Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 211–229 | Cite as

Testing the Validity of Simulated Strong Ground Motion from the Dynamic Rupture of a Finite Fault, by Using Empirical Equations

Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with testing the validity of the ground motions estimated by combining a boundary integral equation method to simulate dynamic rupture along finite faults with a finite difference method to compute the subsequent wave propagation. The validation exercise is conducted by comparing the calculated ground motions at about 100 hypothetical stations surrounding the pure strike-slip and pure reverse faults with those estimated by recent ground motion estimation equations derived by regression analysis of observed strong-motion data. The validity of the ground motions with respect to their amplitude, frequency content and duration is examined. It is found that the numerical simulation method adopted leads to ground motions that are mainly compatible with the magnitude and distance dependence modelled by empirical equations but that the choice of a low stress drop leads to ground motions that are smaller than generally observed. In addition, the scatter in the simulated ground motions, for which a laterally homogeneous crust and standard rock site were used, is of the same order as the scatter in observed motions therefore, close to the fault, variations in source propagation likely contribute a significant proportion of the scatter in observed motions in comparison with travel-path and site effects.

Keywords

attenuation relations boundary integral equation method finite difference method ground motion estimation equations simulated ground motions uncertainty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrahamson N.A., Silva W.J. (1996) Empirical ground motion models. Technical report, 1996. Report to Brookhaven National Laboratory. Cited in Stewart et al. (2001).Google Scholar
  2. Ambraseys N.N., Douglas J., Sarma S.K. and Smit P.M. (2005). Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: Horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3(1): 1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambraseys N.N., Douglas J., Sarma S.K. and Smit P.M. (2005). Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: Vertical peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 3(1): 55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson J.G. (2004) Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit of synthetic seismograms. Proceedings of Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2004. Paper no. 243.Google Scholar
  5. Aochi H. and Douglas J. (2005) Testing the validity of simulated strong ground motion from the dynamic rupture of a fault system, by using empirical equations. Technical Report BRGM/RP-53800-FR, BRGM, Orléans, France, Mar. 2005.Google Scholar
  6. Aochi H. and Fukuyama E. (2002) Three-dimensional nonplanar simulation of the 1992 Landers earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(2), doi:10.1029/2001JB000061.Google Scholar
  7. Aochi H., Fukuyama E. and Madariaga R. (2003) Constraints of fault constitutive parameters inferred from non-planar fault modeling. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 4(2), doi:10.1029/2001GC000207.Google Scholar
  8. Aochi H., Fukuyama E. and Matsu’ura M. (2000). Spontaneous rupture propagation on a non-planar fault in 3-D elastic medium. Pure and Applied Geophysics 157(11–12): 2003–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aochi H. and Ide S. (2004) Numerical study on multi-scaling earthquake rupture. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L02606, doi:10.1029/2003GL018708.Google Scholar
  10. Aochi H. and Madariaga R. (2003). The 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake: Nonplanar fault structure, dynamic rupture process and strong ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93(3): 1249–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aochi H. and Olsen K.B. (2004). On the effects of non-planar geometry for blind thrust faults on strong ground motion. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168(11–12): 1–15Google Scholar
  12. Arias A. (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In Hansen R.J. (ed.) Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, pages 438–483. The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bommer J.J., Magenes G., Hancock J. and Penazzo P. (2004). The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2(1): 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boore D.M. and Joyner W.B. (1997). Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 87(2): 327–341Google Scholar
  15. Bouchon M. (1981). A simple method to calculate Green’s functions for elastic layered media. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71(4): 959–971Google Scholar
  16. Campbell K.W. (1997). Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological Research Letters 68(1): 154–179Google Scholar
  17. Campbell K.W. (2000). Erratum: Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological Research Letters 71(3): 352–354Google Scholar
  18. Campbell K.W. (2001). Erratum: Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismological Research Letters 72(4): 474Google Scholar
  19. Chai Y.H. (2005). Incorporating low-cycle fatigue model into duration-dependent inelastic design spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34: 83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Collino F. and Tsogka C. (2001). Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media. Geophysics 66(1): 2940–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas J. (2003). Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: A review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth-Science Reviews 61(1–2): 43–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Douglas J., Suhadolc P. and Costa G. (2004). On the incorporation of the effect of crustal structure into empirical strong ground motion estimation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2(1): 75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graves R.W.J. (1996). Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86(4): 1091–1106Google Scholar
  24. Ida Y. (1972). Cohesive force across the tip of a longitudinal-shear crack and griffith’s specific surface energy. Journal of Geophysical Research 77: 3796–3805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ide S. and Takeo M. (1997). Determination of constitutive relations of fault slip based on seismic wave analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 27379–27391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kanamori H. and Anderson D.L. (1975). Theoretical basis of some empirical relations in seismology. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65(5): 1073–1095Google Scholar
  27. Olsen K.B. (1994) Simulation of Three-dimensional Wave Propagation in the Salt Lake Basin. PhD thesis, University of Utah.Google Scholar
  28. Olsen K.B., Fukuyama E., Aochi H. and Madariaga R. (1999) Hybrid modeling of curved fault radiation in a 3D heterogeneous medium. In Matsu’ura M., Nakajima K. and Mora P. (eds.), 2nd ACES Workshop Proceedings, pages 343–349.Google Scholar
  29. Olsen K.B., Madariaga R. and Archuleta R.J. (1997). Three-dimensional dynamic simulation of the 1992 Landers earthquakes. Science 278(5339): 834–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palmer A.C. and Rice J.R. (1973). The growth of slip surfaces in the progressive failure of over-consolidated clay. Proceedings Royal Society of London, Series A 332: 527–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peyrat S., Olsen K. and Madariaga R. (2001). Dynamic modeling of the 1992 Landers earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research 106(11): 26467–26482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silva W., Gregor N. and Darragh B. (1999) Near fault ground motions. Technical report, Pacific Engineering and Analysis, El Cerrito, USA, Sep 1999. PG&E PEER – Task 5.A.Google Scholar
  33. Somerville P.G., Smith N.F., Graves R.W., Abrahamson and N.A. (1997). Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismological Research Letters 68(1): 199–222Google Scholar
  34. Stewart J.P., Chiou S.-J., Bray J.D., Graves R.W., Somerville, P.G. and Abrahamson, N.A. (2001) Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design. PEER Report 2001/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Travasarou T., Bray J.D. and Abrahamson N.A. (2003). Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias intensity. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32: 1133–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trifunac M.D. and Brady A.G. (1975). A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 65(3): 581–626Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Development Planning and Natural Risks DivisionARN/RIS, BRGMORLEANS Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations