A Predictive Equation for the Vertical-to-Horizontal Ratio of Ground Motion at Rock Sites Based on Shear-Wave Velocity Profiles from Japan and Switzerland

2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (6) ◽  
pp. 2998-3019 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Edwards ◽  
V. Poggi ◽  
D. Fah
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Velocity Profiles ◽  
Predictive Equation

Identification of Engineering Bedrock in Taiwan based on Site Amplification and Velocity Structures of Strong-motion Stations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Che-Min Lin ◽  
Jyun-Yan Huang ◽  
Chun-Hsiang Kuo ◽  
Kuo-Liang Wen
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Receiver Function ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Site Amplification ◽  
Velocity Profiles

<p>There are two kinds of bedrocks that are widely used in seismology and earthquake engineering respectively. The seismology field uses the “seismic bedrock” to define an interface that has a practically lateral extent. The strata deeper than this interface is much more homogeneous in comparison with the shallower one. It is common to set the seismic bedrock within the upper crust has 3000 m/sec of the shear wave velocity. In contrast, the earthquake engineering prefers the shallower interface which dominates the main seismic site amplification, especially the predominant frequency of ground motion. The interface is called “Engineering Bedrock”, which the underlying stratum has the shear wave velocity from 300 to 1000 m/sec for different purposes. But, the reference shear wave velocity of the engineering bedrock is mostly defined as 760 m/sec for ground motion prediction and simulation. In Taiwan, the Central Weather Bureau (CWB) constructed and operates a dense strong-motion network called TSMIP (Taiwan Strong Motion Instrument Program), which provides numerous ground motion data for seismology and earthquake engineering. In our previous studies, the shallow shear wave velocity profiles of over 700 TSMIP stations were estimated by the Receiver Function method. The velocity profiles are from the ground surface to the depth with the shear wave velocity of at least 2000 m/sec. It allows us to compare the theoretical site amplification of the velocity profile of TSMIP stations with their observed one from the seismic records. The variance of fitness between theoretical and observed amplifications through shear wave velocity is analyzed to evaluate which reference velocity can appropriately define the depth of engineering bedrock, where the most site amplification occur beneath, in all of Taiwan. The difference between local geology is also discussed. Finally, an engineering bedrock map is proposed for further applications in earthquake engineering.</p>

Direct estimation of shear-wave velocity profiles from surface wave investigation of geotechnical sites

Géotechnique ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Shibin Lin ◽  
Jeramy Ashlock ◽  
Bo Li
Keyword(s):  
Surface Wave ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Velocity Profiles ◽  
Direct Estimation

scholarly journals Evaluation of liquefaction potentials based on shear wave velocities in Pohang City, South Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yumin Ji ◽  
Byungmin Kim ◽  
Kiseog Kim
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Velocity Profiles ◽  
Liquefaction Potential ◽  
Attenuation Relationships ◽  
Cyclic Resistance ◽  
Sand Boils

AbstractThis study evaluates the potentials of liquefaction caused by the 2017 moment magnitude 5.4 earthquake in Pohang City, South Korea. We obtain shear wave velocity profiles measured by suspension PS logging tests at the five sites near the epicenter. We also perform downhole tests at three of the five sites. Among the five sites, the surface manifestations (i.e., sand boils) were observed at the three sites, and not at the other two sites. The maximum accelerations on the ground surface at the five sites are estimated using the Next Generation Attenuation relationships for Western United State ground motion prediction equations. The shear wave velocity profiles from the two tests are slightly different, resulting in varying cyclic resistance ratios, factors of safety against liquefaction, and liquefaction potential indices. Nevertheless, we found that both test approaches can be used to evaluate liquefaction potentials. The liquefaction potential indices at the liquefied sites are approximately 1.5–13.9, whereas those at the non-liquefied sites are approximately 0–0.3.

scholarly journals Evaluating simplified methods for liquefaction assessment for loss estimation

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indranil Kongar ◽  
Tiziana Rossetto ◽  
Sonia Giovinazzi
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Ground Deformation ◽  
Insurance Industry ◽  
Binary Classification ◽  
Remote Sensing Data ◽  
Velocity Profiles ◽  
Loss Estimation ◽  
Liquefaction Assessment

Abstract. Currently, some catastrophe models used by the insurance industry account for liquefaction by applying a simple factor to shaking-induced losses. The factor is based only on local liquefaction susceptibility and this highlights the need for a more sophisticated approach to incorporating the effects of liquefaction in loss models. This study compares 11 unique models, each based on one of three principal simplified liquefaction assessment methods: liquefaction potential index (LPI) calculated from shear-wave velocity, the HAZUS software method and a method created specifically to make use of USGS remote sensing data. Data from the September 2010 Darfield and February 2011 Christchurch earthquakes in New Zealand are used to compare observed liquefaction occurrences to forecasts from these models using binary classification performance measures. The analysis shows that the best-performing model is the LPI calculated using known shear-wave velocity profiles, which correctly forecasts 78 % of sites where liquefaction occurred and 80 % of sites where liquefaction did not occur, when the threshold is set at 7. However, these data may not always be available to insurers. The next best model is also based on LPI but uses shear-wave velocity profiles simulated from the combination of USGS VS30 data and empirical functions that relate VS30 to average shear-wave velocities at shallower depths. This model correctly forecasts 58 % of sites where liquefaction occurred and 84 % of sites where liquefaction did not occur, when the threshold is set at 4. These scores increase to 78 and 86 %, respectively, when forecasts are based on liquefaction probabilities that are empirically related to the same values of LPI. This model is potentially more useful for insurance since the input data are publicly available. HAZUS models, which are commonly used in studies where no local model is available, perform poorly and incorrectly forecast 87 % of sites where liquefaction occurred, even at optimal thresholds. This paper also considers two models (HAZUS and EPOLLS) for estimation of the scale of liquefaction in terms of permanent ground deformation but finds that both models perform poorly, with correlations between observations and forecasts lower than 0.4 in all cases. Therefore these models potentially provide negligible additional value to loss estimation analysis outside of the regions for which they have been developed.

Sensitivity of ground motion parameters to local shear-wave velocity models: The case of buried low-velocity layers

2017 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
pp. 196-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Farrugia ◽  
Pauline Galea ◽  
Sebastiano D’Amico ◽  
Enrico Paolucci
Keyword(s):  
Shear Wave ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Wave Velocity ◽  
Shear Wave Velocity ◽  
Low Velocity ◽  
Ground Motion Parameters ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Local Shear ◽  
Motion Parameters
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document