Attenuation Relationships for Shallow Crustal

Earthquakes Based on California Strong

Motion Data
K. Sadigh
C.-Y. Chang
J.A. Egan
F. Makdisi
R.R. Youngs
Geomatrix Consultants

ABSTRACT
Attenuation relationships are presented for peak acceleration
and response spectral accelerations from shallow crustal
earthquakes. The relationships are based on strong motion
data primarily from California earthquakes. Relationships
are presented for strike-slip and reverse-faulting earthquakes,
rock and deep firm soil deposits, earthquakes of moment
magnitude M 4 to 8+, and distances up to 100 km.

INTRODUCTION
In this paper we summarize attenuation relationships we
have developed from the analysis of strong motion data
recorded primarily in California. These relationships have
evolved through several iterations as new data have been
gathered. The starting point is the set of attenuation relationships for peak acceleration and 5 percent damped spectral accelerations for rock and soil sites presented by Sadigh
etal. (1986). Subsequently, Sadigh etal. (1989, 1993) developed an updated version of the rock site attenuation relationships that included analyses of strong motion data from
the 1989 M 7 Loma Prieta, 1992 M 7 . 3 Landers, and M 6 . 4
Big Bear earthquakes. In this paper we present an updated
version of the soil site attenuation relationships that also
includes analysis of strong motion data from the 1994 M 6 . 7
Northridge earthquake, together with rock site attenuation
models.

STRONG MOTION DATA

The ground motion data on which the attenuation relationships are based consist primarily ofaccelerograms from California earthquakes of moment magnitude M 3.8 and greater
recorded at sites within 200 km of the rupture surface. Data

from the Gazli, USSR (1976) and Tabas, Iran (1978) earthquakes were also induded to provide more large magnitude
data. Table 1 lists the earthquakes that have been considered
in the development of these relationships. Figure 1 shows the
distributions of these events in terms of magnitude and
source to site distance. We characterize the earthquake size
by moment magnitude, M, as defined by Hanks and Kanamori (1979). Distance is defined as the minimum distance
to the rupture surface, rr~0. However, for many of the smaller
magnitude events, rupture surfaces have not been defined
and we use hypocentral distance. Because the dimensions of
rupture for small events are usually much smaller than the
distances to the recording stations, we do not believe that the
use of hypocentral distance introduces significant bias into
the attenuation models. We distinguish between strike-slip
and reverse-faulting earthquakes by the rake angle of rupture, with rake angles greater than 45 ~ considered reversefaulting events, and rake angles less than 45 ~ considered
strike-slip events. Examination of the peak motion data from
the small number of normal-faulting earthquakes in the data
set indicated that they were not significantly different from
peak motions from strike-slip earthquakes. Therefore, the
normal and strike-slip earthquakes were combined into a
single category. Peak horizontal acceleration (PGA) and
response spectral acceleration (SA) are represented by the
geometric mean of the two horizontal components.
Attenuation relationships are presented for two general
site categories, rock and deep soil. Rock sites are those with
bedrock within about a meter from the surface. Recent studies of the shear wave velocities at many strong motion stations that have been classified in the past as rock indicate that
the surface velocity often falls below the classical rock definition of >750 m/sec, and there is usually a strong velocity gradient because of near-surface weathering and fracturing.
Thus, the site conditions representative of the rock attenua-

180 Seismological Research Letters Volume68, Number 1 January/February1997

TABLE 1
List of Earthquakes Used to Develop Attenuation Relationships

Earthquake
Kern County,CA
Port Hueneme,CA
Daly City, CA
Parkfield, CA
Borrego Mtn., CA
Santa Rosa, CA (A)
Santa Rosa, CA (B)
Lytle Creek, CA
San Fernando,CA
Lake Isabella,CA
Bear Valley, CA
Point Mugu, CA
Hollister, CA
Oroville, CA
0roville, CA (R)
0roville, CA (S)
Oroville, CA (A)
Oroville, CA (B)
Oroville, CA (F)
0roville, CA (K)
Oroville, CA (N)
Oroville, CA (P)
Oroville, CA (T)
0roville, CA (U)
Gazli, USSR
Calipatria Swarm,CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Tabas, Iran
Coyote Lake, CA
Imperial Valley,CA
Imp.Val., CA (A02)
Imp.Val., CA (A03)
Imp.Val., CA (A05)
Imp.Val., CA (A07)
Imp.Val., CA (A10)
Imp.Val., CA (A13)
Imp.Val., CA (A15)
Imp.Val_, CA (A16)
Imp.Val_, CA (A21)
Imp.Val., CA (A22)
Imp.Val., CA (A25)
Imp.Val_, CA (A26)
Imp.Val., CA (A27)

