@article{ZhuPilzCotton2019,
  author    = {Zhu, Chuanbin and Pilz, Marco and Cotton, Fabrice Pierre},
  title     = {Which is a better proxy, site period or depth to bedrock, in modelling linear site response in addition to the average shear-wave velocity?},
  series = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Bulletin of earthquake engineering : official publication of the European Association for Earthquake Engineering},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1570-761X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10518-019-00738-6},
  pages     = {797 -- 820},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {This study aims to identify the best-performing site characterization proxy alternative and complementary to the conventional 30 m average shear-wave velocity V-S30, as well as the optimal combination of proxies in characterizing linear site response. Investigated proxies include T-0 (site fundamental period obtained from earthquake horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios), V-Sz (measured average shear-wave velocities to depth z, z = 5, 10, 20 and 30 m), Z(0.8) and Z(1.0) (measured site depths to layers having shear-wave velocity 0.8 and 1.0 km/s, respectively), as well as Z(x-infer) (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-0 is the best-performing single-proxy among T-0, Z(0.8), Z(1.0) and V-Sz. Meanwhile, T-0 is also the best-performing proxy among T-0, Z(0.8), Z(1.0) and Z(x-infer) complementary to V-S30 in accounting for the residual amplification after V-S30-correction. Besides, T-0 alone can capture most of the site effects and should be utilized as the primary site indicator. Though (T-0, V-S30) is the best-performing proxy pair among (V-S30, T-0), (V-S30, Z(0.8)), (V-S30, Z(1.0)), (V-S30, Z(x-infer)) and (T-0, V-Sz), it is only slightly better than (T-0, V-S20). Considering both efficacy and engineering utility, the combination of T-0 (primary) and V-S20 (secondary) is recommended. Further study is needed to test the performances of various proxies on sites in deep sedimentary basins.},
  language  = {en}
}