gmpes for active crustal regions: applicability for ... · gmpes for active crustal regions:...

GMPEs for Active Crustal Regions: Applicability for Controlling Sources

Jonathan P. Stewart University of California, Los Angeles

March 19, 2013 Oakland Airport Hilton

Outline

• GMPEs considered • GMPE parameter space

– Distribution of M, R, site condition, style of faulting parameters, periods for which GMPEs are well constrained

– Inclusion of Class 2 events • GMPE source terms

– Basis for large magnitude scaling – Inclusion of HW effects – Other factors not compiled (dip, Ztor, etc.)

GMPEs Considered GMPE Predecessors Notes Akkar & Boomer (2010): AB Akkar & Boomer (2007) Regional for Europe/Middle East Akkar & Cagnan (2010): AC - Regional for Turkey Bindi et al. (2011): BEA Bindi et al. (2006, 2009,

2010) Regional for Italy

Bradley (2013): B Bradley (2010) - Report Regional for NZ; adjusts Chiou et al 2010 Faccioli et al. (2010): FEA Cauzzi & Faccioli (2008) Global data (mostly Japan). Graizer & Kalkan (2007, 2009, 2011): GK

2007: PGA only. 2009: spectra. 2011: synthesis

Kanno et al. (2006): KEA - Mostly Japan data. ACR and SZ McVerry et al. (2006): MEA McVerry et al. (2000) Regional for NZ Pankow & Pechmann (2004): PP Spudich et al. (1999) Extensional regime Zhao et al. (2006): ZEA Mostly Japan data. ACR and SZ

NGA West 2 (2013)

AS (2013) AS (2008) Brief report BSSA (2013) BA (2008) CB (2013) CB (2008) CY (2013) CY (2008) Idriss (2013) Idriss (2008) No report

GMPE Parameter Space Mag. Distance Site PSA Periods

GMPE Data Region CL2? Mmin Mmax Rmin (km)

Rmax (km) Categories Cont.

Variables Range Mech. Tmin (sec)

Tmax (sec)

AB 2010 Europe, Middle East Y 5 7.6 0 100

Three: rock, stiff & soft soil N, SS, RV 0.05 3

AC 2010 Turkey Y 3.5 7.6 0 200 Vs30 180-760 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 2 BEA 2011 Italy Y 4 6.9 1 200 Five: CEN A-E N, SS, RV, U PGA 2

B 2013 NZ N 4.1 7.7 10 400 Vs30; z1 <200 to >1100 m/s

N, SS, RV, RO PGA 10

FEA 2010 Global NM 4.5 7.6 0.2 200 Four: CEN A-D Vs30 150-1200 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 20 GK 2011 Global N 4.9 7.9 0.1 250 Vs30 120-1400 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 10 KEA 2006 Mostly Japan NM 5.5 8 1 450 Vs30 100-1400 m/s NC PGA 5

MEA 2006 NZ Y 5.1 7.2 6 400 Five: strong rock to

v soft soil N, SS, RV,

RO PGA 3

PP 2004 Extensional Y 5 7.2 0 100 Two: rock, soil Vs30 310 & 620 m/s N,SS PGA 2

ZEA 2006 Mostly Japan Y 5 8.3 0 300 Four: hard rock to

soft soil N, SS, RV, U PGA 5

AS 2013 Global U U U U U Vs30; z1 U N, SS, RV PGA 10

BSSA 2013 Global Y 3 7.9 0 400 Vs30; z1 150-1500m/s; 0-3 km N, SS, RV, U PGA 10

CB 2013 Global N 3 7.9 0 200 Vs30; z2.5 150-1500m/s; 0-10 km N, SS, RV PGA 10

CY 2013 California N 3 7.4 0 200 Vs30; ∆z1 200-800m/s; -0.5-2.0 km N, SS, RV 0.01 10

I 2013 Global U U U U U Vs30 >450 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 10

NM = not mentioned NC = not considered U = unknown (due to lack of documentation)

Akkar and Bommer (2010) Mag. Distance Site PSA Periods




Tmax (sec)

AB 2010 Europe, Middle

East Y 5 7.6 0 100 Three: rock,

stiff & soft soil N, SS, RV 0.05 3

Mag range: SS=5-7.6; N=5-7; RV: 5.2-7.3

Akkar and Cagnan (2010)

Mag. Distance Site PSA Periods




Tmax (sec)

AC 2010 Turkey Y 3.5 7.6 0 200 Vs30 180-760 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 2

Event breakdown:

SS (70%), NS (28%), RS (2%) Mag range: SS: 3.5-7.6 N: 3.5-6.5 RV: ?

