The Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile, earthquake produced 31 usable strong motion recordings from currently accessible arrays over a rupture distance range of 30 to 700 km. Site conditions range from firm rock to soft soil but are most often competent soil (NEHRP Category C or C/D). Most of the data were recorded on analogue instruments, which was digitized and processed with low- and high-cut filters designed to maximize the usable frequency range of the signals. The stations closest to the fault plane do not exhibit evidence of ground motion polarization from rupture directivity. Response spectra of nearby recordings on firm ground and soft soil indicate pronounced site effects, including several cases of resonance at site periods. A prior GMPE for interface subduction events captures well the distance scaling and dispersion of the data, but under-predicts the overall ground motion level, perhaps due to too-weak magnitude scaling.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamsonN. A., and YoungsR. R., 1992. A stable algorithm for regression analyses using the random effects model, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.82, 505–510.
2.
AkkarS., and BooreD. M., 2009. On baseline corrections and uncertainty in response spectra for baseline variations commonly encountered in digital accelerograph records, Bul. Seism. Soc. Am.99, 1671–1690.
3.
AkkarS., KaleÖ., YenierE., and BommerJ. J., 2011. The high-frequency limit of usable response spectral ordinates from filtered analogue and digital strong-motion accelerograms, Eqk. Engrg Struct. Dyn.40, 1387–1401.
4.
AkkarS., and BommerJ. J., 2006. Influence of long-period filter cut-off on elastic spectral displacements, Eqk. Engrg. Struct. Dyn.35, 1145–1165.
5.
ÁlvarezM., 2006. Factibilidadde utilización detécnicas geofísicas en estudios de fenómenos de remoción en masa, Caso: deslizamiento de San José de Maipo, Memoria para optar al título de geólogo, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile. Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
6.
AstrozaM., RuizS., and AstrozaR., 2012. Damage assessment and seismic intensity analysis of the 2010 (Mw 8.8) Maule Earthquake, Earthquake Spectra28, this issue.
7.
AstrozaM., CabezasF., MoroniM., MassoneL., RuizS., ParraE., CorderoF., and MottadelliA., 2010. Intensidades Sísmicas en el Area de Daños del Terremoto del 27 de Febrero de 2010, Departamento de Ingeniería Civil, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
8.
ArangoM. C., StrasserF. O., BommerJ. J., BoroschekR., ComteD., and TaveraH., 2011. A strong-motion database from the Peru–Chile subduction zone, J. Seismology15, 19–41.
9.
AtkinsonG. M., and BooreD. M., 2003. Empirical ground-motion relations for subduction-zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.93, 1703–1729.
10.
AtkinsonG. M., and BooreD. M., 2008. Erratum to empirical ground-motion relations for subduction zone earthquakes and their application to Cascadia and other regions, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.98, 2567–2569.
11.
AtkinsonG. M., and CassidyJ. F., 2000. Integrated use of seismograph and strong-motion data to determine soil amplification: Response of the Fraser River Delta to the Duvall and Georgia Strait earthquakes, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.90, 1028–1040.
12.
BoroschekR. L., YanezF., BejaranoI., MolnarS., and TorresA., 2012. Summary of the Geotechnical Characterization University of Chile Strong Motion Accelerograph Stations, University of Chile.
13.
BoroschekR. L., and ComteD., 2006. Amplitude and frequency characteristics of the 2001 Southern Peru, Mw=8.4 earthquake records, J. Seismol.10, 353–369.
14.
BoroschekR. L., and LegrandD., 2006. Tilt motion effects on the double time integration of linear accelerometers: an experimental approach, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.96, 2072–2089.
15.
BoroschekR. L., SotoP., and LeonR., 2010. Maule Region Earthquake, 27 February 2010, Mw 8.8, Renadic Report 10/08 Revision 8.
16.
ÇelebiM., 1987. Topographical and geological amplifications determined from strong-motion and aftershock records of the 3 March 1985 Chile earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.77, 1147–1167.
17.
ÇelebiM., 1991. Topographical and geological amplification: case studies and engineering applications, Structural Safety10, 199–217.
18.
ChiouB. S.-J., DarraghR., DregorD., and SilvaW. J., 2008. NGA project strong-motion database, Earthquake Spectra24, 23–44.
19.
ConverseA. M., and BradyA. G., 1992. BAP Basic Strong-Motion Accelerogram Processing Software, version 1.0, Open-File Report 92-296A, U.S. Geological Survey.
20.
DazaV., 2003. Interacción sísmica suelo-estructura en el puente Marga-Marga, Memoria para optar al título de ingeniero Civil, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile. Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
21.
DelouisB., NocquetJ.-M., and ValléeM., 2010. Slip distribution of the 27 February 2010 Mw=8.8 Maule Earthquake, central Chile, from static and high-rate GPS, InSAR, and broad-band teleseismic data, Geophy. Res. Ltrs37, L17305, DOI 10.1029/2010GL043899.
