Strong Ground Motions and Site Effects

Rathje, Ellen M.; Idriss, I. M.; Somerville, Paul; Ansal, Atilla; Bachhuber, Jeffrey; Baturay, M. B.; Erdik, Mustafa; Frost, Dennis J.; Lettis, W.; Sozer, B.; Stewart, J. P.; Ugras, T.

doi:10.1193/1.1586147

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For PGA, the majority of the rock/shallow soil data fall close to or below the minus 2 standard deviation curve in Figure 2(a). Although less than 1 km from the fault, the LD-7 station recorded a PGA < 0.1 g. The data in Figure 2 indicate that ground motions in the near-fault region are smaller than expected, which is similar to observations made from the Kocaeli earthquake data (Rathje et al 2000, Durukal 2002). However, the Duzce earthquake ground motions recorded at rock/shallow soil sites were unexpectedly small up to distances as great as 100 to 200 km (Figure 2(a)); whereas the Kocaeli earthquake rock/shallow soil motions were unexpectedly small only at distances less than about 20 km (Rathje et al 2000).…”

Section: Comparison With Ground Motion Prediction Equationssupporting

confidence: 76%

“…PGA values at these stations (~0.03 g) were about four times as great as those recorded on neighboring rock/shallow soil (~0.008 g). Similar amplification occurred at ATS during the Kocaeli earthquake (Rathje et al 2000(Rathje et al , 2003. SASW testing at ATS indicates that the shear wave velocity near the surface is less than 100 m/s and the shear wave velocity does not exceed 180 m/s in the top 25 m (Rosenblad et al 2001).…”

Section: Comparison With Ground Motion Prediction Equationsmentioning

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strong Ground Motions and Damage Patterns From the 1999 Duzce Earthquake in Turkey

Rathje

Stewart

Baturay

et al. 2006

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The M w 7.1 Duzce earthquake occurred on 12 November 1999 along the North Anatolian Fault in northwestern Turkey. This paper documents observations from a field reconnaissance team, addressing two principal aspects of this significant earthquake: the recorded ground motions and the distribution and severity of the earthquake effects on the built environment. In general, the recorded ground motions from this earthquake were smaller than predicted by ground motion predictive equations available at the time of the event. One anomalous recording is presented and potential causes for this irregular motion based on observations from field reconnaissance are discussed. The effects of rupture directivity on the near-fault recordings are assessed and the effects of soil conditions on the recorded ground motions are examined. The patterns of building damage based on post-earthquake reconnaissance are presented for the most strongly shaken cities in the near-fault region: Duzce, Kaynasli, and Bolu. Damage in Duzce was concentrated in the southern part of the city, which is underlain by softer sediments. Damage in Bolu was distributed evenly throughout the city; whereas damage was concentrated on more recent alluvial sediments in Kaynasli. No evidence of liquefaction or ground failure was observed in the populated areas surveyed after the earthquake.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Ground Motion Prediction Equationssupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Comparison With Ground Motion Prediction Equationsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Strong Ground Motions and Damage Patterns From the 1999 Duzce Earthquake in Turkey

Rathje

Stewart

Baturay

et al. 2006

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This classiÿcation scheme (herein called SGS) di erentiates between competent rock and weathered soft rock therefore allowing for the site response of 'true' rock to be more accurately characterized. Rodriguez-Marek et al [11] provided the SGS site classiÿcation for the Loma Prieta (1989) and Northridge (1994) earthquakes, Rathje et al [12] classiÿed the data from the recent Kocaeli (1999) Stewart et al [13] provided the classiÿcation for the remainder of the stations in the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Area. For the data recorded during the Chi-Chi (1999) earthquake, the Lee et al [14] site classiÿcation was employed with the following qualitative descriptions: (i) class B includes Miocene and older strata, limestone, igneous and metamorphic rock, (ii) class C includes Pliocene and Pleistocene strata, conglomerates, pyroclastic rocks and geomorphologic lateritic terraces, and (iii) class D includes late Pleistocene and Holocene strata, geomorphologic uvial terraces, sti clays and sandy soils with average SPT = 15 in the upper 30 m. In this study, these three classes are considered to have direct correspondence to the equivalent letter classes of SGS.…”

Section: Strong Motion Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias Intensity

Travasarou

Bray

Abrahamson³

2003

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

227

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYArias Intensity is a ground motion parameter that captures the potential destructiveness of an earthquake as the integral of the square of the acceleration-time history. It correlates well with several commonly used demand measures of structural performance, liquefaction, and seismic slope stability. A new empirical relationship is developed to estimate Arias Intensity as a function of magnitude, distance, fault mechanism, and site category based on 1208 recorded ground motion data from 75 earthquakes in active plate-margins. Its functional form is derived from the point-source model, and the coe cients are determined through non-linear regression analyses using a random-e ects model. The results show that for large magnitude earthquakes (M ¿7) Arias Intensity was signiÿcantly overestimated by previous relationships while it was underestimated for smaller magnitude events (M 66). The average horizontal Arias Intensity is not signiÿcantly a ected by forward rupture directivity in the near-fault region. The aleatory variability associated with Arias Intensity is larger than that of most other ground motion parameters such as spectral acceleration. However, it may be useful in assessing the potential seismic performance of sti engineering systems whose response is dominated by the short-period characteristics of ground motions.

show abstract

“…The results of Lee and Anderson (2000) contrast significantly with other research that has identified substantial variability in ground motions that appears to be related to differences in site condition. Such research includes indirect evidence of site response from variations in structural damage patterns with site condition (e.g., Seed et al, 1972Seed et al, , 1987Seed et al, , 1990Chang et al, 1996;Rathje et al, 2000) and comparisons of motions from small collections of closely spaced soil and rock sites (e.g., Seed and Idriss, 1971;Seed et al, 1987;Idriss, 1990;Chang et al, 1996;Seed and Dickenson, 1996;Darragh and Idriss, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Uncertainty and Bias in Ground-Motion Estimates from Ground Response Analyses

Baturay¹

2003

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When geotechnical 1D ground response analyses are performed to evaluate site effects in lieu of the use of attenuation relations, it is with the expectation that the attenuation model's standard deviation, and any bias in the median, would be reduced. In this article, we evaluate the degree to which these and other benefits of equivalent-linear, 1D ground response analyses are realized and develop recommendations for implementing the results of such analyses into hazard calculations. This is accomplished by comparing response spectral accelerations (S a ) from recordings to predictions derived using ground response analysis procedures as well as attenuation relationships with and without amplification factors. The results are compiled for 134 motions from 68 sites, and prediction residuals are interpreted to assess the models' relative bias and dispersion. We find that ground response analyses are unbiased for T Յ ϳ1 sec, but underestimate longer period S a in deep basins. For soft soils, ground response analyses reduce dispersion for T Ͻ 1 sec relative to alternative models. This dispersion reduction is not observed for other site categories nor at longer periods. These results suggest that ground response analyses are beneficial for S a predictions at soft soil sites, but generally provide no identifiable benefit for typical stiff soil or rock sites.

show abstract

Strong Ground Motions and Site Effects

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Strong Ground Motions and Damage Patterns From the 1999 Duzce Earthquake in Turkey

Strong Ground Motions and Damage Patterns From the 1999 Duzce Earthquake in Turkey

Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias Intensity

Uncertainty and Bias in Ground-Motion Estimates from Ground Response Analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About