Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3)
Year of publication
- 2004 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Institute
One of the major challenges in engineering seismology is the reliable prediction of site-specific ground motion for particular earthquakes, observed at specific distances. For larger events, a special problem arises, at short distances, with the source-to-site distance measure, because distance metrics based on a point-source model are no longer appropriate. As a consequence, different attenuation relations differ in the distance metric that they use. In addition to being a source of confusion, this causes problems to quantitatively compare or combine different ground- motion models; for example, in the context of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, in cases where ground-motion models with different distance metrics occupy neighboring branches of a logic tree. In such a situation, very crude assumptions about source sizes and orientations often have to be used to be able to derive an estimate of the particular metric required. Even if this solves the problem of providing a number to put into the attenuation relation, a serious problem remains. When converting distance measures, the corresponding uncertainties map onto the estimated ground motions according to the laws of error propagation. To make matters worse, conversion of distance metrics can cause the uncertainties of the adapted ground-motion model to become magnitude and distance dependent, even if they are not in the original relation. To be able to treat this problem quantitatively, the variability increase caused by the distance metric conversion has to be quantified. For this purpose, we have used well established scaling laws to determine explicit distance conversion relations using regression analysis on simulated data. We demonstrate that, for all practical purposes, most popular distance metrics can be related to the Joyner-Boore distance using models based on gamma distributions to express the shape of some "residual function." The functional forms are magnitude and distance dependent and are expressed as polynomials. We compare the performance of these relations with manually derived individual distance estimates for the Landers, the Imperial Valley, and the Chi-Chi earthquakes
The use of ground-motion-prediction equations to estimate ground shaking has become a very popular approach for seismic-hazard assessment, especially in the framework of a logic-tree approach. Owing to the large number of existing published ground-motion models, however, the selection and ranking of appropriate models for a particular target area often pose serious practical problems. Here we show how observed around-motion records can help to guide this process in a systematic and comprehensible way. A key element in this context is a new, likelihood based, goodness-of-fit measure that has the property not only to quantify the model fit but also to measure in some degree how well the underlying statistical model assumptions are met. By design, this measure naturally scales between 0 and 1, with a value of 0.5 for a situation in which the model perfectly matches the sample distribution both in terms of mean and standard deviation. We have used it in combination with other goodness-of-fit measures to derive a simple classification scheme to quantify how well a candidate ground-rnotion-prediction equation models a particular set of observed-response spectra. This scheme is demonstrated to perform well in recognizing a number of popular ground-motion models from their rock-site- recording, subsets. This indicates its potential for aiding the assignment of logic-tree weights in a consistent and reproducible way. We have applied our scheme to the border region of France, Germany, and Switzerland where the M-w 4.8 St. Die earthquake of 22 February 2003 in eastern France recently provided a small set of observed-response spectra. These records are best modeled by the ground-motion-prediction equation of Berge-Thierry et al. (2003), which is based on the analysis of predominantly European data. The fact that the Swiss model of Bay et al. (2003) is not able to model the observed records in an acceptable way may indicate general problems arising from the use of weak-motion data for strong-motion prediction