Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for ...

Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for ... Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for ...

peer.berkeley.edu
from peer.berkeley.edu More from this publisher
08.04.2013 Views

The different forms of distance scaling defined by Equations (3) through (6) also result in differences in the variation in the scaling of ground motions with magnitude at different distances. Figure 12 shows the magnitude scaling, defined as ∂ ln(y ) / ∂M , for the four ground motion models shown in Figure 10. The steps in the values of ∂ ln(y) / ∂M occur where there are changes in the model parameters for different magnitude ranges. The distance attenuation functional forms that use a magnitude-dependent slope, Equations (5) and (6) produce continued increases in magnitude scaling with increasing distance. Those that use a magnitude-dependent near-source adjustment term, c(M), result in a gradual approach to distance-independent magnitude scaling. Figure 12: Plots of magnitude scaling at a range of distances produced by the form of the attenuation curve for the four ground motion models shown in Figure 10. Magnitude scaling is defined as ∂ ln( pga ) / ∂M . We examined the alternative forms and their fit to the PEER-NGA data and came to the conclusion that they all would work equally well given the data distribution. Discrimination among them would require a great deal more data at distances less than 10 km. The relationships we are to develop are required to cover the distance range of 0 to 200 km. We based our selection of the functional form on the behavior over the full magnitude range. The data show magnitude-dependence in the rate of attenuation at all distances. However, we believe that the mechanisms that cause this behavior may be different at different distances. At distances less than ~50 km, magnitude-dependence is due to the effect of extended sources. This effect can be modeled by all of the form. However, at large distances, >100 km, we think that another effect may be causing magnitude-dependence in the attenuation of response spectral ordinates – the interaction of Q with the differences in source Fourier spectra as a function of magnitude. This concept is explored below. The magnitude-dependence at large distances may also be modeled by the various functional forms. We prefer to use a model form that allows for separation of the effect of magnitude at small and at large distances, and therefore select the form defined by Equation (3). This form C&Y2006 Page 19

allows the interpretation of the coefficient C2 as the asymptotic value of magnitude scaling at large distances from the source. This same argument should make us favor the functional form of Equation (4) over that of Equation (3) in that with the function form of Equation (4) the coefficient C4 can be interpreted as the geometric spreading at distances greater than about 2×c(M). We experimented extensively with this form, but ultimately decided not to use it because we judged that it resulted in too little distance scaling over the distance range of 0 to 10 km for large-magnitude earthquakes. Previous implementations of the functional form of Equation (3) (e.g. Sadigh et al., 1997) have typically specified different parameters for large and small magnitude earthquakes. This results in a step function for the magnitude scaling, as illustrated in the upper left-hand plot of Figure 12. We prefer to have a smooth transition in the magnitude scaling over the full magnitude range. This was accomplished by using the relationship: { max( − 3, 0) } c ( M) = C5 cosh C6 M (7) The use of Equation (7) has the property that c(M) varies smoothly from a constant at small magnitudes to c( M) ∝ exp( C6M) at large magnitudes. Path Scaling at Large Distances: Many studies of the attenuation of ground motion Fourier amplitudes with distance have indicated that there is a change in the rate of geometric spreading from approximately proportional to 1/R at short distances to 1/ R at large distances, with this transition occurring in the range of 40 to 70 km. This change has been interpreted to be the combination of the effects of post-critical reflections from the lower crust and transition from direct body wave to Lg wave spreading (e.g. Atkinson and Mereu, 1992). Models of the decay of Fourier spectra with distance in California have found or assumed that the geometric spreading is proportional to 1/ R for distances greater than 40 km (Raoof et al., 1999; Erickson et al., 2004) and this form of geometric spreading was used by Atkinson and Silva (2000) to model strong ground motions. Earlier, Atkinson and Silva (1997) used a tri-linear form of attenuation similar to that defined by Atkinson and Mereu (1992), but indicated that a bi-linear form would also work. We explored this effect by modeling the broadband data assembled for three small (M 4.3 to 4.9) Southern California earthquakes (Anza, Yorba Linda, and Big Bear City, events 0163, 0167, and 0170, respectively). These data were fit with three functional forms, a 1-slope model: ln( R 0 y) = C1 + C2FBBC + C3FYL + C4 ln( R0 ) + γR + φ1 ln( VS 30 = R 2 + 6 a 2-slope model with the second slope ½ of the first: 2 { ln( R ) + ln( R ) / 2} ln( y) = C1 + C2FBBC + C3FYL + C4 1 2 + γR + φ1 ln( VS R 0 = R 2 2 + 6 , R = min( R , C ), R = max( 1, R 1 0 8 2 / 400) C&Y2006 Page 20 0 / C 8 ) 30 / 400) (8) (9)

The different <strong>for</strong>ms of distance scaling defined by Equations (3) through (6) also result in<br />

differences in the variation in the scaling of ground motions with magnitude at different<br />

distances. Figure 12 shows the magnitude scaling, defined as ∂ ln(y ) / ∂M<br />

, <strong>for</strong> the four<br />

ground motion models shown in Figure 10. The steps in the values of ∂ ln(y) / ∂M<br />

occur<br />

where there are changes in the model parameters <strong>for</strong> different magnitude ranges. The<br />

distance attenuation functional <strong>for</strong>ms that use a magnitude-dependent slope, Equations (5)<br />

<strong>and</strong> (6) produce continued increases in magnitude scaling with increasing distance. Those<br />

that use a magnitude-dependent near-source adjustment term, c(M), result in a gradual<br />

approach to distance-independent magnitude scaling.<br />

Figure 12: Plots of magnitude scaling at a range of distances produced by the <strong>for</strong>m of the attenuation<br />

curve <strong>for</strong> the four ground motion models shown in Figure 10. Magnitude scaling is defined as<br />

∂ ln( pga ) / ∂M<br />

.<br />

We examined the alternative <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>and</strong> their fit to the <strong>PEER</strong>-<strong>NGA</strong> data <strong>and</strong> came to the<br />

conclusion that they all would work equally well given the data distribution. Discrimination<br />

among them would require a great deal more data at distances less than 10 km. The<br />

relationships we are to develop are required to cover the distance range of 0 to 200 km. We<br />

based our selection of the functional <strong>for</strong>m on the behavior over the full magnitude range.<br />

The data show magnitude-dependence in the rate of attenuation at all distances. However,<br />

we believe that the mechanisms that cause this behavior may be different at different<br />

distances. At distances less than ~50 km, magnitude-dependence is due to the effect of<br />

extended sources. This effect can be modeled by all of the <strong>for</strong>m. However, at large<br />

distances, >100 km, we think that another effect may be causing magnitude-dependence in<br />

the attenuation of response spectral ordinates – the interaction of Q with the differences in<br />

source Fourier spectra as a function of magnitude. This concept is explored below. The<br />

magnitude-dependence at large distances may also be modeled by the various functional<br />

<strong>for</strong>ms. We prefer to use a model <strong>for</strong>m that allows <strong>for</strong> separation of the effect of magnitude at<br />

small <strong>and</strong> at large distances, <strong>and</strong> there<strong>for</strong>e select the <strong>for</strong>m defined by Equation (3). This <strong>for</strong>m<br />

C&Y2006 Page 19

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!