We introduce procedures to validate site response in sedimentary basins as predicted using ground motion simulations. These procedures aim to isolate contributions of site response to computed intensity measures relative to those from seismic source and path effects. In one of the validation procedures, simulated motions are analyzed in the same manner as earthquake recordings to derive non-ergodic site terms. This procedure compares the scaling with sediment isosurface depth of simulated versus empirical site terms (the latter having been derived in a separate study). A second validation procedure utilizes two sets of simulations, one that considers three-dimensional (3D) basin structure and a second that utilizes a one-dimensional (1D) representation of the crustal structure. Identical sources are used in both procedures, and after correcting for variable path effects, differences in ground motions are used to estimate site amplification in 3D basins. Such site responses are compared to those derived empirically to validate both the absolute levels and the depth scaling of site response from 3D simulations. We apply both procedures to southern California in a manner that is consistent between the simulated and empirical data (i.e. by using similar event locations and magnitudes). The results show that the 3D simulations overpredict the depth-scaling and absolute levels of site amplification in basins. However, overall patterns of site amplification with depth are similar, suggesting that future calibration may be able to remove observed biases.
AbrahamsonNASilvaWJKamaiR (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1025–1055.
2.
Al AtikLAbrahamsonNABommerJJScherbaumFCottonFKuehnN (2010) The variability of ground-motion prediction models and its components. Seismological Research Letters81(5): 794–801.
BatesDMchlerMBolkerBWalkerS (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1): 1–48.
5.
BijelićNLinTDeierleinGG (2018) Validation of the SCEC broadband platform simulations for tall building risk assessments considering spectral shape and duration of the ground motion. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics47(11): 2233–2251.
6.
BijelićNLinTDeierleinGG (2019) Quantification of the influence of deep basin effects on structural collapse using SCEC CyberShake earthquake ground motion simulations. Earthquake Spectra35(4): 1845–1864.
7.
BijelićNLinTDeierleinGG (2020) Efficient intensity measures and machine learning algorithms for collapse prediction of tall buildings informed by SCEC CyberShake ground motion simulations. Earthquake Spectra36(3): 1188–1207.
8.
BooreDM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73(6A): 1865–1894.
9.
BooreDM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics160(3): 635–676.
10.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30: 1057–1085.
11.
BooreDMThompsonEMCadetH (2011) Regional correlations of VS30 and velocities averaged over depths less than and greater than 30 meters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(6): 3046–3059.
12.
BozorgniaYAbrahamsonNAAl AtikLAnchetaTDAtkinsonGMBakerJWBaltayABooreDMCampbellKWChiouBSJDarraghRDaySDonahueJLGravesRWGregorNHanksTIdrissIMKamaiRKishidaTKottkeAMahinSARezaeianSRowshandelBSeyhanEShahiSShantzTSilvaWJSpudichPStewartJPWatson-LampreyJWooddellKYoungsRR (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthquake Spectra30: 973–987.
13.
BrocherTMAagaardBTSimpsonRWJachensRC (2006) The USGS 3D seismic velocity model for northern California. In: Presented at the 2006 American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall meeting, San Francisco, CA, 11–15 December, Abstract id S51B-1266. Washington, DC: AGU.
14.
BruneJN (1970) Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research75: 4997–5009.
15.
BruneJN (1971) “Correction”. Journal of Geophysical Research76: 5002.
16.
ChiouBSJYoungsRR (2014) Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1117–1153.
17.
CrempienJArchuletaR (2015) UCSB method for simulation of broadband ground motion from kinematic earthquake sources. Seismological Research Letters86(1): 61–67.
18.
CrouseCJordanTHMilnerKRGouletCACallaghanSGravesRW (2018) Site-specific MCER response spectra for Los Angeles Region based on 3-D numerical simulations and the NGA West2 equations. 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering. June 25–29, 2018, Los Angeles, California. Paper #518.
DregerDSBerozaGCDaySMGouletCAJordanTHSpudichPAStewartJP (2015) Validation of the SCEC broadband platform V14.3 simulation methods using pseudospectral acceleration data. Seismological Research Letters86: 39–47.
21.
EdwardsBMichelCPoggiVFähD (2013) Determination of site amplification from regional seismicity: Application to the Swiss National Seismic Networks. Seismological Research Letters84(4): 611–621.
22.
ElyGPJordanTHSmallPMaechlingPJ (2010) A VS30-derived near-surface seismic velocity model. In: Proceedings of the 2010 American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall meeting, San Francisco, CA, 13–17 December, Abstract id S51A-1907. Washington, DC: AGU.
23.
FieldEHJacobKH (1995) A comparison and test of various site-response estimation techniques, including three that are not reference-site dependent. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85: 1127–1143.
24.
FrankelADStephensonWJCarverDLWilliamsRAOdumJKRheaS (2007) Seismic hazard maps for Seattle, Washington, incorporating 3D sedimentary basin effects, nonlinear site response, and rupture directivity. US Geological Survey open-file report 2007-1175. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey.
25.
FrankelADWirthEAMarafiNVidaleJStephensonW (2018) Broadband synthetic seismograms for magnitude 9 earthquakes on the Cascadia megathrust based on 3D simulations and stochastic synthetics, Part 1: Methodology and overall results. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(5A): 2347–2369.
26.
GautierL (2009) Rpy2: Interface to use R from Python. GitHub repository. Available at: https://github.com/rpy2/rpy2 (accessed on February 2019).
GouletCAAbrahamsonNASomervillePGWooddellKE (2015) The SCEC Broadband Platform validation exercise: Methodology for code validation in the context of seismic-hazard analyses. Seismological Research Letters86: 17–26.
29.
GravesRW (2021) Using a grid-search technique to validate the Graves-Pitarka broadband simulation method. In: Proceedings of the 6th IASPEI/IAEE international symposium: the Effects of surface geology on seismic motion, Kyoto, Japan, 30 August–1 September 2021.
30.
GravesRWAagaardBTHudnutKW (2011a) The ShakeOut earthquake source and ground motion simulations. Earthquake Spectra27: 273–291.
31.
GravesRWAagaardBTHudnutKWStarLMStewartJPJordanTH (2008) Broadband simulations for Mw 7.8 southern San Andreas earthquakes: Ground motion sensitivity to rupture speed. Geophysical Research Letters35: L22302.
32.
GravesRWAagaardBT (2011) Testing long-period ground-motion simulations of scenario earthquakes using the Mw 7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah mainshock: Evaluation of finite-fault rupture characterization and 3D seismic velocity models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(2): 895–907.
33.
GravesRWPitarkaA (2010) Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(5A): 2095–2123.
34.
GravesRWPitarkaA (2015) Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method. Seismological Research Letters86: 75–80.
35.
GravesRWPitarkaA (2016) Kinematic ground motion simulations on rough faults including effects of 3D stochastic velocity perturbations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106: 2136–2153.
36.
GravesRWSomervillePG (2006) Broadband ground motion simulations for scenario ruptures of the Puente Hills fault. In: 8th US NCEE Proceedings, published by EERI National conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, CA, 18–22 April, paper no. 1052.
37.
GravesRWJordanTHCallaghanSSDeelmanEFieldEJuveGKesselmanCMaechlingPMehtaGMilnerKOkayaDSmallPVahiK (2011b) CyberShake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for southern California. Pure and Applied Geophysics168: 367–381.
38.
KohlerMDMagistraleHClaytonRW (2003) Mantle heterogeneities and the SCEC reference three-dimensional seismic velocity model version 3. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93: 757–774.
39.
LeeEJChenPJordanTHMaechlingPJDenolleMBerozaGC (2014) Full-3-D tomography for crustal structure in southern California based on the scattering-integral and the adjoint-wavefield methods. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth119: 6421–6451.
40.
LeeRLBradleyBAStaffordPJGravesRWRodriguez-MarekA (2020) Hybrid broadband ground motion simulation validation of small magnitude earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand. Earthquake Spectra36(2): 673–699.
41.
LeonardM (2010) Earthquake fault scaling: Self-consistent relating of rupture length, width, average displacement, and moment release. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100: 1971–1988.
42.
LozosJCOlsenKBBruneJNTakedatsuRBruneRJOglesbyDD (2015) Broadband ground motions from dynamic models of rupture on the northern San Jacinto fault, and comparison with precariously balanced rocks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(4): 1947–1960.
43.
MagistraleHSDayRWClaytonGravesR (2000) The SCEC Southern California Reference Three-Dimensional Seismic Velocity Model Version 2. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90: S65–S76.
44.
MilnerKRShawBEGouletCARichards-DingerKBCallaghanSJordanTHDieterichJHFieldEH (2021) Toward physics-based nonergodic PSHA: A prototype fully deterministic seismic hazard model for southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111: 898–915.
45.
MoschettiMPLucoNBaltayASBoydOSFrankelADGravesRWPetersenMDThompsonEMJordanTHCallaghanSGouletCAMilnerKRMaechlingP (2017) Incorporating long-period (T>1 s) earthquake ground motions from 3-D simulations in the US National Seismic Hazard Model. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago. Chilean Association on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (ACHISINA), 9–13 January, paper no. 4423.
46.
