewonski, and G. Masters (2005). The Reference Earth Model Web Site, http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Gabi/rem.html (last accessed December 2008).
46. Ohta, Y., and N. Goto (1978). Empirical shear-wave velocity equations in terms of characteristic soil indexes, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 6, 167-187.
47. Parolai, S., P. Bormann, and C. Milkereit (2002). New relationship between VS, thickness of sediments, and resonance frequency calculated by the H/V ratio of seismic noise for the Cologne area (Germany), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, no. 6, 2521-2527.
48. Rhoades, D. A. (1997). Estimation of attenuation relations for strong-motion data allowing for individual earthquake magnitude uncertainties, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, no. 6, 1674-1678.
49. Rodriguez-Marek, A., J. D. Bray, and N. Abrahamson (1999). Task 3: Characterization of site response general site categories, PEER Report 1999/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
50. ROSRINE (2008). ResOlution of Site Response Issues from the Northridge Earthquake, http://gees.usc.edu/ROSRINE/ (last accessed December 2008).
51. Silva, W., R. Darragh, N. Gregor, G. Martin, N. Abrahamson, and C. Kircher (1998). Reassessment of site coefficients and near-fault factors for building code provisions, Tech. Rept. Program Element II: 98-HQ-GR-1010, Pacific Engineering and Analysis, El Cerrito, California.
52. Souriau, A., and M. Granet (1995). A tomographic study of the lithosphere beneath the Pyrenees from local and teleseismic data, J. Geophys. Res. 100, no. B9, 18, 117-18, 134.
53. Souriau, A., A. Roullé, and C. Ponsolles (2007). Site effects in the city of Lourdes, France, from H/V measurements: Implications for seismic-risk evaluation, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, no. 6, 2118-2136, doi 10.1785/0120060224.
54. Spudich, P., W. B. Joyner, A. G. Lindh, D. M. Boore, B. M. Margaris, and J. B. Fletcher (1999). SEA99: A revised ground-motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regimes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, no. 5, 1156-1170.
55. Vallon, M (1999). Estimation de L'épaisseur D'alluvions Quaternaires Dans la Cuvette Grenobloise par Inversion des Anomalies Gravimétriques, Technical Report, Université Joseph Fourier & Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement du C.N.R.S., Grenoble, France (in French).
56. Wald, D. J., and T. I. Allen (2007). Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditionsandamplification, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, no. 5, 1379-1395, doi 10.1785/0120060267.
57. Wei, B. Z., S. Pezeshk, T. S. Chang, K. H. Hall, and H. P. Liu (1996). An empirical method to estimate shear-wave velocity of soils in the New Madrid seismic zone, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 15, no. 6, 399-408.
58. Wills, C. J., M. Petersen, W. A. Bryant, M. Reichle, G. J. Saucedo, S. Tan, G. Taylor, and J. Treiman (2000). A site-conditions map for California based on geology and shear-wave velocity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, no. 6B, S187-S208.