Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On linear site amplification behavior of crustal and subduction interface earthquakes in Japan: (1) regional effects, (2) best proxy selection

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A strong-motion database is compiled from KIK-Net Archive of Japan (kyoshin.bosai.go.jp) with following criteria: shallow crustal and subduction interface events between 2000 and 2016, recorded within 300 km and moment magnitude, Mw range is 4.9–7. Time-based average of shear-wave velocity profiles up to different depths 10 m (VS10), 20 m (VS20), 30 m (VS30) and 50 m (VS50) are computed. Only stations with 200 < VS30 < 1500 m/s and the shear-wave velocity (Vs) profiles of the site reaches 800 m/s (h800) are used. Then ground-motion prediction equations for crustal and interface earthquakes are generated for surface motions, borehole motions, and surface-to-borehole spectral ratios (SBSR). The linear site response effect in surface motion equations are modeled in terms of h800 and site proxies: VS10, VS20, VS30, and VS50. The borehole-motion and SBSR models use Vs at borehole depth, and impedance ratio and h800, respectively. The crustal earthquakes generally produce higher ground-motions than interface events at rock site. The site behavior of crustal and interface earthquakes are found statistically different. The difference in short-period site factor is not more than 5%, whereas, at long-period site factor, crustal motions are amplified 13% more than interface motions. Applying the borehole motion and SBSR models, the estimated surface motions are compared with observed surface motions. The misfit is generally found less than 6%. It is concluded that SBSR can be a good indicator for site-specific amplification. Simple inference test is applied to the between-site residuals of surface motion and SBSR models to understand the regional variations in site amplification. In the point of site amplification, the interface earthquakes are more sensitive to regional effects than crustal earthquakes. The comparisons of between-site residuals and site amplification estimates computed with alternative site proxies reveal that at short periods VS20 is sufficient to predict the site response; however, as the period increases the performance of VS50 proxy becomes the best.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson NA, Youngs RR (1992) A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model. Bull Seismol Soc Am 82:505–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamson NA, Gregor N, Addo K (2016) BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes. Earthq. Spectra 32:23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Bommer JJ (2006) Influence of long-period filter cut-off on elastic spectral displacements. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1145–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Çağnan Z, Yenier E, Erdogan Ö, Sandıkkaya MA, Gülkan P (2010) The recently compiled Turkish strong-motion database: preliminary investigation for seismological parameters. J Seismol 14:457–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Senyurt M, Sisi AA, Ay BO, Traversa P, Douglas J, Cotton F, Luzi L, Hernandez B, Godey S (2014) Reference database for seismic ground-motion in Europe (RESORCE). Bull Earthq Eng 12:311–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al Atik L, Abrahamson NA, Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Kuehn N (2010) The variability of ground motion prediction models and its components. Seismol Res Lett 81:783–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2003) Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93:1703–1729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson GM, Silva W (2000) Stochastic modeling of California ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90:255–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates DM, Maechler M, Bolker B (2013) lme4: linear mixedeffects models using S4 classes, R manual. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4. Accessed May 2016

  • Boore DM, Akkar S (2003) Effect of causal and acausal filters on elastic and inelastic response spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32:1729–1748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2007) Boore–Atkinson NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. In: PEER2007/01, Pacific earthquake engineering research center, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  • Boore DM, Bommer JJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms? Needs, options and consequences. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:93–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Joyner W (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bull Seism Soc Am 87:327–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal Earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherdt RD (1994) Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification). Earthq Spectra 10:617–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council) (2015) NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, Washington D.C

  • Cadet H, Bard P-Y, Duval A-M, Bertrand E (2012) Site effect assessment using KiK-net data: Part 2—site amplification prediction equation based on f 0 and Vsz. Bull Earthq Eng 10:451–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellaro S, Mulargia F, Rossi PL (2008) VS30: proxy for seismic amplification? Seismol Res Lett 79:540–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (2004) Eurocode 8, design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard NF EN 1998-1, Brussels

