You are on page 1of 11

Vol.10, No.

3

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION

September, 2011

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2011) 10: 313-323

DOI: 10.1007/s11803-011-0068-y

A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake
Peng Lei1†, Xie Lili1.2‡, Hu Jinjun1§ and Wang Dong1*
1. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China 2. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China

Abstract:

The hanging wall effect is an important factor that impacts the characteristics of strong ground motions in near-fault areas. Based on a residual analysis of ground motion parameters characterizing the hanging wall effect and in recognition of the nature of the effect, many models have been developed. In this study, after a comprehensive analysis of two existing models, a new model is proposed and used to model the hanging wall effect in horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGAH) and spectral acceleration (SAH) at a period of 0.1 s in the Wenchuan earthquake. Finally, comparisons between the modeling results of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake and the results predicted by using Abrahamson and Silva’s NGA model (AS NGA) indicate that the AS NGA model predicts a much higher hanging wall effect than the model developed in this paper. Furthermore, the AS NGA model predicts a large hanging wall effect even at great distances, while the proposed model more accurately captures the trend of the effect.

Keywords: hanging wall effect; Wenchuan earthquake; attenuation relationship; NGA model

1 Introduction
The near-fault effect has been a topic of great interest in recent years to researchers who study ground motion characteristics. Due to the gradually extensive deployment of strong-motion instruments and the rapid development of technologies, increasingly high quality near-fault recordings data sets have been obtained, especially after recent major earthquakes, and an in-depth insight into the near-fault effect has become possible. The hanging wall effect is an important component of near-fault effects. Studies on attenuation relationship have identified this effect in the past (Campbell, 1993; Abrahamson and Somerville, 1996; Abrahamson and Silva, 1997). Because of closer proximity of sites on the hanging wall to faults as a whole than for sites at the same distance on the footwall (Somerville and Graves, 2003; Wang et al., 2008), the hanging wall effect is simply a geometric phenomenon causing ground motions to be larger at sites on the hanging wall than on the footwall. By the classical means of analyzing residuals, studies have been conducted to incorporate the hanging wall
Correspondence to: Peng Lei, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Bureau, Harbin 150080, China E-mail: peng084@163.com † Graduate Student; ‡Professor; §Associate professor; *Doctor Supported by: The National Basic Research Program of China or 973 Program, Under Grant No. 2007CB714200 and National Natural Science Foundation of China Under Grant No. 50808166. Received December 15, 2010; Accepted April 31, 2011

effect into the attenuation relationships, including both the general attenuation relationships such as the first phase of NGA (next generation attenuation of ground motion) models and the single earthquake- specific attenuation relationships such as those in the analysis of Abrahamson and Somerville (1996) and Shabestari et al. (2003). The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake was the most devastating disaster to occur in the past few decades in China, causing huge economic losses and a heavy death toll. Meanwhile, it provided the most strong motion data since the beginning of strong ground motion observation in China. Based on the data set from this earthquake, this study attempts to better quantify the hanging wall effect exhibited in this earthquake. For the first step, residuals on both hanging wall sites and footwall sites were obtained by regression of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship and an obvious hanging wall effect was identified by the bias of the residual distribution. Then, a new model is developed based on modification of two models previously proposed to analyze the hanging wall effect in other earthquakes. Finally, a comparison of results predicted by both the present model and the Abrahamson and Silva’s NGA model are presented and some discussions are provided.

2 Near-fault strong ground motion data set
In this study, the near-fault distance is defined as the closest distance to the fault plane from a given

