Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70237838

Estimation of site terms in ground-motion models for California using horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios from microtremor

Camilo Pinilla Ramos·Norman A. Abrahamson·Robert Kayen
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The horizontal‐to‐vertical spectral ratios from microtremor (mHVSR) data obtained at 196 seismic stations in California are used to evaluate three alternative microtremor‐based proxies for site amplification for use in ground‐motion models (GMMs): the site fundamental period ( ⁠ f 0 "> f 0 ⁠ ), the period‐dependent amplitude of the mHVSR( T ), and the normalized amplitude of the mHVSR( T ). The alternative parameters are evaluated for the sites with and without measurements of V S 30 "> V S 30 ⁠ . If a V S 30 "> V S 30 measurement is not available for a site, then f 0 "> f 0 has the highest correlation with the site amplification for short periods ( T <1 s) and the normalized amplitude of the mHVSR( T ) has the highest correlation for long periods ( T ≥1 s). If a measurement of the V S 30 "> V S 30 is available for a site, then the normalized amplitude of the mHVSR( T ) has the highest correlation for the site amplification not explained by V S 30 "> V S 30 for all periods. For both cases, the correlations are strongest at the longer periods as mHVSR( T ) measurements excel at providing valuable information for sites with long‐period amplification due to the deeper velocity structure. In particular, for sites with a V S 30 "> V S 30 measurement, the normalized mHVSR( T ) amplitude provides more information about the long‐period site terms than the basin depth currently used in GMMs. Empirical models of the median and standard deviation of the site terms based on the normalized mHVSR( T ) curves are developed for the two cases. These models can be used directly in the ASK14 GMM to modify the median and aleatory standard deviation or they can be used to estimate the site‐specific site term in the context of a partially nonergodic GMM. Including the mHVSR( T ) measurement can have a significant effect on estimates of the ground motion at a site: the range 5%–95% on the observed HVSR( T ) values corresponds to factors of 0.6–1.6 for the median spectral acceleration for periods between 0.5 and 4 s.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (BSSA)Article
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 32.529251417220095° to 39.03858455027756° latitude; -123.85929645072895° to -114.01652972858435° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Camilo Pinilla Ramos, Norman A. Abrahamson, Robert Kayen. 2022-10-18. Estimation of site terms in ground-motion models for California using horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios from microtremor. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120220033

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2021

A big problem for small earthquakes: Benchmarking routine magnitudes and conversion relationships with coda-envelope-derived Mw in southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma

Earthquake magnitudes are widely relied upon measures of earthquake size. Although moment magnitude ( ⁠ M w "> M w Mw ⁠ ) has become the established standard for moderate and large earthquakes, difficulty in reliably measuring seismic moments for small (generally M w &lt; 4 "> M w < 4 Mw<4 ⁠ ) earthquakes has meant that magnitudes for these events remain plagued by a patchwork of inconsistent measurement scales. Because of this, magnitudes of small earthquakes and statistics derived from them can be biased. Furthermore, because small earthquakes are much more numerous than large ones, many applications, such as seismic hazard modeling, depend critically on analysis of events characterized by magnitudes other than M w "> M w Mw ⁠ . To assess this problem, we apply coda envelope analysis to reliably determine moment magnitudes for a case study of small earthquakes from northern Oklahoma and southern Kansas. Not surprisingly, we find significant differences among M L "> M L ML ⁠ , m b L g "> m b L g mbLg ⁠ , and M w "> M w Mw for M ∼2–4 earthquakes examined here. More troublingly, we find that relations designed to convert other magnitudes to M w "> M w Mw ⁠ , which are relied upon for important applications such as seismic hazard analysis, often increase rather than decrease this bias for our dataset. In our case study, we find that converted magnitudes can result in a systematic bias sometimes exceeding 0.5 magnitude units, a difference that typically corresponds to a factor of ∼3 in seismicity rate. Moreover, we find a correspondingly large bias in Gutenberg–Richter b ‐values, controlled primarily by inaccurate magnitude scaling in the conversion relationships. Although this study focuses on a relatively small geographic area, we can expect that similar issues exist with varying severity in other regions. Therefore, magnitudes of small earthquakes and their associated statistics, including seismicity rates and b ‐values, should be treated with caution.

Kansas, Oklahoma↗