Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 119–139 | Cite as

On linear site amplification behavior of crustal and subduction interface earthquakes in Japan: (1) regional effects, (2) best proxy selection

  • M. Abdullah Sandıkkaya
Original Research
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

A strong-motion database is compiled from KIK-Net Archive of Japan (kyoshin.bosai.go.jp) with following criteria: shallow crustal and subduction interface events between 2000 and 2016, recorded within 300 km and moment magnitude, Mw range is 4.9–7. Time-based average of shear-wave velocity profiles up to different depths 10 m (VS10), 20 m (VS20), 30 m (VS30) and 50 m (VS50) are computed. Only stations with 200 < VS30 < 1500 m/s and the shear-wave velocity (Vs) profiles of the site reaches 800 m/s (h800) are used. Then ground-motion prediction equations for crustal and interface earthquakes are generated for surface motions, borehole motions, and surface-to-borehole spectral ratios (SBSR). The linear site response effect in surface motion equations are modeled in terms of h800 and site proxies: VS10, VS20, VS30, and VS50. The borehole-motion and SBSR models use Vs at borehole depth, and impedance ratio and h800, respectively. The crustal earthquakes generally produce higher ground-motions than interface events at rock site. The site behavior of crustal and interface earthquakes are found statistically different. The difference in short-period site factor is not more than 5%, whereas, at long-period site factor, crustal motions are amplified 13% more than interface motions. Applying the borehole motion and SBSR models, the estimated surface motions are compared with observed surface motions. The misfit is generally found less than 6%. It is concluded that SBSR can be a good indicator for site-specific amplification. Simple inference test is applied to the between-site residuals of surface motion and SBSR models to understand the regional variations in site amplification. In the point of site amplification, the interface earthquakes are more sensitive to regional effects than crustal earthquakes. The comparisons of between-site residuals and site amplification estimates computed with alternative site proxies reveal that at short periods VS20 is sufficient to predict the site response; however, as the period increases the performance of VS50 proxy becomes the best.