the normally used closest distance is used to make the hanging wall effect emerge. N Surface projection of fault Fault surface trace Sichuan Province Rock Soil Fig. However. Recordings off the ends of the ruptured fault are excluded from our data set. (1) are obtained and are listed in Table 2 for PGAH. by comparing the resulting hanging wall residuals against those of the footwall. ε is the regression error.1 Residual distribution of PGAH Figure 4 shows residuals of the average PGAH. and it is commonly accepted that hanging wall sites experience more intense ground motion than footwall sites at the same distance to fault. PGAN. a simple form of attenuation relationship is derived from regression analysis performed on the recorded data with fault distances of less than 100 km from this earthquake. PGAN. 1 Distribution of stations used in this study with sites classification of rock (upend triangle) and soil (solid circle) and vertical projection of the fault solution by USGS. SAN. it was found that residuals of the hanging wall are mostly positive while residuals of footwall are more likely to be negative when the hanging wall effect exists. note that the residuals at the side of the hanging wall are mostly positive and the residuals at the side of the footwall are mostly negative. Accordingly. thus the one used in Abrahamson and Somerville (1996) is quoted. Furthermore. epicenter and the position of the stations used in this study with respect to the fault projection as well as their site conditions. Then. etc. SAN or SAP. The hanging wall effect is simply a geometrically related effect revealed by both empirical and numerical examinations.314 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. the PGA residuals between the recordings on the hanging wall and the footwall and the mean attenuation relationship of all sites were examined. a general idea of the site conditions for each site can only be derived by the modest information given in the recording data files. the specific attenuation relationship for the Wenchuan earthquake considering the effects of site. 2008). Corresponding attenuation relationships are shown in Fig. by which weighted averages are applied to sites located on a hanging wall and a footwall (Wang et al. (Shadowed areas are excluded from the study) . 3 Specific attenuation relationships for the Wenchuan earthquake 4 Modeling of hanging wall effect exhibited in PGA The hanging wall effect represents a systematic difference between the ground motions at hanging wall sites and footwall sites. 4. The positive trend of hanging wall residuals means that the hanging wall ground motions are more likely to be greater than predicted by the mean attenuation relationship. geometric spreading and near-source saturation is given as y = b1 + b2 S + (b3 + b4 S ) ln(r + c) +  (1) where y is the natural logarithm of PGAH.. site conditions are classified as simply soil or rock. rupture distance. Since detailed site conditions were not accessible at the time of this article. and also the epicenter marked by a star shown with respect to the fault. PGA. S is a parameter introduced to model the site conditions using 0 for rock sites and 1 for soil sites. 2008). SA. r denotes the distance in km used to represent the geometric spreading effect. Recordings within a near-fault distance of 100 km were used in this study. PGAN and PGAP (peak ground acceleration for geometric mean horizontal components. PGAP and Table 3 for spectral accelerations SAH. 3. and fault parallel (FP) components). PGAP. The recording stations are listed in Table 1 as well as site conditions. This is consistent In this section.10 site. and c is the near-source saturation term and assumed to be a constant as we focus on a single earthquake. The PGAH. the closest distance from each site to the ruptured fault was calculated using the USGS fault plane solution (Chen and Gravin. since the primary objective of this paper is to examine and model the hanging wall effect exhibited in the Wenchuan earthquake. Therefore. all the coefficients in Eq. fault normal (FN) components. SAP. Figure 1 shows the fault vertical projection on the ground surface. SAN. SAP for 5% damping are derived by the same attenuation relationship. Note that even though many attenuation relationships are available. By a nonlinear least square regression analysis. Such an effect can also be eliminated by defining a so called root-mean-square distance. while the negative trend of footwall residuals means that the footwall ground motions are more likely to be smaller relative to the values predicted by the mean attenuation relationship (Abrahamson & Somerville. 1996). 2 and Fig. SAH. Then. and corresponding acceleration response spectra SAH. only the simplest ones are needed for this study.

