Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70191698

Empirical improvements for estimating earthquake response spectra with random‐vibration theory

Abstract

The stochastic method of ground‐motion simulation is often used in combination with the random‐vibration theory to directly compute ground‐motion intensity measures, thereby bypassing the more computationally intensive time‐domain simulations. Key to the application of random‐vibration theory to simulate response spectra is determining the duration ( D rms ) used in computing the root‐mean‐square oscillator response. Boore and Joyner (1984) originally proposed an equation for D rms , which was improved upon by Liu and Pezeshk (1999) . Though these equations are both substantial improvements over using the duration of the ground‐motion excitation for D rms , we document systematic differences between the ground‐motion intensity measures derived from the random‐vibration and time‐domain methods for both of these D rms equations. These differences are generally less than 10% for most magnitudes, distances, and periods of engineering interest. Given the systematic nature of the differences, however, we feel that improved equations are warranted. We empirically derive new equations from time‐domain simulations for eastern and western North America seismological models. The new equations improve the random‐vibration simulations over a wide range of magnitudes, distances, and oscillator periods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David M. Boore, Eric M. Thompson. 2012-03-29. Empirical improvements for estimating earthquake response spectra with random‐vibration theory. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110244

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↗