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 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 1028-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. M. Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Strong Motion ◽  
River Delta ◽  
Fraser River ◽  
Soil Amplification ◽  
Strong Motion Data ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Fraser River Delta

Seismic site response in the greater Vancouver, British Columbia, area: spectral ratios from moderate earthquakes

1999 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F Cassidy ◽  
Garry C Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Site Response ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
River Delta ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Fraser River ◽  
Spectral Ratios ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Seismic Site Response ◽  
Fraser River Delta ◽  
S Period

Three-component, digital recordings of two recent moderate earthquakes provide valuable new insight into the response to seismic shaking in the greater Vancouver area, particularly on the Fraser River delta. The 1996 M = 5.1 Duvall, Washington, earthquake (180 km southeast of Vancouver) triggered strong-motion seismographs at seven sites and the 1997 M = 4.3 Georgia Strait earthquake (37 km west of Vancouver) triggered instruments at 13 sites in the greater Vancouver area. The latter data set is especially important because it contains the first three-component recordings made on bedrock in greater Vancouver. Both data sets represent weak ground motion, with peak horizontal accelerations of 0.5-1.5% gravity (g) for the Duvall earthquake, and 0.2-2.4% g for the Georgia Strait earthquake. Using the method of spectral ratios, we estimate the site response for each of the strong-motion instrument soil sites. On the Fraser River delta amplification is observed over a relatively narrow frequency range of 1.5-4 Hz (0.25-0.67 s period), with peak amplification of 4-10 (relative to competent bedrock) for the thick soil delta centre sites, and about 7-11 for the delta edge sites. Relative to firm soil, the peak amplification ranges from 2 to 5 for the thick soil delta centre sites, and 2 to 6 for the delta edge sites. At higher frequencies, little or no amplification, and in many cases slight attenuation, is observed.Key words: seismic site response, Fraser delta, earthquakes.

Processed strong-motion data for the El Salvador earthquake of June 19, 1982

1988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Campbell ◽  
Sylvester Theodore Algermissen
Keyword(s):  
El Salvador ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Strong Motion Data ◽  
Motion Data

Duration prediction of Chilean strong motion data using machine learning

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 103253
Author(s):  
Sarit Chanda ◽  
M.C. Raghucharan ◽  
K.S.K. Karthik Reddy ◽  
Vasudeo Chaudhari ◽  
Surendra Nadh Somala
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Strong Motion Data ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Duration Prediction

Re-digitization of Strong Motion Data Recorded by SMAC-M Accelerographs

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1_25-1_45
Author(s):  
Toshihide KASHIMA ◽  
Shin KOYAMA ◽  
Hiroto NAKAGAWA
Keyword(s):  
Strong Motion ◽  
Strong Motion Data ◽  
Motion Data

A comparison of two methods for earthquake source inversion using strong motion seismograms

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
B. P. Cohee ◽  
G. C. Beroza
Keyword(s):  
Rise Time ◽  
Seismic Moment ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Rupture Time ◽  
Rupture Propagation ◽  
Rupture Velocity ◽  
Strong Motion Data ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Inversion Methods ◽  
Window Method

In this paper we compare two time-domain inversion methods that have been widely applied to the problem of modeling earthquake rupture using strong-motion seismograms. In the multi-window method, each point on the fault is allowed to rupture multiple times. This allows flexibility in the rupture time and hence the rupture velocity. Variations in the slip-velocity function are accommodated by variations in the slip amplitude in each time-window. The single-window method assumes that each point on the fault ruptures only once, when the rupture front passes. Variations in slip amplitude are allowed and variations in rupture velocity are accommodated by allowing the rupture time to vary. Because the multi-window method allows greater flexibility, it has the potential to describe a wider range of faulting behavior; however, with this increased flexibility comes an increase in the degrees of freedom and the solutions are comparatively less stable. We demonstrate this effect using synthetic data for a test model of the Mw 7.3 1992 Landers, California earthquake, and then apply both inversion methods to the actual recordings. The two approaches yield similar fits to the strong-motion data with different seismic moments indicating that the moment is not well constrained by strong-motion data alone. The slip amplitude distribution is similar using either approach, but important differences exist in the rupture propagation models. The single-window method does a better job of recovering the true seismic moment and the average rupture velocity. The multi-window method is preferable when rise time is strongly variable, but tends to overestimate the seismic moment. Both methods work well when the rise time is constant or short compared to the periods modeled. Neither approach can recover the temporal details of rupture propagation unless the distribution of slip amplitude is constrained by independent data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document