611 31.39 137.68 31.14 559.78 31.Table 1 Stations and related parameters used in this study SAH(cm/s2) 0.5 859.74 18.835 13.84 051CXQ 105.18 198.4 159.63 103.81 111.68 153.762 222 208.38 956.344 165.55 150.884 96.58 696.54 125.523 589.77 196.93 95.42 247.211 80.517 97.27 116.16 99.85 327.13 290.99 051DYB 104.99 1038.868 66.194 13.927 461.09 11.29 560.8 55.48 735.68 596.89 299.1 2109.753 48.3 051SFB 103.14 15.92 S 97.5s 0.39 334.864 79.37 269.58 47.54 102.36 740.06 492.91 051MXT 103.26 051MXD 103.579 122.14 231.5 283.86 168.35 765.94 42.5s 0.6 162.33 746.13 155.95 491.36 77.81 368.05 369.122 85.9 31.38 1559 920.9 534.67 274.6s Station code Lat (ºN) Long (ºE) Rrup (km) Soil type PGAH (cm/s2) Hanging wall stations 062WUD 104.97 168.55 675.1s 2.14 217.09 320.51 368.25 422.67 102.99 062WIX 104.64 500.56 88.51 141.842 55.21 051PWM 104.717 32.51 32.816 201.31 42.225 526.76 126.6s 2.64 051HSD 102.92 191.57 191.30 89.22 1078.7 734.38 55.743 107.27 16.11 732.19 303.42 66.46 601.91 30.638 156.37 29.674 429.46 67.2 124.501 56.42 285.86 255.25 81.34 051LXS 102.96 211.26 112.8 118.69 760.68 051LXT 103.527 46.41 236.55 60.56 188.3 42.52 051XJL 103.08 344.64 435.6 98.73 898.18 293.06 29.502 212.41 159.926 98.96 291.05 9.32 524.64 213.72 435.69 297.216 637.52 349.27 1155.2 102.332 400.13 791.94 142.65 483.183 100.35 270.96 698.26 328.45 051LXM 103.51 354.58 233.81 474.88 171.14 193.6 218.76 051CDZ 104.55 49.44 161.93 051JYC 104.5 33.21 112.03 81.525 460.38 31.06 32.24 140 663.99 525.73 126.09 051WCW 103.93 128.39 476.373 375.68 24.12 1542.86 24.76 306.61 746.32 051JZW 104.08 139.33 84.537 23.31 50.32 1642.00 47.03 596.82 153.2 72.62 473.6 196.39 150.45 245.362 25.88 428.31 240.8 99.38 41.89 577.6 796.2 384.83 1157.16 30.42 952.39 111.26 325.9 638.8 1386.99 051JYH 104.74 48.69 386.63 57.46 281.402 65.16 478.41 81.89 33.72 588.605 71.5 719.9 407.85 171.25 201.79 169.93 69.621 117.401 107.051 23.3 360.78 31.23 244.41 259.93 276.48 051JZG 104.28 144.75 462.23 1801.22 604.439 20.187 67.8 1261.426 21.42 1159.15 242.56 98.55 512.17 430.59 1083.52 179.88 334.29 30.17 301.63 051JYD 104.6 109.66 169.53 67.714 32.42 30.76 447 976.436 137.34 88.29 94.24 166.75 451.374 19.38 269.26 103.96 42.89 483.78 228.85 051MXN 103.66 737.77 .45 402.07 120.22 203.33 58.17 662.4 180.376 155.33 166.46 130.53 147.46 051PXZ 103.845 22.33 59.3 171.449 212.771 77.68 47.0s 0.89 67.14 S S S No.46 82.87 342.94 363.538 157.91 94.91 171.59 11.81 90.76 110.33 659.76 359.73 433.04 87.55 129.4 234.69 957.1s 2.1 123.45 107.98 171.981 315.88 206.94 303.63 46.87 271.61 340.5 1322.48 1177.55 554.35 32.375 112.26 992.23 83.83 119.65 849.06 81.81 84.78 252.49 214.504 242.61 184.54 31.28 31.1 294.42 111.44 788.14 442.31 157.52 102.97 648.28 13.135 15.53 051PJW 051QLY 051PJD 103.09 622.4 882.08 305.38 381.51 122.96 18.50 36.25 175.077 135.77 68.32 229.37 0.86 457.5 247.6 704.87 411.124 32.55 30.39 130.81 25.5 957.8 32.22 218.3 342.45 453.506 122.62 32.914 193.99 602.61 328.74 181.996 103.2 435.18 74.74 42.58 31.41 41.39 64.18 85.155 109.1 157.51 652.53 128.42 87.1 144.6 051SPA 103.25 74.93 29.81 107.63 269.76 1074.413 351.7 986.91 999.04 449.91 646.166 20.044 84.57 1138.29 225.31 466.439 523.93 23.73 051MZQ 104.44 102.46 598.9 294.709 96.80 S R S S S R S S S S S S S R S S S 162.7 303.36 48.51 303.12 75.22 234.68 469.85 326.48 167.689 303.62 95.92 46.3 220.861 137.11 175.47 880.64 331.61 328.52 31.5 101.31 87.03 151.83 236.05 43.58 310.46 32.40 22.88 120.83 46.22 271.38 217.97 128.359 650.93 258.18 164.15 598.11 210.28 105.58 171.5s 0.66 181.821 127.792 28.53 67.47 914.99 144.12 33.48 215.08 133.0s 0.3 Peng Lei et al.72 16.55 225.98 179.72 103.263 281 97.479 39.04 72.74 051AXT 104.01 276.025 147.98 175.809 61.18 325.62 777.57 169 106.61 691.89 120.31 363.55 190.4 282.529 76.26 880.0s PGAN (cm/s2) PGAP (cm/s2) SAN(cm/s2) 0.41 30.1 850.42 97.14 331.481 91.76 302.49 210.63 303.58 548.66 1.342 87.56 S S S S S S S S R R S R 309.87 304.086 66.06 88.18 353.41 64.04 187.47 85.03 32.97 334.95 33.459 14.62 247.93 810.091 116.57 31.55 68.07 32.57 295.18 28.5 334.78 117.11 235.45 620.53 31.69 39.69 67.31 141.79 177.73 211.1 265.392 55.02 823.49 87.15 31.65 209.18 69.88 771.6 327.06 85.56 31.45 753.54 227.59 390.29 30.488 98.21 245.214 29.14 204.06 154.07 97.8 289.68 22.04 31.64 113.91 52.658 80.09 051DXY 103.98 051HSL 103.53 30.4 1479.89 674.69 377.189 190.26 840.05 667.79 852.11 13.77 68.64 32.97 302.59 24.1 81.3 1014.35 200.47 40.00 119.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 315 051HYT 103.77 404.341 85.59 30.97 303.5 1877.6s SAP(cm/s2) 0.6 1670.1s 316.61 836.74 31.54 13.19 210.52 051SPT 103.73 Foot wall stations 051GYS 105.53 92.

