Site‐Effects Model for Central and Eastern North America Based on Peak Frequency and Average Shear‐Wave Velocity

Hassani, Behzad; Atkinson, Gail M.

doi:10.1785/0120170061

Cited by 49 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such effects can be considered through the use of empirical models conditioned on these additional parameters (e.g. Hassani and Atkinson, 2016b, 2018), simulation-based models (Harmon et al, 2019b), or the development of site-specific (or non-ergodic) site amplification models.…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GMMs developed by Al Noman and Cramer (2015) and Graizer (2015) were not considered ready to be used as seed models over a wide frequency range (Goulet, personal communication, 2017) and hence were not used here. Upon the completion of the panel’s analysis work, a new model was published (Hassani and Atkinson, 2018). Although the principal emphasis of that model was to show the effectiveness of site frequency as a site parameter (building on the work of Hassani and Atkinson, 2016b), they also developed a model based on V S 30 only.…”

Section: Fv Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the principal emphasis of that model was to show the effectiveness of site frequency as a site parameter (building on the work of Hassani and Atkinson, 2016b), they also developed a model based on V S 30 only. Because the V S 30 -scaling in that model is similar to GWG-E, a renewal of panel activity to formally consider the Hassani and Atkinson (2018) model was considered unnecessary.…”

Section: Fv Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps have historically been produced for a reference site condition of VS30 = 760 m/s. For other site conditions, site factors are used, which heretofore have been developed using ground motion data and simulations for shallow earthquakes in active tectonic regions. Research results from the Next Generation Attenuation–East (NGA-East) project, as well as previous and contemporaneous related research, demonstrate different levels of site amplification in central and eastern North America (CENA) as compared to active regions. We provide recommendations for modeling of ergodic site amplification in CENA based primarily on research results from the literature. The recommended model has three additive terms in natural logarithmic units. Two describe linear site amplification: an empirically constrained VS30-scaling term relative to a 760 m/s reference and a simulation-based term to adjust site amplification from the 760 m/s reference to the CENA reference of VS = 3000 m/s. The third term is a nonlinear model that is described in a companion document. All median model components are accompanied by epistemic uncertainty models.

show abstract

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fv Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fv Model Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a later study, Hassani and Atkinson (2018b) enhanced their amplification model for CENA by considering both V S 30 and f peak as site response indicators. It was concluded that if only one parameter is adopted for modeling, the site response in CENA, f peak should be used.…”

Section: Field Observations Of Linear Site Amplification In Cenamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…V S 30 as the only site response indicator results in significant site response underestimation specifically at higher frequencies. Hassani and Atkinson (2018b) also examined the effect of glaciation on site response for sites in CENA and showed that glaciated sites usually show higher amplification around the site fundamental frequency due to the strong impedance contrast at the base of the sediment layers. Using a similar methodology, Hassani and Atkinson (2018a) also showed that f peak as an additional site response indicator is warranted (though not as strongly) in other seismic regions such as California.…”

Section: Field Observations Of Linear Site Amplification In Cenamentioning

confidence: 99%

Significance of site natural period effects for linear site amplification in central and eastern North America: Empirical and simulation-based models

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article evaluates linear simulation-based and empirical site amplification models including site natural period dependency parameters to account for the distinctive amplification behavior near site fundamental frequencies resulting from the sharp impedance contrast between soil and underlying hard bedrock in central and eastern North America (CENA). The simulation-based amplification models are developed using 581,685 frequency-domain linear analyses generated from a parametric study and include VS30-scaling and site natural period ( Tnat) parameters. The empirical models are derived from residuals analyses of ground-motion models for two reference conditions: B/C boundary ( VS30 = 760 m/s) and CENA hard-rock condition ( VS = 3000 m/s). The simulation-based and empirical models are compared for 8 site profiles in CENA to measured horizontal-to-vertical (H/V) component response spectral (RS) ratios, the mean of linear simulations for similar sites, and one-dimensional (1D) linear site response analysis for four of these sites. Comparisons between observed and estimated site amplification behaviors highlight model dependency on Tnat in CENA. Model consistencies and differences related to the distinct linear amplification features near site fundamental frequency are discussed.

show abstract

Which is a better proxy, site period or depth to bedrock, in modelling linear site response in addition to the average shear-wave velocity?

Zhu

Pilz

Cotton

2019

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to identify the best-performing site characterization proxy alternative and complementary to the conventional 30 m average shear-wave velocity 𝑉 , as well as the optimal combination of proxies in characterizing linear site response. Investigated proxies include 𝑇 (site fundamental period obtained from earthquake horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios), 𝑉 (measured average shear-wave velocities to depth 𝑧, 𝑧 = 5, 10, 20 and 30 m), 𝑍 . and 𝑍 . (measured site depths to layers having shear-wave velocity 0.8 and 1.0 km/s, respectively), as well as 𝑍 (inferred site depths from a regional velocity model, 𝑥 = 0.8 and 1.0, 1.5 and 2.5 km/s). To evaluate the performance of a site proxy or a combination, a total of 1840 surface-borehole recordings is selected from KiK-net database. Site amplifications are derived using surface-to-borehole response-, Fourier-and cross-spectral ratio techniques and then are compared across approaches. Next, the efficacies of 7 single-proxies and 11 proxy-pairs are quantified based on the site-to-site standard deviation of amplification residuals of observation about prediction using the proxy or the pair. Our results show that 𝑇 is the best-performing single-proxy among 𝑇 , 𝑍 . , 𝑍 . and 𝑉 . Meanwhile, 𝑇 is also the best-performing proxy among 𝑇 , 𝑍 . , 𝑍 . and 𝑍 complementary to 𝑉 in accounting for the residual amplification after 𝑉 -correction. Besides, 𝑇 alone can capture most of the site effects and should be utilized as the primary site indicator. Though (𝑇 , 𝑉 ) is the best-performing proxy pair among (𝑉 , 𝑇 ), (𝑉 , 𝑍 . ), (𝑉 , 𝑍 . ), (𝑉 , 𝑍) and (𝑇 , 𝑉 ), it is only slightly better than (T0, 𝑉 ). Considering both efficacy and engineering utility, the combination of 𝑇 (primary) and 𝑉 (secondary) is recommended. Further study is needed to test the performances of various proxies on sites in deep sedimentary basins.

show abstract

Site‐Effects Model for Central and Eastern North America Based on Peak Frequency and Average Shear‐Wave Velocity

Cited by 49 publications

References 28 publications

Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America

Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America

Significance of site natural period effects for linear site amplification in central and eastern North America: Empirical and simulation-based models

Which is a better proxy, site period or depth to bedrock, in modelling linear site response in addition to the average shear-wave velocity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About