CAN SITE RESPONSE BE PREDICTED?

Large modifications of seismic waves are produced by variations of material properties near the Earth's surface and by both surface and buried topography. These modifica-tions, usually referred to as “site response”, in general lead to larger motions on soil sites than on rock-like sites. Because the soil amplifications can be as large as a factor of ten, they are important in engineering applications that require the quantitative spec-ification of ground motions. This has been recognised for years by both seismologists and engineers, and it is hard to open an earthquake journal these days without finding an article on site response. What is often missing in these studies, however, are discussions of the uncertainty of the predicted response. A number of purely observational studies demonstrate that ground motions have large site-to-site variability for a single earthquake and large earthquake-location-dependent variability for a single site. This variability makes site-specific, earthquake-specific predictions of site response quite un-certain, even if detailed geotechnical and geological information is available near the site. Predictions of site response for average classes of sites exposed to the motions from many earthquakes can be made with much greater certainty if sufficient empirical observations are available.

[1]  H. Kawase.  61 Site effects on strong ground motions , 2003 .

[2]  Gail M. Atkinson,et al.  Integrated Use of Seismograph and Strong-Motion Data to Determine Soil Amplification: Response of the Fraser River Delta to the Duvall and Georgia Strait Earthquakes , 2000 .

[3]  Frank Scherbaum,et al.  Model parameter optimization for site-dependent simulation of ground motion by simulated annealing: Re-evaluation of the Ashigara Valley prediction experiment , 1994 .

[4]  Utpal Dutta,et al.  Determination of Site Response in Anchorage, Alaska, on the Basis of Spectral Ratio Methods , 2002 .

[5]  EURO-SEISTEST strong-motion array near Thessaloniki, Northern Greece: A study of site effects , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[6]  A. Papageorgiou,et al.  Estimation of S-Wave Site Response in Anchorage, Alaska, from Weak-Motion Data Using Generalized Inversion Method , 2001 .

[7]  David M. Boore,et al.  Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake , 1981 .

[8]  David M. Boore,et al.  Comparison of Shear-Wave Slowness Profiles at 10 Strong-Motion Sites from Noninvasive SASW Measurements and Measurements Made in Boreholes , 2002 .

[9]  Stephen S. Gao,et al.  Localized amplification of seismic waves and correlation with damage due to the Northridge earthquake: Evidence for focusing in Santa Monica , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[10]  Separation of Site Effects and Structural Focusing in Santa Monica, California: A Study of High-Frequency Weak Motions from Earthquakes and Blasts Recorded during the Los Angeles Region Seismic Experiment , 2002 .

[11]  E. Field,et al.  Earthquake site response estimation: A weak-motion case study , 1992, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[12]  D. Boore.  Ground Motion in Anchorage, Alaska, from the 2002 Denali Fault Earthquake: Site Response and Displacement Pulses , 2004 .

[13]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes , 1997 .

[14]  C. Cramer,et al.  A comparison of observations of ground response to weak and strong ground motion at Coalinga, California , 1988 .

[15]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Site effects at Euroseistest—I. Determination of the valley structure and confrontation of observations with 1D analysis , 2000 .

[16]  David M. Boore,et al.  Site amplifications for generic rock sites , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[17]  Jamison H. Steidl,et al.  What is a reference site? , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[18]  David Carver,et al.  Urban seismology—Northridge aftershocks recorded by multi-scale arrays of portable digital seismographs , 1996 .

[19]  Jamison H. Steidl.  Variation of Site Response at the UCSB Dense Array of Portable Accelerometers , 1993 .

[20]  Kim B. Olsen,et al.  Site Amplification in the Los Angeles Basin from Three-Dimensional Modeling of Ground Motion , 2000 .

[21]  David M. Boore,et al.  Estimated Ground Motion From the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake at the Site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard Bridge Collapse, West Los Angeles, California , 2003 .

[22]  Gao,et al.  Northridge earthquake damage caused by geologic focusing of seismic waves , 2000, Science.

[23]  P. Bard,et al.  Detailed evaluation of site-response estimation methods across and along the sedimentary valley of volvi (EURO-SEISTEST) , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[24]  William A. Bryant,et al.  A Site-Conditions Map for California Based on Geology and Shear-Wave Velocity , 2000 .

[25]  C. Ventura,et al.  1-D and 2-D analyses of weak motion data in Fraser Delta from 1966 Duvall earthquake , 2003 .

[26]  D. D. Kana,et al.  An evaluation of methodology for seismic qualification of equipment, cable trays, and ducts in ALWR plants by use of experience data , 1997 .

[27]  David M. Boore,et al.  Comments on Baseline Correction of Digital Strong-Motion Data: Examples from the 1999 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake , 2002 .

[28]  F. Chávez-García,et al.  Site Effects and Design Provisions: The Case of Euroseistest , 2001 .

[29]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Amplification Factors for Spectral Acceleration in Tectonically Active Regions , 2003 .

[30]  Francisco J. Sánchez-Sesma,et al.  Site effects on strong ground motion , 1987 .

[31]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Data Analysis of the Euroseistest Strong Motion Array in Volvi (Greece): Standard and Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio Techniques , 1998 .

[32]  John Haines,et al.  The Choice of Reference Sites for Seismic Ground Amplification Analyses: Case Study at Parkway, New Zealand , 2003 .

[33]  W. B. Joyner,et al.  Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work , 1997 .

[34]  W. B. Joyner.  Strong motion from surface waves in deep sedimentary basins , 2000 .

[35]  Keiiti Aki,et al.  Local Site Effects on Strong Ground Motion , 1988 .

[36]  David M. Boore,et al.  Basin Waves on a Seafloor Recording of the 1990 Upland, California, Earthquake: Implications for Ground Motions from a Larger Earthquake , 1999 .

[37]  Jonathan D. Bray,et al.  Engineering implications of ground motions from the Northridge earthquake , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[38]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Site effects at Euroseistest—II. Results from 2D numerical modeling and comparison with observations , 2000 .

[39]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Site Effects and Design Provisions: The Case of Euroseistest , 2001 .

[40]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Uncertainty and Bias in Ground-Motion Estimates from Ground Response Analyses , 2003 .

[41]  E. Field,et al.  Monte-Carlo Simulation of the Theoretical Site Response Variability at Turkey Flat, California, Given the Uncertainty in the Geotechnically Derived Input Parameters , 1993 .