See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/375337497

Earthquakes, Strong-Ground Motion

Chapter · May 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58631-7_141

CITATION READS

1 68

4 authors, including:

G. F. Panza Fabio Romanelli

University of Trieste University of Trieste
638 PUBLICATIONS 15,802 CITATIONS 138 PUBLICATIONS 2,320 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Franco Vaccari
University of Trieste
168 PUBLICATIONS 3,943 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by G. F. Panza on 07 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

252 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION

actually controls seismic radiation, so that poor velocity con-

trol leads to poor seismic inversions. There is hope that
dynamic models, where rupture is inverted as part of the
inversion process will provide better estimates of the stress
field around major fault zones along with some essential
parameters like the friction law that controls rupture
propagation.

Δux
Bibliography
Aki, K., 1967. Scaling law of seismic spectrum. Journal of Geo-
physical Research, 73, 5359–5376.
Aki, K., and Richards, P. G., 2002. Quantitative Seismology, 2nd
edn. Sausalito: University Science Books.
Backus, G., and Mulcahy, M., 1976. Moment tensors and other phe-
nomenological descriptions of seismic sources. I: continuous
vr = 7.5 b displacements. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 46, 321–361.
Brune, J., 1970. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear
waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75,
4997–5009.
Burridge, R., and Knopoff, L., 1964. Body force equivalents for
r seismic dislocations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 54, 1875–1878.
Earthquakes, Source Theory, Figure 1 Slip distribution as Eshelby, J. D., 1957. The elastic field of an ellipsoid inclusion and
a function of time and position for Madariaga’s (1976) quasi- related problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London.
dynamic circular crack model. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 241, 376–396.
Haskell, N. A., 1964. Total energy and energy spectral density of
elastic wave radiation from propagating faults. Bulletin of the
Kostrov’s self-similar solution (Equation 12). The stopping Seismological Society of America, 54, 1811–1841.
Kostrov, B. V., 1964. Self-similar problems of propagation of 1379
of rupture generates strong healing waves that propagate shear cracks. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics,
inward from the rim of the fault. These waves are of three 28, 1077–1087.
types: P, S, and Rayleigh waves. Soon after the passage of Kostrov, B., and Das, S., 1988. Principles of Earthquake Source
the Rayleigh waves, slip rate inside the fault decreases to Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
zero and the fault heals. After healing, we assume that fric- Madariaga, R., 1976. Dynamics of an expanding circular fault. Bul-
tional forces are sufficiently strong that no slip will occur letin of the Seismological Society of America, 66, 639–667.
Madariaga, R., and Olsen, K. B., 2002. Earthquake dynamics. In
until the fault is reloaded. As observed in Figure 1, it is clear Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., and Jennings, P. C. (eds.), Inter-
that slip and rise time are functions of position on the fault, national Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology
the rise time being much longer near the center where slip is (Chapter 7), Amsterdam: Academic Press.
also larger than near the edges of the fault where slip is
clamped. Finally, let us note that the slip after healing is Cross-references
very similar to that of a static circular crack, except that Earthquake Rupture: Inverse Problem
there is a slight overshoot of slip with respect to the static Earthquake, Focal Mechanism
solution (Equation 13). The overshoot is of course a func-
tion of the rupture speed, but its maximum value is of the
order of 15% for a rupture speed of 0.75.
EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION
Future work
Seismic observations have steadily improved in the last Giuliano F. Panza1,2, Cristina La Mura1, Fabio
20 years due to the wide availability of digital, continuously Romanelli1, Franco Vaccari1
1
recording accelerograms that can be integrated to obtain Department of Geosciences, University of Trieste,
velocity and band limited displacement fields near active Trieste, Italy
2
faults. Additional information about rupture is provided by Earth System Physics Section/Sand Group, The Abdus
field studies of faulting associated with earthquakes and from Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics,
geodetic observations. Modeling and inversion of such data Trieste, Italy
has been usually done using kinematic models derived from
the original Haskell model. This approach gives solutions Definition
that are very nonunique because the rupture process (the rup- Strong-ground motion. An earthquake-induced ground
ture velocity) is difficult to estimate. Rupture velocity motion capable of damaging man-made environment.
 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION 253

Introduction used to estimate the ground motion without having to wait

Earthquake ground motion is a natural phenomenon associ- for a strong earthquake to occur.
ated with a sudden release of energy due to a fault rupture.
Strong-motion seismology deals with seismic waves radi- Description of strong-ground motion
ated by large earthquakes. More precisely, it is concerned A seismic record of ground acceleration, due to
with measurement, interpretation and prediction of strong a damaging shaking, is usually defined a strong-motion
shaking generated by damaging earthquakes. datum. There is not a quantitative rule, but it is generally
Because of the engineering need for estimates of future assumed that damaging earthquakes are those of magni-
strong-ground motion, the scope of strong-motion seis- tude 5 and above. The threshold to be exceeded in terms
mology encompasses seismic source theory and all other of peaks acceleration for ground motion to be considered
aspects of seismology that can provide insights helpful strong motion is quite blurred. The strongest recorded
in making the best possible earthquake ground-shaking earthquake motions have peaks between 1 and 3 g, but
scenarios given the limited observational data. these are very rare events. Usually, damages are caused
Accumulated data have been providing very important by ground motion, which exceeds the threshold of 0.1 g,
knowledge about rupture processes of earthquakes, propaga- but Bolt and Abrahamson (2003) lower this limit to 0.05 g.
tion paths and site effects on ground motion, and the relation Due to the importance of strong motion for earthquake
between ground motion, damage, and other earthquake engineering, a number of different parameters have come
related phenomena (e.g., landslides earthquake induced). into use to represent various characteristics of strong
The most important goals of strong-motion seismology motion. Actually, the most appropriate way to describe
are the improvement of the physical understanding of the or specify the characteristics of ground motion for the pur-
processes controlling strong-ground motion and the reli- pose of seismic design is still an open problem. A large
able assessment of seismic hazard. number of parameters have been proposed for measuring
To assess the hazard for engineering design applica- the capacity of earthquakes to damage structures. How-
tions and due to the limited availability of strong-ground ever, to account for the complex characteristics of earth-
motion records, it has become increasingly common to quake-induced strong-ground motion in the engineering
compute broadband synthetic seismograms that allow us analysis and design, the need arose for a more inclusive
to perform realistic waveform modeling for different definition of the existing parameters and for the introduc-
seismotectonic environments. The modeling has to take tion of new ones. In fact, the adoption of inadequate
simultaneously into account the properties (e.g., dimen- parameters can lead to the definition of unrealistic design
sions, directivity, and near-field effects) of the radiating earthquakes and consequently to the unreliable evaluation
source, lateral heterogeneities along the path, and local of the seismic risk.
site effects. The parameters fundamentally involved in the evalua-
The joint use of reliable synthetic signals and observa- tion of the level of severity associated with strong motion
tions can be fruitfully used for design purposes. In fact, are, for engineering purposes, the frequency content, the
even if recently strong-motion records in near-fault, soft amplitude, and the effective duration.
soils, or basin conditions have been obtained, their num- Beginning about the 1960s, the most used ground-
ber is still very limited to be statistically significant for motion parameter for quantification of ground motion
seismic engineering applications. was the peak ground acceleration (PGA), as the inertia
The lack of a representative set of observations is due to forces depend directly on acceleration. PGA is simply
the low frequency of large earthquakes and to the diffi- obtained from unprocessed accelerograms. However,
culty of providing a proper instrumental coverage of all PGA is a poor indicator of damage, since, as observed,
the areas prone to strong shaking. Despite of the growing time histories with the same PGA could be very different
strong-motion registration networks, the existing database in their frequency content, strong-motion duration, and
is still not complete with respect to the possible scenario energy level. In fact, PGA may be associated with high
earthquakes, and the lack of completeness will last for frequency pulses, which do not produce significant dam-
many years if not centuries. The variability of ground age to the buildings as most of the impulse is absorbed
motion, due to different causes, e.g., spatial variability, by the inertia of the structure with little deformation. On
source parameter variability, azimuthal variability the other hand, a more moderate acceleration may be asso-
(Strasser and Bommer, 2009), show how the current avail- ciated with a long-duration pulse of low frequency (accel-
able strong-motion data still represent only a small sample eration pulse), which gives rise to a significant
of all physically possible ground motion. The mathemati- deformation of the structure. The peak ground velocity
cal modeling, with different degrees of complexity, based (PGV) is another useful parameter for the characterization
on probabilistic concepts cannot fill in the gap due to the of ground-motion amplitude. The velocity is less sensitive
lack of knowledge about the physical process behind an to the higher-frequency components of the ground motion,
earthquake (Panza et al., 2004). Therefore, to resort to so the PGV should be more useful than the PGA in charac-
broadband synthetic seismogram is a fundamental step: terizing the damaging potential of ground motion. For
where no records are available, synthetic signals can be design purposes, the peak ground displacement (PGD),
254 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION

generally associated with the lower-frequency compo- Oth et al., 2007; Somerville et al., 1997). The other
nents of an earthquake ground motion, has been recog- approach uses empirical relations between source parame-
nized as useful parameter, mostly for the design of ters compiled for a huge number of earthquakes (e.g.,
seismically isolated structures. Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). In the past few years, the
The response spectrum, firstly proposed by Benioff availability of additional strong-motion data has allowed
(1934), defined as the maximum response of a damped the incorporation of additional parameters, such as type
harmonic system to input motion (Anderson, 2003), is of fault, fault orientation; further recent relationships have
a parameter widely used for engineering purposes. increasingly become more refined, although, at the same
Another ground-motion parameter, very important for time, more complicated. Attenuation relations are usually
engineers, is the duration of shaking (Villaverde, 2009). grouped into three sets (Panza et al., 2004): shallow crustal
Duration can impact structures and response of soils: earthquakes in active tectonic regions, shallow crustal
structures that can stand one or two large oscillations earthquakes in stable tectonic regions, and subduction
may collapse under prolonged motions, and while zone earthquakes. These relations can differ in the
a second of shaking of sandy soil can be tolerated, assumed functional form, the data selection criteria, the
repeated oscillations can induce liquefaction (Jennings, number and definition of independent variables, and the
2003). But there is not a unique definition of duration, as statistical treatment of the data. A review can be found in
clearly evidenced in Bommer and Martinez-Pereira Douglas (2003), where the complete procedure that needs
(1998), where 30 definitions of strong-motion duration to be followed to derive equations for the estimation of
are reported. The available definitions can be classified ground motion from recorded strong-motion data is outlined
in three different groups, or as a combination of them as well. As the coefficients of the attenuation relations are
(Montejo and Kowalsky, 2008): (1) “bracketed” durations determined empirically by means of regression analysis, they
(Bolt, 1969), in which the duration is defined to be the are quite sensitive to the used data set, an example of the
time interval between the first and the last exceedances dependence of attenuation relations on the procedure
of a threshold of acceleration; (2) “significant” durations followed in the data processing is given by Parvez et al.
that define the duration of strong motion as the time inter- (2001) for the Himalayas. The Izmit, Turkey, earthquake of
val during which a given percentage of the total energy of August 17, 1999 and the Chi Chi, Taiwan, September 20,
the record is released; and (3) frequency-dependent dura- 2000, did show the inadequacy of the existing database: as
tions, in which the duration of strong-ground motion is explained in Anderson (2007), the GMPEs available at that
analyzed separately in several narrow-frequency bands moment underestimated the peak accelerations for those
(Bolt, 1969; Trifunac and Westermo, 1977). The follow- events. The discrepancies could be due to a wide variety of
ing two examples of duration measurement show the factors, so these examples suggest that a large amount of data
limits of this parameter. A way to estimate duration is to and a deep physical understanding of the processes involved
measure the interval of time within which acceleration in seismic events are needed to improve the quality of
exceeds some threshold, usually 0.05 g (bracketed dura- GMPEs (Anderson, 2007). A common main source of error
tion, Bolt, 1969); another measure is the interval of time can be mathematical shortcomings that arise when attenua-
in which 90% of the integral of the acceleration-squared tion relations are used in geologically complex areas (e.g.,
is recorded. These two estimations yield opposite results Peresan et al., 2010).
as the distance from the source increases. Peak ground As stressed earlier by Aki: “a major goal of strong-
motions decrease, as a rule, with increasing distance from motion seismology is to be able to synthesize strong-
the source (for exceptions, see e.g., Panza and Suhadolc, motion seismograms suitable for use in engineering
1989; Fah and Panza, 1994), but energy becomes dis- analysis” (Anderson, 2003, p. 942). The use of computa-
persed, so the time that is necessary to wait for the arrival tional modeling has the aim to simulate the wave genera-
of the 90% of the total energy in the seismogram increases tion and propagation process in complex media. The
(Anderson, 2003). formulation of physical-mathematical models aimed to
Several equations, commonly referred to as attenuation represent the effective complexity of the phenomenon
relations or ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE), and their resolution is a complicated affair. With the
have been proposed over the years from strong-ground exception of a very limited number of simple situations,
motion observations and theoretical studies. These mathe- the physical-mathematical approach does not lead to
matical expressions give ground-motion intensity mea- closed form solutions, i.e., fully analytical, so it is neces-
sures as a function of earthquake magnitude and sary to employ numerical procedures, more or less com-
distance. They may be determined empirically, by plex, or approximated theories (Bolt, 1999).
a regression of recorded ground motion, or theoretically,
using seismological models to generate synthetic ground
motions that account for the source, site, and path effects. Earthquake source effects on strong-ground
Theoretical attenuation relations between various source motion: near-field effects
parameters are used to estimate source parameters for Source effects on far-field seismograms are discussed by
earthquakes that have not yet occurred, or for which Aki and Richards (1980, Chap. 14). Seismic data used in
parameters of interest are unknown (e.g., Geller, 1976; earthquake engineering are occasionally collected in the
 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION 255

near-field, but the question where the near-field ends and Bielak (2003) investigated the combined effects of fling-
the far-field begins is gradational and will not be step and rupture directivity by paying special attention to
addressed here. the contribution of static and dynamic Green’s functions.
Near-fault ground motions often contain large long- Fling effects are found to be stemmed mainly from the
period pulses (Somerville, 2002). There are two causes static Green’s function. They are dominant in the vicinity
for these pulses: one is constructive interference of the of the surface fault and negligible for buried faults since
dynamic shaking due to rupture directivity effects, the the static Green’s function decreases rapidly, as (1/r2),
other is due to the movement of the ground associated with with the distance from the fault. When the observation
the permanent offset of the ground. For keeping these two point is above the buried fault, the fling step disappears
causes separated, the terms “directivity pulse” and “fling because the slip dislocation of the fault cannot fling the
step” have been introduced (Bolt and Abrahamson, 2003). ground, due to the presence of a continuous medium
Large earthquakes are produced by rupture that starts at above the fault itself. Directivity effects derive mainly
a point and travels with a velocity that is generally only from the
pffiffidynamic Green’s function and attenuate as (1/r)
slightly smaller than the shear-wave velocity in the to (1= r), more slowly than the fling. The combination
medium. Therefore, when rupture is towards the station, of both the effects of rupture directivity and fling-step
the propagation causes most of the seismic energy to results in inclined directions, with respect to the fault
arrive in a single large pulse occurring at the beginning plane, of maximum velocities, and displacements.
of the record. Forward-directivity effects occur when the The destructive potential of near-fault ground motions
rupture front propagates towards the recording site and was manifested in the 1994 Northridge and 1995 Kobe
the slip direction on the fault is aligned with the site. Back- earthquakes. In each of these earthquakes, peak ground
ward-directivity effects, occurring when the rupture front velocities as high as 175 cm/s were recorded. The period
propagates away from the recording site, generates oppo- of the near-fault pulses recorded in both of these earth-
site effects, i.e., longer-duration motions, lower ampli- quakes lies in the range from 1 to 2 s, comparable with
tudes, and longer periods. This phenomenon has been the natural periods of structures, such as bridges and build-
first explained by H. Benioff in 1955, when analyzing ings, many of which were indeed severely damaged.
the records of the 1952 Kern County, California, earth- Near-fault recordings from recent earthquakes indicate
quake. The conditions for generating forward-rupture that this pulse is a narrow band pulse whose period
directivity effects are readily met in strike-slip faulting, increases with magnitude. This magnitude dependence
where the rupture propagates horizontally along the strike of the pulse period causes the response spectrum to have
either unilaterally or bilaterally, and the fault slip direction a peak whose period increases with magnitude, such that
is oriented horizontally in the direction along the strike of the near-fault ground motions from moderate-magnitude
the fault. As described by Bolt and Abrahamson (2003), earthquakes may exceed those of larger earthquakes at
for strike-slip earthquakes, the rupture directivity is intermediate periods (around 1 s).
observed on the fault normal component, and the static
displacement fling step is observed on the fault parallel
component. The conditions required for forward directiv- Wave-propagation effects
ity are also met in dip-slip faulting, including both reverse Wave propagation in heterogeneous media is addressed in
and normal faults. The alignment of both the rupture direc- another chapter herein (see Propagation of Elastic Waves:
tion and the slip direction updip on the fault plane pro- Fundamentals), so, here we limit the analysis to site
duces rupture directivity effects at sites located around effects due to their impact on strong-ground motion.
the surface exposure of the fault (or its updip projection Ground motion can be highly amplified, or deamplified,
if it does not break the surface). Consequently, it is gener- by local effects. The essential aspects of site effects on
ally the case that all sites located near the surface exposure strong-ground motion are widely addressed in literature
of a dip-slip-fault experience forward-rupture directivity (see e.g., Kawase, 2003). The pioneering works where site
when an earthquake occurs on that fault. effects are well-recognized date back to 1930s and are due
For dip-slip earthquakes, the separation of the effects to Sezawa and Ishimoto (Kawase, 2003), but a first comment
(rupture directivity and fling step) on the fault components on the effect of near-surface conditions on shaking intensity
is more complicated: the rupture-directivity effect will be during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake dates back to
strongest on the fault normal component at a location 1910: “Experience shows that the damage done by destruc-
direct updip from the hypocenter, and the fling-step will tive earthquakes is much greater on alluvial soil than on solid
also be observed on the horizontal component perpendic- rock” (Reid, 1910). Almost all recent destructive earth-
ular to the strike of the fault, i.e., directivity-pulse effects quakes have shown the relevance of site effects in the ampli-
and fling-step effects occur on the same component for fication of the seismic ground motion. The classical example
dip-slip faults. The horizontal records of the 1966 of such a situation is the September 19, 1985 earthquake that,
Parkfield and 1971 San Fernando, California, earthquakes in Mexico City, about 400 km far away from the epicenter,
were the first to be discussed (Bolt, 1975) as examples of caused a large victims toll (about 8,000), destroyed or
near-fault velocity pulses. The pulses from both directivity heavily damaged hundreds of buildings, and caused few bil-
and fling-step may attenuate differently. Hisada and lion dollars damage (Fah et al., 1994; Anderson et al., 1986).
256 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION

The presence of lacustrine sediments is the cause of the large method, and it has been proposed by Hartzell in 1978
ground motion, up to 40 times larger than that of firm ground and largely reviewed and applied through the years (see
(Chàvez-Garcìa and Salazar, 2002). The modeling of wave e.g., Irikura, 1986; Dan et al., 1990). The empirical
propagation in basins, and more generally in complex 2D Green’s function method has been applied in simulating
and 3D regions, using numerical methods, such as finite dif- strong-ground motions from a large event, even using
ference (FDM), finite element (FEM), spectral element observed records of just one or two small events. The
method (SEM), boundary integral equation, and boundary records are used as the empirical Green’s functions over
element method (BIEM and BEM) is an active field of the fault plane of the large event by correcting only atten-
research (see e.g., Aagaard et al., 2001; Bielak et al., 1991; uation effects due to difference in distance from each
Bouchon and Sánchez-Sesma, 2007; Graves, 1996; subfault to the site. The advantage of this approach relies
Komatitsch and Tromp, 1999, 2002a, 2002b; Komatitsch in the fact that the seismograms contain all the complexi-
and vilotte, 1998; Komatitsch et al., 2004; Oprsal and ties of wave propagation. On the other hand, the serious
Zahradnik, 1999, 2002; Pitarka, 1999; Yoshimura et al., disadvantage is that the empirical Green’s functions may
2003). These methods differ in accuracy with respect to dif- not be available for the desired source-station path and
ferent structural features of the complex heterogeneous may originate by an earthquake with a focal mechanism
models and considerably in the computational efficiency. and/or depth different from the desired one.
For comparison of several modeling methods, we refer to Very recently, a procedure, called “recipe of strong-
the review paper by Takenaka et al. (1998), but the most motion prediction,” has been developed to the aim of
recent review of the computational- and numerical-modeling obtaining ground-motion time histories from specific
methods can be found in the book edited by Wu and Maupin earthquakes (Irikura et al., 2004). Such a recipe is based
(2007). Very recently, a new analytical approach has been on source characteristics obtained from the waveform
developed and validated performing simulations in the area inversion using strong-motion data. The idea is to follow
of the Kanto basin, Japan (La Mura et al., 2010). It is gener- a procedure, outlined as a recipe, for characterizing the
ally observed that at stations throughout the basin larger source model estimating three kinds of source parameters:
amplitudes and longer durations of ground shaking are outer-, inner-, and extra-fault parameters. The outer are to
observed, but the pattern can be very complicated. The outline the overall properties of the target earthquake, such
amplification patterns depend not only on the site conditions, as entire source area and seismic moment; the inner are
but also on the characteristics of the incoming wavefield and, parameters characterizing stress heterogeneity inside the
therefore, on the source and the wave propagation path. fault area; the extra parameters are considered to complete
Clear examples are given in Field (2000). the source model, such as the starting point and propaga-
Last but not least, we mention the liquefaction phenome- tion pattern of the rupture.
non, largely observed, for example, during the Niigata earth- The theoretical approach to the simulation of strong
quake, Japan, on June the 16th, 1964 (Youd, 2003; Bardet, motion, based on the computation of synthetic
2003). Liquefaction of water-saturated sands is believed to seismograms, has experienced an impressive growth in
occur when the pore pressure, increased by the strong- the last decades. A description of both analytical and
ground motion, reaches the effective confining pressure. numerical methods can be found, e.g., in Anderson
The likelihood that an earthquake will liquefy a site depends (2003), Bolt and Abrahamson (2003), Bielak et al. (2003).
on many site characteristics (e.g., mean grain size, percent- Hybrid techniques, obtained combining analytical and
age of fine-grained sediment, porosity and level of satura- numerical methods, e.g., modal summation method and
tion) and on the regional geology, which influences the finite difference (Panza et al., 2001), wave number method
amplification and attenuation of strong-motion amplitude. and finite difference (Zahradnik and Moczo, 1996), finite
Ground-motion modeling may help in defining a priori the element and boundary integral method (Bielak et al.,
liquefaction potential (e.g., Nunziata et al., 2008). 1991), have been developed and a review of these methods
dating back to 1980 can be found in Moczo et al. (1997).
Numerical-modeling methods for anelastic wave propaga-
Strong-ground motion modeling tion, that take into consideration the earthquake source,
Due to the destructive potential of earthquakes, a goal is to propagation path, and local site effects, have become avail-
develop methodologies for modeling strong-ground able for the estimation of the site responses and, more gen-
motions from seismic sources related to active faults and erally, for addressing the problem of solving the wave
subduction zones with high probability of earthquake equation in 3D models. Then simulations based on finite
occurrence. Confidence in such modeling relies on the difference (see e.g., Sato et al., 1998) or, more recently,
theoretical part of strong-motion seismology and on the finite element (see e.g., Bielak et al., 2003) and Spectral
calibration of the techniques against the empirical data. Element Method (SEM) (see e.g., Komatitsch and Tromp,
One of the most common methods to simulate broad- 2002a, b; Komatitsch et al., 2004) have been largely used
band strong-ground motion is the use of records from in order to simulate strong-ground motion in 3D structures.
small earthquakes occurred in the vicinity of the source A very recent development (La Mura et al., 2010) extended
area of a large earthquake. This kind of modeling of the the very efficient analytical modal summation (Panza et al.,
strong motion is known as empirical Green’s function 2001) to 3D anelastic structures.
 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION 257

1.4

Average
1.2
Average + std

Spectral acceleration (g)

1 Average
Average + std
0.8
EC8 Type1 SoilD
0.6 EC8 Type2 SoilD

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (s)
0.6
0.45
PGA (g)

0.3
0.15

Neutral Forward Bedrock Bedrock

SOM98 RM00 AK00
60
PGV (cm/s)

40

20

15
PGA = 0.4 g

10
Time (s)
5
0

100 125 130 140 150 200 250 1000

S wave velocities (m/s) Bedrock 1900 1100
150
0 50 113 185 255 318 390 462 530 620 m

Earthquakes, Strong-Ground Motion, Figure 1 From bottom to top: local geotechnical model schematizing the surface geology
along the Warth bridge. Black triangles show the sites of the abutments and of the piers along the section. Transverse acceleration
time series computed at the eight pier sites. The amplitude of the signals is normalized with respect to the maximum one (0.4 g). Blue
and red curves correspond to the case of forward and neutral directivity, respectively. Peak Ground Velocities (PGV) calculated along
the profile, for forward (blue curves) and neutral (red curves) directivity, for a unilateral rupture and for the bedrock case (BED), that can
be compared with the regression analysis for PGV made using a database of near-fault, forward-directivity motions, proposed by:
Somerville (1998) -SOM98- azure curve, Alavi and Krawinkler (2000) -AK00- orange curve and Rodriguez-Marek (2000) -RM00- green
curve, for a magnitude equal to 5.5. Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) calculated along the profile, for forward (blue curves) and
neutral (red curves) directivity, for a unilateral rupture. Average Response Spectra Accelerations (ARSA) and ARSA + one standard
deviation computed for the eight sites; blue and red curves correspond to the case of forward and neutral directivity, respectively. The
black lines correspond to the two (Type 1 and 2) Design Spectra suggested by EC-8 (EN, 1998) for a 5.5 magnitude earthquake and for
a soil of class D.
258 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION

Strong-motion simulation: an example neutral (N) and forward (F) directivity, calculated for
In this section, an example of simulation of strong ground a unilateral rupture, both for the bedrock case and taking
motion is discussed. The determination of the seismic into account the local site conditions. The curves can be
ground motion due to an earthquake with a given magni- compared with the regression analysis for PGV made using
tude and epicentral distance from the site has been done a database of near-fault, forward-directivity motions pro-
following a theoretical approach. In order to perform an posed by Somerville (1998), Alavi and Krawinkler (2000)
accurate and realistic estimate of ground shaking scenario, and Rodriguez-Marek (2000). From the results it is evident
it is necessary to make a parametric study that takes into the strong influence of the rupture and site effects on the
account the complex combination of the source and prop- ground-motion characteristics, in terms of amplitude and
agation parameters, in realistic geological structures. duration. The accelerograms exhibit the greatest peaks in
The realistic modeling of ground motion requires the the frequency range, from 1 to 6 Hz, and reach considerable
simultaneous knowledge of the geotechnical, lithological, peak values, around 0.4 g.
geophysical parameters, and topography of the medium The analysis of the computed strong-ground motion
on one side, and tectonic, historical, paleoseismological, can be carried out in the time domain (broadband
seismotectonic models on the other, for the best possible ground-motion time series) and other domains (e.g., Fou-
definition of the probable seismic source. rier and response spectra). The results show that lateral
To deal both with realistic source and structural models, heterogeneities and source effects can produce strong spa-
including topographical features, a hybrid method, that tial variations (e.g., more than doubling the amplitudes) in
combines modal summation and the finite difference tech- the ground motion (also in terms of differential motion)
nique (e.g., Panza et al., 2001) and optimizes the use of the even over distances of a few tens of meters. In other
advantages of both methods, has been used. Wave propa- words, considering that an increment of one intensity
gation is treated by means of the modal-summation tech- degree in the MCS scale roughly corresponds to
nique from the source to the vicinity of the local, a doubling of the PGA (Cancani, 1904), a general result
heterogeneous structure that has to be modeled in detail. of the modeling is that a difference greater than one unit
A laterally homogeneous, anelastic structural model is in the seismic intensity can be experienced at sites as close
adopted that represents the average crustal properties of as a few tens of meters.
the region. The generated wavefield is then introduced in
the grid that defines the heterogeneous area and it is prop- Conclusions
agated according to the finite differences scheme. With Solution to earthquake engineering problems, either
this approach, source, path, and site effects are all taken design or estimation of seismic hazard, are today very dif-
into account simultaneously. ferent than they were before a strong interaction between
An example of seismic-input computation is illustrated. seismologists and engineers. Today the differences
The computations are performed for the Warth bridge, between strong motion and weak motion have been soft-
freeway A2, 63 km south of Vienna (Austria), a location ened, due to progress in instrumentation and the aware-
where no seismic records are available (see Romanelli ness that both kinds of motions are useful to the
et al., 2003, 2004). The information about the possible understanding of the nature of earthquakes. Today it is
seismic input is limited to an estimate of the macroseismic unthinkable to study seismic-rupture processes and seis-
intensity, in the range from VI to VIII (MSK), the value of mic-wave generation of large earthquakes without near-
the magnitude, M, of the nearest largest recorded event, source strong-motion data; however, while waiting for
M = 5.5 and the most probable focal depth of strong earth- the enlargement of the strong-motion data set, a very use-
quakes, in the range from 6 to 11 km. ful approach is the development and use of modeling tools
The synthetic time signals are calculated for the three based, on one hand, on the theoretical knowledge of the
components of motion and the working magnitude is 5.5 physics of the seismic source and of wave propagation
(seismic moment equal to 1.8
1017 Nm). The study of and, on the other hand, exploiting the rich database about
possible directivity effects in the direction of the Warth the geotechnical, geological, tectonic, seismotectonic, and
bridge (see cross section in Figure 1) has been performed historical information already available. With these
with the method developed by Gusev (2010), based on efforts, the prediction of strong motions through physical
the modeling of a Haskell-type seismic source (Haskell, modeling is adequate and desirable.
1964; Haskell, 1966), where a stochastic component allows
to build a spectrum (amplitude and phase) of the source
function that takes into account both the rupture process Bibliography
and directivity effects. The near-source effect is shown in Aagaard, B. T., Hall, J. F., and Heaton, T., 2001. Characterization of
Figure 1, where the acceleration time series at the eight sites near source ground motions with earthquake simulations. Earth-
quake Spectra, 17, 177–207.
are plotted in the case of forward (blue curves) and neutral Aki, K., and Richards, P. G., 1980. Quantitative Seismology, Theory
(red curves) directivity for a unilateral rupture. In the figure and Method. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
are also reported the Peak Ground Velocities (PGV) and Alavi, B., and Krawinkler, H., 2000. Consideration of near-fault
Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) along the profile, for ground motion effects in seismic design. In Proceedings of the
 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION 259

12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. The New Fah, D., Suhadolc, P., Mueller, S., and Panza, G. F., 1994. A hybrid
Zealand Society for Earthquake, Auckland, p. 8. method for the estimation for ground motion in sedimentary
Anderson, J. G., 2003. Strong-motion seismology. In Lee, W. H. K., basins: quantitative modeling for Mexico City. Bulletin of the
Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., and Kisslinger, C. (eds.), Interna- Seismological Society of America, 84, 383–399.
tional Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology. Field, E. H., and SCEC Phase III Working Group, 2000. Account-
San Diego: Academic. IASPEI, Vol. 81B, pp. 983–965. ing for site effects in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses of
Anderson, J. G., 2007. Physical processes that control strong Southern California: overview of the SCEC Phase III report.
ground motion. In Kanamori, H. (ed.), Treatise on Geophysics, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(6B),
Volume 4, Earthquake Seismology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. S1–S31.
Vol. 4, pp. 513–565. Geller, R. J., 1976. Scaling relations for earthquake source parame-
Anderson, J. G., Bodin, P., Brune, J. N., Prince, J., Singh, S. K., ters and magnitudes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
Quaas, R., and Onate, M., 1986. Strong Ground Motion from America, 66, 1501–1523.
the Michoacan, Mexico, earthquake. Science, 233, 1043–1049. Graves, R. W., 1996. Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D
Bardet, J., 2003. Advances in analysis of soil liquefaction during elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences. Bulletin of
earthquakes. In Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., the Seismological Society of America, 86, 1091–1106.
and Kisslinger, C. (eds.), International Handbook of Earthquake Gusev, A. A., 2010. Broadband kinematic stochastic simulation of
and Engineering Seismology. San Diego: Academic Press. an earthquake source: a refined procedure for application in
IASPEI, Vol. 81B, pp. 1175–1201. seismic hazard studies. Submitted to Pure and Applied
Benioff, H., 1934. The physical evaluation of seismic destructive- Geophysics.
ness. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 24, 9–48. Hartzell, S. H., 1978. Earthquake aftershocks as Green’s functions.
Bielak, J., MacCamy, R. C., McGhee, D. S., and Barry, A., 1991. Uni- Geophysical Research Letters, 5, 1–4.
fied symmetric BEM-FEM for site-effects on ground motion-SH Haskell, N. A., 1964. Total energy and energy spectra density of
waves. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 117, 2265–2285. elastic wave radiation from propagating faults. Bulletin of the
Bielak, J., Loukakis, K., Hisada, Y., and Yoshimura, C., 2003. Seismological Society of America, 54, 1811–1841.
Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake Haskell, N. A., 1966. Total energy and energy spectral density of
modeling in localized regions, part I: theory. Bulletin of the Seis- elastic wave radiation from propagating faults. 2. A statistical
mological Society of America, 93, 817–824. source model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
Bolt, B. A., 1969. Duration of strong motion. In Proceedings 4th 56, 125–140.
WCEE, Rome, pp. 1304–1315. Hisada, Y., and Bielak, J., 2003. A theoretical method for computing
Bolt, B. A., 1975. The San Fernando earthquake, 1971. Magnitudes, near-fault ground motions in layered half-spaces considering
aftershocks, and fault dynamics. In Bulletin 196, California static offset due to surface faulting, with a physical interpretation
Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, Chap. 21. of fling step and rupture directivity. Bulletin of the Seismological
Bolt, B. A., 1999. Estimating seismic ground motion. Earthquake Society of America, 93, 1154–1168.
Spectra, 15, 187–197. Irikura, K., 1986. Prediction of strong acceleration motion’s using
Bolt, B. A., and Abrahamson, N. A., 2003. Estimation of strong empirical Green’s function. Proceedings of 7thJapan Earth.
seismic ground motions. In Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Eng. Symp., Tokyo, pp. 151–156.
Jennings, P. C., and Kisslinger, C. (eds.), International Hand- Irikura, K., Miyake, H., Iwata, T., Kamae, K., Kawabe, H., and
book of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology. San Diego: Dalguer, L. A., 2004. Recipe for predicting strong ground
Academic. IASPEI, Vol. 81B, pp. 983–1001. motions from future large earthquakes. Proceedings 13th world
Bommer, J. J., and Martinez-Pereira, A., 1998. The effective dura- conference of Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1371.
tion of earthquake strong motion. Journal of Earthquake Engi- Jennings, P. C., 2003. An introduction to the earthquake response of
neering, 3(2), 127–172. structures. In Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., and
Bouchon, M., and Sánchez-Sesma, F. J., 2007. Boundary integral Kisslinger, C. (eds.), International Handbook of Earthquake
equations and boundary elements methods in elastodynamics. and Engineering Seismology. San Diego: Academic. IASPEI,
In Wu, R. S., Maupin, V., and Dmowska, R. (eds.), Advances Vol. 81B, pp. 1097–1125.
in Wave Propagation in Heterogeneous Earth, Advances in Geo- Kawase, H., 2003. Site effects on strong ground motion. In Lee,
physics. New York: Elsevier–Academic, Vol. 48, pp. 157–166. W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., and Kisslinger, C.
Cancani, A., 1904. Sur l’emploi d’une double echelle seismique des (eds.), International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering
intesites, empirique et absolue. G Beitr, 2, 281–283. Seismology. San Diego: Academic. IASPEI, Vol. 81B, pp.
Chàvez-Garcìa, F. J., and Salazar, L., 2002. Strong Motion in Cen- 1013–1030.
tral Mexico: a Model Based on Data Analysis and Simple Komatitsch, D., and Tromp, J., 1999. Introduction to the spectral-
Modeling. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, element method for 3-D seismic wave propagation. Geophysical
92, 3087–3101. Journal International, 139, 806–822.
Dan, K., Watanabe, T., Tanaka, T., and Sato, R., 1990. Stability of Komatitsch, D., and Tromp, J., 2002a. Spectral-element simulations
earthquake ground motion synthesized using different small- of global seismic wave propagation, I. Validation. Geophysical
event records as empirical Green’s functions. Bulletin of the Journal International, 149, 390–412.
Seismological Society of America, 80, 1433–1455. Komatitsch, D., and Tromp, J., 2002b. Spectral-element simulations
Douglas, J., 2003. Earthquake ground motion estimation using of global seismic wave propagation, II. 3-D models, oceans,
strong-motion. A review of equations for the estimation of peak rotation, and self-gravitation. Geophysical Journal Interna-
ground acceleration response spectral ordinates. Earth Science tional, 150, 303–318.
Review, 61, 43–104. Komatitsch, D., and Vilotte, J. P., 1998. The spectral-element
EN, 1998. General Rules, Seismic Actions And Rules For Buildings. method: an efficient tool to simulate the seismic response of
Bruxelles, Belgium: CEN European Committee for 2D and 3D geological structures. Bulletin of the Seismological
Standardization. Society of America, 88, 368–392.
Fah, D., and Panza, G. F., 1994. Realistic modeling of observed Komatitsch, D., Liu, Q., Tromp, J., Peter Suss, P., Stidham, C.,
seismic motion in complex sedimentary basins. Annali di John, H., and Shaw, J. H., 2004. Simulations of Ground Motion
Geofisica, 37, 1771–1797. in the Los Angeles Basin Based upon the Spectral-Element
 260 EARTHQUAKES, STRONG-GROUND MOTION

Method. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94, Romanelli, F., Vaccari, F., and Panza, G. F., 2004. Realistic model-
187–206. ling of the effects of asynchronous motion at the base of bridge
La Mura, C., Yanovskya, T. B., Romanelli, F., and Panza, G. F., piers. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 6,
2010. Three-dimensional seismic wave propagation by modal 17–26.
summation: method and validation. Pure and Applied Geophys- Sato, T., Helmberger, D. V., Somerville, P. G., Graves, R. W., and
ics, in press, doi:10.1007/s00024-010-0165-2. Saikia, C. K., 1998. Estimates of regional and local strong
Moczo, P., Bystricky, J., Kristek, J., Carcione, J. M., and Bouchon, motions during the Great 1923 Kanto, Japan, earthquake (Ms
M., 1997. Hybrid modeling of P-SV seismic motion at inhomo- 8.2). Part 1: source estimation of calibration event and modeling
geneous visco-elastic topographic structures. Bulletin of the Seis- of wave propagation path. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
mological Society of America, 87, 1305–1323. of America, 88, 183–205.
Montejo, L. A., and Kowalsky, M. J., 2008. Estimation of fre- Somerville, P. G., 1998. Development of an improved
quency-dependent strong motion duration via wavelets and its representation of near fault ground motions. In Proceedings
influence on nonlinear seismic response. Computer-Aided Civil SMIP98 Seminar on Utilization of Strong Motion Data,
and Infrastructure Engineering, 23, 253–264. California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Oakland,
Nunziata, C., De Nisco, G., and Panza, G. F., 2008. Evaluation of pp. 1–20.
liquefaction potential for building code. In Santini, A., and Somerville, P. G., 2002. Characterizing near fault ground motion
Moraci, N. (eds.), Seismic Engineering Conference Commemo- for the design and evaluation of bridges. In Nimis, R., and
rating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake. Bruneau, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third National Seismic
New York: Melville, pp. 370–377. Conference and Workshop on Bridges and Highways. MCEER,
Oprsal, I., and Zahradnik, J., 1999. Eòastic finite-difference method Buttalo, pp. 137–148.
for irregular grids. Geophysics, 64, 240–250. Somerville, P. G., Smith, N. F., Graves, R. W., and Abrahamson,
Oprsal, I., and Zahradnik, J., 2002. Three-dimensional finite- N. A., 1997. Modification of Modification of Empirical Strong
difference method and hybrid modeling of earthquake ground Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude
motion. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(B8), 2161 doi: and Duration effects of rupture Directivity. Seismological
10.1029/2000JB000082. Research Letters, 68, 199–222.
Oth, A., Wenzel, F., Wust-Bloch, H., Gottschammer, E., and Ben- Strasser, F. O., and Bommer, J. J., 2009. Review: Strong Ground
Avraham, Z., 2007. Parametrization of a composite attenuation Motions – Have we seen the worst? Bulletin of the Seismological
relation for the Dead Sea area based on 3D modeling of elastic Society of America, 99, 2613–2637.
wave propagation. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 164, 23–37. Takenaka, H., Furumura, T., and Fujiwara, H., 1998. Recent devel-
Panza, G. F., and Suhadolc, P., 1989. Realistic simulation and pre- opments in numerical methods for ground motion simulation. In
diction of strong ground motion. In Carlomagno, G. M., and Irikura, K., Kudo, K., Okada, H., and Sasatani, T. (eds.), The
Brebbia, C. A. (eds.), Computers and experiments in Stress Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion. Rotterdam:
Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 77–98. Balkema, Vol. 2, pp. 91–101.
Panza, G. F., Romanelli, F., and Vaccari, F., 2001. Seismic wave Trifunac, M. D., and Westermo, B. D., 1977. A note on the correla-
propagation in laterally heterogeneous anelastic media: theory tion of frequency dependent duration of strong earthquake
and applications to seismic zonation. In Dmowska, R., and ground motion with the modified Mercalli intensity and the
Saltzman, B. (eds.), Advances in Geophysics. San Diego: Aca- geologic conditions at the recording site. Bulletin of the Seismo-
demic, Vol. 43, pp. 1–95. logical Society of America, 67, 917–27.
Panza, G. F., Romanelli, F., Vaccari, F., Decanini, L., and Mollaioli, Villaverde, R., 2009. Fundamental Concepts of Earthquake Engi-
F., 2004. Seismic ground motion modeling and damage earth- neering. Boca Raton: CRC.
quake scenarios: a possible bridge between seismologists and Wells, D. L., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1994. New empirical relation-
seismic engineers. In Chen, Y. T., Panza, G. F., and Wu, Z. L. ships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture
(eds.), Earthquake Hazard, Risk, and Strong Ground Motion. area, and surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological
Beijing: Seismological, pp. 323–349. Society of America, 84, 974–1002.
Parvez, A. I., Gusev, A. A., Panza, G. F., and Petukhin, A. G., 2001. Wu, R. S., and Maupin, V., 2007. Advances in wave propagation in
Preliminary determination interdependence among strong heterogeneous earth. In Dmowska, R. (ed.), Advances in Geo-
motion amplitude, earthquake magnitude and hypocentral dis- physics. San Diego: Elsevier–Academic, Vol. 48.
tance for the Himalayan region. Geophysical Journal Interna- Yoshimura, C., Bielak, J., Hisada, Y., and Fernandez, A., 2003.
tional, 144, 577–596. Domain reduction method for three-dimensional earthquake
Peresan, A., Zuccolo, E., Vaccari, F., Gorshkov, A., and Panza, modeling in localized regions part II: verification and applica-
G. F., 2010. Neo-deterministic seismic hazard and pattern recog- tions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93,
nition techniques: time-dependent scenarios for north-eastern 825–840.
Italy. Pure and Applied Geophysics, in press, DOI 10.1007/ Youd, T. L., 2003. Liquefaction mechanisms and induced ground
s00024-010-0166-1. failure. In Lee, W. H. K., Kanamori, H., Jennings, P. C., and
Pitarka, A., 1999. 3D elastic finite-difference modeling of seismic Kisslinger, C. (eds.), International Handbook of Earthquake
motion using staggered grids with non-uniform spacing. Bulletin and Engineering Seismology. San Diego: Academic. IASPEI,
of the Seismological Society of America, 89, 54–68. Vol. 81B, pp. 1159–1173.
Reid, H. F., 1910. The California earthquake of April 18, 1906. Zahradnik, J., and Moczo, P., 1996. Hybrid seismic modeling based
Report of the state earthquake investigation commission, on discrete-wave number and finite-difference methods. Pure
Vol. II, The Mechanics of the earthquake, Carnegie Institution and Applied Geophysics, 148, 21–38.
of Washington, Publication no. 87.
Rodriguez-Marek, A., 2000. Near-Fault Seismic Site Response.
PhD dissertation, Berkeley, Department of Civil Engineering, Cross-references
University of California, p. 451. Earthquakes, Intensity
Romanelli, F., Vaccari, F., and Panza, G. F., 2003. Realistic model- Earthquakes, PAGER
ling of the seismic input: site effects and parametric studies. Earthquakes, Shake Map
Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 5, 27–39. Propagation of Elastic Waves: Fundamentals

View publication stats