The Mw 8.4 23 June 2001 Southern Peru earthquake generated intense ground motions in a large region encompassing southern Peru and northern Chile. The earthquake was recorded by seven strong motion stations with peak ground accelerations ranging from 0.04 g to 0.34 g for site-to-fault distances ranging from about 70 km to 220 km. At this time, there are no other strong motion records for an earthquake of this magnitude. Hence, the strong motion data set from this earthquake is unique and of particular interest to engineers dealing with seismic design in subduction regions. This paper presents an engineering analysis of the strong motion records. Shear-wave velocity profiles were measured using Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves methods at four stations. Measured shear-wave velocities are high, indicating that all sites classify as stiff soil sites (Site C) according to the International Building Code classification scheme. The strong motion set is characterized by strong high frequency content at large distances from the fault. Site response contributed at least in part to the observed high frequency content in the ground motions. In general, current attenuation relationships for spectral acceleration underpredicted the observed ground motions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aguilar BardalesZ., and Piedra RubioR., 2001. Data Acquisition System Implementation for the CISMID-FIC Network of Accelerographs, Research Report, Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería—CISMID, Peru (in Spanish).
2.
AriasA., 1970. A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, HansenR. J., ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 512 pp.
3.
AtkinsonG. M., and BooreD. M., 2003. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 1703–1729.
4.
BorcherdtR. D., 2002. Empirical evidence for site coefficients in building code provisions, Earthquake Spectra18(2), 189–217.
5.
BoroschekR., and ComteD., 2006. Amplitude and frequency characteristics of the 2001 Southern Peru, Mw =8.4 earthquake records, J. Seismol. 10, 353–369.
6.
BoroschekR., SotoP., and LeonR., 2001. Records in northern Chile: June 23rd, 2001 Southern Peru earthquake, Informe RENADIC 01/04, University of Chile (in Spanish).
7.
ChenP.-F., BinaC. R., and OkalE. A., 2001. Variations in slab dip along the subducting Nazca Plate, as related to stress patterns and moment release of intermediate-depth seismicity and to surface volcanism, Geochem., Geophys., Geosyst. 2, 1054.
8.
Cortez-FloresA., 2004. Site Response of the 2001 Southern Peru Earthquake, M.S. thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
9.
DarendeliB. M., 2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, TX.
10.
DeweyJ. W., SilvaW. J., and TaveraH., 2003. Seismicity and tectonics, Earthquake Spectra19, 1–10.
11.
DorbathL., CisternasA., and DorbathC., 1990. Assessment of the size of large and great historical earthquakes in Peru, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 80(3), 551–576.
12.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1993. Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions. Volume 1: Method and guidelines for estimating earthquake ground motion in eastern North America, Report No. EPRI TR-102293, Palo Alto, CA.
13.
GiovanniM., BeckS. L., and WagnerL., 2002. The June 23, 2001 Peru earthquake and the Southern Peru subduction zone, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 2018.
14.
Harvard Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog (CMT), 2008. Global Centroid Moment Tensor Catalog, http://www.globalcmt.org/ (Last accessed December 31, 2008).
15.
Instituto Nacional de Defensa Civil (INDECI), 2005. Compendio Estadístico de Prevención y Atención de Desastres 2005, Instituto Nacional de Defensa Civil, Lima, Perú (in Spanish).
16.
International Code Council (ICC), 2006. 2006 International Building Code, ICC, Washington, D. C.
17.
JohS.-H., 1996. Advances in the Data Interpretation Technique for Spectral-Analysis-of-Surface-Waves (SASW) Measurements, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.
18.
KemptonJ. J., and StewartJ. P., 2006. Prediction equations for significant duration of earthquake ground motions considering site and near-source effects, Earthquake Spectra22, 985–1013.
Kosaka-MasunoR., Arias-BarahonaH. P., Farfán-BazánE., Gonzáles-ZentenoE., Minaya-LizárragaA., and Ticona-PaucaraJ., 2001. Evaluación de Peligros de la Ciudad de Moquegua, Universidad Nacional de San Augustín de Arequipa, Arequipa, PeruArequipa, Peru.
21.
KramerS. L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 653 pp.
22.
LermoJ., and Chavez-GarciaF., 1993. Site effect evaluation using spectral ratios with only one station, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 83, 1574–1594.
23.
MarosiK. T., and HiltunenD. R., 2004. Characterization of Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves Shear Wave velocity measurement uncertainty, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130, 1034–1041.
24.
McVerryG. H., ZhaoJ. X., AbrahamsonN. A., and SomervilleP. G., 2006. New Zealand acceleration response spectrum attenuation relations for crustal and subduction zone earthquakes, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering39, 1–58.
