Evaluation of the Inter-frequency Correlation of New Zealand CyberShake Crustal Earthquake Simulations

Authors

  • Jeff Bayless AECOM
  • Scott Condon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1623

Abstract

The inter-frequency correlation of ground-motion residuals is related to the width of peaks and troughs in the ground-motion spectra (either response spectra or Fourier amplitude spectra; FAS) and is therefore an essential component of ground-motion simulations for representing the variability of structural response. As such, this component of the simulations requires evaluation and validation when the intended application is seismic fragility and seismic risk. This article evaluates the CyberShake NZ [1] crustal earthquake ground-motion simulations for their inter-frequency correlation, including comparisons with an empirical model developed from a global catalogue of shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions, and with results from similar simulations (SCEC CyberShake; [2]). Compared with the empirical model, the CyberShake NZ simulations have a satisfactory level of total inter-frequency correlation between the frequencies 0.1 – 0.25 Hz. At frequencies above 0.25 Hz, the simulations have lower (statistically significant at 95% confidence level) total inter-frequency correlation than the empirical model and therefore require calibration. To calibrate the total correlation, it is useful to focus on the correlation of the residual components. The between-event residual correlations, physically related to source effects (e.g., stress drop) which drive ground motions over a broad frequency range, are low at frequencies greater than about 0.25 Hz. Modifications to the cross-correlation between source parameters in the kinematic rupture generator can improve the inter-frequency correlations in this range [3]. The between-site residual correlations, which represents the correlation between frequencies of the systematic site amplification deviations, are larger (statistically significant at 95% confidence level) than the empirical model for frequencies less than about 0.5 Hz. We postulate that this relates to the relative simplicity of site amplification methods in the simulations, which feature less variability than the amplification observed in the data. Additional insight would be gained from future evaluations accounting for repeatable path and basin effects, using simulations with refined or alternative seismic velocity models, and using simulations with a higher crossover frequency to deterministic methods (e.g., 1 Hz or higher).

References

Bradley BA, Tarbali K, Lee RL, Huang J, Motha J, Bae SE, Polak V, Zhu M, Schill C, Patterson J and Lagrava D (2020). “Cybershake NZ v19.5: New Zealand simulation-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis”. NZSEE 2020 Annual Conference, Paper #110.

Graves R, Jordan TH, Callaghan S, Deelman E, Field EH, Juve G, Kesselman C, Maechling P, Mehta G, Okaya D, Small P and Vahi K (2011). “CyberShake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for Southern California”. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168(3-4): 367–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0161-6

Song SG, Causse M and Bayless J (2020). “Sensitivity of inter-frequency correlation of synthetic ground motions to pseudo-dynamic source models”. Seismological Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200181 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220200181

Graves R and Pitarka A (2016). “Kinematic ground-motion simulations on rough faults including effects of 3D stochastic velocity perturbations”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106: 2136–2153.

Stirling M, McVerry G, Gerstenberger M et al. (2012). “National seismic hazard model for New Zealand: 2010 update”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102: 1514-1542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110170

Rezaeian S, Stewart J, Luco N and Goulet C. (2022). “Lessons learned from a decade of ground motion simulation validation (GMSV) exercises and a path forward”. Proceedings of the 12th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Salt Lake City, UT. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231212475

Burks LS and Baker JW (2014). “Validation of ground motion simulations through simple proxies for the response of engineered systems”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 104(4): 1930-1946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130276

Goulet CA, Abrahamson NA, Somerville PG and Wooddell KE (2015). “The SCEC Broadband Platform validation exercise: Methodology for code validation in the context of seismic hazard analyses”. Seismological Research Letters, 86: 17-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140104

Lee RL, Bradley BA, Stafford PJ, Graves RW and Rodriguez-Marek A (2022). “Hybrid broadband ground motion simulation validation of small magnitude active shallow crustal earthquakes in New Zealand.” Earthquake Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221109297 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930221109297

Bayless J and Abrahamson NA (2018). “Evaluation of the inter-period correlation of ground motion simulations”. Bulletin of the Seismological. Society of America, 10(6): 3413–3430. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180095

Bayless J and Condon S (2020). “Evaluating the inter-frequency correlation of CyberShake simulations”. Report to the Southern California Earthquake Center, Report #20043.

Bora SS, Scherbaum F, Kuehn N and Stafford, P (2016). “On the relationship between Fourier and response spectra: Implications for the adjustment of Bulletin of the Seismological. Society of America, 106(3): 1235–1253. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150129

Bayless J and Abrahamson NA (2018). “An empirical model for the interfrequency correlation of epsilon for Fourier amplitude spectra”. Bulletin of the Seismological. Society of America, 109(3): 1058–1070. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180238

Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BS-J, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T and Donahue JL (2014). “NGA-West2 database”. Earthquake Spectra, 30: 989-1005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS197M

Cui Y, Poyraz E, Callaghan S, Maechling P, Chen P and Jordan TH (2013). “Accelerating CyberShake calculations on XE6/XK7 platforms of Blue Waters”. Blue Waters and XSEDE Extreme Scaling Workshop, Aug 15-16, Bouldera. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/XSW.2013.6

Jordan TH, Callaghan S, Graves RW, Wang F, Milner KR, Goulet CA, Maechling PJ, Olsen KB, Cui Y, Juve G, Vahi K, Yu J, Deelman E and Gill D (2018). “CyberShake models of seismic hazards in Southern and Central California”. Eleventh US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 11ncee.org/images/program/papers/11NCEE-001458.pdf

Graves R and Pitarka A. (2016) “Kinematic ground-motion simulations on rough faults including effects of 3D stochastic velocity perturbations”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 106: 2136–2153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160088

Graves R and Pitarka A (2010) “Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100: 2095–2123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120100057

Graves R and Pitarka A (2015). “Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) Broadband ground-motion simulation method”. Seismological Research Letters. 86. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140101

Thomson EM, Bradley BA and Lee RL (2020). “Methodology and computational implementation of a New Zealand Velocity Model (NZVM2.0) for broadband ground motion simulation”. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 63: 110-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2019.1636830

Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Y (2014). “NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra”. Earthquake Spectra, 30(3): 1087–1115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/062913EQS175M

Kottke A, Abrahamson NA, Boore DM, Bozorgnia Y, Goulet CA, Hollenback J, Kishida T, Ktenidou OJ, Rathje EM, Silva WJ, Thompson EM and Wang X (2021). “Selection of random vibration theory procedures for the NGA-East project and ground-motion modelling”. Earthquake Spectra, 37(S1): 1420–1439. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211019052 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211019052

Goulet CA, Bozorgnia Y, Kuehn N, Al Atik L, Youngs R, Graves RW and Atkinson G (2021). “NGA-East ground-motion characterization model part I: Summary of products and model development”. Earthquake Spectra. 37: 1231-1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211018723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211018723

Bayless J and Abrahamson NA (2019) “Summary of the BA18 ground-motion model for Fourier amplitude spectra for crustal earthquakes in California”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 109(5): 2088-2105. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190077

Villani MA and Abrahamson N (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 America, 105. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140359

Fisher RA (1958). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 13th Ed., Hafner, Edinburgh, London.

Boore DM (2003). “Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method”. Pure Applied Geophysics, 160: 635–675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00012553

Kutner M, Nachtsheim C, Neter J and Li Q (2005). Applied Linear Statistical Models. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, NewYork, 1396 pp.

Field E, Dawson T, Felzer K, Frankel A, Gupta V, Jordan T, Parsons T, Petersen M, Stein R, Weldon R and Wills C (2009). “Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2)”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 99. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080049

Small P, Gill D, Maechling PJ, Taborda R, Callaghan S, Jordan TH, Olsen KB, Ely GP and Goulet C (2017). “The SCEC unified community velocity model software framework”. Seismological Research Letters, 88(6): 1539–1552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170082

Magistrale H, Day S, Clayton RW and Graves RW (2000). “The SCEC southern California reference three-dimensional seismic velocity model version 2”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(6B): S65–S76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000510

Anderson JG (2015) “The composite source model for broadband simulations of strong ground motions”. Seismological Research Letters, 86: 68-74. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140098 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140098

Bayless J (2018). “Inter-Period Correlations of Fourier Amplitude Spectra of Ground-Motions: Modeling, Calibration of Earthquake Simulations, and Significance in Seismic Risk”. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis.

Wang N, Takedatsu R, Olsen KB and Day SM (2019). “Broadband ground‐motion simulation with inter-frequency correlations”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 109(6): 2437–2446. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120190136

Downloads

Published

09-12-2023

How to Cite

Bayless, J., & Condon, S. (2023). Evaluation of the Inter-frequency Correlation of New Zealand CyberShake Crustal Earthquake Simulations. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 56(4). https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.1623

Issue

Section

Articles

Categories