Date

Fault Type I

1952/07/21
1957/03/18
1957/03/22
1966/06/27
1968/04/09
1969/10/02
1969/10/02
1970/09/12
1971/02/09
1971/03/08
1972/02/24
1973/02/21
1974/11/28
1975/08/01
1975/08/02
1975/08/02
1975/08/03
1975/08/03
1975/08/06
1975/08/08
1975/08/11
1975/08/t6
1975/09/26
1975/09/27
1976/05/17
1976/11/04
1978/08/13
1978/09/16
1979/08/06
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15
1979/10/15

7.4
4.7
5.3
6.1
6.6
5.6
5.7
5.3
6.6
4.1
4.7
5.6
5.2
5.9
5.1
5.2
4.6
4.1
4.7
4.9
4.3
4.0
4.0
4.6
6.8
4.9
6.0
7.4
5.7
6.5
3.8
5.2
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.6
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.1
4.0
4.1

RV
RV
RV
$S
SS
SS
SS
RV
RV
SS
SS
RV
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
RV
SS
RV
RV
SS
$S
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
RV
RV
SS
SS

Seismological Research Letters

Distance Range
(km)
120.5-224.0
14.1-14.1
9.5-9.5
0.1-230.0
113.0-261.0
80.0-113.0
78.9-112.0
19.7-76.0
2.8-305.0
8.9-8.9
2.5-2.5
25.0-25.0
39.0-39.0
9.5-35.8
12.7-14.6
12.4-15.0
8.4-14.9
7.7-15.0
10.9-16.1
6.5-13.3
2.5-11.6
9.5-12.3
10.8-19.9
8.6-22.4
3.0-3.0
13.6-26.4
18.5-21.0
17.0-t 72.0
3.1-63.3
0.5-158.0
11.6-32.2
12.2-27.1
9.7-19.5
14.4-24.9
10.6-21.6
9.6-10.2
11.9-24.6
5.2-5.2
10.4-21.2
23.6-27.6
14.8-33.8
12.1-13.9
13.2-13.2

Volume 68, Number 1

No. of Records 2
R

DS

0
0
1
1
5
1
1
5
11
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

3
1
0
6
3
2
2
2
14
0
0
1
0
2
2
2
6
6
7
5
4
5
5
5
0
2
1
0
7
33
6
15
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
9
2
1

January/February 1997

181

TABLE 1 (Continued)
List of Earthquakes Used to Develop Attenuation Relationships
Earthquake

182

Date

Fault TypeI

Distance Range
(km)

No. of Records2
R

DS

Imp.Val., CA (A29)

1979/10/15

5.1

SS

14.1-33.5

Imp .Val., CA (A30)

Imp .Val., CA (A31)

1979/10/15
1979/10/15

4.6
5.5

SS
SS

16.6-16.6
16.1-39.7

0
1

1
10

Imp.Val., CA (A32)
Imp.Val., CA (A34)

1979/10/16
1979/10/16

4.2
4.0

SS
RV

11.3-11.3
14.3-14.3

0
0

1
1

Imp .Val., CA (A35)

1979/10/16

4.8

SS

17.6-29.6

Imp .Val., CA (A36)

Imp.Val., CA (A38)

1979/10/16
1979/10/16

4.0
4.9

SS
SS

15.0-20.1
23.0-25.9

0
0

2
3

Imp.Val., CA (A43)

1979/10/17

4.1

SS

19.4-19.4

Imp.Val., CA (A44)
Imp .Val., CA (A51)

1979/10/17
1979/12/21

4.5
4.6

SS
SS

7.7-19.6
6.3-21.3

0
0

4
4

Livermore, CA
Livermore, CA

1980/01/24
1980/01/26

5.8
5.4

SS
SS

20.3-67.0
8.0-62.1

4
5

3
3

Horse Canyon, CA
Mammoth Lakes, CA (A)

1980/02/25
1980/05/25

5.3
6.2

SS
SS

5.8-60.0
15.5-42.4

3
3

9
1

Mammoth Lakes (B)

Mammoth Lakes (C)
Mammoth Lakes ( C 1 )

1980/05/25
1980/05/25
1980/05/25

5.7
6.0
5.7

SS
SS
SS

24.3-24.3
19.7-19.7
14.4-14.4

2
3
3

0
0
0

Mammoth Lakes (D006)

Mammoth Lakes (D009)

1980/05/27
1980/05/27

4.9
3.9

SS
SS

17.1-48.6
5.5-5.5

4
0

6
1

Mammoth Lakes (D010)

Mammoth Lakes (D011)
Mammoth Lakes (D012)

1980/05/27
1980/05/28
1980/05/28

3.9
3.8
3.8

SS
SS
SS

9.9-9.9
9.6-15.7
6.4-11.3

0
0
0

1
2
3

Mammoth Lakes (D014)

Mammoth Lakes (D018)
Mammoth Lakes (D021)

1980/05/28
1980/05/28
1980/05/29

4.8
4.2
4.0

SS
SS
SS

7.9-9.4
18.9-26.1
14.7-19.9

0
0
0

2
2
2

Mammoth Lakes (D026)

1980/05/29

4.0

SS

19.1-19.1

Mammoth Lakes (D038)

Mammoth Lakes (D040)
Mammoth Lakes (D042)

1980/05/30
1980/05/31
1980/05/31

3.8
4.6
4.1

SS
SS
SS

9.5-11.2
16.6-23.7
5.1-11.6

0
0
0

2
3
3

Mammoth Lakes (D050)

Mammoth Lakes (D051)
Mammoth Lakes (D055)
Mammoth Lakes (D065)
Mammoth Lakes (D067)

1980/05/31
1980/05/31
1980/05/31
1980/06/02
1980/06/02

4.9
3.9
3.9
4.1
3.9

SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

7.7-11.8
8.0-12.1
11.5-14.1
9.6-14.0
8.7-10.7

0
0
0
0
0

3
2
2
3
2

Mammoth Lakes (D089)

Mammoth Lakes (Dl12)
Mammoth Lakes (Dl13)

1980/06/05
1980/06/07
1980/06/08

4.3
3.9
3.9

SS
SS
SS

11.5-15.9
5.2-8.6
12.5-18.6

0
0
0

2
3
3

Mammoth Lakes (D115)

Mexicali Valley, M e x .
Westmorland, CA

1980/06/08
1980/06/09
1981/04/26

4.4
6.4
5.6

SS
SS
SS

25.7-25.7
5.7-33.3
10.1-69.8

0
1
1

1
5
22

Coalinga, CA
Coalinga, CA ( A 0 2 )

1983/05/02
1983/05/06

6.5
3.9

RV
SS

24.6-74.5
9.2-9.2

12
1

29
0

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 68, Number 1

January/February 1997

TABLE 1 (Continued)
List of Earthquakes Used to Develop Attenuation Relationships
No. of Records 2

Date

Fault TypeI

Distance Range
(km)

1983/05/08
1983/05/08
1983/05/12
1983/05/24
1983/06/10

5.1
4.5
4.4
4.6
5.3

RV
RV
RV
RV
RV

12.1-17.8
12.5-12.5
13.9--13.9
8.9-16.1
9.7-10.5

3
1
0
2
2

3
0
1
1
2

Coalinga, CA (A12)
Coalinga, CA (A13)
Coalinga, CA (A14)

1983/06/11
1983/07/09
1983/07/18
1983/07/21
1983/07/21
1983/07/25

4.0
5.2
4.2
5.9
4.9
5.2

RV
RV
RV
RV
RV
RV

19.9-19.9
10.4-17.0
13.7-13.7
9.5-15.3
10.2-13.7
10.0-14.7

1
4
0
4
4
4

0
2
1
2
2
2

Coalinga, CA (A16)
Coalinga, CA (A17)
Morgan Hill, CA

1983/09/09
1983/09/11
1984/04/24

5.3
4.5
6.2

SS
RV
SS

8.2-18.4
14.5-16.8
0.1-157.9

2
1
13

1
2
24

Bishop, CA
Hollister, CA
N. Palm Spr., CA

1984/11/23
1986/01/26
1986/07/08
1986/07/20
1986/07/21
1986/07/21

5.8
5.4
6.1
5.9
6.3
5.6

SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

13.3-43.1
16.9-38.1
7.3-154.0
11.0-27.0
8.5-40.6
13.0-20.0

1
3
15
3
4
1

4
7
20
4
4
3

1986/07/31
1986/11/30
1987/10/01

5.8
5.4
6.0

SS
SS
RV

12.0-21.0
5.6-13.4
17.2-112.0

0
1
18

3
2
29

1987/10/04
1987/11/23
1987/11/24
1987/11/27

5.3
6.3
6.7
4.2

SS
SS
SS
SS

19.9-56.9
12.5-126.9
0.1-135.0
19.5-19.5

5
1
4
1

6
26
41
0

Loma Prieta, CA

1987/12/01
1988/02/11
1989/10/17

4.6
5.0
7.0

SS
SS
SS

22.6-22.6
17.0-17.0
5.1-122.7

1
0
26

0
1
32

Upland, CA
Sierra Madre, CA
Landers, CA

1990/02/28
1991/06/28
1992/06/28

5.5
5.5
7.3

SS
RV
SS

11.2-13.0
12.6-76.9
1.1-175.6

0
8
20

2
20
65

Big Bear, CA
Northridge, CA

1992/06/28
1994/01/17

6.4
6.7

SS
RV

10.0-50.4
4.1-64.8

0
16

7
35

Earthquake
Coalinga, CA (A03)
Coalinga, CA (A04)
Coalinga, CA (A05)
Coalinga, CA (A07)
Coalinga, CA (A08)
Coalinga, CA (A09)
Coalinga, CA (A10)
Coalinga, CA (A11)

Chalf.Val., CA (FS)
Chalf.Val., CA
Chalf.Val., CA (A1)
Chalf.Val., CA (A2)
Cerro Prieto, Mex
Whitt.Nar., CA
Whitt.Nar., CA (A)
Sup.Hills, CA (A)
Sup.Hills, CA (B)
Sup.Hills, CA (B1)
Sup.Hills, CA (B2)
Whitt.Nar., CA (A2)

DS

1. RV = Rake > 45 ~ SS = Rake < 45~

2. R = Rock, DS = deep soil

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 68, Number 1

January/February 1997

183

, , l l

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

''1

Strike Slip
0

'

'"I

Reverse
9

OCa~) ~ 9 ~1~Imlm~Imm~

0 ' ,*.a|.,ei*(~DO0

0C]r

O@@O

9 ( ~

m%

o
O<3D4WRD O~) #(~mR~ QD

6
. o

oo

~BDDO~tO

tD

00

~[~00~5

4
~

9 Rock
Deep Soil

9~o~ o 9
o
o 9

9 Rock
Deep Soil

O|

II

IIIII
5

10

20

Distance

50

Iltl]

100

200300

(krn)

I IIll

10

20

I I I ''I

50

I O0

200300

D~stance

9 Figure 1. Distribution of strong motion data used in development of attenuation relationships.

tion models given here should be considered soft rock. The
deep soil data are from sites with greater than 20 m of soil
over bedrock. We have not induded data from very soft soil
sites, such as those on San Francisco bay mud. Thus, the relationships are considered appropriate for deep, firm soil
deposits. The data used in the analyses are from free-field
recordings, that is from instruments housed in instrument
shelters located near the ground surface and from the ground
floor of small, light structures.

ATTENUATION MODEL DEVELOPMENT

Historically there are typically more data for peak acceleration than for response spectral acceleration, and the set of
digitized and processed accelerograms tends to be the larger
amplitude recordings from any individual earthquake.
Therefore, the process that we have used to develop the
attenuation rdationships consists of two stages. First, attenuation relationships are devdoped for PGA by regression
analyses using the general form
In(PGA) = C 1 + C2M

+ C3 ln(rrup + C4eCsM)+ c6z T

(1)

where Z r is an indicator variable taking the value 1 for

reverse events and 0 for strike slip events. We have found the
need to develop different coefficients for events larger and
smaller than M - - 61/2 to account for near-field saturation
effects.

