ATTENUATION

RELATIONSHIPS
1

Hosein Rahnema

Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engg.

Shiraz University of Technology

Earthquake Hazard Analysis Course

 ATTENUATION
RELATIONSHIPS
An attenuation expression provides a functional relationship

2
earthquake properties of Various earthquake
response quantities parameters

magnitude, ground acceleration,

soil conditions,
spectral response values
site-to-source distance,
etc. etc.
Variables that affect
attenuation
3
stress and strain conditions,
source mechanism rupture dimensions,
source depth

geometric spreading,
travel path reflection, refraction,
absorption, and geologic
structure

Subsurface conditions,
Topographic variations,
local conditions soil-structure interaction all
constitute local conditions
 Geometric spreading
and absorption
4

Spherical wave-fronts occupy more area as they

progress from a seismic source.

In keeping with the laws of conservation, the

Geometric amplitude of the waves must decrease; hence,
Spreeding the mathematical expression that wave
amplitudes decrease proportionally with 1/R is
easily confirmed.

R is distance, and
is a constant dependent on travel path and
geologic conditions [Reiter, 1990].
 Geometric spreading
and absorption
5
Absorption
Absorption results from
friction in the medium and
scattering of the waves which
can cause destructive
interference.
Q = Q0fn
Q is called the quality factor,
f is frequency,
Q0 and n are constants
dependent on rock properties.
Large values of Q correspond to
low absorption (and
attenuation), and vice-versa.
 Types of attenuation
relationships
6

empirical theoretical

theoretical expressions
Empirical type attempt to model directly
relationships are typically many theoretical the physics of
derived by applying type relationships earthquakes and related
regression analysis incorporate mechanisms, with
methods to observed and empirically derived constants being
recorded earthquake data constants. determined empirically
In some cases, the distinction as to
whether an expression is empirical
or theoretical is difficult to discern
 Empirical attenuation
relationships
7

Y = b1f1 (M ) f2 (R ) f 3 (M,R) f4 (P1)

Y=strong motion parameter, (e.g. peak acceleration),
b1= constant scaling factor,
f1(M) = a function of the independent variable M, (magnitude or earthquake
source size),
f2(R)= a function of the independent variable R, (site-to-source distance),
f3(M,R) = a joint function of the variables M and R,
f4(P1) = function(s) representing possible source, site, and building effects,
= an error term representing uncertainty in Y.
Empirical
attenuation
relationships R 1 - Distance to causative fault
R2- Epicentral distance
8 to energy center
R3 - Map distance
R4 - Hypocentral distance
R5 - Distance to energy center
Y = b1f1 (M ) f2 (R )
f3(M,R) f4 (P1) ,

above expression to be
presented in the more useful
additive form:

lnY =ln b1+lnf1(M )

+lnf2(R ) +lnf3(M,R)
+lnf4(P1) +ln
 Empirical attenuation
relationships
9

Another typical predictive relationship may have the form

 Donovan and Bornstein (1978)

10
. . . . .
2,154,000 25
for
8; 5 ,
where
a = median peak horizontal peak ground acceleration exp 1
in gals (or ).
R = distance from the site to the center of energy on the causative fault in
kilometers (km), and
M = magnitude . 1
The standard error ln and the coefficient of
variation of PGA ( ) of the above expression vary as function
of acceleration:
Peak Horizontal Acceleration
0.05g 0.48 0.51
0.1 0.46 0.49
0.15 0.41 0.43
0.3 0.3 0.31
 Crouse (1991)
11

Crouse proposed the following expression to estimate horizontal ground motion

for the Cascadia subduction zone for shallow firm sites in the Pacific Northwest:
ln ln exp , With the
where appropriate
Y = median peak ground acceleration (gals ) , values of b1-b7,
M = Moment magnitude, applied
R = site to center of energy release distance (km) , [Crouse, 1991],
h = focal depth (km), the above
= constants, and expression
= standard error of ln(Y). reduces to:

ln 6.36 1.76 2.73 ln 1.58 exp 0.608 0.00916 ,

0.773, . . , 0.90
 Crouse (1991)
12
No distance limitations are given,
but the site-to-source distance used
in this equation is the distance from
the site to center of energy release
(i.e., R5 in Figure 3.1). In the
analysis of the earthquake records
of M <= 7.5, Crouse assumed the
site to center of energy release
distance to be approximately equal
to the hypocentral distance, and for
larger earthquakes this distance was
assumed to be the site to centroid-
of-fault-plane distance
 Boore, Joyner, and Fumal
(1993)
13

Boore, Joyner
and Fumal
have recently
proposed the
following
relationship to
estimate
horizontal
ground motion
for shallow
earthquakes in
western North
America:
 Boore, Joyner, and Fumal
(1993)
14
In the use of this expression, a site is classified into one of four categories (A, B, C, and D) depending on
the average shear-wave velocities of the upper 30m of geologic material. Classes A, B, C, and D include
sites where the average shear-wave velocity are:
greater than 750 m/s;
between 360 m/s and 750 m/s;
between 180 m/s and 360 m/s;
and less than 180 m/s, respectively.
As a result of lack of data presently available for site class D, Boore, Joyner, and Fumal excluded it from
their analysis.
When the constants derived for estimating the peak acceleration for the larger of two horizontal
components are substituted, the above equation reduces to:

