Determination of Site Specific Earthquake Ground Motions

  • Junbo Jia


Different from the loads generated by the wind, wave/current and ice, which are due to the external forces applied on structures, earthquake loads are purely induced by the ground accelerations transferred to the foundation of the structures. Therefore, the determination of the earthquake ground motion is an essential part of earthquake engineering.


Ground Motion Seismic Wave Site Response Earthquake Ground Motion Seismic Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Howell JV (1960) Glossary of geology and related sciences. American Geological Institute, Washington, pp 207–208Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jia J (2016) Soil dynamics and foundation modeling: offshore and earthquake engineering. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson JC, Bertero VV (1987) Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes. J Struct Eng ASCE 113(8):1709–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    PEER Center (2000) ATC, Japan Ministry of Education, science, sports and culture, US-NSF, Effects of near-field earthquake shaking. In: Proceedings of the US–Japan workshop, San Francisco, March, pp 20–21Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duek CM, Luco JE, Carriveau AR, Hradilek PJ, Lastrico R, Ostrom D (1970) Strong earthquake motion and site conditions, Hollywook. Bull Seismol Soc Am 60(4):1271–1289Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dobry R, Martin GM, Parra E, Bhattacharyya A (1992) Development of site-dependent ratios of elastic response spectra (RRS) and site categories for building seismic codes. In: Martin GM (ed) Proceedings of the 1992 NCEER/SEAOC/BSSC workshop on site response during earthquakes and seismic code provisions. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Special Publication NCEER-94-SP01 (Buffalo, NY), University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Nov 18–20, 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Joyner WB, Warrick R, Fumal T (1981) The effect of Quaternary alluvium on strong ground motion in the Coyote Lake, California earthquake of 1979. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71:1333–1349Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aki K (1988) Local site effects on strong ground motion. In: Von Thun L (ed) Proceeding of the specialty conference on earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II: recent advances in ground-motion evaluation. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, Park City, Utah, 27–30 Jun, 1988, pp 103–155Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boore DM, Joyner WB, Fumal TE (1997) Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: a summary of recent work. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):128–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elnashai AS, Di Sarno L (2008) Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Towhata I (2008) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broderick BM, Elnashai AS, Ambraseys NN, Barr JM, Goodfellow RG, Higazy EM (1994) The Northridge (California) earthquake of 17 January 1994: observations, strong motion and correlative response analysis. Engineering seismology and earthquake engineering, research report no. ESEE 94/4, Imperial College, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dobry R, Iai S (2000) Recent developments in the understanding of earthquake site response and associated seismic code implementation, GeoEng2000, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seed HB, Romo MP, Sun JI, Jaime A, Lysmer J (1988) The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985: relationships between soil conditions and earthquake ground motions. Earthq Spectra 4(4):687–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO19901-2 (2004) Petroleum and natural gas industries—specific requirements for offshore structures—Part 2: Seismic design procedures and criteriaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    China Net for Engineering Construction Standardization (2010) Code for seismic design of buildings, GB 50011-2010. China Building Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    FEMA, NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-750/2009 Edition, prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2009Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lanzi A (2011) Approximate analysis of dynamic soil–structure interaction. University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaynia A (2009) Seismic analyses of Statfjord B, 16th of April, Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Idriss IM et al (1979) Analyses for soil–structure interaction effects for nuclear power plants, Report of the Structural Division, ASCE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Safak E (2006) Time domain representation of frequency-dependent foundation impedance functions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:65–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gazetas G (2006) Seismic design of foundations and soil–structure interaction. In: First European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Somerville PG (1998) The amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity in near fault ground motions. In: Dakoulas P, Yegian MK, Holtz RD (eds) Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics III, ASCEGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Martin GR, Dobry R (1994) Earthquake site response and seismic code provisions. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Bulletin, 8(4)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crouse CB, McGuire JW (1997) Site response studies for purpose of revising NEHRP seismic provisions. Dames and Moore Consultants, Seattle, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    NGI, NORSAR, PRINCIPIA (1988) Earthquake loading on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, OsloGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW (2004) The vertical-to-horizontal response spectral ratio and tentative procedures for developing simplified V/H and vertical design spectra. J Earthq Eng 8:175–207Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bozorgnia Y, Campbell K (2015) NGA-West2 vertical-to-horizontal (V/H) ground motion model. Earthq Spectra 31:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faccioli E (1991) Seismic amplification in the presence of geological and topographic irregularities. In: Prakash S (ed) Proceedings of the second international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, 11–15 March, St. Louis, Missouri, Univ. of Missouri-Rolle, vol 2, pp 1779–1797Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chávez-García FJ, Sanchez LR, Hatzfeld D (1996) Topographic site effects and HVSR. A comparison between observations and theory. Bull Seismol Soc Am 86:1559–1575Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pitilakis K, Raptakis D, Makara K, Ktenidou O-H, Pandi K, Manakou M, Pitilakis D, Diagourtas D (2004) Effects of surface and subsurface toplography on strong ground motion at the City of Aegion, Greece. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Angot A (1910) Le tremblement de terre du 11 juin 1909 dans le Sud-Est de la France, I, Enquête du Bureau Central Météorologique. Ann Géogr 103:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brambati A, Faccioli E, Carulli GB, Cucchi F, Onofri R, Stefanini S, Ulcigrai F (1980) Studio de microzonazione sismica dell’area di Tarcento (Friuli), Regione Autonomia Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Università degli Studi di Trieste con la collaborazione del Politecnico di Milano, TriesteGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siro L (1982) Southern Italy November 23 1980 earthquake. In: Proceedings of the seventh European conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, Greece, Sept, 1982Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Çelebi M, Hanks T (1986) Unique site response conditions of two major earthquakes of 1985: Chile and Mexico. In: Proceedings of the international symposium of engineering geology problems in seismic areas, vol 4, Bari, Italy, Apr 1986Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hartzell SH, Carver DL, King KW (1994) Initial investigation of site and topographic effects at Robinwood Ridge, California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:1336–1349Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Huang BS (2000) Two-dimensional reconstruction of the surface ground motion of an earthquake: the September 21, 1999, Chi-chi, Taiwan earthquake. Geophys Res Lett 27:3025–3028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Assimaki D, Gazetas G, Kausel E (2005) Effects of local soil conditions on the topographic aggravation of seismic motion: parametric investigation and recorded field evidence from the 1999 Athens earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95:1059–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Boore DM (1972) A note on the effect of simple topography on seismic SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 62:275–284Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chavez-García FJ, Rodriguez M, Field EH, Hatzfeld D (1997) Topographic site effects: a comparison of two non-reference methods. Bull Seismol Soc Am 87:1667–1673Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Neichtschein S, Bard PY, Gariel JC, Meneroud JP, Dervin P, Coushing M, Gaubert B, Vidal S, Duval AM (1995) A topographic effect study in the Nice region. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on seismic zonation, 17–19 Oct, Nice, France, Ouest Edition Nantes, II, pp 1067–1074Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Aki K (1988) Local site effects on strong ground motion. In VonThun JL (ed) Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II: recent advances in ground motion evaluation, Jun 27–30, Park City, Utah, pp 103–155Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Castellani A, Peano A, Sardella L (1982) On analytical numerical techniques for seismic analysis of topographic irregularities. In: Proceedings of the seventh European conference on earthquake engineering, Athens, Greece, 20–25 Sept, 1982Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bard PY (1982) Diffracted waves and displacement field over two-dimensional elevated topographies. Geophys J R Astron Soc 71:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    DM 14 GENNAIO 2008. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, GU n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vidale JE, Helmberger DV (1988) Elastic finite difference of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 78(1):122–141Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hisada Y, Yamamoto S (1996) One-, two-, and three-dimensional site effects in sediment-filled basins. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, No. 2040, Acapulco, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Makra K, Raptakis D, Chávez-García FJ, Pitilakis K (2001) Site effects and design provisions: the case of EUROSEISTEST. Pure Appl Geophys 158(12):2349–2367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Frankel A, Vidale J (1992) A three-dimensional simulation of seismic waves in the Santa Clara Valley, California, from a Loma Prieta aftershock. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:2045–2074Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Olsen KB, Archuleta RJ, Matarese JR (1995) Three-dimensional simulation of a magnitude 7.75 earthquake on the San Andreas fault. Science 270:1628–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Raptakis D, Chávez-García FJ, Makra K, Pitilakis K (2000) Site effects at EUROSEISTEST–I, Determination of the valley structure and confrontation of observations with 1D analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chávez-García FJ, Raptakis D, Makra K, Pitilakis K (2000) Site effects at EUROSEISTEST–II, results from 2D numerical modeling and comparison with observations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(1):23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bard PY, Bouchon M (1985) The two-dimensional resonance of sediment-filled valleys. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(2):519–541Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vessia G, Russo S, Presti DL (2011) A new proposal for the evaluation of the amplification coefficient due to valley effects in the simplified local seismic response analyses. Riv Ital Geotec 4:51–77Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Silva WJ, Turcotte T, Moriwaki Y (1988) Soil response to earthquake ground motion, EPRI report NP-5747. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    GovindaRaju L, Ramana GV, HanumanthaRao C, Sitharam TG (2004) Site-specific ground response analysis. Curr Sci 87(10):1354–1362Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Faccioli E (1996) On the use of engineering seismology tools in ground shaking scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, No. 2007Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Aki K (1993) Local site effects on weak and strong ground motion. Tectonophysics 218:93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bard PY (1994) Effects of surface geology on ground motion: recent results and remaining issues. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Vienna 1, pp 305–323Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chávez-Garcìa FJ, Faccioli E (2000) Complex site effects and building codes: making the leap. J Seismol 4:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bard PY, Bouchon M (1980) The seismic response of sediment-filled valleys, Part 1. The case of incident SH waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1263–1286Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bard PY, Bouchon M (1980) The seismic response of sediment-filled valleys, Part 2. The case of incident P and SV waves. Bull Seismol Soc Am 70:1921–1941Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bard PY, Bouchon M (1985) The two-dimensional resonance of sediment filled valleys. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75:519–554Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schnabel PB, Lysmer J, Seed HB (1972) SHAKE, A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, No. EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings, Version 1.0, California, Nov, 2010Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Smith CE (1997) Dynamic response of steel-jacket platform subject to measured seafloor earthquake ground motions. In: Proceedings of the eight international conference on the behavior of offshore structures, vol 3. Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sleefe GE (1990) The long-term measurement of strong-motion earthquakes offshore South California. In: Proceedings of OTC 1990, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TexasGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Crouse CB, Quilter J (1991) Seismic hazard analyses and development of design spectra for Maui A Platform. In: Proceedings of the Pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dolan DKM, Crouse CB, Quilter JM (1992) Seismic reassessment of Maui A. In: Proceedings of the offshore technology conference, OTC 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TexasGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Boore DM, Smith CE (1999) Analysis of earthquake recordings obtained from the seafloor earthquake measurement system (SEMS) instruments deployed off the coast of Southern California. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(1):260–274Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Brown LA (2003) Assessment of seismic risk for subsea production systems in the Gulf of Mexico. M.Sc. thesis, Texas A&M University, USA, Dec 2003Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aker SolutionsBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations