Evaluating the Compatibility of Dynamic Rupture-Based Synthetic Ground Motion with Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equation

Research Article| March 11, 2014 Evaluating the Compatibility of Dynamic Rupture‐Based Synthetic Ground Motion with Empirical Ground‐Motion Prediction Equation Cyrill Baumann; Cyrill Baumann Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerlanddalguer@sed.ethz.ch *Now at Zurich Insurance Company Ltd, Group Reinsurance, Austrasse 46, CH‐8045, Zürich, Switzerland. Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Luis A. Dalguer Luis A. Dalguer Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zurich, Switzerlanddalguer@sed.ethz.ch Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2014) 104 (2): 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130077 Article history first online: 14 Jul 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation Cyrill Baumann, Luis A. Dalguer; Evaluating the Compatibility of Dynamic Rupture‐Based Synthetic Ground Motion with Empirical Ground‐Motion Prediction Equation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2014;; 104 (2): 634–652. doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130077 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyBulletin of the Seismological Society of America Search Advanced Search Abstract We performed an assessment of a database of synthetic ground motion generated by a suite of dynamic rupture simulations to verify compatibility of the peak ground amplitudes with respect to empirical ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs). The dynamic rupture model database, developed by Dalguer and Mai (2011), is composed of 360 earthquake scenarios with moment magnitudes in the range of 5.5–7, for three mechanisms of faulting (reverse, normal, and strike slip) and for both buried faults and surface rupturing faults, having depth‐ and non‐depth‐dependent normal stresses. Initial shear‐stress distribution follows a von Karman stochastic distribution. Overall, we show quantitatively that the upper frequency limit of the suite of simulations is 1.0 Hz. Up to this frequency, the synthetic data are compatible with the empirical model, which means that the residuals (defined as the differences between observed and predicted ground motions) fall in the range of ±σ of the empirical GMPE. Characteristics of the mean values along distance (10–45 km) and period T≥1.0 s, including standard deviation of the synthetic response spectra and peak ground velocity, are comparable to their counterpart empirical GMPE. At very near source (<1–2 km), synthetics show supersaturation of the mean peak values, which is different from the saturation features predicted by the GMPEs. The effect of source parameters (such as stress drop, peak slip velocity, and rupture speed) and of surface and buried rupture, as well as hanging wall and footwall, are highly sensitive to ground motion, suggesting that these effects contribute to the variability of ground motion near the source and that inclusion of them in the source terms may contribute to reducing uncertainties in GMPEs. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.