2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.08.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Site condition evaluation using horizontal-to-vertical response spectral ratios of earthquakes in the NGA-West 2 and Japanese databases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
45
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
5
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, we observe that the spectral ratios are relatively flat between ~1 and 10 Hz and that spectral ratios tend to decrease for frequencies >10 Hz. As there is an observed inverse relationship between the frequency of amplification and the thickness of the layer that causes amplification [e.g., Ghofrani and Atkinson , ], the peak of the H / V spectral ratios at higher frequencies (~10 Hz) may be related to the velocity structure that consists of a thin layer of low‐velocity sediments overlying high‐velocity sedimentary rock and basement, like that observed in the 1‐D body wave velocity models of Keranen et al [] and Sumy et al []. We divide each of the horizontal event‐station amplitude spectra by the median H / V spectral ratio recorded at the corresponding station to aid in the removal of near‐surface site effects.…”
Section: Spectral Fitting Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Overall, we observe that the spectral ratios are relatively flat between ~1 and 10 Hz and that spectral ratios tend to decrease for frequencies >10 Hz. As there is an observed inverse relationship between the frequency of amplification and the thickness of the layer that causes amplification [e.g., Ghofrani and Atkinson , ], the peak of the H / V spectral ratios at higher frequencies (~10 Hz) may be related to the velocity structure that consists of a thin layer of low‐velocity sediments overlying high‐velocity sedimentary rock and basement, like that observed in the 1‐D body wave velocity models of Keranen et al [] and Sumy et al []. We divide each of the horizontal event‐station amplitude spectra by the median H / V spectral ratio recorded at the corresponding station to aid in the removal of near‐surface site effects.…”
Section: Spectral Fitting Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The H / V spectral method assumes that the vertical component is relatively insensitive to site amplification compared to the horizontal component and thus can provide a first‐order estimate of site response [ Lermo and Chávez‐García, , ; Atkinson , ]. H / V spectral ratios likely reflect a first‐order estimate of site amplification and can include amplification due to a crustal velocity gradient and/or from a near‐surface soil or sediment layer [e.g., Bonilla et al , ; Ghofrani and Atkinson , ]. We examine the Fourier amplitude spectral ratio between the combined geometric mean of the horizontal spectra and the vertical spectra, respectively, for every event‐station pair (Figure S1).…”
Section: Spectral Fitting Techniquementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequent studies found that, while the period of the HVSR peak coincides with the resonant period of S waves in the sediment column, the amplitude of the peak often does not match that of the S-wave transfer function (Lermo & Chavez-Garcia 1993;Lachet & Bard 1994;Bonilla et al 1997;Lunedei & Albarello 2010). Several studies have used HVSR to measure this resonant period in the range 0.1-2.0 s to infer site class (Zhao et al 2006;Ghofrani & Atkinson 2014) and to explain the spatial patterns of earthquake damage (Gosar 2010). HVSR measurements of resonant period have also been used to infer depth of sediments when velocity is known from, for example, surface wave dispersion (Ibst-von Seht & Wohlenberg 1999;D'Amico et al 2008) or average velocity when depth is known from geophysical surveys (Bodin et al 2001).…”
Section: H V S R M E a S U R E M E N T Smentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, V S30 does not capture all the underlying physics that control site amplification; thus, use of this parameter to describe site response has been the subject of debate (Anderson and others, 1996;Boore, 2004a;Mucciarelli and Gallipoli, 2006;Bragato, 2008;Castellaro and others, 2008;Lee and Trifunac, 2010). As a result, recent studies proposing new methods to account for site conditions have been published (Lee and Trifunac, 2010;Ghofrani and Atkinson, 2014). Until a new method is accepted, the engineering community will continue to use V S30 for the foreseeable future (Abrahamson and Shedlock, 1997;Abrahamson and others, 2008;Boore and others, 2011;Gregor and others, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%