Methods that account for site response range in complexity from simple linear categorical adjustment factors to sophisticated nonlinear constitutive models. Seismic‐hazard analysis usually relies on ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs); within this framework site response is modeled statistically with simplified site parameters that include the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity to 30 m ( V S 30 ) and basin depth parameters. Because V S 30 is not known in most locations, it must be interpolated or inferred through secondary information such as geology or topography. In this article, we analyze a subset of stations for which V S 30 has been measured to address effects of V S 30 proxies on the uncertainty in the ground motions as modeled by GMPEs. The stations we analyze also include multiple recordings, which allow us to compute the repeatable site effects (or empirical amplification factors [EAFs]) from the ground motions. Although all methods exhibit similar bias, the proxy methods only reduce the ground‐motion standard deviations at long periods when compared to GMPEs without a site term, whereas measured V S 30 values reduce the standard deviations at all periods. The standard deviation of the ground motions are much lower when the EAFs are used, indicating that future refinements of the site term in GMPEs have the potential to substantially reduce the overall uncertainty in the prediction of ground motions by GMPEs.
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.