Abstract
AbstractAs a contribution to step 3 of the ESG6 blind prediction exercise, we present an application of two different, purely empirical approaches to estimate the strong ground motion at a soft site ("KUMA") from the observed ground motion at a reference rock site ("SEVO") for the two largest shocks of the Kumamoto 2016 sequence. The two methods estimate the non-linear transfer function between a reference rock and a sedimentary site by modifying the linear transfer function derived from weak motion recordings. The modification is based either on a machine learning tool based on a wide collection of Japanese weak and strong motion recordings and the associated site metadata (method 1), or on an estimate of a site-specific parameter related to an average non-linear site response (method 2). The acceleration time series are then derived at the sedimentary site of interest using an estimation of the time delay between wave arrivals at the rock and site stations, and a minimum phase assumption for the site transfer function. These predictions were made blindly, but after the ESG6 conference they could be compared both with the actual ground motion recorded at KUMA during the two shocks, and the average and range of all other predictions preformed for this benchmark. Both of these purely empirical methods provide an honorable prediction of usual engineering ground motion parameters of the two target events. The performance of these two purely empirical approaches is at least comparable to those of the numerical simulation methods for the foreshock—if not better—and slightly worse for the (largest) mainshock. As the methods required only recordings of weak motions at the target and a referent sites and very simple description of the soil profile. The use of moderate motions to constrain the frequency shift prediction for the second method and the consideration of an alternative phase modification are possible ways to improvement.
Graphical Abstract
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference32 articles.
1. Anderson JG (2004) Quantitative measure of the goodness-of-fit of synthetic seismograms. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, Canada, paper n° 243
2. Archuleta RJ, Bonilla LF, Lavallee D (2000) Nonlinearity in observed and computed accelerograms. Paper No. 1934, Proc. 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Eng.
3. Beresnev IA, Wen KL (1996) Nonlinear soil response, a reality? Bull Seismol Soc Am 86(6):1964–1978
4. Bonilla LF, Archuleta RJ, Lavallée D (2005) Hysteretic and dilatant behavior of cohesionless soils and their effects on nonlinear site response: field data observations and modeling. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(6):2373–2395
5. Bonilla LF, Tsuda K, Pulido N, Régnier J, Laurendeau A (2011) Nonlinear site response evidence of K-net and KiK-net records from the Mw 9 Tohoku earthquake. Earth Planets Space 58:1–7