76789 -0.40300 1.084031 b3 -0.1 0.5 0.04810 0.0680 4.0570 5. of different components (cm/s2) 103 102 PGA H Recorded PGAH PGAN Recorded PGAN PGAP Recorded PGAP 101 0 10 101 Rupture distance (km) 102 Fig.1994 8.8802 8.81422 -0.027129 b4 0.84117 -0.63510 0.43±0.6 2.49123 2.81954 0.9988 8.5 0.7459 8.63394 0.46188 0.1408. the footwall residuals are placed at a negative rupture distance for purposes of comparison with hanging wall residuals.34520 5.31222 0.28483 0.80906 -0. 1996) and in the Chi-Chi earthquake.18844 -0.49233 0. the hanging wall effect is larger for reverse and thrust earthquakes than for strike-slip earthquakes (Somerville and Graves. at a distance range of 3 km to 30 km.044951 1.36784 -0. the hanging wall bias is 0.948000 -0.15 (Abrahamson and Somerville.67757 SAN SAP Peak acc.61145 0.10 Table 3 Values of coefficients of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for different components of SA at several periods Component SAH Period (s) 0.25216 0.32000 0.82994 3. the hanging wall effect immediately becomes increasingly obvious and then gradually weakens after a peak at around 20º dipping until it completely disappeared at 90º dipping.11166 c 1. In Fig.0401 0.0 b1 8.29±0.94880 -0. 2003).01370 3.79881 -0.3232 b2 -0. 2003).63746 0.39635 0.316 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Table 2 Values of coefficients of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for different components of PGA Component PGAH PGAN PGAP b1 7. Note that in the 5 km to 40 km distance range.2715 8.0309 -0. it was found that in the Northridge earthquake.7413 b2 -0.06640 -0.2772 8.77373 -0.2206 1.58915 0.63148 0.6 2.45529 0.8552 -1. the mean bias of the hanging wall sites at a distance range of 8 km to 30 km is 0.66642 0.2533 8.45361 0..1 0. 2010) suggested that as the dip of the fault increases from 0º to 90°.56710 -0.51033 ε 0.43436 0. and the residuals have a mean bias of 0. PGAN and PGAP at soil site with observations in previous analysis of the hanging wall effect on near-fault ground motions.60202 0. However. the hanging wall has the most significant effect.63420 0.10670 b3 -0.13010 2.0802 3.006 (Shabestari and Yamazaki. the scarcity of data in the short rupture distance area and especially the lack of available data renders the analysis of the Wenchuan-specific hanging wall effect inconclusive with regard to exactly how intensively the hanging wall effect impacts the near fault ground motions.40592 0.6 2.35547 -0.33450 0.66290 -1.4587 9.1 0.29392 0.39189 0.92116 -0.5339 9.46955 -1.13710 0.12463 -0. 2 Comparison of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for PGAH.058 and the footwall bias is 0.97330 1.45574 Vol. 2008 and Wang.061037 -0.8543 2. even though it can be inferred from the current results that an obvious hanging wall effect did exist in this devastating earthquake. From an overview of the previous studies of hanging wall effect.76037 0. 4.5 0.68251 b4 0. Such a large variety among the results from different earthquakes may be a result of scarce nearfault data and mechanism of faults.03±0.05420 3. .91246 1.22258 1.16787 -1.0 0.29963 0.6887 7.0 0.20190 -0. Furthermore.07990 -1.3147±0. The synthetic results (Wang et al.4655 ε 0.60003 c 0.

and both have four boundary distances x1. of differrent components (cm/s2) T=0.0 Soil site Rock site -1. 3 Comparison of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for SAH. to some extent deviates from the accurate modeling of the hanging wall effect in one earthquake. of differrent components (cm/s2) 104 T=0. Of course.0 PGAH residual 0.6 s Spectral acc.3 Peng Lei et al. SAN and SAP at soil site 1.e. 4 Residuals of PGAH at recording sites during Wenchuan earthquake with those at hanging wall placed at positive rupture distance and those at footwall placed at negative rupture distance 4. error originated from variability from one earthquake to another) was introduced (Abrahamson and Youngs. of differrent components (cm/s2) 104 T=0. x3 in the AS1996 model is changed into a function of Pr d (r ) Hanging wall − Pr d (r ) All .2 Empirical model of the hanging wall effect for PGAH As noted above. the final results may be rounded. if the least square method was used to regress them. x3. Abrahamson and Somerville (1996) (AS1996) and Shabestari and Yamazaki (2003) (KS2003) both proposed models in terms of piecewise function as shown below in Eqs. Then.5 0 -0. The KS2003 model differs from the AS1996 only in that the constant value which was used to describe the lasting part of the most obvious hanging wall effect between distances of x2. 1992). 4.5 s 103 103 102 SAH Recorded SAH SAN Recorded SAN SAP Recorded SAP 102 101 100 104 101 Rupture distance (km) 102 101 100 104 SAH Recorded SAH SAN Recorded SAN SAP Recorded SAP 101 Rupture distance (km) 102 Spectral acc. (2) and (3) that were used for the Northridge and ChiChi earthquakes. data from the Northridge earthquake was used alone to regress the coefficient c of the model after boundary distances have been fixed.1 s Spectral acc. the hanging wall effect exhibits a trend.No. x2.5 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) Footwall Hanging wall Fig. In addition. This function is designed to move the general mean attenuation value based on data from all the sites away from the mean attenuation value based on the data from . respectively. it was found that the process of obtaining the four boundary distances is quite intricate and it was difficult to determine how the authors could obtain the four boundary distances all being an exact integer. Thus. but such a process would also introduce subjectivity..: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 317 Spectral acc. Thus. an inter-event error (i.5 1. with residuals of hanging wall sites having more extensive ground motion as shown in the residuals of the PGAH in Fig. It is possible and necessary to model the trend specifically for the earthquake of concern to thoroughly analyze its hanging wall effect. of differrent components (cm/s2) T=2. These two models have a similar form.5 -1. x4 to be determined.0 s 103 103 102 101 100 SAH Recorded SAH SAN Recorded SAN SAP Recorded SAP 102 101 Rupture distance (km) 102 101 100 SAH Recorded SAH SAN Recorded SAN SAP Recorded SAP 101 Rupture distance (km) 102 Fig. The model. the AS1996 model requires supplementation of data from other earthquakes due to limited data from Northridge earthquake. therefore.

Based on the analysis results. such as the distance limit x4 in AS1996 and KS2003. one on the recorded data over the region of x1 to x2 and one on the recorded data over the entire region.5 1. 6 for the Chi-Chi earthquake data fitted by the proposed model and by KS2003. the model is revised as: R = R1 = c1r 2 + c2 r + c3 R = R2 = exp(c4 r + c5 ) for x1 ≤ r ≤ x2 for r ≥ x2 (4) 1.318 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.3 Comparison of the proposed model with the AS1996 and KS2003 models Figure 5 shows a comparison of PGAH residuals obtained by using the Northridge earthquake data fitted by the proposed model and by the AS1996. thus. 4. x3 to obtain Pr d (r ) Hanging wall − Pr d (r ) All . this type of departure was not obvious and discernable. even though the KS2003 model involves no inter-event error terms. the authors used only the Chi-Chi data. Thus. resulting in a bias to be generated. six conditions can be established. sites directly over the ground surface trace of the fault rupture or the vertical projection of the upper edge of a buried fault should be the division between -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rupture distance (km) 30 40 Fig. and also the dominant influence of intra-event errors compared to inter-event errors. and (2) two suite regression analyses using iterations of the boundary distance x2 to achieve a least total summation of the squared residuals. the KS2003 model used the mean attenuation value only in the range of x2.5 0 -0. c2. A similar comparison is shown in Fig. 0 ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ c ⎡cos( π(r − x1 ) + π) + 1⎤ ⎥ ⎪2⎢ x2 − x1 ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ (r ) = ⎨ c HW ⎪c ⎪ ⎡cos( π(r − x3 ) ) + 1⎤ ⎥ ⎪2⎢ x4 − x3 ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ 0 ⎩ AS1996 model π(r − x1 ) ⎧ c1 ⎡ ⎤ ⎪ 2 ⎢cos( x − x + π) + 1⎥ ⎦ 2 1 ⎪ ⎣ ⎪ = ⎨Pr d(r )Hanging wall − Pr d(r )All ⎪c ⎪ 2 ⎡cos( π(r − x3 ) + 1) ⎤ ⎥ ⎪2⎢ x4 − x3 ⎦ ⎩ ⎣ KS2003 model for 0 ≤ r ≤ x1 for x1 < r < x2 for x2 ≤ r ≤ x3 for x3 < r < x4 for r ≥ x4 (2) the hanging wall and the footwall (Abrahamson and Somerville. and Pr d ( x3 ) Hanging wall − Pr d ( x3 ) All . However. c3. and disappear immediately once the rupture distance limit is over. it is suggested that: (1) the hanging wall effect should be reduced gradually instead of being restricted in a definite distance limit. and its definition of the distance limits the effect of the disappearance. the KS2003 model also seems to have a problem determining the four boundary distances. to determine the rest of the six unknowns i. c2 equal to the values of Pr d ( x2 ) Hanging wall − Pr d ( x2 ) All respectively. due to the scarcity of data. 5 Comparison of the predictions by using the proposed model and the AS1996 when applied to the Northridge earthquake .0 -40 Footwall Hanging wall Our model Model in AS1996 Northridge recording data where the residual R may refer to both the PGA and SA on hanging wall sites. to improve the models of AS1996 and KS2003. the proposed model is designed to avoid these aspects of bias. thus the departure from for x1 < r < x2 for x2 ≤ r ≤ x3 for x3 < r < x4 (3) HWeffect where HW (r ) and HWeffect denote residuals of PGAs on hanging walls used in AS1996 and KS2003. 1996). In addition. Consequently. including: (1) four continuity conditions of R1 and R2 and their first derivatives with respective to r at the joint point x2. In particular. the results depart from the actual hanging wall effect. and the process of finding these distances is still intricate. c4 and c5 are all to be determined by residual distribution of hanging wall sites. and the data distributes more evenly over the distance range. because the hanging wall effect originated from the general proximity of the hanging wall sites to a fault plane. The Chi-Chi earthquake provides much more data than the Northridge earthquake. Nevertheless. The major difference between the two models is in the KS2003’s omission of the influence of the data that falls in the distance range of less than x2 and larger than x3. the influence of data falling in the distance range of less than x2 and larger than x3 was ignored. Note that the two models yield almost the same results. Then.5 -1. the AS1996 model introduced an inter-event error by mixing data from other earthquakes in determining the boundary distances. Therefore. the boundary distances x1 and x2 and coefficient c1. Note that these two models predict a significant difference. as stated previously.10 only the hanging wall sites. In this study. and the coefficients c1. x1 should be determined by the depth of the upper edge of a dipping fault.e. However. and the resulting curve is balanced among the data. Since there was a rich near fault data set from the Chi-Chi earthquake. the x2 and c1 to c5.0 PGAH residual 0. and (2) all data on hanging wall sites should be used in the regression analysis. respectively..

Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007) suggests that a smooth transition between the hanging wall and the footwall exists. The previous model lead to jumps in the hanging wall effect scaling for some cases and it was not clear how to apply the model for steeply dipping faults (Abrahamson and Silva. 7.29 -0. (2006) instead of the traditional geometrical mean of two horizontal components used in this study. c3 = 0 since the model presumes no hanging wall effect at a distance of x1. 6 turns out to enclose almost all the data in the distance range of less than 40 km. which is nil here. In addition. it may be inferred that the hanging wall effect of PGAH in this event exists in a predictable level for the distance range with the most significant effect. Finally. In fact. Further.7411 km. while the proposed model runs through all data in a more balanced way.8093 Hanging wall -40 -20 0 20 40 Rupture distance (km) 60 Fig. In this Wenchuan earthquake specific model.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 319 the actual hanging wall effect due to the omission of some sections of data would become significant. GMRotI50. Then. due to the abundance of near-fault data from the ChiChi earthquake. Note that the AS NGA model predicts a much greater hanging wall effect than observed in almost the entire range of distance except the final portion. However the field investigation carried out by Chinese investigators (General Introduction to Engineering Damage During Wenchuan Earthquake. However. as the proposed model is compared with the AS1996 model in the preceding context.6 -0.. which is different from the preference of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007) and Chiou and Youngs (2006). Li et al. The results indicate that the KS2003 model predicts a much higher hanging wall effect for the Chi-Chi earthquake. 2008). it was assumed that x1 was located at 0 km. A comparison of the residual distribution is shown in Fig. it is necessary to note that all the NGA models used a new measure of ground motion.No. On the other hand.6 0. Using the procedure described above results in: c4 = 2c1 x2 + c2 2 . this type of slowly disappearing effect also can be captured in some NGA models. the proposed model defines a zero value on the division. Nevertheless. So. The modeling curve of KS2003 in Fig. while the NGA models have no zero value over the division of the hanging wall and footwall. where the most significant hanging wall effect occurs. The proposed model yields a much better estimation of this effect. where the hanging wall effect term used in the AS NGA model with some modifications to the original form used in Abrahamson and Silva (1997) is also plotted. it would be favorable to have a comparison of the hanging wall effect term in the AS NGA compared to the hanging wall effect term in other NGA models. The traditional geometric mean is calculated as the squared foot of the product .8 -60 Footwall Our model Model in KS2003 Rotated PGA of recording in Chi-Chi earthquake Table 4 Boundary distances and coefficients of model for hanging wall effect of the PGAH in Wenchuan earthquake Parameter x1 (km) x2 (km) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Value 0 39. the AS NGA model inherits the characteristics of the hanging wall term in the previous model that the hanging wall effect vanishes at a definite distance. the proposed model can ensure that the hanging wall effect weakens smoothly at distances of around 50 km rather than being forced to disappear immediately. 2008. such as the model developed by Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007).2 0 -0. the previous model used in the ground motion attenuation relationship of Abrahamson and Silva (1997) has some similarities with the AS1996 model proposed by Abrahamson and Somerville to model the hanging wall effect in the Northridge earthquake exclusively. which introduces more uncertainty and may be the cause of the significant underestimation of the effect at the ending range of distance.4 PGA resultant residual 0.0006943 0.1433 3. 0..4 Application of the proposed model to the Wenchuan earthquake to model the hanging wall effect in PGAH The USGS fault solution for the Wenchuan earthquake used herein suggests that the upper edge of the fault is buried at a depth of merely 0.4 -0.3 Peng Lei et al. 2008) observed many areas with large permanent ground displacement caused by the fault rupture reaching ground surface.2 -0. as expected when designing the model. 6 Comparison of the predictions by using the proposed model and KS2003 when applied to the Chi-Chi earthquake 4. c5 = ln(c1 x2 + c2 x2 ) − c4 x2 2 c1 x2 + c2 x2 The values of the coefficients and boundary distances are listed in Table 4. defined in Boore et al. Differing from the above models.0314 0 -0. the AS NGA model presumes that an abrupt rise of values over the division of the hanging wall and footwall.

Note that at the short period of 0.1 Residual distribution of SAH The residuals of SAH at four different periods are plotted in Fig.1s. Several authors have indicated that the strong motions on the hanging wall are greater than on the footwall of a dipping fault. 8 might be due to rupture directivity effect in this earthquake.5 1. Actually. 2003. a completely reverse distribution occurs — the hanging wall sites have their residuals mostly negative while the footwall sites have mostly positive residuals.1 s means the hanging wall sites experienced much larger ground motion than the footwall sites. This means that the ground motion parameter could differ for the same ground motion when the sensor has a different orientation. Bray and Adrian.. a neutral trend happens. the hanging wall effect is strong. there are many influencing factors involved in the rupture directivity effect and a small near-fault data set. for the 1999 Chichi earthquake.6 s in Fig. Shabestari and Yamazaki. GMRotI50. 5. However. with the traditional way shows that the GMRotI50 provides a theoretically larger ground motion. and then it continued to reverse over the balance ending with the situation that the footwall sites have mostly positive residuals. Finally. 2008. Thus. 2009) have been performed. and the seemly extraordinary trend of residuals at periods of 2. as it is computed based on a set of geometric means of the as-recorded orthogonal horizontal motions rotated through all possible non-redundant rotation angles. a single1. 2001.0 PGAH residual 0. the residuals of SAH at several periods from short to long are examined in an attempt to identify the influence of the directivity effect. the comparison of the new measure. thus the empirical analysis of the rupture directivity effect is not efficient and is not included in the first phase of NGA. residuals within 60 km on the hanging wall side are inclined to be mostly positive and those on the footwall side are inclined to be mostly negative. It is generally . 8.0 s longer. 2008). around which the rupture directivity effect is mostly concentrated for a reverse fault (Somerville et al. Even from the simulation results of Spudich et al. the use of a traditional geometric mean introduced no dependence on the sensor’s orientation. This definition of ground motion depends on the orientation of the sensor as installed in the field. the residuals on both the hanging wall and footwall sides seem to be evenly distributed on the either side of the zero line. which are referred to as hanging wall effects (Abrahamson and Somerville (1996) for the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Spudich and Chiou. (1997). it is assumed that the difference between the spectral acceleration residuals of the hanging wall and the footwall caused by the hanging wall effect would be influenced by the rupture directivity effect at long periods. at long period of 2. it may be that the rupture directivity effect shows its influence on ground motions at long periods. 2008). This dependence on the sensor’s orientation is most significant for strongly correlated motions that often occur at periods of 1 sec or longer (Campbell and Bozorgnia. removes the dependence on the sensor orientation.. Spudich et al. the difference was reduced at first.0 s in Fig. Therefore. the hanging wall effect decreases as the period increases. at 0. Hu. a great deal of empirical and numerical studies (Spudich and Chiou. In effect. And.5 -1. note that on the side of the footwall. And. 1. and Si and Midorikawa for the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake). Because of the large reverse slip in some areas of the fault plane (Chen and Gavin. most stations were located close to the fault trace while stations on the hanging wall were mostly located far away from the fault trace.5 Footwall Soil site Rock site Our model curve Hanging wall effects term in AS NGA recognized that the rupture directivity has a significant effect in long periods.. 2007).0 s. 8 with the hanging wall sites at a positive rupture distance and the footwall sites at a negative rupture distance. 5 Modeling of hanging wall effect exhibited in SAH in Wenchuan earthquake Following the landmark paper on rupture directivity by Somerville et al. 2004.6 s. in this Wenchuan earthquake specific analysis.5 0 -0. Chang et al.1 s. 7 Comparisons of residuals of PGAH for all sites evaluated by the present model and the AS NGA model period-independent rotation to minimize the spread of the rotation-dependent geometric mean over the usable range of oscillator periods is used (Boore et al. This means that the comparison of the proposed model of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake using traditional geometric mean with the AS NGA model is feasible. Thus. 2006. the distribution of residuals at 0. At median periods of 0. The new measure of ground motion.10 of the peak values of the two as-recorded orthogonal horizontal components. but only by a small amount (less than 3%). From the distribution of stations around the fault shown in Fig. Therefore. of 1.0 -1. 2006). (2008). 2003..5 s and 0.e. 1997. GMRotI50.. i. from the outcome of this study. However.320 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.5 s and 0. Shabestari and Yamazaki. residuals on the hanging wall side and footwall side should be evenly distributed on either side of the zero line like the pattern of 0. Without the existence of the hanging wall effect. Hwang et al. the rupture directivity effect Hanging wall -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) Fig.

: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 321 1.1s to avoid introducing the influence of rupture directivity so no rupture directivity effect is included in the comparison. in this case.2 Empirical modeling of the hanging wall effect for SAH Because all first phase NGA models did not include any rupture directivity effect factors. it is possible that the AS NGA model’s estimation of the ending distance of no effect would introduce uncertainty and cause such a large difference.5 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) Footwall Hanging wall Soil site Rock site Soil site Rock site 1.049363 0 -0.0 0.No.2 for PGAH. the rupture directivity effect is mixed within the ground motion at long periods.5 0 -0.5 s.021441 c5 -0. And.5 0 -0. By using a similar procedure described in subsection 4.0 Soil site Rock site Footwall Hanging wall -1. 8 are listed in Table 5 and the SAH residual distribution for the Wenchuan earthquake is shown in Fig. 8 Residuals of averaged SAH of 5% damping at periods 0.1s residuals shown in Fig.1s based on the 0. it would be best to model the hanging wall effect for SAH only at 0.5 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) 1. From this phenomenon. The same model as previously used as for PGAH is again used here.5 1. and thereby explaining the reverse trend of residual distribution. Table 5 Boundary distances and coefficients of the model for hanging wall effect of the SAH in Wenchuan earthquake Parameter x1 (km) x2 (km) c1 c2 c3 c4 Value 0 24.5 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) Footwall Hanging wall Soil site Rock site Footwall Hanging wall Fig.1 s. However.6 s and 2. in the distance range where the AS NGA model predicts that the hanging wall effect disappears.5 0 -0.0012313 0.5 -1.0 SAH residual SAH residual 0. Presumably. the AS NGA model’s prediction does include all data points on the hanging wall within the distance range with the largest effect in Fig.0 -1.5 1. 9.0 s in the Wenchuan earthquake would exhibit in a broader area away from the fault trace on the footwall. But as mentioned previously.5 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) 1.5 -1. the AS NGA once again predicts much larger SAH residuals.5 1.5 0 -0.0 0. it is possible that the hanging wall effect of SAH in this earthquake remains in the predictable level for a distance range with the most significant effect as well. all coefficients and boundary distances of the model obtained for SAH of 0.0 -1. When modeling the hanging wall effect for SAH and comparing it with the hanging wall function for spectral acceleration in the AS NGA model. the AS NGA model achieved an acceptable prediction of the hanging wall effect to some extent in this earthquake. the scarcity of data and the resulting aleatory distribution pattern of data especially at large distances in this earthquake might be the explanation for this phenomenon. 5.17 -0.0 SAH residual SAH residual 0. In addition.22877 . However. Thus footwall stations will experience much more influence from rupture directivity under the conditions of the rupture directivity effect in the Wenchuan earthquake. it predicts a very short distance of the hanging wall effect. the hanging wall effect on SAH is still very pronounced.5 -1. 0.5 1. Note that just like the previous analysis for PGAH.5 -1. 9.0 -1. 0.3 Peng Lei et al.

