1 / 15

Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America

Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America. Gail M. Atkinson, UWO David M. Boore, USGS (BSSA, 2006). Atkinson and Boore 2006 ENA relations. Based on stochastic finite-fault model (of Motazedian and Atkinson, 2005)

dale
Download Presentation

Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Gail M. Atkinson, UWO David M. Boore, USGS (BSSA, 2006)

  2. Atkinson and Boore 2006 ENA relations • Based on stochastic finite-fault model (of Motazedian and Atkinson, 2005) • Key source parameter is stress drop – determined from compilation of instrumental and historical data • Attenuation model based on empirical trilinear model of Atkinson, 2004 for ENA

  3. Stochastic finite fault model (Silva; Beresnev and Atkinson; Motazedian and Atkinson, 2005)Key features: - Subsources are Brune point sources- long-period controlled by moment, short-period controlled by stress - Results independent of subfault size

  4. Parameters needed to apply stochastic finite-fault model • All parameters needed for stochastic point source model: stress drop, attenuation with distance, site amplifications, physical properties • Geometry of source (can assume fault plane based on empirical relations such as Wells and Coppersmith on fault length and width vs. M, in this case assumed to be 1/3 of western fault area for a given M) • Direction of rupture propagation (assume random) • Slip distribution on fault (assume random)

  5. High-frequency spectral level depends on stress drop (as in point-source model)

  6. Illustration of typical decay of spectral amplitudes for m1=3.75. Line is trilinear shape fitted to the data. Transition distances are r01=70 km, ro2 = 140 km. Slopes of geometric attenuation: -1.3, +0.2, -0.5

  7. Amplitudes decay faster than 1/R at R<70 km. This has important implications for ENA ground motion relations.

  8. ENA stress drops, based on high-frequency spectral level. Mean = 140 bars.

  9. Comparison of AB06 eqns to M4.9 2005 Riviere du Loup data

  10. Comparison of AB06 eqns to several M4.5 events

  11. Comparison of equations to data for M5.8 and M7.6 Saguenay and Bhuj events – note high PGA for Saguenay, well above AB06 predictions for M5.8

  12. Comparison of ground-motion equations of this study (solid red lines) for M 5.5 and 7.5, with previous predictions (Atkinson and Boore, 1995, black), and mean and standard deviation of alternative EPRI (2004) predictions (blue), all for hard-rock site conditions in ENA.

  13. AB06 ground-motion equations are given for 2 site conditions • Base condition for development and comparison to ENA data is hard-rock (vs30>2000 m/s) • We also perform the same set of simulations for B/C boundary site conditions, for an assumed B/C profile (from Frankel et al., 1996) • Separate sets of equation coefficients for each set of simulations

  14. Significant Issues • Limited M > 4 ground motion database • Vertical vs. horizontal ground motion • Stress drop of ENA source spectrum • Near-source geometrical attenuation • Kappa of NEHRP B-C site profile

More Related