184

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 68, Number 1

In the second stage of the analysis, relationships for

spectral amplification (SA/PGA) are fit to the response spectral ordinate data normalized by the PGA of the recordings.
The form that we have found to work well is:
In(SA/PGA) = C 7 + C8(8. 5 -

M)25+C91n(r~,p+C4eC5M). (2)

In addition, Sadigh etal. (1993) added a term to account for

near-field high-frequency motion (coefficient C 7 in Table 2).
The final attenuation models for SA are obtained by
combining (1) and (2). The resulting parameters were then
smoothed to produce attenuation relationships that predict
smooth response spectra over the full range of magnitudes
( M 4 to 8+) and distances (r~up 0 to 100 km).
Once the median relationships were defined, the database was used to compute standard errors for PGA and SA at
individual periods. The standard errors were found to be
dependent on magnitude (Youngs eta/., 1995) and were represented by linear relationships between magnitude and
standard error. The relationships for individual periods were
smoothed to produce smooth estimates of 84th percentile
response spectra.
The attenuation models that we have developed are
listed in Tables 2 through 4 for rock and deep soil site conditions, respectively. Figures 2 and 3 show comparisons of the
median attenuation relationships and recorded PGA data for
strike slip and reverse earthquakes, respectively. Figure 4
shows the predicted median spectral shapes for rock and
deep soil site motions.

January/February 1997

TABLE 2
Attenuation Relationships of Horizontal Response Spectral Accelerations (5% Damping) for Rock Sites
In(y)= C 1+ C2M+ C3(8.5M)2"5 + C 4 ln(r,.,? + exp(C 5 + C6M))+ C 7 ln(r~uv+ 2)
Period(s)

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

-2.1 O0
-2.128
-2.148
-2.080
-2.028
-1.990
-1.945
-1.865
-1.800
-1.725
-1.670
-1.610
-1.570

1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649
1.29649

0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250

0.0
-0.082
-0.041
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

For M < 6.5

PGA
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00

-0.624
0.110
0.275
0.153
-0.057
-0.298
-0.588
-1.208
-1.705
-2.407
-2.945
-3.700
--4.230

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.000
0.006
0.006
-0.004
-0.017
-0.028
-0.040
-0.050
-0.055
-0.065
-0.070
-0.080
-0.1 O0

For M > 6.5

PGA
-1.274
1.1
0.000
-2.1 O0
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
0.07
-0.540
1.1
0.006
-2.128
-0.48451
0.524
-0.082
0.10
-0.375
1.1
0.006
-2.148
-0.48451
0.524
-0.041
0.20
-0.497
1.1
--0.004
-2.080
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
0.30
-0.707
1.1
-0.017
-2.028
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
0.40
-0.948
1.1
-0.028
-1.990
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
0.50
-1.238
1.1
-0.040
-1.945
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
0.75
-1.858
1.1
-0.050
-1.865
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
1.00
-2.355
1.1
-0.055
-1.800
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
1.50
-3.057
1.1
-0.065
-1.725
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
2.00
-3.595
1.1
-0.070
-1.670
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
3.00
-4.350
1.1
-0.080
-1.610
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
4.00
-4.880
1.1
-0.100
-1.570
-0.48451
0.524
0.0
Note: Relationshipsfor reverse/thrust faulting are obtained by multiplying the above strike-slip amplitudes by 1.2.

Seismological Research Letters Volume68, Number 1 January/February1997 185

DISCUSSION

TABLE 3
Dispersion Relationships for Horizontal Rock Motion

The attenuation relationships listed in Tables 2 through 4 are

considered applicable for estimating free field ground
motions from shallow crustal earthquakes in the magnitude
range of M 4 to 8+. Shallow crustal earthquakes are those
that occur on faults within the upper 20 to 25 km of continental crust. The relationships were developed for reverse
and strike-slip faulting earthquakes. We did not find a significant difference between peak motions from strike-slip earthquakes and the limited number of data from normal faulting
earthquakes and combined these two types of earthquakes
. . . . . a slng, c ca~egor?. The data used to develop the relationships are primarily from California and occur in both compressional and extensional stress regimes. Campbell (1987)
found no significant difference between the peak motions for
events occurring in compressional and extensional stress
regimes.
The attenuation relationships show an expected trend
for soil versus rock motions, i . e . , soil amplitudes are larger
than rock where the rock motions are low because of site
amplification in the lower velocity soil layers. Where the rock

Period

Sigma [In(y)]

PGA

1.39 - 0.14M; 0.38 for Me_ 7.21

0.07

1.40 - 0.14M; 0.39 for Me_ 7.21

0.10

1.41 - 0.14M; 0.40 for M>__7.21

0.20

1.43 - 0.14M; 0.42 for Mz_ 7.21

0.30

1.45 - 0.14M; 0.44 for Mz 7.21

0.40

1.48 - 0.14M; 0.47 for Me_ 7.21

0.50

1.50 - 0.14M; 0.49 for/V/z_ 7.21

0.75

1.52 - 0.14M; 0.51 for Me_ 7.21

1.00

1.53 - 0.14M; 0.52 for Me_ 7.21

>1.00

1.53 - 0.14M; 0.52 for/V/z_ 7.21

motions are high, the soil motions become lower than rock
motions presumably because of nonlinear site response
effects. The rock motion spectral shapes change with distance. However, no significant effect of distance was
observed in the soil spectral shapes within 50 km of the

TABLE 4
Attenuation Relationship Coefficients for Deep Soil Sites

where

y is spectral accleration in g
C 1 = -2.17 for strike-slip, -1.92 for reverse and thrust earthquakes

c2= 1.0
C3 = 1.70
C4 = 2.1863, C 5 = 0.32 f o r M < 6.5
C4 = 0.3825, C 5 = 0.5882 f o r M > 6.5
rr,e = closest distance to rupture surface
Period (sec)

C6 Strike-Slip

C5 Reverse

C7

PGA

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.52 - 0.16M

0.075

0.4572

0.4572

0.005

1.54-0.16M

0.1

0.6395

0.6395

0.005

1.54- 0.16M

0.2

0.9187

0.9187

-0.004

1.565- 0.16M

0.3

0.9547

0.9547

-0.014

1.58- 0.16M

0.4

0.9251

0.9005

-0.024

1.595 - 0.16M

0.5

0.8494

0.8285

-0.033

1.61 - 0.16M

0.75

0.7010

0.6802

-0.051

1.635 - 0.16M

1.0

0.5665

0.5075

-0.065

1.66 - 0.16M

1.5

0.3235

0.2215

-0.090

1.69 - 0.16M

2.0

0.1001

-0.0526

-0.108

1.70-0.16M

3.0

-0.2801

-0.4905

-0.139

1.71 - 0.16M

4.0

-0.6274

-0.8907

-0.160

1.71 - 0.16M

1. Standard error for magnitudes greaterthan M 7 set equal to the value for M 7

186

Standard Error 1

Seismological Research Letters

Volume 68, Number 1

January/February 1997

l::tl

-...

IU

-.,J

00

......

-.,J

to
to

-<......

IU

en

"
....c::C"

'?

10 20

Distance (km)

300 1
2

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

5011

300 1

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

Deep soli

Rock

Rock

5011

o Deep
50 100

R\>ck

o Deep soil

Stril<e Slip
tv! 4.8-5,2

o Deep

Strike Slip
M 6.8-7.2

Strike Slip
tv! 6.3-6.5

<0

Strike Slip
tv! 5.8-6.2
Rock

M 4.3-4.5

Strike Slip

00
~

300 1

Rock

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

o Deep soil

Strike Slip
M 7.3-7.5

5tril<e Slip
M 5.3-5,5

300

Figure 2. Comparison of PGA data forstrike-slip (rake < 45) earthquakes with median attenuation relationships listed in Tables 2through 4, Solid line isthe rock motion relationship from Table 2 and dashed line is the deep soil relationship from Table 4.

.001

.002

c::

::l

IU

......

en
....

c....

.02

.05

.1

.01
.005

t3
Q,

'-"

.2

,5

.001

.002

,005

.01

.02

.05

,1

C"

c::

00.

a>

en

g
....

i3
zr
r

IU

fI)

en
en

:0

(')'
~

<C

o
'0

(ii'

en

CJ)

t3
o,

'-"

l::tl

-...