Keywords

Crustal earthquakes Subduction earthquakes Site amplification Site factors Regional effects Site proxy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The grant provided by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey with Award No. 117M146 is greatly appreciated. The author also thanks Dr. Douglas and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:505–510Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson NA, Gregor N, Addo K (2016) BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes. Earthq. Spectra 32:23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2006) Influence of long-period filter cut-off on elastic spectral displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1145–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akkar S, Çağnan Z, Yenier E, Erdogan Ö, Sandıkkaya MA, Gülkan P (2010) The recently compiled Turkish strong-motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters. J Seismol 14:457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Senyurt M, Sisi AA, Ay BO, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (2014) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al Atik L, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81:783–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:255–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates DM, Maechler M, Bolker B (2013) lme4: linear mixedeffects models using S4 classes, R manual. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed May 2016
  10. Boore DM, Akkar S (2003) Effect of causal and acausal filters on elastic and inelastic response spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1729–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2007) Boore–Atkinson NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. In: PEER2007/01, Pacific earthquake engineering research center, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms? Needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boore DM, Joyner W (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seism Soc Am 87:327–341Google Scholar
  14. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal Earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10:617–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council) (2015) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  17. Cadet H, Bard P-Y, Duval A-M, Bertrand E (2012) Site effect assessment using KiK-net data: Part 2—site amplification prediction equation based on f 0 and Vsz. Bull Earthq Eng 10:451–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Rossi PL (2008) VS30: proxy for seismic amplification? Seismol Res Lett 79:540–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2004) Eurocode 8, design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard NF EN 1998-1, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  20. Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H (2006) Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: application to Central Europe and rock sites. J Seismol 10:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cotton F, Pousse G, Bonilla F, Scherbaum F (2008) On the discrepancy of recent European ground-motion observations and predictions from empirical models: Analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and point-sources stochastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2244–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dawood HM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bayless J, Goulet C, Thompson E (2016) A Flatfile for the KiK-net database processed using an automated protocol. Earthq Spectra 32:1281–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Derras B, Bard P-Y, Cotton F (2017) VS30, slope, H800 and f0: performance of various site-condition proxies in reducing ground-motion aleatory variability and predicting nonlinear site response. Earth Planets Space 69:133.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0718-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Douglas J (2003) What is poor quality strong-motion record? Bull Earthq Eng 1:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Douglas J (2018) Ground-motion prediction equations 1964–2018. http://www.gmpe.org.uk
  27. Douglas J, Akkar S, Ameri G, Bard P-Y, Bindi D, Bommer JJ, Bora SS, Cotton F, Derras B, Hermkes M, Kuehn NM, Luzi L, Massa M, Pacor F, Riggelsen C, Sandıkkaya MA, Scherbaum F, Stafford PJ, Treversa P (2014) Comparisons between the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of earthquake ground motions in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:341–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flinn EA, Engdahl ER, Hill AR (1974) Seismic and geographical regionalization. Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:771–992Google Scholar
  29. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M (2009) Comparison of site classification from VS30, VS10, and HVSR in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garcia D, Wald DJ, Hearne MG (2012) A global earthquake discrimination scheme to optimize ground-motion prediction equation selection. Bull Seism Soc Am 102:185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gregor N, Abrahamson NA, Atkinson GM, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW, Chiou BSJ, Idriss IM, Kamai R, Seyhan E, Silva W, Stewart JP, Youngs R (2014) Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthq Spectra 30:1179–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes GP, Wald DJ, Johnson RL (2012) Slab1.0: a three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries. J Geophys Res 117:B01302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Idini B, Rojas F, Ruiz S, Pastén C (2017) Ground motion prediction equations for the Chilean subduction zone. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1853–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kanno T, Narita A, Morikawa N, Fujiwara H, Fukushima Y (2006) A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:879–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kotha SR, Cotton F, Bindi D (2018) A new approach to site classification: Mixed-effects Ground Motion Prediction Equation with spectral clustering of site amplification functions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 110:318–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  37. Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Gallipoli M, Bindi D, Mucciarelli M (2011) Proposal for a soil classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to Vs, 30. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1877–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montalva GA, Bastías N, Rodriguez-Marek A (2017) Ground-motion prediction equation for the Chilean subduction zone. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:901–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morikawa N, Fujiwara H (2013) A new ground motion prediction equation for Japan applicable up to M 9 mega-earthquake. J Disaster Res 8:878–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Okada Y, Kasahara K, Hori S, Obara K, Sekiguchi S, Fujiwara H, Yamamoto A (2004) Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan-Hi-net, F-net, K-NET and KiK-net. Earth Planets Space 56:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oth A, Bindi D, Parolai S, Di Giacomo D (2011) Spectral analysis of K-NET and KiK-net data in Japan, Part II: on attenuation characteristics, source spectra, and site response of borehole and surface stations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:667–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oth A, Miyake H, Bindi D (2017) On the relation of earthquake stress drop and ground motion variability. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 122:5474–5492.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2013) New code site classification, amplification factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 11(4):925–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pousse G, Berge-Thierry C, Bonilla F, Bard P-Y (2005) Eurocode 8 design response spectra evaluation using the K-Net Japanese database. J Earthq Eng 9:547–574Google Scholar
  45. Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F, Bonilla F (2011) Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:1242–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S (2014) A detailed investigation on Akkar et al. (2013) pan-European ground-motion prediction equations and proposals for future versions. In Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–29 August 2014Google Scholar
  47. Sandıkkaya MA, Dinsever LD (2018) A site amplification model for crustal earthquakes. Geosciences 8:264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S, Bard P-Y (2013) A nonlinear site amplification model for the new pan-European ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seyhan E, Stewart JP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthq Spectra 30:1241–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stafford PJ, Rodriguez-Marek A, Edwards B, Kruiver PP, Bommer JJ (2017) Scenario dependence of linear site-effect factors for short-period response spectral ordinates. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2859–2872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stambouli AB, Zendagui D, Bard P-Y, Derras B (2017) Deriving amplification factors from simple site parameters using generalized regression neural networks: implications for relevant site proxies. Earth Planets Space 69:99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strasser FO, Arango MC, Bommer JJ (2012) Scaling of the source dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with Moment Magnitude. Seismol Res Lett 81:941–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002Google Scholar
  54. Yenier E, Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S (2010) Report on the fundamental features of the extended strong motion databank prepared for the share project. Deliverable 4:44Google Scholar
  55. Zhao JX, Zhang J (2010) Side-effect of using response spectral amplification ratios for soft soil sites: earthquake source-type dependent amplification ratios. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:258–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima Y, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:898–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhao JX, Zhang J, Irikura K (2009) Side-effect of using response spectral amplification ratios for soil sites: variability and earthquake magnitude and source-distance dependent amplification ratios for soil sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1262–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhao JX, Hu J, Jiang F, Zhou J, Zhang Y, An X, Lu M, Rhoades DA (2015a) Nonlinear site models derived from 1-D analyses for ground-motion prediction equations using site class as the site parameter. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2010–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao JX, Zhou SL, Gao PJ, Long T, Zhang YB, Thio HK, Lu M, Rhoades DA (2015b) An earthquake classification scheme adapted for Japan determined by the goodness-of-fit for ground motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2750–2763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhao JX, Jiang F, Shi P, Xing H, Huang H, Hou R, Zhang Y, Yu P, Lan X, Rhoades DA, Somerville PG, Irikura K, Fukushima Y (2016a) Ground-motion prediction equations for subduction slab earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1535–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhao JX, Liang X, Jiang F, Xing H, Zhu M, Hou R, Zhang Y, Lan X, Rhoades DA, Irikura K, Fukushima Y, Somerville PG (2016b) Ground-motion prediction equations for subduction interface earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1518–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhao JX, Zhou S, Zhou J, Zhao C, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Gao P, Lan X, Rhoades D, Fukushima Y, Somerville PG, Irikura K (2016c) Ground-motion prediction equations for shallow crustal and upper-mantle earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1552–1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhou S, Zhao JX, Huang H, Bai S, Yin C, Zhang Y (2017) Comparison of ground-motion prediction equations developed for the horizontal component of strong-motion records from Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2821–2835CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations