William B. Joyner

Comments on Baseline Correction of Digital Strong-Motion Data: Examples from the 1999 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake

Residual displacements for large earthquakes can sometimes be determined from recordings on modern digital instruments, but baseline offsets of unknown origin make it difficult in many cases to do so. To recover the residual displacement, we suggest tailoring a correction scheme by studying the character of the velocity obtained by integration of zeroth-order-corrected acceleration and then seeing if the residual displacements are stable when the various parameters in the particular correction scheme are varied. For many seismological and engineering purposes, however, the residual displacements are of lesser importance than ground motions at periods less than about 20 sec. These ground motions are often recoverable with simple baseline correction and low-cut filtering. In this largely empirical study, we illustrate the consequences of various correction schemes, drawing primarily from digital recordings of the 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake. We show that with simple processing the displacement waveforms for this event are very similar for stations separated by as much as 20 km. We also show that a strong pulse on the transverse component was radiated from the Hector Mine earthquake and propagated with little distortion to distances exceeding 170 km; this pulse leads to large response spectral amplitudes around 10 sec.

SEA99: A Revised Ground-Motion Prediction Relation for Use in Extensional Tectonic Regimes

We present SEA99, a revised predictive relation for geometric mean horizontal peak ground acceleration and 5%-damped pseudovelocity response spec- trum, appropriate for estimating earthquake ground motions in extensional tectonic regimes, which we demonstrate to have lower ground motions than other tectonic regimes. SEA99 replaces SEA96, a relation originally derived by Spudich et al. (1996, 1997). The data set used to develop SEA99 is larger than that for SEA96, and minor errors in the SEA96 data set have been corrected. In addition, a one-step regression method described by Joyner and Boore (1993, 1994) was used rather than the two-step method of Joyner and Boore (1981). SEA99 has motions that are as much as 20% higher than those of SEA96 at short distances (5-30 km), and SEA99s motions are about 20% lower than SEA96 at longer periods (1.0-2.0 sec) and larger distance (40-100 km). SEA99 dispersions are significantly less than those of SEA96. SEA99 rock motions are on the average 20% lower than motions predicted by Boore et al. (1994) except for short distances at periods around 1.0 sec, where SEA99 motions exceed those predicted by Boore et al. (1994) by as much as 10%. Com- parison of ground motions from normal-faulting and strike-slip events in our data set indicates that normal-faulting horizontal ground motions are not significantly different from extensional regime strike-slip ground motions.

STRONG MOTION FROM SURFACE WAVES IN DEEP SEDIMENTARY BASINS

It is widely recognized that long-period surface waves generated by conversion of body waves at the boundaries of deep sedimentary basins make an important contribution to strong ground motion. The factors controlling the amplitude of such motion, however, are not widely understood. A study of pseudovelocity response spectra of strong-motion records from the Los Angeles Basin shows that late-arriving surface waves with group velocities of about 1 km/sec dominate the ground motion for periods of 3 sec and longer. The rate of amplitude decay for these waves is less than for the body waves and depends significantly on period, with smaller decay for longer periods. The amplitude can be modeled by the equation \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \[\mathrm{log}{\ }y=f(\mathbf{M},R\_{\mathrm{E}})+c+bR\_{\mathrm{B}}\] \end{document} where y is the pseudovelocity response, f ( M , R E) is an attenuation relation based on a general strong-motion data set, M is moment magnitude, R E is the distance from the source to the edge of the basin, R B is the distance from the edge of the basin to the recording site, and b and c are parameters fit to the data. The equation gives values larger by as much as a factor of 3 than given by the attenuation relationships based on general strong-motion data sets for the same source-site distance. It is clear that surface waves need to be taken into account in the design of long-period structures in deep sedimentary basins. The ground-motion levels specified by the earthquake provisions of current building codes, in California at least, accommodate the long-period ground motions from basin-edge-generated surface waves for periods of 5 sec and less and earthquakes with moment magnitudes of 7.5 or less located more than 20 km outside the basin. There may be problems at longer periods and for earthquakes located closer to the basin edge. The results of this study suggest that anelastic attenuation may need to be included in attempts to model long-period motion in deep sedimentary basins. To obtain better data on surface waves in the future, operators of strong-motion networks should take special care for the faithful recording of the long-period components of ground motion. It will also be necessary to insure that at least some selected recorders, once triggered, continue to operate for a time sufficient for the surface waves to traverse the basin. With velocities of about 1 km/sec, that time will be as long as 100 sec for a basin the size of the Los Angeles Basin.

Estimated Ground Motion From the 1994 Northridge, California, Earthquake at the Site of the Interstate 10 and La Cienega Boulevard Bridge Collapse, West Los Angeles, California

We have estimated ground motions at the site of a bridge collapse during the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. The estimated motions are based on correcting motions recorded during the mainshock 2.3 km from the collapse site for the relative site response of the two sites. Shear-wave slownesses and damping based on analysis of borehole measurements at the two sites were used in the site response analysis. We estimate that the motions at the collapse site were probably larger, by factors ranging from 1.2 to 1.6, than at the site at which the ground motion was recorded, for periods less than about 1 sec.

