Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70147405

Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion

Abstract

The stochastic method of ground‐motion simulation specifies the amplitude spectrum as a function of magnitude ( M ) and distance ( R ). The manner in which the amplitude spectrum varies with M and R depends on physical‐based parameters that are often constrained by recorded motions for a particular region (e.g., stress parameter, geometrical spreading, quality factor, and crustal amplifications), which we refer to as the seismological model. The remaining ingredient for the stochastic method is the ground‐motion duration. Although the duration obviously affects the character of the ground motion in the time domain, it also significantly affects the response of a single‐degree‐of‐freedom oscillator. Recently published updates to the stochastic method include a new generalized double‐corner‐frequency source model, a new finite‐fault correction, a new parameterization of duration, and a new duration model for active crustal regions. In this article, we augment these updates with a new crustal amplification model and a new duration model for stable continental regions. Random‐vibration theory (RVT) provides a computationally efficient method to compute the peak oscillator response directly from the ground‐motion amplitude spectrum and duration. Because the correction factor used to account for the nonstationarity of the ground motion depends on the ground‐motion amplitude spectrum and duration, we also present new RVT correction factors for both active and stable regions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David M. Boore, Eric M. Thompson. 2015-03-03. Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140281

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↗