Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) empirical ground motion models : Can they be used in Europe
Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) empirical ground motion models : Can they be used in Europe
复制标题
下一代衰减（NGA）经验地面运动模型：它们可以在欧洲使用吗
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Y. Bozorgnia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kenneth W. Campbell;Y. Bozorgnia
作为PEER下一代衰减（NGA）项目的一部分，我们是为活跃的浅地壳区域开发经验地面运动模型（衰减关系）的五个团队之一。每个NGA开发团队都有一个全球强震记录的公共数据库，但在开发模型时使用了不同的数据选择标准，参数和函数形式。最大的挑战之一是开发一种函数形式，以解释最近几次全球大地震所表明的M6.5 -7.0附近震级标度的明显变化。我们选择了三线性，而不是更传统的二次函数形式的震级标度，以允许更灵活地模拟大小地震之间的震级标度效应。模型中包括的参数是力矩大小，最近距离破裂，埋藏逆断层，正断层，沉积深度（浅和盆地的影响），挂壁效应，平均剪切波速度在顶部30米，和非线性土壤响应剪切波速度和岩石PGA的函数。我们的NGA模型与欧洲最近的衰减关系的比较表明，我们的模型和可能的其他NGA模型可以在这个地区使用。最大的差异似乎是由于在欧洲模式中使用线性震级标度和线性场地因子。需要进行更详细的评价，以确认这一初步结论。
We are one of five teams developing empirical ground motion models (attenuation relationships) for active shallow crustal regions as part of the PEER Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Project. Each NGA Developer Team was provided with a common database of worldwide strongmotion recordings but used different data selection criteria, parameters, and functional forms in the development of their models. One of the biggest challenges was to develop a functional form that accounted for the apparent change in magnitude scaling around M 6.5–7.0 that was indicated by several recent large worldwide earthquakes. We selected a trilinear rather than the more traditional quadratic functional form for magnitude scaling to allow more flexibility in modeling magnitude-scaling effects between small and large earthquakes. Parameters included in the model are moment magnitude, closest distance to rupture, buried reverse faulting, normal faulting, sediment depth (both shallow and basin effects), hanging-wall effects, average shear-wave velocity in the top 30 m, and nonlinear soil response as a function of shear-wave velocity and rock PGA. A comparison of our NGA model with a recent attenuation relationship for Europe indicates that our model and likely the other NGA models can be used in this region. The largest discrepancies appear to be due to the use of linear magnitude scaling and linear site factors in the European model. More detailed evaluations will be needed to confirm this preliminary conclusion.