NwekeCCStewartJPWangPBrandenbergSJ (2022) Site response of sedimentary basins and other geomorphic provinces in southern California. Earthquake Spectra (Accepted)
47.
NwekeCCStewartJPWangPBrandenbergSJBuckreisTE (2022) Data files for ground motion studies pertaining to southern California basins and other geomorphic provinces. doi: 10.17603/ds2-93rk-hz83, January.
48.
OlsenKBMayhewJE (2010) Goodness-of-fit criteria for broadband synthetic seismograms, with application to the 2008 Mw 5.4 Chino Hills, California, earthquake. Seismological Research Letters81(5): 715–723.
49.
OlsenKBTakedatsuR (2015) The SDSU broadband ground-motion generation module BBtoolbox version 1.5. Seismological Research Letters86(1): 81–88.
50.
Ramirez-GuzmanLGravesRWOlsenKBBoydOSCramerCHartzellSNiSSomervillePGWilliamsRAZhongJ (2015) Ground-motion simulations of 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes, central United States. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(4): 1961–1988.
51.
RazafindrakotoHNTBradleyBAGravesRW (2018) Broadband ground-motion simulation of the 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(4): 2130–2147.
52.
RezaeianSDer KiureghianA (2010) Simulation of synthetic ground motions for specified earthquake and site characteristics. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics39(10): 1155–1180.
53.
R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.
54.
SeyhanEStewartJP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1241–1256.
55.
SeyhanEStewartJPGravesRW (2013) Calibration of a semi-stochastic procedure for simulating high-frequency ground motions. Earthquake Spectra29(4): 1495–1519.
56.
ShawJHPleschATapeCSuessMPJordanTHElyGHaukssonETrompJTanimotoTGravesRWOlsenKBNicholsonCMaechlingPJRiveroCLovelyPBrankmanCMunsterJ (2015) Unified structural representation of the southern California crust and upper mantle. Earth and Planetary Science Letters415: 1–15.
57.
SilvaFGouletCAMaechlingPJCallaghanSJordanTH (2016) The SCEC broadband platform: Open-source software for strong ground motion simulation and validation. In: Poster presentation at 2016 SCEC annual meeting, Palm Springs, CA, 11–14 September.
58.
SjögreenBPeterssonNA (2012) A fourth order accurate finite difference scheme for the elastic wave equation in second order formulation. Journal of Scientific Computing52(1): 17–48.
59.
SmallPGillDMaechlingPJTabordaRCallaghanSJordanTHOlsenKBElyGPGouletCA (2017) The SCEC unified community velocity model software framework. Seismological Research Letters88(6): 1539–1552.
60.
StarLMStewartJPGravesRW (2011) Comparison of ground motions from hybrid simulations to NGA prediction equations. Earthquake Spectra27(2): 331–350.
61.
StewartJPAfshariKGouletCA (2017) Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra33: 1385–1414.
62.
SüssMPShawJH (2003) P wave seismic velocity structure derived from sonic logs and industry reflection data in the Los Angeles basin, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth108: 2170.
63.
TabordaRAzizzadeh-RoodpishSKhoshnevisNChengK (2016) Evaluation of the southern California seismic velocity models through simulation of recorded events. Geophysical Journal International205(3): 1342–1364.
64.
ThompsonEMWirthEAFrankelADHartogJRVidaleJE (2020) Basin amplification effects in the Puget Lowland, Washington, from strong-motion recordings and 3D simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(2): 534–555.
65.
VillaniMAbrahamsonNA (2015) Repeatable site and path effects on the ground-motion sigma based on empirical data from southern California and simulated waveforms from the CyberShake platform. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105: 2681–2695.
66.
WangFJordanTH (2014) Comparison of probabilistic seismic-hazard models using averaging-based factorization. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104: 1230–1257.
67.
WangNTakedatsuROlsenKBDaySM (2019) Broadband ground-motion simulation with interfrequency correlations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(6): 2437–2446.
68.
WillsCJGutierrezCIPerezFGBranumDM (2015) A next generation VS30 map for California based on geology and topography. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(6): 3083–3091.
69.
WillsCJPetersenMBryantWAReichleMSaucedoGJTanSTaylorGTreimanJ (2000) A site-conditions map for California based on geology and shear wave velocity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90: S187–S208.
70.
WirthEAFrankelADMarafiNVidaleJEStephensonWJ (2018) Broadband synthetic seismograms for magnitude 9 earthquakes on the Cascadia megathrust based on 3D simulations and stochastic synthetics, Part 2: Rupture parameters and variability. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 2370–2388.
71.
WithersKBOlsenKBShiZDaySM (2018) Validation of deterministic broadband ground motion and variability from dynamic rupture simulations of buried thrust earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(1): 212–228.
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.
