Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70035936

Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM

Abstract

Comparisons of ground motions from two widely used point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulation programs (SMSIM and EXSIM) show that the following simple modifications in EXSIM will produce agreement in the motions from a small earthquake at a large distance for the two programs: (1) base the scaling of high frequencies on the integral of the squared Fourier acceleration spectrum; (2) do not truncate the time series from each subfault; (3) use the inverse of the subfault corner frequency for the duration of motions from each subfault; and (4) use a filter function to boost spectral amplitudes at frequencies near and less than the subfault corner frequencies. In addition, for SMSIM an effective distance is defined that accounts for geometrical spreading and anelastic attenuation from various parts of a finite fault. With these modifications, the Fourier and response spectra from SMSIM and EXSIM are similar to one another, even close to a large earthquake (M 7), when the motions are averaged over a random distribution of hypocenters. The modifications to EXSIM remove most of the differences in the Fourier spectra from simulations using pulsing and static subfaults; they also essentially eliminate any dependence of the EXSIM simulations on the number of subfaults. Simulations with the revised programs suggest that the results of Atkinson and Boore (2006), computed using an average stress parameter of 140 bars and the original version of EXSIM, are consistent with the revised EXSIM with a stress parameter near 250 bars.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D.M. Boore. 2009-11-23. Comparing stochastic point-source and finite-source ground-motion simulations: SMSIM and EXSIM. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090056

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