  • Chiou BS-J, Youngs RR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton F, Scherbaum F, Bommer JJ, Bungum H (2006) Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground-motion models for specific target regions: application to Central Europe and rock sites. J Seismol 10:137–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton F, Pousse G, Bonilla F, Scherbaum F (2008) On the discrepancy of recent European ground-motion observations and predictions from empirical models: Analysis of KiK-net accelerometric data and point-sources stochastic simulations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:2244–2261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawood HM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Bayless J, Goulet C, Thompson E (2016) A Flatfile for the KiK-net database processed using an automated protocol. Earthq Spectra 32:1281–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derras B, Bard P-Y, Cotton F (2017) VS30, slope, H800 and f0: performance of various site-condition proxies in reducing ground-motion aleatory variability and predicting nonlinear site response. Earth Planets Space 69:133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-017-0718-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2003) What is poor quality strong-motion record? Bull Earthq Eng 1:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas J (2018) Ground-motion prediction equations 1964–2018. http://www.gmpe.org.uk

  • Douglas J, Akkar S, Ameri G, Bard P-Y, Bindi D, Bommer JJ, Bora SS, Cotton F, Derras B, Hermkes M, Kuehn NM, Luzi L, Massa M, Pacor F, Riggelsen C, Sandıkkaya MA, Scherbaum F, Stafford PJ, Treversa P (2014) Comparisons between the five ground-motion models developed using RESORCE for the prediction of earthquake ground motions in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12:341–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn EA, Engdahl ER, Hill AR (1974) Seismic and geographical regionalization. Bull Seismol Soc Am 64:771–992

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M (2009) Comparison of site classification from VS30, VS10, and HVSR in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99:340–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia D, Wald DJ, Hearne MG (2012) A global earthquake discrimination scheme to optimize ground-motion prediction equation selection. Bull Seism Soc Am 102:185–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor N, Abrahamson NA, Atkinson GM, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, Campbell KW, Chiou BSJ, Idriss IM, Kamai R, Seyhan E, Silva W, Stewart JP, Youngs R (2014) Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs. Earthq Spectra 30:1179–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes GP, Wald DJ, Johnson RL (2012) Slab1.0: a three-dimensional model of global subduction zone geometries. J Geophys Res 117:B01302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idini B, Rojas F, Ruiz S, Pastén C (2017) Ground motion prediction equations for the Chilean subduction zone. Bull Earthq Eng 15:1853–1880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanno T, Narita A, Morikawa N, Fujiwara H, Fukushima Y (2006) A new attenuation relation for strong ground motion in Japan based on recorded data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:879–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha SR, Cotton F, Bindi D (2018) A new approach to site classification: Mixed-effects Ground Motion Prediction Equation with spectral clustering of site amplification functions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 110:318–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Luzi L, Puglia R, Pacor F, Gallipoli M, Bindi D, Mucciarelli M (2011) Proposal for a soil classification based on parameters alternative or complementary to Vs, 30. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1877–1898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalva GA, Bastías N, Rodriguez-Marek A (2017) Ground-motion prediction equation for the Chilean subduction zone. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:901–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa N, Fujiwara H (2013) A new ground motion prediction equation for Japan applicable up to M 9 mega-earthquake. J Disaster Res 8:878–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada Y, Kasahara K, Hori S, Obara K, Sekiguchi S, Fujiwara H, Yamamoto A (2004) Recent progress of seismic observation networks in Japan-Hi-net, F-net, K-NET and KiK-net. Earth Planets Space 56:15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oth A, Bindi D, Parolai S, Di Giacomo D (2011) Spectral analysis of K-NET and KiK-net data in Japan, Part II: on attenuation characteristics, source spectra, and site response of borehole and surface stations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:667–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oth A, Miyake H, Bindi D (2017) On the relation of earthquake stress drop and ground motion variability. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 122:5474–5492. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JB014026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitilakis K, Riga E, Anastasiadis A (2013) New code site classification, amplification factors and normalized response spectra based on a worldwide ground-motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 11(4):925–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pousse G, Berge-Thierry C, Bonilla F, Bard P-Y (2005) Eurocode 8 design response spectra evaluation using the K-Net Japanese database. J Earthq Eng 9:547–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Marek A, Montalva GA, Cotton F, Bonilla F (2011) Analysis of single-station standard deviation using the KiK-net data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101:1242–1258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S (2014) A detailed investigation on Akkar et al. (2013) pan-European ground-motion prediction equations and proposals for future versions. In Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–29 August 2014

