| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
125 Dunbar Road South, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2E8 Canada
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Pasadena, California 91101
Abstract
Ground-motion time histories for use in engineering analyses of structures in eastern North America are often simulated from seismological models, owing to the paucity of real recordings in the magnitude and distance ranges of interest. Two simulation methods have been widely used in recent years: the stochastic method and the ray-theory method. In the stochastic method, as implemented in this study, ground motion is treated as filtered Gaussian noise whose underlying spectrum is determined from an empirical region-specific seismological model of the source and propagation processes. In the ray-theory method, as implemented in this study, the ground motions are simulated by convolving an empirical source function with theoretical Green's functions for a specified crustal structure model. This article compares results of the two simulation methods for four well-recorded "calibration" events and assesses the applicability of the methods. The assessment is based on comparisons of ground-motion parameters from the simulated data with those of the actual recordings.
Ground-motion parameters in the frequency range from 1 to 10 Hz are satisfactorily predicted by both methods. Averaged over the four events studied, the stochastic method underpredicts 1-Hz response spectra by 20 to 40% but accurately predicts response spectra for frequencies of greater than 2 Hz; it also accurately predicts peak ground acceleration and velocity. The wave-propagation method underpredicts 1-Hz response spectra by 10 to 40% but accurately predicts response spectra for higher frequencies; it overpredicts peak ground acceleration and velocity by 10 to 40%. Both methods are imprecise: the standard error of an estimate is a factor of about 2.2.
The bias and standard error of an estimate for the wave-propagation method are generally slightly lower than for the stochastic method, if the focal depth of the event can be specified (i.e., as for a past earthquake). If the focal depth of the event is not known (i.e., as for a future earthquake) then the accuracy and precision of the two methods are about the same. The chief advantage of the wave-propagation method is its predictive power; since its attenuation function is derived from the focal depth and crustal structure it does not require knowledge of the empirical attenuation function. The chief advantage of the stochastic model is its economy and simplicity.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. Pousse, L. F. Bonilla, F. Cotton, and L. Margerin Nonstationary Stochastic Simulation of Strong Ground Motion Time Histories Including Natural Variability: Application to the K-Net Japanese Database Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2006; 96(6): 2103 - 2117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Anderson Expected Shape of Regressions for Ground-Motion Parameters on Rock Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2000; 90(6B): S43 - S52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply to Comment by R. A. W. Haddon on "Evaluation of Models for Earthquake Source Spectra in Eastern North America" by Gail M. Atkinson and David M. Boore Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2000; 90(5): 1339 - 1341.
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Atkinson and D. M. Boore Evaluation of models for earthquake source spectra in eastern North America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1998; 88(4): 917 - 934. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. A. Beresnev and G. M. Atkinson Modeling finite-fault radiation from the {omega}n spectrum Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1997; 87(1): 67 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Atkinson and W. Silva An empirical study of earthquake source spectra for California earthquakes Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1997; 87(1): 97 - 113. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. W. Haddon Earthquake source spectra in eastern North America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1996; 86(5): 1300 - 1313. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Sabetta and A. Pugliese Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationary earthquake ground motions Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1996; 86(2): 337 - 352. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Somerville, C. Saikia, D. Wald, and R. Graves Implications of the Northridge earthquake for strong ground motions from thrust faults Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1996; 86(1B): S115 - S125. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Li, C. Doll Jr., and M. N. Toksoz Source characterization and fault plane determination for MbLg = 1.2 to 4.4 earthquakes in the Charlevoix Seismic Zone, Quebec, Canada Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1995; 85(6): 1604 - 1621. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Atkinson Attenuation and source parameters of earthquakes in the Cascadia region Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 1995; 85(5): 1327 - 1342. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. M. Atkinson and T. C. Hanks A high-frequency magnitude scale Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1995; 85(3): 825 - 833. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