25.
MossR. E. S., 2008. Quantifying Measurement Uncertainty of Thirty-Meter Shear-Wave Velocity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 98, 1399–1411.
26.
NakamuraT., 1989. A method for dynamic characteristics estimation of subsurface using microtremor on the ground surface, QR RTR1 30, 1, February.
27.
ParkK., 2004. Shear wave velocity profiling at sites affected by the 2001 Southern Peru earthquake, Masters thesis, Utah State University, Logan.
28.
RathjeE. M., FarajF., RussellS., and BrayJ. D., 2004. Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra20, 119–144.
29.
Rodriguez-MarekA., and EdwardsC., 2003. Southern Peru Earthquake of 23 June 2001 Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra, published as a supplement of Vol. 19.
30.
Rodriguez-MarekA., BrayJ. D., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2001. An empirical geotechnical seismic site response procedure, Earthquake Spectra17, 65–87.
31.
RodriguezV. H. S., and MidorikawaS., 2003. Comparison of spectral ratio techniques for estimation of site effects using microtremor data and earthquake motions recorded at the surface and in boreholes, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 1691–1714.
32.
RuizS., and SaragoniG. R., 2005. Fórmulas de atenuación para la subducción de Chile de terremotos interplaca tipo thrust considerando los efectos del suelo y las asperezas, in Proceedings, IX Jornadas Chilenas de Sismología e Ingeniería Antisísmica, University of Concepción, Concepción, Chile in Spanish).
33.
SatoH., and KonagaiK., 2002. Seismicity, strong ground motions, and geology, The June 23, 2001 Atico Earthquake, Peru, KonakaiK., ed., Japanese Society of Civil Engineers (http://www.jsce-int.org/rep-disaster.html).
34.
SchnabelP. B., LysmerJ., and SeedH. B., 1972. SHAKE, A Computer Program for Earthquake Analysis of Horizontally Layered Soils, Report EERC 72-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CABerkeley, CA.
35.
SesameE., 2004. Report on Parameter Studies, Deliverable D12.09.
36.
ShakalA. F., HuangM., and GraizerV., 2004. CSMIP strong-motion data processing, presented at Invited Workshop on Strong-Motion Record Processing, 26–27 May 2004, Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS), Richmond, CA.
37.
SilvaW., Rodriguez-MarekA., and WartmanJ., 2007. Development of synthetic ground motions for the June 23rd 2001 Southern Peru Earthquake, in 13th PanAmerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Isla Margarita, Venezuela, 224–229.
38.
SilvaW. J., AbrahamsonN. A., ToroG., and CostantinoC., 1997. Description and Validation of the Stochastic Ground Motion Model, unpublished report prepared for Brookhaven National laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc.
39.
SilvaW. J., DarraghR., StarkC., WongI., SteppJ., SchneiderJ., and ChiouS., 1990. A methodology to estimate design response spectra in the near-source region of large earthquakes using the Band-Limited-White-Noise ground motion model, in Proc. Fourth U.S. Nat. Conf. Earth. Engin. 1, 487–494.
40.
StokoeK. H., WrightS. G., BayJ. A., and RossetJ. M., 1994. Characterization of Geotechnical Sites by SASW Method, ISSMFE Technical Committee 10, Oxford Publishers, New Delhi, India.
41.
TaveraH., FernándezE., BernalI., AntayhuaY., AgüeroC., RodríguezH. S. S., VilcapomaL., ZamudioY., PortugalD., InzaA., CarpioJ., CcalloF., and ValdiviaI., 2006. The southern region of Peru earthquake of June 23rd, 2001, J. Seismol. 10, 171–195.
42.
TravasarouT., BrayJ. D., and AbrahamsonN. A., 2003. Empirical attenuation relationship for Arias Intensity, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 1133–1155.
ValléeM., 2004. Stabilizing the empirical Green function analysis: development of the Projected Landweber method, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 94, 394–409.
45.
YoungsR. R., SilvaW. J., and HumphreyJ. R., 1997. Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett. 68, 58–73.
46.
ZhaoJ. X., IrikuraK., ZhangJ., FukushimaY., SomervilleP. G., AsanoA., OhnoY., Oou-chiT., TakahashiT., and OgawaH., 2006a. An empirical site-classification method for strong-motion stations in Japan using H/V response spectral ratio, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 914–925.
47.
ZhaoJ. X., ZhangJ., AsanoA., OhnoY., OouchiT., TakahashiT., OgawaH., IrikuraK., ThioH. K., SomervilleP. G., FukushimaY., and FukushimaY., 2006b. Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96, 898–913.