Bindi et al. (2011)





Tmax (sec)

BEA 2011 Italy Y 4 6.9 1 200 Five: CEN A-E N, SS, RV, U PGA 2

# Records by event type: SS=61; NS=593; RV=87; U=28 Mag range: SS: 4.3-6.0 N: 4.1-6.9 RV: 4.2-6.4

Equiv. NEHRP = B C D E NA (shallow)

Bradley (2013)





Tmax (sec)

B 2013 NZ N 4.1 7.7 10 400 Vs30; z1 <200 to >1100 m/s

N, SS, RV, RO PGA 10

# events by mechanism:

M range of NZ data set by focal mechanism (Bradley, pers. comm.): SS: 4 < M < 6.28 N: 4 < M < 7.11 RV: 4< M < 6.37

Faccioli et al. (2010); Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008)





Tmax (sec)

FEA 2010 Global NM 4.5 7.6 0.2 200 Four: CEN A-D Vs30 150-1200 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 20

Breakdown of M by focal mechanism (CF 2008): • SS 32 events • RV 12 events • N 16 events Breakdown by region (CF 2008): • Japan 84% • California 5% • Italy, Iceland, Turkey 5% • Iran 6%

CF 2008 data by Vs30

Grazier and Kalkan (2007, 2009, 2011)





Tmax (sec)

GK 2011 Global N 4.9 7.9 0.1 250 Vs30 120-1400 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 10

Data added to NGA db (GK 2007): • Turkey events – 6 • CA events: Anza, Hector Mine,

Northridge, Parkfield, Yucaipa • Uzbekistan, Georgia, Armenia

events

# Recordings by event type: SS=668; NS=13; RV=1144 Mag range: SS: 5.0-7.9 N: 5.7-5.8 RV: 4.9-7.6

Kanno et al. (2006)





Tmax (sec)

KEA 2006 Mostly Japan NM 5.5 8 1 450 Vs30 100-1400

m/s NC PGA 5

Focal mechanism not considered Added data from Turkey and CA:

McVerry et al. (2006)





Tmax (sec)

MEA 2006 NZ Y 5.1 7.2 6 400

Five: strong rock to v soft

soil

N, SS, RV, RO PGA 3

Pankow and Peechman (2004); Spudich et al. (1999)





Tmax (sec)

PP 2004 Exten-sional Y 5 7.2 0 100 Two: rock, soil Vs30 310 & 620

m/s N,SS PGA 2

Reported as useful to M 7.7 38 events 14 have rake [-60; -140]. M5.1-6.9 SS range: 5.2-7.2

Zhao et al. (2006)





Tmax (sec)

ZEA 2006 Mostly Japan Y 5 8.3 0 300 Four: hard rock

to soft soil N, SS, RV,

U PGA 5

Overseas = Western US and Iran

# crustal recordings by focal mech: Japan: RV=250 SS=1011 N=24 Overseas: RV=123 SS=73

Abrahamson and Silva (2013)





Tmax (sec)

AS 2013 Global U U U U U Vs30; z1 U N, SS, RV PGA 10

Boore et al. (2013)





Tmax (sec)

BSSA 2013 Global Y 3 7.9 0 400 Vs30; z1

150-1500m/s;

0-3 km

N, SS, RV, U PGA 10

Reported as useful to M 8 (RV and SS) and M 7 (N) M range: SS & RV: 3-7.9 N: 3-7

Campbell and Bozorgnia (2013)





Tmax (sec)

CB 2013 Global N 3 7.9 0 200 Vs30; z2.5 150-

1500m/s; 0-10 km

N, SS, RV PGA 10

Reported as useful to M 8.5 (SS), 8.0 (RV), and 7.5 (N) Only data with Rrup < 80 km used; model reported as useful to 200 km

Chiou and Youngs (2013)





Tmax (sec)

CY 2013 California N 3 7.4 0 200 Vs30; ∆z1 200-

800m/s; -0.5-2.0 km

N, SS, RV 0.01 10

Reported as useful to M 8.5 (SS) and M 8 (RV and N)

Idriss (2013)





Tmax (sec)

I 2013 Global U U U U U Vs30 >450 m/s N, SS, RV PGA 10

Outline

• GMPEs considered • GMPE parameter space

– Distribution of M, R, site condition, style of faulting parameters, periods for which GMPEs are well constrained

– Inclusion of Class 2 events • GMPE source terms

– Basis for large magnitude scaling – Inclusion of HW effects – Other factors not compiled (dip, Ztor, etc.)