22.
FritzH. M., PetroffC. M., Catala'P. A., CienfuegosR., WincklerP., KalligerisN., WeissR., BarrientosS. E., MenesesG., Valderas-BermejoC., EbelingC., PapadopoulosA., ContrerasM., AlmarR., DominguezJ. C., and SynolakisC. E., 2011. Field survey of the 27 February 2010 Chile tsunami, Pure Appl. Geophys.168, 1989–2010.
23.
KataokaS., 2011. Microtremor exploration at seven strong motion stations in Chile, 4th IASPEI/IAEE International Symposium: Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, 23–26 August 2011, University of California, Santa Barbara.
24.
KanamoriH., 1986. Rupture process of subduction zone earthquakes, Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.14, 293–322.
25.
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.
26.
LeytonF., SepúlvedaS. A., AstrozaM., RebolledoS., GonzálezL., RuizS., FonceaC., HerreraM., and LavadoJ., 2010. Zonificación Sísmica de la Cuenca de Santiago, Chile. Congreso Chileno de Sismología e Ingeniería Antisísmica, X Jornadas, 22–27 de Mayo de 2010, Valdivia, Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
27.
Nicolau del RoureR., GutiérrezT. A., WoywoodY. M., and ParraZ. M., 1980. Características de la Amplificación Sísmica en la Ciudad de Concepción, 3as. Jornadas Chilenas de Sismología e Ingeniería Antisísmica, C.4.1-C.4.18 (in Spanish).
28.
OrtigosaP., 2011. Personal communication, Technical Manager, PETRUS Consultores Geotécnicos, Santiago, Chile.
29.
PaolucciR., RovelliA., FaccioliE., CauzziC., FinazziD., VaniniM., Di AlessandroC., and CalderoniG., 2008. On the reliability of long period spectral ordinates from digital accelerograms, Eqk. Engrg. Struct. Dyn.37, 697–710.
30.
RamírezP., and VivallosJ., 2009. Microzonificación sísmica de la ciudad de Concepción, Chile, XII Congreso Geológico Chileno, 22–26 de Noviembre, Santiago, Chile (in Spanish).
31.
RathjeE. M., FarajF., RussellS., and BrayJ. D., 2004. Empirical relationships for frequency content parameters of earthquake ground motions, Earthquake Spectra20, 119–144.
32.
Rodriguez-MarekA., BayJ. A., ParkK., MontalvaG., Cortez-FloresA., WartmanJ., and BoroschekR., 2010. Engineering analysis of ground motion records from the 2001 Mw 8.4 Southern Peru earthquake, Earthquake Spectra26, 499–524.
33.
RuizS., MadariagaR., AstrozaM., SaragoniG.R., LancieriM., VignyC., and CamposJ., 2012. Short period rupture process of the 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule earthquake in Chile, Earthquake Spectra28, this issue.
ScasserraG., StewartJ. P., BazzurroP., LanzoG., and MollaioliF., 2009. A comparison of NGA ground motion prediction equations to Italian data, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.99, 2961–2978.
36.
ScherbaumF., CottonF., and SmitP., 2004. On the use of response spectral reference data for the selection and ranking of ground motion models for seismic hazard analysis in regions of moderate seismicity: The case of rock motion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.94, 2164–2185.
37.
Servicio Nacional de Geologia y Mineria (SNGM), 2003. 1:1.000.000 geologic map of Chile, Servicio Nacional de Geologia y Mineria, Chile.
38.
SiebertE., RebolledoS., VerdugoR., and CamposJ., 2005. Respuesta sísmica y caracterización geológico-geotécnica de sitios donde están instaladas estaciones sismológicas en Santiago, Congreso Chileno de Sismología e Ingeniería Antisísmica, IX Jornadas, 16–19 de Noviembre. Concepción, Chile (in Spanish).
TrifunacM. D., and TodorovskaM. I., 2001. A note on the useable dynamic range of accelerographs recording translation, Soil Dyn. Eqk. Engrg.21, 275–286.
41.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2010. M8.8 Maule, Chile, Earthquake of 27 February 2010, poster accessible at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/pager.
42.
VanmarckeE., 1976. Structural response to earthquakes, Chapter 8 in Seismic Risk and Engineering Decisions (LomnitzC. and RosembluethE. eds.), Elsevier Science Ltd., New York, 436 pp.
43.
Watson-LampreyJ., and BooreD. M., 2007. Beyond SaGMRotI: Conversion to SaArb, SaSN, and SaMaxRot, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.97, 1511–1524.
44.
ZhaoJ., 2011. Personal communication.
45.
ZhaoJ. X., ZhangJ., AsanoA., OhnoY., OouchiT., TakahashiT., OgawaH., IrikuraK., ThioH. K., SomervilleP. G., and FukushimaY., 2006. Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.96, 898–913.
