Single-station sigma

被引:174
|
作者
Atkinson, GM [1 ]
机构
[1] Carleton Univ, Dept Earth Sci, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1785/0120050137
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
Is the random variability of ground motions for a single station less than that obtained by regression analyses of ground-motion data recorded over a broad network of sites? This question has important implications for seismic design of critical facilities because of the influence of this variability (commonly referred to as "sigma") on probabilistic seismic-hazard computations at low probabilities. I address this question using ShakeMap data recorded at a group of 21 stations, all in the Los Angeles region, for which the shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 in (V-30) is known. Ground-motion prediction equations are derived from a database of site-corrected amplitudes compiled for the group of stations as a whole. The standard deviation of residuals (sigma) for the regression of the entire database is then compared with the standard deviation of residuals at individual stations. Regressions of single-station databases are also performed. The sigma for an individual station is less than the overall sigma. The results of this study suggest that when computing hazard at a specific site for which the site amplification has been estimated based on either an empirical correction or on V30, the site sigma can be taken as 90% of the corresponding sigma for the applicable ground-motion prediction equation, if the problem under consideration is one of multiple earthquake sources. If hazard from a single source at a fixed azimuth is considered (such as a single fault), the site sigma is 60% of the corresponding sigma for regional ground-motion relations. Further study with additional datasets is warranted to determine whether these results apply to hazard computations in a general sense, beyond the limited range of conditions studied here.
引用
收藏
页码:446 / 455
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Single-Station Sigma for the Iranian Strong Motion Stations
    H. Zafarani
    M. R. Soghrat
    Pure and Applied Geophysics, 2017, 174 : 4077 - 4099
  • [2] Single-Station Sigma for the Iranian Strong Motion Stations
    Zafarani, H.
    Soghrat, M. R.
    PURE AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS, 2017, 174 (11) : 4077 - 4099
  • [3] Single-Station Sigma for Italian Strong-Motion Stations
    Luzi, L.
    Bindi, D.
    Puglia, R.
    Pacor, F.
    Oth, A.
    BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 2014, 104 (01) : 467 - 483
  • [4] Update of the single-station sigma analysis for the Italian strong-motion stations
    Lanzano, Giovanni
    D'Amico, Maria
    Felicetta, Chiara
    Luzi, Lucia
    Puglia, Rodolfo
    BULLETIN OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2017, 15 (06) : 2411 - 2428
  • [5] Update of the single-station sigma analysis for the Italian strong-motion stations
    Giovanni Lanzano
    Maria D’Amico
    Chiara Felicetta
    Lucia Luzi
    Rodolfo Puglia
    Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 15 : 2411 - 2428
  • [6] SINGLE-STATION FAULT PLANE SOLUTIONS
    LANGSTON, CA
    BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1982, 72 (03) : 729 - 744
  • [7] Site term from single-station sigma analysis of S-waves in western Turkey
    Nihal Akyol
    Journal of Seismology, 2018, 22 : 1037 - 1057
  • [8] Understanding single-station ground motion variability and uncertainty (sigma): lessons learnt from EUROSEISTEST
    Olga-Joan Ktenidou
    Zafeiria Roumelioti
    Norman Abrahamson
    Fabrice Cotton
    Kyriazis Pitilakis
    Fabrice Hollender
    Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 16 : 2311 - 2336
  • [9] Understanding single-station ground motion variability and uncertainty (sigma): lessons learnt from EUROSEISTEST
    Ktenidou, Olga-Joan
    Roumelioti, Zafeiria
    Abrahamson, Norman
    Cotton, Fabrice
    Pitilakis, Kyriazis
    Hollender, Fabrice
    BULLETIN OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2018, 16 (06) : 2311 - 2336
  • [10] Site term from single-station sigma analysis of S-waves in western Turkey
    Akyol, Nihal
    JOURNAL OF SEISMOLOGY, 2018, 22 (04) : 1037 - 1057