GMPE Source Terms GMPE M-scaling equation (log units) Basis for Large M-scaling M-dependent R-

scaling? HW

AB 2010 Empirical Yes: linear on GS term RJB

AC 2010 Empirical Yes: linear on GS term RJB

BEA 2011 Empirical Yes: linear on GS term RJB

B 2013 CY 2008 Yes: cosh term on M CY 2008 HW term

FEA 2010 Empirical Yes: additive term to Rrup No

GK 2011 Empirical Effectively No No

KEA 2006 Empirical Yes: additive term to Rrup No

MEA 2006 AS 1997 Yes: linear on GS term AS 1997

HW term

PP 2004 Boore et al. 1997 No RJB

ZEA 2006 & correction factor for M2 term Empirical Yes: additive term to Rrup No

GMPE Source Terms GMPE M-scaling equation (log units) Basis for Large M-scaling M-dependent R-

scaling? HW

AS 2013 Functional form guided by

simulation; coefficients from data (?)

Yes: linear on GS term DA HW term

BSSA 2013 Empirical (compared to simulations) Yes: linear on GS term RJB

CB 2013 Empirical (compared to simulations) Yes: linear on GS term Model-specific

HW term

CY 2013 Functional form guided by

simulation; coefficients from CY08 (data)

Yes: cosh term on M DA HW term

I 2013 Empirical ? No

DA = Donahue and Abrahamson hanging wall model

Summary

• Models using ACR data extend to M ≤ 7.9 (SS and RV). Max M for Normal is 6.9.

• Multiple models extend to R ≤ ∼400 km • Widest range of Vs30 is 150-1500 m/s; most

models narrower (∼ 200-1000 m/s) • Max. periods range from 2 to 20 sec. • About 50% of the considered GMPEs include

Class 2 events (aftershocks)

Summary

• Most models capture M-scaling with 2nd order polynomial with parameters set from data.

• Most NGA models use simulations either to help establish functional form or to check results.

• Some models “borrow” M-scaling from other models (typically having more data)

• HW: most often captured with use of Rjb; three NGA models have specific HW term

References Akkar, S. and Bommer, J. J., 2010. Empirical equations for the prediction of PGA, PGV andspectral accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean region and the Middle East, Seism. Res. Ltrs, 81:2, 195-206 Akkar, S. and Cagnan, Z., 2010. A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey, and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 100:6, 2978-2995. Bindi, D., Pacor, F., Luzi, L., Puglia, R., Massa, M., Ameri, G., Paolucci, R., 2011. Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database, Bull. Eqk Eng., 9, 1899-1920. Bradley, B. A., 2012. A New Zealand-specific pseudo-spectral acceleration ground motion prediction equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models, Bull Seism. Soc. Am., Submitted (used with permission). Chiou, B., Youngs, R., Abrahamson, N., and Addo, K., 2010. Ground-motion attenuation model for small-to-moderate shallow crustal earthquakes in California and its implications onregionalization of ground-motion prediction models, Earthquake Spectra, 26, 907-926. Facciol, E., Bianchini, A., and Villani, M. 2010. New ground motion prediction equations for T > 1 s and their influence on seismic hazard assessment, Proc. Univ. Tokyo Sym. on Long-Period Ground Motion and Urban Disaster Mitigation, March 17-18, 2010 Grazier, V., and Kalkan, E., 2011. Modular filter-based approach to ground motion attenuation modeling, Seism. Res Letters, 82:1, 21-31. Kanno, T., Narita, A., Morikawa, N., Fujiwara, H. and Fukushima, Y. (2006). A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96:3, 879–897, doi: 10.1785/0120050138. McVerry, G.H., Zhao, J.X., Abrahamson, N.A. and Somerville, P.G. (2006). New Zealand acceleration response spectrum attenuation relations for crustal and subduction zone earthquakes, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 39:4, 1–58. Pankow, K.L., and Pechmann, .C., 2004. The SEA99 ground-motion predictive relations for extensional tectonic regimes: Revisions and a new peak ground velocity relation, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 94:1, 341-348. Spudich, P., Joyner, W.B., Lindh, A.G., Boore, D.M., Margaris, B.M., and Fletcer, J.B., 1999. SEA99: A revised ground motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regimes, Bull Seism. Soc. Am., 89:5, 1156-1170. Zhao, J. X., Zhang, J, Asano, A., Ohno, Y., Oouchi, T., Takahashi,T., Ogawa, H., Irikura, K., Thio, H. K., Somerville, P. G. and Fukushima, 2006. Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period, Bull Seism. Soc. Am, 96, 898–913.

NGA

AB 2010

AC 2010 BEA 2011 B 2013

AB 2010

FEA 2010

GK 2007

KEA 2006 SEA99

ZEA 2006

GK 2007: PGA attenuation

gmpes for active crustal regions: applicability for ... · gmpes for active crustal regions:...

Documents