0 for site class A 0 for site class A

GB = 1 for site class B Gc 0 for site class B
0 for site class C 1 for site class C
 Theoretical attenuation
relationships
15

The remaining discussion on theoretical attenuation relationships is limited to

expressions based on Random Vibration Theory-Band Limited White Noise
(RVT-BLWN). (Other theoretical type expressions such as those based on
Green's function are not discussed in this report.) The use of RVT-BLWN
came from the observation that acceleration time histories are, to a very good
approximation, band-limited white Gaussian noise within the S-wave arrival
window. The upper and lower band limitations are the spectral corner
frequency (fo) and the highest frequency passed by the earth or accelerograph
Hanks and McGuire
model (1981)
16
Hanks and McGuire
model (1981)
17
18
 Peak Acceleration
19

In 1981, Campbell (1981) used worldwide data to develop an attenuation

relationship for the mean PHA for sites within 50 km of the fault rupture in
magnitude 5.0 to 7.7 earthquakes:

In 1994, Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994) used worldwide accelerograms from earth-
quakes of moment magnitude ranging from 4.7 to 8.1 to develop the attenuation
relationship
 Peak Acceleration
20
Toro et al. (1994) developed an attenuation relationship for peak horizontal rock
acceleration
 Peak Acceleration
21

Youngs et al. (1988) used strong-motion measurements obtained on rock from 60

earthquakes and numerical simulations of Mw>= 8 earthquakes to develop a
subduction zone attenuation relationship:
 Peak Velocity
22
Joyner and Boore (1988), for example, used strong-motion records from earthquakes of
moment magnitude between 5.0 and 7.7 to develop the attenuation relationship

Table 3-7 Coeffecients for Joyner and Boore (1988) Peak Horizontal
Velocity Attenuation Relationship
 Variation of peak
horizontal acceleration
with distance
23

Figure 3.22 Variation of peak horizontal acceleration with distance for M = 5.5, M= 6.5, and M =7.5
earthquakes according to various attenuation relationships: (a) Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), soft rock
sites and strike-slip faulting; (b) Boore et al. (1993), site class B; (c) Toro et al. (1994); and (d) Youngs et al,
(1988), intraslab event.
 Estimation of Frequency
Content Parameters
24

Predominant Period

Figure 3.23 Variation of predominant period at rock outcrops

with magnitude and distance. (After Seed et al., 1969.)
 Estimation of Frequency
Content Parameters
25
Fourier Amplitude Spectra
Based on Brune's (1970, 1971) solution for instantaneous slip of a
circular rupture surface, the Fourier amplitudes for a far-field event at
distance R can be expressed (McGuire and Hanks, 1980; Boore, 1983) as

Where fc is the corner frequency, fmax, the cutoff frequency , Q(f) is the frequency-dependent
quality factor and C is a constant given by
where vs is in km/sec, Mo is in dyne-cm, and is referred to
as the stress parameter or stress drop in liars. Stress
parameters of 50 bars and 100 bars are commonly used for
sources in western and eastern North America, respectively
 Estimation of Frequency
Content Parameters
26

Figure 3.24 (a) Variation of Fourier amplitude spectra at R =10 km for different moment
magnitudes ( = 100 bars); (b) accelerograms generated from the M = 4 and M = 7
spectra. (After Boore, 1983.)
 Estimation of Frequency
Content Parameters
27
Ratio Vmax/amax
 Estimation of Duration
28

Epicentral distance (km)

Figure 3.27 Variation of bracketed duration (0.05g threshold) with magnitude and
epicentral distance: (a) rock sites; (b) soil sites. (After Chang and Krinitzsky, 1977.)
 Attenuation relationshops
29
RMS Acceleration
Hanks and McGuire (1981) used a database of California earthquakes of local magnitude 4.0 to 7.0
to develop an attenuation relationship for rms acceleration for hypocentral distances between 10 and
100 km (6.2 and 62 mi):

Kavazanjian et al. (1985) used the definition of duration proposed by Vanmarcke and Lai (1980) with
a database of 83 strong motion records from 18 different earthquakes to obtain
 Attenuation relationshops
30
Arias Intensity
Campbell and Duke (1974) used data from California earthquakes to predict the variation of Arias
intensity within 15 to 110 km (9 to 68 mi) of magnitude 4.5 to 8.5 events.

Wilson (1993) analyzed strong motion records from California to develop an attenuation relationship
which, using the Arias intensity definition of equation (3.17), can be expressed as

D is the minimum horizontal distance to the vertical projection of the fault plane, h is a correction factor