Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Significant duration of strong shaking quantifies the length of time during which strong earthquake-induced shaking occurs at a given site. Significant duration has multiple applications in Geotechnical and Structural Engineering. However, while multiple ground motion prediction (GMPE) equations for duration exist for shallow crustal tectonic environments, at the time of this publication, there are few published models for predicting significant duration of subduction earthquakes. To address this need and to identify the difference between significant duration of motions resulting from earthquakes in different tectonic regimes, we develop predictive equations for significant duration applicable to interface and intraslab subduction earthquakes and shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes using the KiK-net ground motion database. The GMPEs are applicable to earthquakes with M4 to 9. In addition, the influence of earthquake magnitude on duration due to path effects is captured in the proposed relationships. Based on the relationships proposed in this study, we note that the duration of ground motions from subduction earthquakes is longer than those of shallow crustal earthquakes that have similar magnitudes and distances. The predictions of duration for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regimes developed in this study are consistent with those from previous studies.

Keywords

Subduction zone ground motion duration path duration significant duration effect of tectonic regime on ground motion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrahamson

Silva

(1996) Empirical ground motion models. Report, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, May.

Abrahamson

Silva

Kamai

(2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 1025–1055.

Afshari

Stewart

(2016) Physically parameterized prediction equations for significant duration in active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra 32(4): 2057–2081.

Al Atik

Abrahamson

Bommer

Scherbaum

Cotton

Kuehn

(2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismological Research Letters 81(5): 794–801.

Ancheta

Darragh

Stewart

Seyhan

Silva

Chiou

BS-J

Wooddell

Graves

Kottke

Boore

(2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthquake Spectra 30(3): 989–1005.

Arias

(1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen

(ed.) Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plant. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 438–483.

Atkinson

(1995) Attenuation and source parameters of earthquakes in the Cascadia region. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 85(5): 1327–1342.

Atkinson

Boore

(1997) Stochastic point-source modeling of ground motions in the Cascadia region. Seismological Research Letters 68(1): 74–85.

Atkinson

Macias

(2009) Predicted ground motions for great interface earthquakes in the Cascadia subduction zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(3): 1552–1578.

10.

Bahrampouri

Rodriguez-Marek

(2019) Ground motion parameters for KiK-net records: An updated database. DesignSafe-CI. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-e0ts-c070 (accessed 25 November 2020)

11.

Bahrampouri

Rodriguez-Marek

Shahi

Dawood

(2020) An updated database for ground motion parameters for KiK-net records. Earthquake Spectra. Epub ahead of print 3 September. DOI: 10.1177/8755293020952447.

12.

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

(2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

13.

Bommer

Crowley

(2017) The purpose and definition of the minimum magnitude limit in PSHA calculations. Seismological Research Letters 88: 1097–1106.

14.

Bommer

Martinez-Pereira

(1999) The effective duration of earthquake strong motion. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 3(2): 127–172.

15.

Bommer

Stafford

Alarcón

Akkar

(2007) The influence of magnitude range on empirical ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97(6): 2152–2170.

16.

Bommer

Stafford

Alarcón

(2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 99(6): 3217–3233.

17.

Boore

(2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics 160(3–4): 635–676.

18.

Boore

Thompson

(2012) Empirical improvements for estimating earthquake response spectra with random-vibration theory. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 102(2): 761–772.

19.

Boore

Thompson

(2014) Path durations for use in the stochastic-method simulation of ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104: 2541–2552.

20.

Bora

Cotton

Scherbaum

(2019) NGA-West2 empirical fourier and duration models to generate adjustable response spectra. Earthquake Spectra 35(1): 61–93.

21.

Bullock

(2019) Ground motion models for Arias intensity, cumulative absolute velocity, peak incremental ground velocity, and significant duration in New Zealand. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 52(4): 193–207.

22.

Chai

(2005) Incorporating low-cycle fatigue model into duration-dependent inelastic design spectra. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 34(1): 83–96.

23.

Chiou

Darragh

Gregor

Silva

(2008) NGA project strong-motion database. Earthquake Spectra 24(1): 23–44.

24.

Wang

(2016) Prediction equations for ground-motion significant durations using the NGA-West2 database. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 107(1): 319–333.

25.

Garcia

Wald

Hearne

(2012) A global earthquake discrimination scheme to optimize ground-motion prediction equation selection. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 102(1): 185–203.

26.

Ghofrani

Atkinson

Goda

Assatourians

(2013) Stochastic finite-fault simulations of the 2011 Tohoku, Japan, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 103(2B): 1307–1320.

27.

Green

Bommer

(2019) What is the smallest earthquake magnitude that needs to be considered in assessing liquefaction hazard? Earthquake Spectra 35(3): 1441–1464.

28.

Green

Bommer

(2020) Response to discussion on “what is the smallest earthquake magnitude that needs to be considered in assessing liquefaction hazard?” By Roger Musson. Earthquake Spectra 36(1): 455–457.

29.

Gregor

Silva

Wong

Youngs

(2002) Ground-motion attenuation relationships for Cascadia subduction zone megathrust earthquakes based on a stochastic finite-fault model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92(5): 1923–1932.

30.

Hancock

Bommer

(2006) A state-of-knowledge review of the influence of strong-motion duration on structural damage. Earthquake Spectra 22(3): 827–845.

31.

Kempton

Stewart

(2006) Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects. Earthquake Spectra 22(4): 985–1013.

32.

Kunnath

Chai

(2004) Cumulative damage-based inelastic cyclic demand spectrum. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 33(4): 499–520.

33.

Lee

Green

(2014) An empirical significant duration relationship for stable continental regions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12(1): 217–235.

34.

McGuire

Silva

Costantino

(2001) Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

35.

Stafford

(2014) Crossed and nested mixed-effects approaches for enhanced model development and removal of the ergodic assumption in empirical ground-motion models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104(2): 702–719.

36.

Uang

Bertero

(1988) Use of Energy as a Design Criterion in Earthquake-Resistant Design. Berkeley, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California Berkeley.

37.

Walling

Kuehn

Abrahamson

Mazzoni

(2018) Regional ground motion duration prediction model for subduction regions. In: 11th U.S. National conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.

38.

Wills

Petersen

Bryant

Reichle

Saucedo

Tan

Taylor

Treiman

(2000) A site-conditions map for California based on geology and shear-wave velocity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 90: S187–S208.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB

Ground motion prediction equations for significant duration using the KiK-net database

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material