Comparison of phase velocities from array measurements of Rayleigh waves associated with microtremor and results calculated from borehole shear-wave velocity profiles

Shear-wave velocities (VS) are widely used for earthquake ground- motion site characterization. VS data are now largely obtained using borehole meth- ods. Drilling holes, however, is expensive. Nonintrusive surface methods are inex- pensive for obtaining VS information, but not many comparisons with direct borehole measurements have been published. Because different assumptions are used in data interpretation of each surface method and public safety is involved in site character- ization for engineering structures, it is important to validate the surface methods by additional comparisons with borehole measurements. We compare results obtained from a particular surface method (array measurement of surface waves associated with microtremor) with results obtained from borehole methods. Using a 10-element nested-triangular array of 100-m aperture, we measured surface-wave phase veloci- ties at two California sites, Garner Valley near Hemet and Hollister Municipal Air- port. The Garner Valley site is located at an ancient lake bed where water-saturated sediment overlies decomposed granite on top of granite bedrock. Our array was deployed at a location where seismic velocities had been determined to a depth of 500 m by borehole methods. At Hollister, where the near-surface sediment consists of clay, sand, and gravel, we determined phase velocities using an array located close to a 60-m deep borehole where downhole velocity logs already exist. Because we want to assess the measurements uncomplicated by uncertainties introduced by the inversion process, we compare our phase-velocity results with the borehole VS depth profile by calculating fundamental-mode Rayleigh-wave phase velocities from an earth model constructed from the borehole data. For wavelengths less than 2 times of the array aperture at Garner Valley, phase-velocity results from array measure- ments agree with the calculated Rayleigh-wave velocities to better than 11%. Mea- surement errors become larger for wavelengths 2 times greater than the array aper- ture. At Hollister, the measured phase velocity at 3.9 Hz (near the upper edge of the microtremor frequency band) is within 20% of the calculated Rayleigh-wave veloc- ity. Because shear-wave velocity is the predominant factor controlling Rayleigh- wave phase velocities, the comparisons suggest that this nonintrusive method can provide VS information adequate for ground-motion estimation.

Earthquake Shaking and Damage to Buildings: Recent evidence for severe ground shaking raises questions about the earthquake resistance of structures.

Ground shaking close to the causative fault of an earthquake is more intense than it was previously believed to be. This raises the possibility that large numbers of buildings and other structures are not sufficiently resistant for the intense levels of shaking that can occur close to the fault. Many structures were built before earthquake codes were adopted; others were built according to codes formulated when less was known about the intensity of near-fault shaking. Although many building types are more resistant than conventional design analyses imply, the margin of safety is difficult to quantify. Many modern structures, such as freeways, have not been subjected to and tested by near-fault shaking in major earthquakes (magnitude 7 or greater). Damage patterns in recent moderate-sized earthquakes occurring in or adjacent to urbanized areas (17), however, indicate that many structures, including some modern ones designed to meet earthquake code requirements, cannot withstand the severe shaking that can occur close to a fault. It is necessary to review the ground motion assumed and the methods utilized in the design of important existing structures and, if necessary, to strengthen or modify the use of structures that are found to be weak. New structures situated close to active faults should be designed on the basis of ground motion estimates greater than those used in the past. The ultimate balance between risk of earthquake losses and cost for both remedial strengthening and improved earthquake-resistant construction must be decided by the public. Scientists and engineers must inform the public about earthquake shaking and its effect on structures. The exposure to damage from seismic shaking is steadily increasing because of continuing urbanization and the increasing complexity of lifeline systems, such as power, water, transportation, and communication systems. In the near future we should expect additional painful examples of the damage potential of moderate-sized earthquakes in urban areas. Over a longer time span, however, we can significantly reduce the risk to life and property from seismic shaking through better land utilization, improved building codes and construction practices, and at least the gradual replacement of poor buildings by more resistant buildings. Progress toward reducing risk from seismic shaking through better building design is slowed by deficiencies in our knowledge about the nature of damaging ground motion and the failure mechanisms in structures. For example, lacking observational data, seismologists must rely on simplified theoretical and numerical models of the earthquake process to estimate near-fault ground motion, especially for earthquakes as large as magnitude 7 and 8. Because such models have not been adequately tested against data, their reliability is unknown. Engineers lack detailed information about failure processes in structures during an earthquake. Although many structures have been instrumented to measure their response to an earthquake, few records have been obtained from buildings that actually sustained significant structural damage and few structures are properly instrumented to measure all the modes of deformation that are likely to contribute to failure. Moreover, the fact that many structures have withstood ground motion more intense than that assumed in their design indicates that conventional methods of design do not take into account important contributions to earthquake resistance by nonstructural elements and by the ability of structural elements to deform inelastically without necessarily causing failure of the structure. It is fortunate when such reserve resistance exists, but better understanding of the sources of reserve strength is needed to determine how large a margin of safety they confer and how they might be affected by changes in construction practices and materials with time. In the next few years we look forward to significant advances in knowledge and to more effective application of what is already known, largely because of substantial funding of research related to seismic engineering by the National Science Foundation (18). The increasing number of strong-motion seismographs operating in seismically active regions (19) will likely provide for the first time a number of records of damaging levels of ground motion. Significant effort is being directed toward obtaining near-fault records, although many probable sites of future large earthquakes remain inadequately instrumented, especially outside the conterminous United States. New and more complete information on building response and damage mechanisms will be obtained by improved instrumentation of structures and through laboratory investigations of failure in structures and structural elements. Further developments in computer technology and in computer modeling techniques will permit more realistic simulations of the seismic response of soils and structures that take into account their inelastic behavior and their strain-dependent properties. Earthquake design codes will continually be revised to better utilize existing knowledge concerning the nature of strong ground motion and the dynamic behavior of buildings during earthquakes and to incorporate new knowledge and also experiences gained from future earthquakes. We believe that application of new knowledge, improvements in earthquake-resistant design and construction, and remedial strengthening or replacement of weak existing structures can significantly reduce our current level of exposure to earthquake hazards.