.2

.5

'-l

co
co

......

'<

...,
c:
~
...,

CD
0-

~
"T1

c:

;:,

c...

......

0CD

3
...,

c:

2:

OJ

(j)

CD

2.
c:
3

<

en

CD

...,

::+

CD

.001

.002

.005

.01

.02

.05

.1

.2

.5

.001

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

300 1

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

Rock
o Deep soil

Rock
Deep soli

M 6.3-6.5

Reverse

M 4.3-4.5

Reverse

M 5.8-6.2

Reverse

.002

Rock
Deep soil

M 3.8-4.2

Reverse

.005

.01

.02

.05

.1

.2

.5

300 1

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

Rock
o Deep soil

M 6.8-7.2

Reverse

Rock
o Deep soil

M 4.8-5.2

300 1

10 20

50 100

Distance (km)

Rock
Deep soil

M 7.3-7.5

M 5.3-5.5

Reverse

t>

300

... Figure 3. Comparison of PGA data for reverse (rake> 45) earthquakes with median attenuation relationships listed inTables 2through 4,Solid line isthe rock motion relationship
from Table 2 and dashed line is the deep soil relationship from Table 4.

Q,

--2

D')

CD

...,

.........

2]

Q,

n
::::r

.........

D')
'--"'

CD

en

::0

0'

<C

3
0
0"

en
CD
en'

OJ
OJ

Rock, strike slip and reverse

5

9
~r

'

~r

Deep soil, strike slip

~ ' J~'bI

'~'~l

'

Deep soil, reverse

'

.Ix N

.5

.2
.1

.05

M 6.5, 10 krn

I I II1111

M 7.5,
,

, ,,,,,I

10 k m

, ~!t

5
2
1
.5

.2
.1

M 7 . 5 , 50 km

Id 6.5, 50 km
. . . . . . . .

.05

.02

.05 .I

.2

.5

Period (sec)

5 .02

.05

.I

.2

.5

.02

, ,,,~tl

A--~I IIIIII

.05 .I

.2

Period (sec)

.5

Period (see)

9 Figure 4. Comparison of spectral shapes (SA/PGA) obtained using the median attenuation relationships listed in Tables 2 through 4.

rupture. Sadigh et al. (1993) indicate that within 10 km of

the rupture surface there are systematic differences between
the fault-normal and fault-paraUel components of longperiod ground motion. Specifically, they recommend that
the fault-normal component be increased by 20 percent over
the geometric average values for spectral periods of 2.0 seconds and greater and the fault-parallel component would be
expected to be 20 percent lower than the geometric average

value, l::l

REFERENCES
Campbell, K.W. (1987). Predicting strong ground motion in Utah, in
Assessment of Regional Earthquake Hazards and Risk Along the
Wasatch Front, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
87-585, II, L-1-120.
Hanks, T.C., and H. Kanamori (1979). A moment magnitude scale,J.
Geophys. Res., 84, 2,348-2,350.
Sadigh, K., C.-Y. Chang, N.A. Abrahamson, SJ. Chiou and M.S.
Power (1993). Specification of long-period ground motions:
updated attenuation relationships for rock site conditions and

adjustment factors for near-fault effects, in Proc. ATC-17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active
Control, March 11-12, San Francisco, California, 59-70.
Sadigh, K., C.-Y. Chang, F. Makdisi and J.A. Egan, (1989). Attenuation relationships for horizontal peak ground acceleration and
response spectral acceleration for rock sites (abs.), Seism. Res. Left.,
60, 19.
Sadigh, K., J.A. Egan, and R.R. Youngs (1986). Specification of
ground motion for seismic design of long period structures (abs.),
Earthquake Notes, 57, n. 1, 13. Relationships printed in W.B.
Joyner and D.M. Boore (1988), Measurement, characterization,
and prediction of strong ground motion, in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II--Recent Advances in Ground Motion
Evaluation, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 20, 43-102.
Youngs, R.R., Na~. Abrahamson, F. Makdisi, and K. Sadigh (1995).
Magnitude dependent dispersion in peak ground acceleration,
Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 85, 1,161-1,176.

Seismological Research Letters

Geomatrix Consultants
100 Pine St., l Oth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Volume 68, Number 1

January/February 1997

189