Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 17–26 | Cite as

The importance of crustal structure in explaining the observed uncertainties in ground motion estimation

  • John DouglasEmail author
  • Hideo Aochi
  • Peter Suhadolc
  • Giovanni Costa
Original Research Paper

Abstract

In this short article, the possible reduction in the standard deviation of empirical ground motion estimation equations through the modelling of the effect of crustal structure is assessed through the use of ground-motion simulations. Simulations are computed for different source-to-site distances, focal depths, focal mechanisms and for crustal models of the Pyrenees, the western Alps and the upper Rhine Graben. Through the method of equivalent hypocentral distance introduced by Douglas et al. [(2004) Bull Earthquake Eng 2(1): 75–99] to model the effect of crustal structure in empirical equations, the scatter associated with such equations derived using these simulated data could be reduced to zero if real-to-equivalent hypocentral distance mapping functions were derived for every combination of mechanism, depth and crustal structure present in the simulated dataset. This is, obviously, impractical. The relative importance of each parameter in affecting the decay of ground motions is assessed here. It is found that variation in focal depth is generally more important than the effect of crustal structure when deriving the real-to-equivalent hypocentral distance mapping functions. In addition, mechanism and magnitude do not have an important impact on the decay rate.

Keywords

Strong ground motion Attenuation relations Ground-motion models Ground-motion estimation equations Crustal structure France Standard deviation Equivalent hypocentral distance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J (2003) Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 23(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (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. Bull Earthquake Eng 3(1):1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aochi H, Madariaga R (2003) The 1999 Imit, Turkey, earthquake: nonplanar fault structure, dynamic rupture process, and strong ground motion. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1249–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Strasser FO (2003) Style-of-faulting in ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Earthquake Eng 1(2):171–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boore DM, Boatwright J (1984) Average body-wave radiation coeffcients. Bull Seismol Soc Am 74(5):1615–1621Google Scholar
  6. Boore DM, Joyner WB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87(2):327–341Google Scholar
  7. Campbell KW (1997) Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):154–179Google Scholar
  8. Costa G, Panza GF, Suhadolc P, Vaccari F (1993) Zoning of the Italian territory in terms of expected peak ground acceleration derived from complete synthetic seismograms. J Appl Geophys 30(2):149–160. In: Cassinis R, Helbig K, Panza GF (eds) Geophysical exploration in areas of complex geologyGoogle Scholar
  9. 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-Sci Rev 61(1–2):43–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Douglas J, Aochi H, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2005) The importance ofcrustal structure in explaining the observed uncertainties in ground motion estimation. In Proceedings of Earthquake Engineering in the 21st Century (EE-21C), Aug 2005Google Scholar
  11. Douglas J, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) On the incorporation of the effect of crustal structure into empirical strong ground motion estimation. Bull Earthquake Eng 2(1):75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Du ZJ, Michelini A, Panza GF (1998) EurID: a regionalized 3-D seismological model of Europe. Phys Earth Planet Interiors 105:31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR (1974) Formation velocity and density—The diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39(6):770–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graves RWJ (1996) Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(4):1091–1106Google Scholar
  15. Laske G, Dziewonski A, Masters G (2005) The reference earth model website. On Internet at: http://mahi.ucsd.edu/Gabi/rem.htmlGoogle Scholar
  16. Levander AR (1988) Fourth-order finite-difference P-SV seismograms. Geophysics 53:1425–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lopes Cardozo GGO (2003) 3-D geophysical imaging and tectonic modelling of active tectonics of the upper Rhine graben region. PhD thesis, L’Université Louis Pasteur - Strasbourg IGoogle Scholar
  18. Martínez-Pereira A, Bommer JJ (1988) What is the near-field? In: Booth E (ed) Proceedings of the Sixth SECED Conference on Seismic Design Practice into the Next Century, pp 245–252Google Scholar
  19. Olsen KB (1994) Simulation of three-dimensional wave propagation in the Salt Lake Basin. PhD thesis, University of UtahGoogle Scholar
  20. Souriau A, Granet M (1995) A tomographic study of the lithosphere beneath the Pyrenees from local and teleseismic data. J Geophys Res 100(B9):18117–18134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(4):974–1002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Douglas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hideo Aochi
    • 1
  • Peter Suhadolc
    • 2
  • Giovanni Costa
    • 2
  1. 1.ARN/RISBRGMOrléans Cedex 2France
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze della TerraUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly

Personalised recommendations