India. (http://earthquake.” Interim Report for USGS Review. Institute of Engineering Mechanics. Chen Ji and Gavin Hayes (2008).gov/eqcenter/ eqinthenews/2008/us2008ryan/finitefault. Jennie Watson-Lamprey and Abrahamson DA (2006). Geological Survey. 24(1): 67–97. “Finite Fault Modelpreliminary Result of the May 12. (3) The reversed trend of residual distributions on both sides of the hanging wall and the footwall at long periods shows that the footwall stations have positive residuals. “Orientation-independent Measures of Ground Motion. Chiou and Youngs (2006). The proposed model was applied to the Wenchuan earthquake and compared with the results from the hanging wall effect factor in the Abrahamson and Silva NGA model. and Wang JH (2001). China. a new formula was developed to evaluate the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake based on modifications to two previous models.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. the proposed model make full use of all data on the hanging wall. References Abrahamson NA and Silva WJ (1997).322 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.usgs. lasted accessed 9 10th.” Bulletin of the seismological Society of America. Bray JD and Adrian Rodriguez-Marek (2004). which is exhibited in both the AS1996 model and the hanging wall effect factor of Abrahamson and Silva’s 1997 attenuation relationship.5 Footwall Soil site Rock site Our model curve Hanging wall effects term in AS NGA Wenchuan earthquake used in this study. Boore DM. “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-motion Relations. The proposed model in this paper offers some advantages over the AS1996 and KS2003 models. it has only two boundary distances to fix in the process. php. and the rupture directivity effect exerts its influence on ground motions around the fault trace.0 PGAH residual 0. New Delhi. Zhou Baofeng and Ren Yefei were extremely helpful. “Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters. (1) The AS NGA model provides a much larger prediction of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake. “A Stable Algorithm for Regression Analyses Using the Random Effect Model. second. third. “Directivity Effect of Near-fault Ground Motion and Super-shear Rupture. 2007. “Characterization of Forward-directivity Ground Motions in the Near-fault Region. 96(4A): 1502–1511.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Campbell KW (1993).” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.5 1. Yu GK. even though it may have descended to be very small.” Seismological Research Letters. as was presumed after analysis. Harbin.” PhD Dissertation. “ Chiou and Youngs NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Acceleration and Pseudo-spectral Acceleration for Spectral Periods of 0. China Earthquake. First. 2008 Mw 7.5 0 -0. 2009). “Effect of the Hanging Wall and Footwall on Ground Motions Recorded During the Northridge Earthquake. The discussions with Mr. so it is easy to use. International Workshop on Earthquake Hazard and large Dam. “Empirical prediction of nearsource ground motion from large earthquakes.9 Eastern Sichuan. “Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes. Abrahamson NA and Somerville PG (1996). China Earthquake Administration. “Rupture Directivity and Source-process Time of the September Hanging wall -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rupture distance (km) Fig. Abrahamson NA and Youngs RR (1992). Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Yousef (2007).0 -1. Hwang RD. Abrahamson NA and Silva WJ (2008). Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the National Strong Motion Network for providing recordings of the . This characteristic might introduce uncertainty in determining the ending distance and might contribute to a large difference between the observed hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake and the values predicted by the model. Hu Jinjun (2009).10 1. 24: 815–828.5 -1.S.01 to 10 Seconds. From the comparison. the AS1996 and KS2003. the following conclusions can be made.” Proc.” Report by U. Gong Maosheng.” PEER Report. (2) The AS NGA model inherited a characteristic of the ending hanging wall effect at a definite distance. 9 Comparisons of residuals of SAH for all sites evaluated by the present model and the AS NGA model 6 Conclusions and discussions In this paper. the proposed model suggests no definite distance limit to pinch the effect. 82(1): 505–510. 86(1B): S93– S99.” Earthquake Spectral. 68(1): 94–109.

Earthquake Estimated from Rayleigh-wave Phase Velocity. “Nearfault Spatial Variation in Strong Ground Motion due to Rupture Directivity and Hanging Wall Effect from the Chi-Chi.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 323 20. “The Hanging Wall/Footwall Effect of Near-Fault Ground Motions. 24(1): 279–298. China. Li Yong. Harbin. Smith NF. Somerville PG.” Seismological Research Letters. Taiwan. Collins N and Somerville P (2006). (in Chinese) Shabestari KT and Yamazaki Fumio (2003). . “Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effect of Rupture Directivity. Chiou BSJ. (2008). “Characterization of Earthquake Strong Ground Motion.” Earthquake Spectral. Zhou Rongjun et al. Institute of Engineering Mechanics. Wang Dong. 68(1): 199–222. available at http://usgs. “Geometric Effect Resulting from the Asymmetry of Dipping Fault: Hanging Wall/ Footwall Effect.S Geological Survey Open File Report 2004-1263. Graves RW (1997). Geophys. “A Formulation of Directivity for Earthquake Sources Using Isochrones Theory.gov/of/2004/1268/. Taiwan Earthquake.” PhD Dissertation. 1999 Chi-Chi.No.3 Peng Lei et al. “Surface Rupture. Xie Lili and Hu Jinjun (2008). Somerville PG and Graves RW (2003). 53: 1171–1176.” Earth Planets Space. 35(4): 404–413. Dyn. 30(3): 271–278. 32: 2197–2219. Wang Dong (2010).” Acta Seismologica Sinica.” Earthquake Engng Struct.” Pure Appl. China Earthquake Administration.” U. 160(2003): 1811–1828. Spudich Paul and Chiou BSJ (2008). Reverse-strike Slip in the Wenchuan Earthquake. Graves R.” Journal of Chengdu University of Technology (Science & Technology Edition). Spudich P. “Directivity in NGA Earthquake Ground Motions: Analysis Using Isochrone Theory.