  • Sandıkkaya MA, Dinsever LD (2018) A site amplification model for crustal earthquakes. Geosciences 8:264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S, Bard P-Y (2013) A nonlinear site amplification model for the new pan-European ground-motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyhan E, Stewart JP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthq Spectra 30:1241–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford PJ, Rodriguez-Marek A, Edwards B, Kruiver PP, Bommer JJ (2017) Scenario dependence of linear site-effect factors for short-period response spectral ordinates. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2859–2872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stambouli AB, Zendagui D, Bard P-Y, Derras B (2017) Deriving amplification factors from simple site parameters using generalized regression neural networks: implications for relevant site proxies. Earth Planets Space 69:99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strasser FO, Arango MC, Bommer JJ (2012) Scaling of the source dimensions of interface and intraslab subduction-zone earthquakes with Moment Magnitude. Seismol Res Lett 81:941–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84:974–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Yenier E, Sandıkkaya MA, Akkar S (2010) Report on the fundamental features of the extended strong motion databank prepared for the share project. Deliverable 4:44

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Zhang J (2010) Side-effect of using response spectral amplification ratios for soft soil sites: earthquake source-type dependent amplification ratios. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:258–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima Y, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:898–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Zhang J, Irikura K (2009) Side-effect of using response spectral amplification ratios for soil sites: variability and earthquake magnitude and source-distance dependent amplification ratios for soil sites. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1262–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Hu J, Jiang F, Zhou J, Zhang Y, An X, Lu M, Rhoades DA (2015a) Nonlinear site models derived from 1-D analyses for ground-motion prediction equations using site class as the site parameter. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2010–2022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Zhou SL, Gao PJ, Long T, Zhang YB, Thio HK, Lu M, Rhoades DA (2015b) An earthquake classification scheme adapted for Japan determined by the goodness-of-fit for ground motion prediction equations. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105:2750–2763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Jiang F, Shi P, Xing H, Huang H, Hou R, Zhang Y, Yu P, Lan X, Rhoades DA, Somerville PG, Irikura K, Fukushima Y (2016a) Ground-motion prediction equations for subduction slab earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1535–1551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Liang X, Jiang F, Xing H, Zhu M, Hou R, Zhang Y, Lan X, Rhoades DA, Irikura K, Fukushima Y, Somerville PG (2016b) Ground-motion prediction equations for subduction interface earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1518–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao JX, Zhou S, Zhou J, Zhao C, Zhang H, Zhang Y, Gao P, Lan X, Rhoades D, Fukushima Y, Somerville PG, Irikura K (2016c) Ground-motion prediction equations for shallow crustal and upper-mantle earthquakes in Japan using site class and simple geometric attenuation functions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 106:1552–1569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou S, Zhao JX, Huang H, Bai S, Yin C, Zhang Y (2017) Comparison of ground-motion prediction equations developed for the horizontal component of strong-motion records from Japan. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107:2821–2835

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The grant provided by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey with Award No. 117M146 is greatly appreciated. The author also thanks Dr. Douglas and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Civil Engineering Department, Hacettepe University, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

    M. Abdullah Sandıkkaya

Authors
  1. M. Abdullah Sandıkkaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Abdullah Sandıkkaya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sandıkkaya, M.A. On linear site amplification behavior of crustal and subduction interface earthquakes in Japan: (1) regional effects, (2) best proxy selection. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 119–139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0459-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0459-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation