Nuclear Engineering and Design 36 (1976) 367-395

© North-Holland Publishing Comapny

ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS

S.D. WERNER
Agbabian Associates, El Segundo, California 90245, USA

Received 22 January 1976

This paper describes those engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions pertinent to the development of
v~ratory motion criteria at nuclear plant sites. It includes a discussion and evaluation of current techniques used to character-
ize earthquake events and strong motion records, and the geologic factors that influence the ground shaking at a site. In ad-
dition, the paper provides an assessment of the data base on which the engineer must draw when formulating criteria; this
data base includes the current library of strong motion measurements, artificial earthquake records, empirical scaling curves
derived from strong motion records, and soils and geologic data presently available at accelerograph stations.

0. Contents in the siting and design of nuclear plants in the United

1. Introduction
2. Characterization of strong motion earthquakes
3. Geologic factors affecting ground shaking at a site
4. Earthquake-motion data base
5. Summary
Acknowledgements
References
1. Introduction
Of all the design conditions that must be considered
when developing criteria for nuclear plants, those as-
sociated with strong earthquake motions are among
the most significant. The potential effects of earth-
quakes on the integrity and safe operation of the plant
are numerous. First, the vibratory motions induced by
earthquakes apply dynamic loads to the plant struc-
tures, equipment and piping that are among the largest
that can be applied by natural causes. In addition, the
ground shaking may cause landslides, subsidence or
liquefaction of the soil mass in and around the plant
site. Other earthquake-related factors that must be
considered in the plant design process are surface
faulting effects and the potential occurrence of seis-
mically-induced floods and water waves. Procedures
and requirements for considering each of these factors
States have been set forth by the Nuclear Regulatory
367 Commission (USNRC) in the Federal Register, Appen-
368 dix A, 10 CFR, Part 100 [1].
373 This paper provides earthquake engineering funda-
378
393 mentals and background information necessary for
393 one particular seismic design requirement - the estab-
393 lishment o f vibratory ground motion criteria at nuclear
plant sites. It is intended for use with two companion
papers: one containing a summary of geotechnical in-
vestigations required for criteria development [2], and
the other providing recommended procedures for using
this information to define vibratory motion criteria at
a nuclear plant site [3] *. These three papers summa-
rize part of a long-range research program, sponsored
by the USNRC, for developing an improved under-
standing of earthquake ground motions and the be-
haviour of soil materials under seismic load conditions
[4].
The remainder of this paper is divided into four
main sections. Section 2 discusses various methods
used to characterize earthquakes and the corresponding
measurement of ground shaking. Section 3 describes
the various geologic factors that influence ground
shaking at a site, as related to the earthquake source
* The procedures recommended by these companion papers
do not, however, represent a USNRC position on methodol-
ogy or on procedures for compliance with the criteria.

367
368 S.D. Werner / l:)Tgineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
mechanism, the source-site transmission path, or local
soil conditions at the site. Section 4 describes the strong
motion data base that is the cornerstone of the criteria
development process; this base includes the current
library of strong motion measurements, artificial earth-
quake records, empirical techniques for representing
ground motion characteristics that correspond to a
given site and earthquake event, and the soils and
geologic information presently available at accelero-
graph stations. Section 5 summarizes this information
and relates it to the determination of vibratory motion
criteria for nuclear plants.
2. Characterization of strong motion earthquakes
The information used by engineers to characterize
and classify strong motion earthquakes include the
earthquake epicenter and focus, magnitude, intensity,
and various parameters for classifying strong motion
strength levels.
2.1. Epicenter and focus of a n earthquake
Earthquakes generally occur when the strength of
the rock can no longer withstand elastic strain that has
built up because of slippage along an active fault. The
location along the fault where this strain is released is
characterized by the epicenter and focus of the earth-
quake.
The focus, or hypocenter, of the earthquake is the
point within the earth's crust where the initial rupture
of the rocks occurs and the elastic waves from the
earthquake are first released. The majority of earth-
quakes recorded in the United States have had shallow
focal depths ( 1 0 - 1 5 km) and have occurred in regions
containing surface fault patterns, such as California.
In other regions, however, such as the Puget Sound
area and many parts of the eastern United States,
earthquakes are focused at deeper locations within the
earth's crust so that a surface rupture is not observable
in the field. In the Puget Sound area, for example,
focal depths are typically about 40 km. This is still
relatively shallow when compared to the focal depths
of 500-700 km that have been reported in other parts
of the world [5,6].
The epicenter of the earthquake is the vertical pro-
jection of the focus onto the earth's surface. In the ab-
sence of instrumental data, the epicenter had been
established on the basis of observed damage. However,
epicentral locations are now typically esthnated from
relative arrival times of seismic wave components at
various instruments within a seismograph network.
Neither epicenter nor focus location procedures are
precise, due to limitations in the number of reliable
recording stations, in the geologic interpretations of
crustal structures, and in the knowledge of local pro-
pagation velocities in many areas.
It is important to recognize that the epicenter and
hypocenter do not necessarily indicate the center of
total energy release of the earthquake - rather, they
indicate the point where the fault slip began. For
smaller earthquakes, the center of this energy release
and the point where slip began are not far apart; for
large earthquakes, these points may be hundreds of
kilometers apart. For example, the 1960 Chilean earth-
quake had a slipped fault length of about 950 km
(600 miles) and an epicenter at the nothern end of the
slip, some 480 km (300 miles) from the center of ener-
gy release [7].
2.2. Magnitude
The magnitude of an earthquake is intended to be a
measure of its size, independent of the place of ob-
servation. It is calculated from measurements on seismo-
graphs and is therefore expressed in ordinary numbers
and decimals. Physically, the magnitude has been cor-
related with the energy released by an earthquake, as
well as with the fault rupture length and the maximum
fault displacement [6].
At present, at least three different magnitudes are
in common use for classifying earthquakes: (1) local
magnitude, based on peak response of a specified in-
strument; (2) body-wave magnitude, based on the
response amplitude of a particular body-wave type;
and (3) surface-wave magnitude, based on the response
amplitudes of long-period seismic waves. Each of these
magnitudes is derived from a well-calibrated instru-
ment, some knowledge of the characteristics of the
rock through which the seismic waves must travel, and
the local conditions at the instrument station [8].
The local magnitude, defined by Richter in 1935, is
perhaps the most widely used magnitude measure.
This magnitude M is defined as
M = IoglO(A/Ao) , (1)
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
where A is the maximum trace amplitude, in microns, Table 1
recorded on a standard Wood-Anderson seismograph Comparison of Rossi-Forel and modified Mercalli intensity
scales [9 ].
located on firm ground 100 km from the epicenter,
and A 0 is the reference trace amplitude (taken as 1/~m ROSSI-FOREL INTENSITY SCALE MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY
(1883i SCALE (1931), WOOD AND
at a distance of 100 km from the epicenter). In prac-
tice, empirical charts are used to correct for epicentral
distances other than 100 km and for various site con- I Detectedonly by sensitive
ditions at a given seismograph station.
As noted from eq. (1), each upward step of one The shock felt only by
I II
magnitude unit corresponds to a ten-fold increase in experienced observer under
the recorded amplitude A. Furthermore, Richter [6] very favorable conditions,
has shown that for shallow earthquakes in California,
Felt by a few people at rest; III
the magnitude is related to the energy in ergs released recorded by several
by an earthquake E, according to seismographs.
III Felt by several people at rest;
lOgl0E = 11.4 + 1.5 M . (2) strong enough for the dura-
tion or direction to be fV
Therefore, the energy associated with an earthquake appreciable.
increases by more than a factor of 10 with each unit IV Felt by several people In
increase in magnitude. motion; disturbance of
movable objects, cracking
Although the magnitude is a convenient way of of floors.
classifying earthquakes, it has certain limitations. First,
Felt generally by everyone;
the magnitude is not a precise measure of the size of disturbance of furniture,
an earthquake, owing to the nonuniformity of the ringing of some bells.
earth's crust, to the possible effects of the orientation VI
'vt General awakening of those
of the fault relative to the seismograph stations, and to asleep; ringing of bells,
swinging chandeliers;
uncertainties in the corrections for seismograph site startled people run outdoors.
conditions. Secondly, the magnitude of an earthquake "hl Overthrow of movable Vll Everybody runs outdoors;
is not a good indicator of the peak ground acceleration, objects, fall of plaster,
ringing of bells, panic with
i.e. the magnitude is a measure of the amplitudes of great danger to buildings.
low-frequency motions at 100 km from the source,
whereas peak accelerations are related to higher fre- Vlll Fall of chimneys; cracks in VIII Panel walls thrown out of
walls of buildings.
quency motions measured at any location relative to
the source.
IX Partial or4~tal destruction
of some buildings. IX
2.3. Intensity
In the absence of instrument recordings of ground
Great disasters, ruins;
motion, seismologists have described the shaking by disturbance of strata;
assigning in.tensity numbers according to various sub- fissures, rockfalls, land-
slides, etc.
jective intensity scales. To describe earthquakes that
occurred prior to the early 1900s, the Rossi-Forel
XI
scale containing ten grades of intensity was typically
utilized. However, with subsequent advances in tech-
nology, the Rossi-Forel scale became outdated, pri-
marily because an enormous range of intensity was Xll
lumped at its highest level X, and because of certain
limitations in its scale descriptions. For these reasons,
a new improved scale was developed by Mercalli in
369
NEUMANN
I
instruments.
Felt by a few persons at rest,
especially on upper floors;
delicately suspended objects
may swing.
Felt noticeably indoors, but
not always recognized as a
quake; standing autos rock
slightly; vibrations similar
to passing truck.
Felt indoors by many, out-
doors by a few; at night some
awaken; dishes, windows,
doors disturbed; autos rock
noticeably.
Felt by most people; some
breakage of dishes, windows,
and plaster; disturbance of
all objects.
Felt by all; many frightened
and run outdoors; falling
plaster and chimneys;
damage small.
damage to buildings varies,
depending on quality of
construction; noticed by
drivers of autos.
frames; overturning of walls,
monuments, and chimneys;
sand and mud ejected;
drivers of autos disturbed.
Buildings shifted off founda-
tions, cracked, thrown out
of plumb; ground cracked;
underground pipes broken.
Most masonry and frame
structures destroyed;
ground cracked; rails bent;
landslides.
New structures remain
standing; bridges destroyed;
fissures in ground; pipes
broken; landslides; rails
bent.
Damagetotal; waves seen on
ground surface: lines of
sight and level distorted;
objects thrown up into air.
370 S.D. Werner/ Engineering character&tics of earthquake ground motions
1902. This scale was originally developed as a ten-step
scale and was later expanded to a 12-step scale, fol-
lowing a suggestion by Cancani. Elaborations of the
12-step scale were published by Sieberg in 1923. The
modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale, as used today
in the United States, was developed by Wood and
Neumann in 1931. The MM and Rossi-Forel scales
are compared in table 1 [9].
Other intensity scales are in use in other parts of the
world. For example, the MKS scale, developed by
Medvedev et al. in 1964 [10], is now in use in Russia
as well as several other countries. The Cancani-Sieberg
[11] version of the original Mercalli scale is widely
used in western Europe and the Japan Meterological
Agency (JMA) scale, developed in 1951, has become
the standard seismicity scale in Japan [12]. All of these
scales are subjective; and except for the JMA scale,
which consists of seven steps instead of 12, all are sim-
ilar in structure to the MM scale.
Following an earthquake, the assignment of an in-
tensity to a given location is based on interviews with
inhabitants of the area and on observations of damage
in the area. For earthquakes occurring in earlier his-
toric times, newspaper accounts and passages from
journals, books and other contemporaneous materials
are used to assign intensities. Assigned intensity values
at different locations are then mapped as a series of
isoseismals, or curves that separate regions of succes-
sive intensity ratings. These maps, termed isoseismal
x /LIMITS OF FELTAREA [
n Fnmclsco N-../ ~ UTAH
M ~ "
*4
Fig. l. Modified Mercalli intensity map - 1971 San
Fernando earthquake [ 13 ].
or intensity maps, reflect the attenuation of damage
with distance from the source, and the extent of the
felt area of the earthquake. The shapes and extent of
the isoseismals may be influenced by the tectonic fea-
tures of the area, indicating predominant directions
along which seismic waves are transmitted and the
manner in which the earthquake originates. An inten-
sity map for the 1971 San Fernando earthquake is
shown in fig. 1 [13].
Subjective intensity scales are an important con-
sideration in those areas where no strong motion
records exist, particularly where they are the only
means for interpreting historical information. As a
result, interrelationships between MM intensity and
quantitative measures of the severity of ground shaking,
such as peak accelereations, are often used for design
purposes. However, the use of intensities in this manner
results in a number of undesirable shortcomings. First,
human reaction to an earthquake is dependent on such
factors as the person's prior exposure to vibratory
ground motions and his emotional makeup; these fac-
tors, as well as the ground motions themselves, con-
tribute to the assignment of an intensity rating to an
area. Secondly, structural damage does not represent a
uniform basis for assigning intensities, due to differ-
ences in design and construction practices of various
regions; for example, it is especially difficult to evalu-
ate intensities deduced from earthquakes in underdevel-
oped areas, when compared to those from earthquakes
in developed regions. Finally, earthquakes occurring
in sparsely populated areas have been assigned inten-
sities based largely on permanent ground displacements
or slope failures that, by themselves, are unreliable
measures of earthquake damage. For these reasons,
considerable care is required when using intensities to
estimate ground motions at a site. Further discussion
of MM intensity-ground motion correlations used for
this purpose is provided in subsection 4.3.1.
2.4. Strong motion parameters
The best representation of earthquake ground
motions is the acceleration time history, which pro-
vides a complete record of ground shaking at the in-
strument site. However, for quantitatively comparing
different records and for relating measured ground
motions to potential structure damage, simple param-
eters are often used to define a given record. A number
 S.D. Werner/ Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions 371

of the most commonly used parameters - namely, DAMPINGRATIO = 0.05

peak acceleration, velocity, or displacement; response ©
spectra and spectrum intensity; root mean square ac-
celeration; and duration of strong shaking - are dis- -.25.t
cussed below. / \ SPECTRUM

2.4.1. Peak acceleration, velocity or displacement . . . . . \

The peak ground acceleration is presently the most
widely used measure of the strength of ground shaking;
and most of the relatively scarce data regarding C I / 0!3 I 0.5 1 I I L0 ~-- PERIOD,SEC
strength levels of past earthquake motions is provided
/
in terms of peak accelerations. However, the use of
this parameter to represent an earthquake record has a
number of limitations. First, the peak acceleration is
closely related to maximum forces applied to high fre-
quency systems but not for more typical low or inter-
f -"°"'//
mediate frequency structures. Also, the peak accelera-
tion alone does not lead to good correlations between
the relative strengths of different earthquake records,
r -u"'l l/
~ BASEMOTION INPUT
nor does it account for the duration or the frequency POINTONSPECTRUM (~) (~) (~
content of the motion [14]. NATURALPERIOD 0.3 SEC 0.5 SEC 1.0 SEC
The strength of earthquake-induced ground shaking DAMPING RATIO 0.05 0.05 0.05
can also be depicted by peak velocity or displacement PSEUDOVELOCITY, LI 13.0 IPS 25.3 IPS 31.6 IPS
measurements, both of which appear to have a more NOTE: 2n
well-defined upper bound than accelerations. In addi- PSEUDOVELOCITY • UmT
tion, the peak displacement and velocity provide an um - MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT
OF STRUCTURERELATIVE
improved estimate of the effective lateral forces ap- TO BASE
plied by earthquakes to low and intermediate frequen-
- u(t)max
cy structures. Of the two, the peak velocity is general-
T : NATURALPERIOD
ly preferred, as indicated by past studies of earthquake
and nuclear shock records [8,15]. However, both Fig. 2. Construction of response spectra.
parameters are subject to errors arising from the nu-
merical integration of the acceleration records; and
like the peak acceleration, they do not account for the shown in these figures, response spectra can be plotted
duration or frequency content of the ground motions. in terms of spectral displacements, spectral accelera-
tions and frequencies.
2.4.2. Response spectra and spectrum intensity Response spectra are used in seismic design practice
In current earthquake engineering practice, the re- because they reveal the effects of the ground motions
sponse spectrum is widely used for characterizing earth- on the response of a simple structure. Moreover, they
quake ground motions. A response spectrum is a plot can be used to estimate peak responses of complex
of the maximum response of a simple damped struc- structures, although this particular application requires
ture as a function of its natural period or frequency. the use of approximate methods for combining modal
A family of response spectra is typically provided, responses. An additional advantage is that response
each spectrum corresponding to a given damping ratio. spectra provide a means for representing the frequency
The construction of response spectra for an earthquake content of the ground motions.
record is depicted in fig. 2 and tripartite and arithme- A disadvantage of response spectra is that they, by
tic plots of the spectra results are shown in fig. 3. In themselves, do not provide a single numerical measure
addition to the pseudovelocity versus period plots of the relative strengths of different earthquake ground
372 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

t~ The spectrum intensities of 20% damped spectra have

been closely correlated with root mean square (rms)
accelerations of a number of records, although this
damping level is not representative of typical struc-
tures. The primary advantage of the spectrum intensity
is that it correlates the strength of the ground motions
with the peak response of an oscillator in a period
range common to many structures. However, this quan-
tity does not provide information about the duration
of strong shaking.

2.4.3. R o o t mean square acceleration

=, The rms acceleration of an earthquake record is
defined as

[- 1 t d "2 -]1/2
rms = [~-d j0 y ( t ) d t J , (3)

where ~9(t) is the acceleration at time t of the earth-

quake record of total duration t d. The prime advant-
0.. age of the rms acceleration as a measure of the strength
0.1 1 10
PERIOD, SEC of the ground shaking is that it is easily calculated and
is applicable to both deterministic and nondetermin-
(a) Tripartite plot istic earthquake response analyses [14].
The use of the rms acceleration as a measure of the
110 ~ i J I ' i i [ i F i i[,,i,1,1,11
strength of the ground shaking is being recognized by
NOTE: DAMPING VALUES ARE O, 2,
an increasing number of earthquake engineers. For
88 5, 1O AND 20% OF CRITICAL
example, Arias [17] and Housner [18] have proposed
the use of parameters that correlate closely with the
rms acceleration defined in eq. (3). Arias's approach
considers an intensity factor I defined as
td
I = rr f y(t)2 dt (4)
22 2g
0
where g is the acceleration of gravity. Arias has
1 2 3 7 U 15 shown that eq. (4) corresponds to the total energy
PERIOD, SEC stored at the end of the earthquake in a family of
(b) Arithmetic plot linear undamped or moderately damped oscillators of
Fig. 3. Response spectra for E1 Centro (1940) accelerogram, varying frequency. It is nearly independent of struc-
north-south component. tural damping over a wide range of damping levels.
Housner has recommended a two-parameter measure
of the strength of the ground shaking in which one
parameter is the average rate of energy input and the
motion records. To circumvent this problem, the
other is the time interval T during which the average
spectrum intensity of the earthquake record can be
rate is maintained. Mathematically, this is expressed as
used. As originally conceived by Housner [ 16], this
parameter is defined as the area under a pseudovelocity to+T
spectrum of a record between periods of 0.1-2.5 sec.
p: L'(T) _ 1 ( y2(t) d t . (5)
r r J
to
 S.D. Nerner/ Engineeringcharacteristicsof earthquake ground motions 373

Housner interprets P as the 'power' of the earthquake 0.6

motion and a measure of the rate at which energy is

fed into structures; i.e. as a measure of the severity of
ground shaking. He also interprets E(T) as a measure
of the total energy fed into structures by P; thus E(T)
represents the energy available for damage. In place of
P, Housner indicates that the quantity
-0.6
e ' : [E(T)] 1~2IT (6) TIME, SEC

can also be used since it is representative of the ampli-

tude attained by a damped oscillator and also coin- [ h ELcram0, NS

cides with customary measures of the strength of t~

ground shaking. It is noted that P', as defined in eq.
(6), is quite similar to the rms acceleration defined in 8 °
eq. (3).

2.4.4. Duration of strong shaking -0.3

The duration of strong shaking has for some time O 5 1O 15 20 25
TIME, SEC
been recognized as an important parameter that can
have a significant effect on the structural damge caused (a) Accelerograms
by earthquake ground motions. This parameter is
80 i , '
closely related to the energy released by the earthquake, DAMPINGRATIO" 0.05
which in turn is dependent on the length and displace-
ment of the slipped region of the causative fault and
on the magnitude of the stress drop that has occurred.
As indicated in section 2.2, a partial measure of these
latter parameters is provided by the Richter magnitude. >
Bolt [19] has suggested that the duration is also de-
pendent on the wave frequency and the distance from !20 I/ \'" ~ ~",.,..sI / / ' ' ' ~ ELCENTRO'NS
the site to the causative fault. Other parameters that
have been shown to influence the duration of strong /
, I I I
shaking are local site conditions and whether horizon- 0O 1 2 3
PERIOD, SEC
tal or vertical acceleration, velocity, or displacement
records are being considered [20]. These and other (b) Response spectra
studies are discussed in more detail in subsection Fig. 4. Ground response characteristics from Parkfield (1966)
4.3.2. and E1Centro (1940) records.
An indication of the importance of the duration of
strong shaking was provided in a study by Housner
[21 ] of accelerograms recorded at Parkfield (1966) and similar occurrences, Housner concluded that
and at E1 Centro (1940). As shown in fig. 4, the earthquake excitations with strong motion over short
Parkfield record obviously has a much higher peak ac- durations are not as damaging as might be inferred
celeration and spectrum intensity; however, despite from their peak accelerations or spectrum intensities.
this, the El Centro earthquake caused considerably
more damage to structures in the area. This apparent
paradox is resolved by considering the differences in 3. Geologic factors affecting ground shaking at a site
the duration of strong shaking of the two records; for
the Parkfield record this duration is about 1 sec, as The various geologic factors that affect the earth-
opposed to 15 sec for the E1 Centro record. From this quake ground motions at a particular location can be
374 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

related to the earthquake source mechanism, the from past earthquake events have indicated the poten-
source-site transmission path and local site conditions. tial effects of each of these sets of parameters. For
Studies of measured records and damage observations example, the damage induced in San Francisco during

LEGEND
ROCK OUTCROPS
SAND AND ALLUVIALDEPOSITS
ARTIFICIAL FILL (MAN-MADE)
N Go EN\

1°

(a) Geologic map

LEVELOF DAMAGE
i VERYVIOLENT
m VIOLENT
VERY STRONG
(a) Proxirnily of fault slippage events to
STRONG
accelerograph station
N GOLDEN\r-- ~ WEAK
EL CENTROACCELE.ROGRAMS
MAY 18 1940

~lAj~,l.. ~ l s v ~ r , ~1c ~2

1A 1B lC 2

NOTE: NUMBEREDAND I . ~ E D ARROWSINDICATETIMES

OF OCCURRENCEOF FAULTSLIPPAGEEVENTS.

(b) I ntensibt map (b) El Centro accelerograms

Fig. 5. Relation between local geology and intensity in San Fig. 6. Relation between source m e c h a n i s m and El Centro
Francisco - 1906 California earthquake [22 ]. accelerograms - 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake.
 S.D. ICerner/ Engineering characteristics o f earthquake ground motions 375

the 1906 California earthquake has been correlated Table 2

with local geologic and soil conditions [22]; only Factors affecting earthquake-induced ground shaking (modi-
minimal damage was associated with rock outcrops, fied from ref. [8]).
while very strong shaking was observed on adjacent Category Factor
sand and alluvial deposists and on artificial fill materi-
als along the San Francisco Bay (fig. 5). A similarly Source mechamsm Nature of fault slippage
single or multiple fault break
strong influence of local site conditions on structural
fault type
damage caused in Caracas, Venezuela, during the 1967
Caracas earthquake has been noted by Seed et al. [23]. Source parameters
stress drop
The potential effects of the source mechanism and fault displacement
source-site transmission path on ground shaking have length of fault break
been documented in a study of the 1940 Imperial fault shape
Valley earthquake by Trifunac and Brune [24]; in this, proximity of fault plane
the complex seismic waves generated by multiple fault Spectral properties
breaks that occurred during this event were judged to near-field
have had a significant influence on the overall charac- intermediate field
far field
ter of the resulting ground motions recorded at E1
Centro, about 13 km (8 miles) from the causative Source-site Reflection and refraction along sur-
fault (fig. 6). transmission face and subsurface interfaces
It is clear from these and other examples that the path surface waves
body waves
various factors associated with the source mechanism, impedance mismatches
source-site transmission path, and local site conditions guided waves
can combine in different ways for different earthquakes; surface topography
therefore, these factors require careful consideration material damping
when estimating criteria ground motions at a nuclear Scattering diffraction and attenuation
plant site. A number of potentially significant geologic geometric damping
factors are depicted in fig. 7 and table 2, and are dis- Nonlinear effects
cussed further in the remainder of this section. strain-dependent layer properties

3.1. Source mechanism Local site conditions • Dynamic soil properties

shear and bulk moduli
mass density
Earthquake-induced ground motions are initiated P and S wave velocities
when sudden slip takes place along an active fault and Poisson's ratio
material damping
Surface effects
surface topography
surficial geology
Layering characteristics
inclination
impedance mismatches
presence of discontinuities, inho-
mogeneities
I EARTHQUAKE ~ ~I~,TRANSMISSION PATH-- i Nonlinear effects
strain-dependence of soil properties
l ql REGI~

releases stresses that have been stored in the earth's

crust. Recent advances in knowledge have indicated
Fig. 7. Generation and transmission of seismic waves [8]. that this slip process can have an important effect on
 376 S.D. Werner /Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
LEFT-LATERALMOVEMENT RIGHT-LATERALMOVEMENT
(1952 Kern County earthquake) (1906 California earthquake)
(a) Strike-slip fault
HIGH-ANGLE REVERSEFAULT LOW-ANGLE REVERSEFAULT
(1971 San Fernando earthquake) (1964 Alaska earthquake)
(b) Reverse fault
(c) Normal fault (1954 Dixie Valley-Fairview Peak, earthquake)
Fig. 8. Fault types.
ground motions in the general vicinity of the causative
fault [25].
When an earthquake occurs, its effect can depend
on the type of faulting that generates the seismic
waves. Three general types of faults - strike-slip,
reverse and normal - are illustrated in fig. 8. Pure
examples of these fault types rarely occur; rather, the
displacement of the fault has components both parallel
and normal to the fault trace. In addition, the fault
slip typically occurs along an irregular surface rather
than a plane, and there may also be branch and secon-
dary faulting [26].
Some of the other source parameters that affect
the nature of the seismic waves generated by fault
slippage are shown in table 2. Those of particular
engineering importance have been described by
Housner [27], and are summarized as follows:
Stress drop - When fault slippage occurs, the stress
in the rock across the fault changes from an initial
value o 1 to a lower stress o 2. The magnitude of this
stress drop (a 1 - o2) has an effect on the amplitude
of the seismic waves generated.
Total fault displacement - The magnitude and
energy released by the earthquake probably are related
to the total displacement along the fault, larger fault
displacements being related to large magnitudes and
to large amounts of energy released. A larger displace-
ment also results in a longer duration of fault move-
ment and in larger amplitudes of long period waves.
Length o f fault break - An earthquake of large
magnitude is generated by fault rupture of long length.
The length of the fault break also can have a significant
effect on the duration of strong shaking which in
turn can be correlated with the damage potential of
the ground motions. Differences in the slipped-fault
length of the 1964 Alaska earthquake (magnitude 8.4
and slipped-fault length of 725 km (450 miles)) and
the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (magnitude 6.5
and slipped-fault length of 19 km (12 miles)) contrib-
uted to significant differences in the nature of the
ground shaking generated by these two events.
Single or multiple fault breaks - Recent studies of
the 1964 Alaska earthquake and the 1940 Imperial
Valley earthquake have indicated that these events
were generated by a series of multiple fault breaks,
rather than a single break (fig. 6). It is apparent that
the nature of ground shaking will be different if the
seismic waves are generated by multiple fault breaks
and erratic propagation of the slip boundary, rather
than by a uniform propagation of the slipped area
with relatively smooth slippage of all points along the
fault plane.
Fault shape - A large-magnitude earthquake gener-
ally occurs on an elongated fault area whose length
greatly exceeds its width. Small earthquakes, below
magnitude 6, usually occur over a slipped area whose
dimensions are about the same in all directions -
although some smaller earthquakes, such as the 1966
Parkfield event, have had narrow, elongated fault areas.
The dimensions of the slipped area will have a strong
influence on the nature of the ground shaking, partic-
ularly with regard to frequency content, duration, and
felt area of the earthquake.
Proximity o r fault plane - In the central region of
an earthquake, the proximity of the fault rupture to
the ground surface has a strong influence on the
ground shaking. If the upper portion of rupture is
well below the ground surface, the shaking will not bc
the same as it would be if the rupture reached the
ground surface. The ground acceleration amplitudes
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics o f earthquake ground motions
depend more on the proximity to the faulting process
than on the magnitude, especially in the near-field.
3.2. Transmission path f r o m source to site
When slippage occurs along a fault plane, energy is
released in the form of seismic wave emissions as well
as heat. These seismic waves propagate away from the
causative fault through the geologic layers. The pri-
mary types of waves that transmit energy from the
causative fault are P waves (dilatational components)
and S waves (shear components). Secondary waves
may exist at interfaces between different strata
(Stonely waves) and at the ground surface (Rayleigh
waves). Horizontally-propagating Rayleigh waves are
characterized by long period motions, and are usually
important only at distances greater than those of
interest for strong motion earthquakes [6].
The seismic waves that propagate from the source
to the site are influenced by numerous parameters
related to the geometry and material properties of the
transmission path, as indicated in table 2. Along this
path, both P and S waves are reflected and refracted
as they encounter the different layered interfaces,
resulting in interference with or strengthening of the
waves as they propagate from the source of energy
release. Irregularities in the transmission path, such as
variations in surface topography and discontinuities in
the subsurface layer geometries and properties, greatly
complicate the reflection and refraction processes af-
fecting these waves.
In addition to undergoing modifications as various
materials are encountered along the transmission path,
amplitudes of the seismic waves are also modified as a
result of geometric spreading effects. Additional at-
tenuation occurs because of the dissipative properties
of the subsurface soil and rock materials. Because of
this latter effect and the general nonlinear character-
istics of these subsurface materials, the seismic wave
energy is also dependent on the amplitude and fre-
quency content of the wave motions generated at the
source.
3. 3. Local site conditions
The seismic wave energy arriving at a site is carried
primarily in the P and S waves transmitted through
subsurface rock materials. In order for these waves to
377
reach the ground surface, they must be transmitted
through the overlying soils. These soil deposits can
consist of complex sequences of sand, gravel, clay and
silt, all of which are highly nonlinear and inelastic. As
a result, local soil conditions can exert an important
influence on the seismic waves transmitted from the
rock to the ground surface. This potential influence
of local soil materials has been described in a number
of studies, such as those by Whitman [28], Seed [29],
and others.
For a site with horizontal, well-defined layers and
with incoming seismic waves in bedrock having wave-
lengths comparable to the horizontal extent of the site,
the primary mechanism for transmitting horizontal
ground motions to the ground surface is vertically-
incident shear waves [29]. Furthermore, these shear
waves are not strongly influenced by the effects of in-
homogeneities in the subsoils or by slight irregularities
in the geometry of the layer boundaries. For this case,
one-dimensional analytical techniques can be used to
estimate horizontal earthquake motions over the entire
depth of the soil profile. If these conditions are not
met, however, the effects of the overlying soil on the
ground motions are considerably more complex and
the resulting site-response analyses must be treated as
a two-dimensional wave propagation problem. A more
detailed discussion of soil profile modeling is con-
tained in the companion paper by Werner [3] *
Some of the variables that influence the effects
that local soil conditions will have on the ground
shaking at a site are outlined in table 2. Among the
more important variables are the following:
Depth to rock - Correlations between structural
damage and the depth to rock at sites with similar soil
conditions have indicated that high-rise buildings with
low natural frequencies have sustained the greatest
damage when sited on deep soil deposits. In contrast
to this, shorter and stiffer buildings with higher
natural frequencies have been most vulnerable when
located on shallower deposits. This suggests that the
depth to rock affects the frequency content of the
* It is noted that site-dependent vertical ground motions are
automatically computed when two-dimensional analysis
techniques are used. One-dimensional site models for pre-
dicting vertical motions on the basis of P-wave propagation
have occasionally been used; however, these procedures are
still under development and involve considerable uncertainty,
primarily in the definition of appropriate soil properties.
 378 S.D. Werner/ Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

seismic waves transmitted to the ground surface [23]. be converted to intensities and peak accelerations.
Nonlinear stress-strain properties o f soil materials There are numerous uncertainties associated with con-
- Past studies of soil materials have indicated that versions of this type, some of which are discussed in
their effective modulus decreases and material subsection 2.3.
damping increases with increasing soil strain levels Since 1933, accelerograph networks around tile
[29 ]. Because of these strain-dependent material prop- world have expanded to include almost 3000 oper-
erties, the amplitudes and frequency content of sur- ating instruments, most of which are in Japan, the
face ground motions have been correlated with the United States, Russia and Yugoslavia. The United
strength of the subsurface input motions: i.e. an in- States has about 700 accelerographs, most of which
crease in the amplitudes of the input motions causes a are located in California because of the predominant
reduced characSeristic frequency of the ground surface seismic activity in that region, as shown in fig. 9 [31 ].
motions and a reduced amplification (or even an at- These instrument locations represent a diverse set of
tenuation) of the input motions as they are transmitted ground and geologic conditions; some are on rock and
through the overlying soil layers [14]. many others are on soil sites that correspond to a wide
Geometry o f layers and ground surface As dis-
cussed above, the degree of inclination of the layers or
the presence of significant topographic features can
greatly influence reflection and refraction processes
and the complexity of waves transmitted to the ground
surface. For example, if the soil layers are sharply in-
clined, horizontal ground motions can no longer be
attributed solely to vertically-propagating S waves
but instead arise from complex interactions of P waves,
S waves and secondary waves.

4. E a r t h q u a k e - m o t i o n data base

Data presently available to serve as a basis for esti-

mating earthquake-induced ground motions at a (a) Strong motion accelerograph network as of 1975
nuclear plant site consist of observational and instru- (Matthiesen [311)
mental records of past earthquakes, artificial earth-
quakes, empirical scaling relationships based on past
records, and various soils and geologic investigations.
Each of these data sources is described below, to pro-
vide background for subsequent discussions of the r,%
factors involved in the estimation of seismic input
criteria (section 5).

4.1. Records o f past earthquakes

Strong motion accelerographs of the general type • BEINGBUILT ~ .~-J ~- ~ \~

• PLANNED ~ ~ \ ' ~ ~-~
currently in use were first designed and installed in
1933, and the Long Beach, California, earthquake of
that year provided the first strong-motion accelero- (b) Nuclear plant site locations as of June 1975
(ERDA [321)
grams [30]. Prior to that time, earthquake records
consisted solely of documented effects of damage and Fig. 9. Accelerograph locations compared with nuclear plant
personal accounts of felt effects which, in turn, could site locations in the United States.
 S.D. Werner I Engineering characteristics o f earthquake ground motions 379

variety of local geologic, topographic and subsoil con- 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Smaller numbers of
ditions. In important seismic regions, arrays of accelero- ground motion records were obtained from earth-
graphs have been installed to study local effects. For quakes in the Borrego Mountains (1968), Lytle Creek
example, there are several horizontal arrays of accelero- (1970), San Francisco (1957), Kern County (1952),
graphs extending across the San Andreas Fault in Parkfield (1966), and various earthquakes near E1
California, as well as downhole vertical arrays to mea- Centro.
sure earthquake motions at various depths. Unfortu- This set of measured records provides a vital source
nately, as shown in fig. 9, there is relatively little in- of information regarding the basic characteristics of
strumentation in the central and eastern United States, earthquake ground motions. However, it still contains
where the most nuclear plant sites are located [32]. some important gaps. For example, the shaking in the
The current library of strong motion records from immediate vicinity of the causative fault for a great
earthquakes in the United States is contained in the earthquake (magnitude 8 or more) has never been re-
results of an extensive data processing program that corded. Also, relatively few recordings in the epicentral
has been carried out since 1969 at the California areas of magnitude 7 earthquakes have been made in
Institute of Technology (CIT). In this, raw accelero- the United States (Olympia, Washington, 1949; and
grams obtained in the field are first digitized using
automated image processing techniques. Numerical
corrections are then introduced, and include instru-
ment transducer calculations to extend high frequency
response, and digital filtering to reduce digitization
noise. Other corrections include smoothed time data OCT. 2
LM-5.z %-4.8~ v --,- I
and baseline filtering to compensate for the finite w
I ~"V-Vl JAN
23.,.19~ //~"~i"I-Vl d
record length and initial condition uncertainties. The
final result is a corrected accelerogram that represents
the acceleration of the instrument base within a fre- N ~ ~~AR~EA~
quency range of 0.06 and 25 Hz. These accelerograms
are then integrated to produce velocity and displace-
ment records; response spectra and Fourier spectra are
also calculated. All of these data are available from CIT
mb•BODW
YAVM
EAGN
TU
IO~
E (~ .~)km V
and various government agencies in the form of (a) Moderateearthquakes
printed reports, punched cards or magnetic tapes [33].
To date (1975), the CIT program has processed
DEC. 16, 1811
more than 200 records (corresponding to more than
600 acceleration components) from various free-field
sites or basements of tall buildings and other struc-
tures *. These records were obtained during 57 earth-
quakes that have occurred in the western United
/'~

it,
APRIL18, 1906

>,.v
......
;
/
/ IIl'V-~--t"~"'~l~

,
/v-v,
",
7
States (predominantly California) from 1933 to 1971.
Some ! 00 of these records were measured during the /v,X: rv'-v,, \,,,' ,, i l
* These records can be considered to represent m e a s u r e m e n t s
of free-field ground shaking. N u m e r o u s other records ob-
tained and processed in the same m a n n e r were measured in
the mid-to-upper floors o f buldings and therefore include
structure amplification effects. T h e total n u m b e r o f free
field and structure response records processed to date at (b) Large earthquakes
CIT is nearly 400, with a b o u t 250 records measured during
the San Fernando earthquake and a b o u t 110 additional Fig. 10. Comparisons o f felt areas from various regions o f
records from the Borrego Mountains earthquake. United States [ 34 ].
380 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
Kern County, California, 1952). The same is true of
potentially damaging shocks of lesser magnitude;
strong motion records have been measured near the
causative fault during only a few lower-magnitude
earthquakes, such as San Fernando (1971) and Imperial
Valley (1940).
Another important gap in the present collection of
strong motion records is associated with the complete
lack of such measurements in the eastern and central
United States. Because most of the recorded seismic
data for the United States have come from California,
the characteristics of the accelerograms will tend to
reflect the particular seismologic and geologic condi-
tions of that region. The general conditions in
California are substantially different from those of
the east and midwest. For example, felt areas from
eastern earthquakes are more extensive than for com-
parable sized earthquakes occurring in California (fig.
10) and, in addition, large earthquakes occur much
more frequently in California [34,35]. Furthermore,
the current tectonic forces in California are dominated
by the San Andreas fault system, a strike-slip fault
more than 960 km (600 miles) long that represents a
zone of slippage of the Pacific plate northward past
the North American plate. No comparable fault system
exists elsewhere in the United States and, in fact, there
is a general lack of understanding of the earthquake-
producing mechanisms in regions other than California,
owing to a scarcity of records and to a general lack of
surface faulting when earthquakes have occurred *
Further research and measured data are required to
evaluate the extent to which earthquake motions in
the east and midwest might differ from those in
California because of differences in the geology and
tectonics of these areas. Until such additional infor-
mation is provided, the current collection of ground
motion records, primarily from California, must serve
* Some notable studies o f the seismic characteristics of regions
other than California have recently been made, although
these studies do not yet confirm the causes and mechanisms
o f earthquakes in these regions. For example, Sbar and
Sykes [36] have suggested that a n u m b e r of the seismic
belts in the East m a y be due to intraplate tectonic effects
that are associated with the same forces that cause move-
m e n t of the North American plate and spreading of the sea
floor beneath the Atlantic Ocean. Nuttli [37] and Mitchell
[38] indicate that the slower rate of a t t e n u a t i o n of earth-
quakes in the east and midwest could be related to the dis-
persion of short-period Rayleigh waves.
as the best available basis for defining strong ground-
shaking characteristics throughout the country.
4. 2. Artificial earthquake records
As discussed in subsection 4.1, there is a lack of
strong motion measurements close to epicentral areas
of potentially damaging earthquakes of moderate-to-
large magnitude. Furthermore, variations in the char-
acteristics of ground motion records from comparable
earthquakes around the world have been noted. As a
result, a much larger sample of records is required to
adequately define the properties of strong ground
shaking.
To partially fill the gaps in the current collection of
strong motion records, researchers have utilized the
theory of stochastic processes to generate ensembles
of simulated earthquakes. These artificial earthquake
records embody the basic properties of strong-motion
records, as indicated from available data and from
engineering judgment regarding subsequent events.
Both stationary and nonstationary random processes
have been used to generate these artificial records,
although nonstationary random processes are general-
ly recognized as being required, particularly for
modeling smaller earthquakes [39-41 ].
Perhaps the most widely used artificial earthquake
records are those developed by Jennings et al. at the
California Institute of Technology [39]. The formula-
tion of these records is based on the observation that,
at distances sufficiently far from the causative fault so
that the details of the fault displacement are not re-
flected in the ground motion measurements, a com-
ponent of recorded ground acceleration usually appears
to be a random function having the following charac-
teristics:
(a) The time-dependent variation of earthquake
ground motions consists of an initial segment of rapid
increase to high amplitudes, a segment of uniformly
strong shaking at these high amplitudes for a certain
duration, and an attenuating final portion of the
motion.
(b) The frequency content of the motion described
by a smoothed Fourier spectrum indicates the fre-
quency ranges in which the major part of the energy
Occurs.
(c) As illustrated by digital computation, the struc-
ture modal responses excited by the ground acceler-
 S.D. Werner/ Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions 381

Table 3
Description of artificial records developed by Jennings et al. [39].

Simulated Type of earthquake motion Strength of earthquake Total Duration of

earthquake duration strong motion
type (sec) (see)

Represents upper bound for ground motions 150% as strong as average spec- 120 29
expected near causative fault during earth- trum intensity of 1940 El Centro
quake having Richter magnitude of 8 or
greater
Models shaking close to fault in magnitude equal to average spectrum intensity 50 11
6 to 7+ earthquake (e.g. 1940 El Centro of 1940 El Centro records
and 1952 Taft)
Simulates motion expected in epicentral equal to average spectrum intensity 12 2
region of magnitude 5 to 6 shock (e.g. 1957 of 1957 Golden Gate records
San Francisco and 1935 Helena, Montana)
D Models shaking close to fault of very shallow maximum acceleration scaled to be 10 0.5
earthquake of low-to-moderate magnitude equal to that of Parkfield record
(e.g. 1966 Parkfield, and 1972 Stone (0.5 g)
Canyon)

ations also consists of a time during which the ampli-
tude of vibration initially rises, followed by a duration
of strong vibrations and a period of gradually attenu-
ating vibration.
The procedure used by Jennings et al. to derive ar-
tificial earthquake records is to first generate a random
white noise process whose duration is judged con-
sistent with the magnitude and fault distance for the
earthquake type being simulated. This random process
is filtered to produce the desired frequency content as
specified by comparisons with existing real records.
The filtered function is then shaped by multiplying
by an amplitude-shaping function that produces an
initial rise in the accelerogram, an attenuating tail, and
a strong central portion. Artificial earthquake records
developed by this process are described in table 3 and
fig. 11.
This method of generating earthquake motions
enables the engineer to construct artificial records that
represent earthquakes of specified magnitudes at spec-
ified distances from the fault. In addition, he can gen-
erate several ground motions that correspond to speci-
fied input criteria and can thereby perform response
calculations that account for statistical variations. How-
ever, most artificial records generated to date do not
consider local site conditions and are generally based
on past records that reflect ground shaking, primarily
in California and the far west.
4.3. Empirical scaling curves derived from prior strong
motion records
The determination of vibratory motion criteria for
a nuclear plant involves, at several stages, the use of
empirical scaling curves developed from prior strong
motion records. Such curves can serve as an aid in
estimating peak accelerations and durations of poten-
tial ground shaking at the nuclear plant site. In addi-
tion, they can guide the specification of subsurface
rock motion characteristics to be used as input to site-
response analyses.
It should be noted that these empirical curves are
based on a limited number of available earthquake
records that, as discussed in subsection 4.1, corre-
spond primarily to events in California and some other
far western states. Also, the curves generally involve
correlations either with intensity or with magnitude
and causative fault distance, although the interrelation-
ships between these parameters and ground motion
characteristics cannot yet be defined with certainty.
Therefore, empirical curves for estimating ground
motion characteristics must be used with care and
382 S.D. Werner Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

c~

c~.
'0 100 120 160 ' 0 4 8 12 16 24 28 32
TIME, SEC TIME, SEC

(a) Type A (b) Type B

Oa

~.l 11111111

0
6 8 10 12 14 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
TIME, SEC TIME, SEC

(c) TypeC (d) Type D

Fig. 11. Artificial earthquake records [39].

interpreted with sound engineering judgment.
The following subsections summarize several of the
more significant empirical relationships used to esti-
mate earthquake ground motion characteristics• This
summary is limited to consideration of the peak ac-
celeration, velocity, and displacement and the dura-
tion of strong shaking; empirically-obtained spectrum
shapes for use in describing the frequency content of
earthquake motions, also an important characteristic,
are discussed in detail in the companion paper by
Werner [3].
4.3.1. Peak ground surface motions
A number of empirical correlations of peak ground
surface motions with intensity and with magnitude
and distance have been developed• Generally, nearly
all of these correlations have considered peak horizon-
tal accelerations, with only limited studies of peak
velocities or displacements. Also, until recently, few
data on vertical motions have been available, and as a
result, current design practice has been based on a
peak vertical acceleration that is some fraction, usually
two-thirds, of the peak horizontal ground acceleration.
 S.D. Werner/ Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions 383

1000
The development of systematic and sophisticated
programs for cataloging and processing strong motion 500
records measured in the United States has led to
readily available and reliable information regarding
horizontal velocities and displacements and vertical
motions (subsection 4.2.1). As a result, attempts have I00
been made to correlate these parameters, as well as
5O
horizontal accelerations, with intensity and with
magnitude and distance..
o=
4. 3.1.1. Peak ground response-intensity correlations.
Current design practice for nuclear plants often uses
interrelationships between MM intensities and quanti-
tative measures of the severity of ground shaking,
most typically the peak horizontal acceleration. A
number of these horizontal acceleration-intensity cor-
relations are shown in fig. 12 *. The scatter of these 1.0

various correlations clearly indicates the uncertainties

0.5
associated with the use of intensities for design pur-
poses.
Of the various studies leading to the correlations
shown in fig. 12, perhaps the most comprehensive was 0.0
I II III IV V Vl VII VIII IX X
recently carried out by Trifunac and Brady [46]. This EQUIVALENT MM INTENSITY
study, based on 187 sets of strong motion records in
DATA COMPILED BY LINEHAN [421
the western United States, considered horizontal and HERSHBERGER (1965)
- - GUTENBERGAND RICHTER (1942)
vertical accelerations, velocities, and displacements,
DATA COMPILED BY EIBY 1431
rather than horizontal accelerations only. In addition, CANCANI (1904)
~'~'-"- ISHIMOTO (10W)
the various records considered by Trifunac and Brady - - SAVARENSKY AND KIRNOS (1955)
were classed according to local site conditions at the MEDVEI)EV, ET AL. 11963)
N. Z. DRAFTBY-LAW
accelerograph station, and were then used to develop KAWASUMI 119511
................... P~ERSCHMI'n" (1951)
correlations between peak ground response and MM
ADDITIONAL ACCELERATION-INTENSITYCORRELATIONS
intensity for each condition **. Mean correlations COULTER,ETAL. 1441
between ground response and MM intensity are shown BEEOWAVERAGESOILMATERIALOR MAN-MADEFILL
AVERAGEFOUNDATIONCONDITION
in fig. 13; in addition, data scatter bands were devel- ABOVEAVERAGEFIRM BEDROCK
oped by Trifunac and Brady for each correlation and - - NEUMANN1451
TRIFUNAC AND BRADY [461
should be considered in design applications of their
results. The following trends are indicated by the
Trifunac-Brady data: (1) for a given MM intensity, Fig. 12. Correlations of earthquake horizontal acceleration
the peak horizontal response exceeds the peak vertical versus intensity.
response; (2) peak accelerations recorded on hard

* Fig. 12 was developed from an original compilation of data
from refs. [42] and [43] with the inclusion of additional
acceleration-intensity correlations from refs. [44 ] - [46 ].
** As discussed subsequently, a lack of subsurface soil property
measurements at accelerograph site locations results in con-
siderable uncertainty associated with the classification of
accelerograph records according to local soil conditions.
rock were higher than those recorded on alluvium; (3)
peak velocities were only marginally higher for
alluvium sites, particularly when data scatter effects
are considered; and (4) peak displacements recorded
on alluvium sites were higher than for the other site
conditions considered.
384 S.D. Werner/ Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

SITE-DEPENDENT-- SITE-DEPENDENT-- Housner [48] developed correlations between upper

ALL DATA
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~-o.2L_ HeRIZONTAL
. .
VERTICAL
. . f i bound estimates of peak acceleration, magnitude, and
distance to the causative fault (fig. 14(a)). Housner's
O.IL:- ~'" ~~ [-INTERMEDIATEJ'~-.
INTERMEDIATE \ :1 correlations have been perhaps the most widely used
-ROCKx .~...1.::I in design applications; however, his estimate of tiLe
~-'v'-A'LuvluM~ maximum acceleration for a magnitude 8+ earthquake
~0 00l It I , I = I , I , I ,/ ta. e~J
II IV Vl VIII X Xll V VI VII V Vl VII (0.5 g) is now considered somewhat low because of
MM INTENSITY MM INTENSITY the larger acceleration levels recorded during the 1971
SITE-DEPENDENT-- SITE-DEPENDENT-- San Fernando earthquake. Of particular significance
ALL DATA HORIZONTAL VERTICAL
101~ , , , ' ~, ~1
was Housner's assessment that peak accelerations from

1- F
g
~oc~\
RocK\\
a magnitude 6.5-7.0 earthquake might not be signifi-
cantly lower than those from a magnitude 8+ event;
> [E I ..,,~...-C°HARD FALLUVlUM~ this concept is still advocated by earthquake engineers
today, as discussed below.
o l' ' . . . . . . . ''" ~. ~' " ' (EIm~'-~',
.ivwv.lxx. % v, w, v w w, Numerous other peak horizontal acceleration-mag-
INTENSITY MM INTENSITY
nitude-distance correlations have been made. For
SITE-DEPENDENT-- SITE-DEPENDENT--
ALL DATA ~ HORIZONTAL VERTICAL example, in 1965 Blume [49] extended Gutenberg
ioo~~ ..... , ..... | . . . . ,
~" ~ I INTERMEDIATE I V INTERMEDIATE 'I and Richter's original work to include the effects that
]O ~ I- ALLUVIUM'., ~u,e4 local site conditions, epicentral distance, focal depth,
and magnitude can have on the peak acceleration.
--! 11I' w/~!EIIIC:LI ~-"
~: 5~HARD~__
~ - ~ ' ~~I L ' ' ~ fALLUVIUM\
~ t k~
At about the same time, Kanai [50] developed similar
o. , "- A. . . . .
correlations including local site effects in terms of a
II IV Vl VIII X XII V Vl VII V Vl VII site's fundamental period when subjected to vertically-
MM INTENSITY MM INTENSITY
propagating shear waves. Somewhat later correlations
NOTE: DATASCATTERBANDSFOREACHOFTHESEGROUNDRESPONSE- were made by Milne and Davenport [51] in 1969 and
INTENSITYCORRELATIONSARE PROVIDEDIN THETRIFUNAC-BRADY
PAPERAND SHOULDBECONSIDEREDWHENUSINGTHIS INFORMATION
by Esteva [52] in 1970. The Milne-Davenport study
FOR DESIGNPURPOSES. indicated that acceleration-magnitude-distance rela-
tionships based on records from the western United
Fig. 13. Mean correlations of ground response versus intensity
[46]. States do not apply to eastern Canada, where the felt
areas of earthquakes are much larger. Esteva's study
considered hypocentral distances rather than epicen-
tral distances in his correlations with acceleration and
4.3.1.2. Peak ground response-magnitude-distance magnitude (fig. 14(b)); his correlations were based
correlations. primarily on data used in the Gutenberg-Richter and
The current library of strong motion records has Housner studies.
also been used to relate peak ground motions to the The 1971 San Fernando earthquake has had an im-
magnitude of the earthquake and to the distance from portant impact on correlations of this type because of
the site to the earthquake source. These interrelation- the large amount of data that was obtained and the
ships have been widely used in seismic design applica- high peak acceleration levels that were recorded.
tions, and representative correlations are summarized Examples of correlations that were developed since
in the paragraphs that follow. this event are those of Cloud [53] and Page et al. [54]
(a) Peak horizontal acceleration - general site (figs. 14(c) and 14(d)). These correlations indicate
conditions. The first systematic attempt at correlating that peak accelerations recorded during earthquakes
peak accelerations with magnitude was carried out in in the magnitude 6.0-6.9 range are not significantly
1956 by Gutenberg and Richter [47]. This correlation different from those induced by earthquakes in the
used an empirical curve for attenuation with distance magnitude 7.0-7.9 range. Similar trends are noted in
to reduce all recorded accelerations to equivalent ac- the ground response-magnitude-distance-site condi-
celerations on bedrock at the epicenter. In 1965, tion correlations carried out by Trifunac and Brady
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions 385

50 I 1 I I I I i NOTE: A = PEAKHORIZONTALACCELERATION
G = ACCELERATIONOF GRAVITY
D • EPICENTRALDISTANCE, MILES
%
l i I n i
~I000F = ] G • -

8 " MAGNITUDE ~
l •
•
)\\ •
~=z0- 7 -
I ,O~,A,G,.3.0-ZLOG,~"" ~ ' ~ X
!L
,o1--o.o, o S~M,O, RANGEO~~,GN,7OOE .\\
80 N / I- ,,.9 ..\'
0 ,0 20 30
EPICENTRAL DISTANCE, MILES
40 50 60 70
/ : :07;69 .\
(a) By Housner 1481 't -'°'®'G' I t I . I
0.0' 0. ,0 l. 0 ,0 ,00 1000
=E EPICENTRAL DISTANCE, MILES

NOTE: a • PEAK HORIZONTALACCELERATION, CMISEC2 (c) By Cloud I531

M- MAGNITUDE
R - FOCAL DISTANCE, KM
I el I el I"lllll I I I I I III 1.0[-- • I

• o o
0.52 G
lO ~.,~ • --
o •
~ \ ~ . . . . • . o.•,-

~ ~ .~..'. 0o

,
- ,
. .~.
".
,,, ,;.

t..\
....
.,

•
•
0., 'i'" ,&
- .., . *,\ gig
" oN I
• • 0008
'O-I _Z • ~ •0 • a " 1230e0'BM(R + 251"2 • ..',..,:
-- • o41 • D

- • • ° • 0.01 • . ~,-

EARTHQUAKEMAGNITUDE
• 5.0-5.9
• go
• 6.0-6.9
• 7.0-7.9

10 °1 I I I11 0.001
10 100
10 '0 2 103
DISTANCE TO FAULT, KM
FOCAL DISTANCE, KM

.(b) By Esteva I521 (d) By Page et al. I541

Fig. 14. Correlation of peak horizontal acceleration-magnitude-distance.

[55] and described later in this section. Jennings and cantly higher if t h e m a g n i t u d e had instead been as
Housner [56] indicate that peak accelerations recorded high as 8+ *
near the epicentral region of the San Fernando earth-
quake (magnitude 6.5) would not have been signifi- footnote see n e x t page
386 S.D. Werner/Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
~o.
o o.~
a.
0.011
O. 00Cx
DISTANCE,
NOTE: T6 = FUNDAMENTALPERIOD SITE, SEC
p, VS = AVERAGE SPECIFIC DENSITY AND SHEAR WAVE
VELOCITY (FTISEC), RESPECTIVELYFOR SITE
SOIL DEPOSITS
M = MA6NITUDE
R = EPICENTRALDISTANCE
Fig. 15. Comparisons of correlations between horizontal peak
acceleration and distance for magnitude 6.5-6.6 earthquakes
[551.
In their recent study, Trifunac and Brady [55] com-
pared a number o f these past correlations, based on a
magnitude 6.5 earthquake. These comparisons are
* They attribute this to the fact that peak accelerations recorded
at the epicentral region are most affected by nearby releases
of strain energy. However, the accelerograph sites near the
epicenter of the San Fernando earthquake would have had
the same proximity to the causative fault if the length and
width of the faulting had extended over greater distances,
as would be reflected by an increased magnitude. The dura-
tion of strong motion would have been longer due to a
magnitude 8+ earthquake, reflecting the effects of large
fault displacements and more distant sources of energy. As
noted in subsection 2.4.4, an increased duration of strong
shaking could increase the structure damage in the area.
shown in fig. 1 5, and indicate spreads of predicted
peak accelerations that are about twice those of the
observed peak accelerations (on a log scale). Most of
the correlations compared by Trifunac and Brady
appear consistent with mean data trends at distances
ranging from 20 to 250 kin. For shorter distances,
where there are limited data, tile predicted peak ac-
celerations diverge substantially from one another.
(b) Peak horizontal accelerations on rock outcrops.
Since subsurface bedrock motions typically serve as
input to site response analyses, they must be estimated
from the geologic and seismologic studies of the region.
in the absence of bedrock motion measurements,
rock outcrop records are often used as guides for
defining the peak accelerations and general character-
istics of these input motions. Empirical data based on
observed acceleration-attenuation characteristics of
rock outcrop motions are typically applied for this
purpose.
The work of Schnabel and Seed [57] probably re-
presents the data most widely used for defining the
acceleration level of rock motions at a site. Their work
is based on the characteristics of observed and com-
puted rock motions in the western United States and
Mexico, and is summarized as curves that relate peak
acceleration to the earthquake magnitude and causative
fault distance. Curves of this type were first developed
by Seed and his associates in 1968 [58]; these curves
were updated by Schnabel and Seed to include mea-
surements from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake
and other recent events, as well as calculations of rock
outcrop motions. Results of the S c h n a b e l - S e e d study
are provided in the form of average values of peak-
acceleration attentuation rates (fig. 16(a)). In addition,
curves indicating the scatter in these attenuation rates
are also shown; the scatter reflects the influence of
different source mechanisms, geologic environments
and travel paths (fig. 16(b)).
Rock-motion attenuation data for the central
United States have been estimated by Nuttli [37,59].
In the absence of ground motion measurements in this
region, these data are based on highly approximate
correlations between particle velocity and intensity
for hard rock materials. Results for different frequency
components o f the seismic waves are shown in fig. 17.
Unfortunately, these data are not in a form that can
be readily'used for scaling input to conventional site-
response analyses; however, they are included in this
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions 387

0.8 r i r i i i r 1O I I
M~B.5 ~ REGIONOF
M~L6 ~,,. UNCERTAINTY
0.7 M~6.6 ~ NOTE: M = MAGNITUDE
110° 100° gO ° 80 °
o 0.6

~0.5
M~5.6 400
~ 0.Ol
~o.4
35
~0.3 0.0111

~0.2 M~5.2
.oi,.
O.0001 I I
lO I00 1000
O.l DISTANCE, MILES

I I I I I ~l'3"ll~'--'l (a) Boundaries of regions (b) 0.3 HZ signals

2 4 6 lO 20 dO 60 100
DISTANCEFROMCAUSATIVEFAULT, MILES 10 , i i
I[ I~REGIONOF 10~ F~REGION OF
UNCERTAINTY
(a) Average values UNCERTAINTY
g l
0.9 i l i i i I I

~ [}.1
0.8 ~ ) ~ NOTE: M = MAGNITUDE
o. , M-- ,.
~ .01
t-,
z
_.- 0.6 /PROBABLE UPPER REGIONI ' / ~
50 00] REGION2 y
. " REGION3"

M~5.6 ~.,,, O.O001 t I

lO 100 1000 1000
< 0.4 DISTANCE, MILES DISTANCE, MILES
\%

O.3 "%%%\ (c) 1 Hz signals (d) 3 Hz signals

Fig. 1 7 . F r e q u e n c y - d e p e n d e n t rock accelerations for central

United States [59].
O.l

~ H H / i T r g p . { ¢ ~ , ,
2 4 6 1O 20
DISTANCE FROM CAUSATIVE FAULT, MILE5
(b) Ranges of values
Fig. 16. Correlation of peak horizontal
m a g n i t u d e a n d d i s t a n c e [ 5 7 ].
summary, since they represent one of the few known
attempts for estimating earthquake motion character-
istics in regions of the United States other than
California and the far west.
(c) Horizontal velocity and displacement correla-
tions. As indicated previously, peak horizontal veloc-
ities and displacements provide a better measure of
earthquake-induced lateral forces on low-to-intermedi-
ate frequency structures than do peak accelerations.
,,, H •H~r HH¢~ Despite this, there have been relatively few attempts
dO 60 100
to correlate horizontal velocities and displacements
with magnitude and distance. Perhaps this is due to
the uncertainties associated with integrating the ac-
rock accelerations with celeration histories; only recently have baseline cor-
rection procedures been developed to modify acceler-
ation records so that more reliable velocity and dis-
placement histories can be obtained [33].
Among the few correlations of velocities or displace
ments with magnitude and distance are those of
Ambraseys [60] and Esteva [52]. Ambraseys provided
correlations based on upper bound estimates of hori-
zontal velocities (fig. 18(a)), but has indicated that
within one or two focal depths from the causative
fault, relatively weak correlations exist between veloc-
ity, magnitude and distance. Esteva has provided the
 388 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

I ! I I I I II I velocity correlations shown in fig. 18(b), and has sug-

M - MAGNITUDE
gested that the peak displacement d can be obtained
from the peak velocity v, peak acceleration a. and
hypocentral distance in kilometers R, using tile fol-
lowing expression:
M-7
aa/v 2 = 1 + (400/R0.6).

\ For most earthquakes, ad/v 2 has values of 5 - 15 ac-

cording to Newmark and Rosenblueth [5].
(d) Trifunac-Brady study. A recent study of the
correlations of peak horizontal and vertical acceleration,
velocity, and displacement with magnitude, distance,
and local site conditions has been carried out by
Trifunac and Brady [55]. This study is based on statis-
| tical evaluations of 187 sets of records from the cur-
| rent CIT library of free-field strong motion measure-
ments (subsection 4.1). It is one of the first investiga-
tions of this type to include vertical as well as horizon-
tal motions.
The Trifunac Brady study used the following ex-

",.\ 100 ~0
pression relating peak ground response, magnitude M,
and epicentral distance R:

(Jkmax] ta0 (Mj ]

FOCAL DISTANCE, KM
l°glotJemax ( = M + l°gloAo(R) -- loglot Vo(M) t , (7)
(a) By Ambraseys 1601
~Ymax ] I~d0(Jl//),/

~
IXI I III1! I 1 I IIIll~ I I !
M - 2 MA~ilTUOE where Ao(R ) represents the attenuation of amplitude
" M'4
.with distance from the epicenter (fig. 19) and a0(M),
M- 5 xl.6 - 2.5
+3.5 - 4.5 v0(M), and d0(M) are magnitude-dependent (and site-
10-I M " 5 e4.6 - 5.5
_ • • A5.6 - 6.5 dependent) empirical scaling functions for accelera-
a6.6 - 7.5
. • ~, o7.6 - 8.5
tion, velocity and displacement (fig. 20). From their
v - PEAK VELOCITY, CMIS~ studies of the data, Trifunac and Brady concluded
• Am •1 M • MAGIqlTUD4[ that
(a) for distances greater than about 30 kin, all pro-
i0"~
posed amplitudes vary approximately as 1/R 2, where
R is the epicentral distance;
(b) the peaks of strong ground motion do not grow
linearly with earthquake magnitude; the average
maxima of strong motion acceleration, velocity and
displacement seem to be reached for magnitude
6.5-7.0 shocks; and
(c) for intermediate and small magnitude earth-
I I I I IAI I I II I I I
I0 102 103
quakes, average peak accelerations for hard rock sites
FOCAL DISTANCE, KM are higher than those recorded on alluvium. For magni-
(b) B y Esteva [521
tudes larger than about 6, peak accelerations recorded
Fig. 18. Correlations of peak horizontal velocity with magni- on the three different site types investigated (hard
tude and distance. rock, intermediate rock and alluvium) are about the
 S.D. ICerner/ Engineering characteristicsof earthquake ground motions
I0 "I , , I i , , , i
! lOq
i locity, or displacement history of the ground shaking
I I I I I I I I
I0"40 20 dO 60 80 I00 I~0 14} 160
EPICENTRALDISTANCE.KM
Fig. 19. Ground motion attenuation factor used by Trifunac
and Brady [55].
same. For velocity and displacement peaks and magni-
tudes greater than 6, however, alluvium sites appear
to exhibit larger amplitudes.
4.3.2. Duration of strong shaking
As discussed in subsection 2.4.4, the duration of
strong shaking is an important measure of the potential
damage to structures caused by earthquakes. Past
studies have shown that the duration of strong shaking
is related to the magnitude, the distance from the site
to the earthquake source, local site conditions, MM in-
tensities, and the seismic wave frequencies.
When comparing and evaluating various assessments
of the duration of strong shaking, possible differences
in the definitions of this parameter, as implemented by
various investigators, should be kept in mind. For
example, Esteva and Rosenblueth [61] carried out a
study in 1964 in which they defined the duration of
an 'equivalent' intensity per unit time. Housner [48],
in a paper published in 1965, noted that the time-
dependent energy and vibration level variation consists
of (1) an initial segment in which the energy and
vibration levels rapidly increase to high values; (2) a
segment of uniformly strong shaking at these high
levels; and (3) a period of gradually attenuating vibra-
tion. He defined the duration of strong shaking to
correspond to item 2 above. Bolt [19] defined a
389
, 'bracketed duration' as one that correspond to the
elapsed time between the first and last excursion
levels greater than a certain acceleration amplitude.
Page et al. [54] adopted a definition similar to that of
Bolt, and used 0.05 g as their threshold acceleration
level. Finally, Trifunac and Brady [20] defined the
duration in terms of the quantity
t'
S(t') = f f 2(t) dt , (8)
0
where f(t) corresponds to either the acceleration, ve-
and t' is finite or infinite. They deleted the first 5%
and the last 5% of the amplitudes of S(t'), and defined
the duration to correspond to the time interval be-
I
Im 200 tween the start and completion of the remaining 90%.
In addition to differences in the basic definitions
of the duration of strong shaking, other differences
among the above studies should be noted. For ex-
ample, the more recent studies, such as those of Bolt,
and Trifunac and Brady, had considerably more strong-
motion data to work with than did the earlier studies,
such as that of Housner *. Also, the variables used to
study the duration of strong shaking differed among
the various studies. Housner considered only the du-
ration of the horizontal acceleration record as a func-
tion of magnitude, whereas Bolt also considered the
effect of the threshold acceleration amplitude and the
frequency content of the seismic waves. The Trifunac-
Brady study related the duration to the peak horizon-
tal and vertical acceleration, velocity, and displace-
ment, and considered effects of magnitude, epicentral
distance, local site conditions, and MM intensity.
With the above differences in mind, duration versus
magnitude correlations developed from three of the
above studies and, based only on horizontal accelera-
tion records, are compared in fig. 21. These compari-
sons indicate that the Housner results are similar to
the Bolt results for a bracketed acceleration greater
than 0.05 g, but greatly exceed Bolt's curves for a
* Housner's study of the duration of strong shaking was based
on 42 horizontal accelerograms from 21 earthquakes that
occurred prior to 1957; in contrast, the Trifunac-Brady
study was based on 374 horizontal accelerograms and 187
vertical accelerograms from 57 earthquakes that occurred
between 1933 and 1971. Both studies considered only data
from the western United States.
390 S.D. Werner/ Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions

SITE CLASSIFICATION SITE CLASSIFICATION

0 1 2 011121o11 o 1 z o 1 2 o ~ o lie, O 1
4 5

3 -- T -- ~ 4 --

Z
~ 2-- -- o 3 - - i

MAGNITUDE,M
Ib) Velocities

SITE CLASSIFICATION
o 1 zl01z z 0 11z O 1 2
5
MAGNITUDE, M

(a) A c c e l e r a t i o n s

SITE CLASSIFICATION

0 - ALLUVIUM "~
1 - INTERMEDIATEROCK
2 - HARDROCK
~o
-o
LEGEND
~" 3 b
o VERTICAL
• HORIZONTAL I,

I ) MEAN+ ONESTANDARD
, T ~ ' DEVIATION BOUNDS OF
MEAN VALUE1 1 ) DATA

MAGNITUDE, M

(C) Displacements
Fig. 20. Site and magnitude classification factors used by Trifunac and Brady [55 ].

bracketed acceleration greater than 0.10 g. Trifunac- the Housner and Bolt results for magnitudes less than
Brady results are presented for alluvium and hard rock about 6; at higher magnitudes, they fall below the
sites and epicentral distances ranging from 10 to 50 Housner curves and the Bolt curves for a bracketed
km. Their durations for the alluvial site tend to exceed duration of 0.05 g. The Trifunac-Brady curves for
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics o f earthquake ground motions 391

40 ¸
NOTE: DATA SCAT[ER BANDS FOR EACH OF THE DURATION-INTENSITY
CORRELATIONSARE PROVIDED IN THE TRIFUNAC-BRADYPAPERAND
SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDWHEN USING THIS INFORMATIONFOR DESIGN
PURPOSES.
z 3O
SITE-DEPENDENT-- SITE-DEPENDENT--
u,1
ALL DATA HORIZONTALRESPONSE VERTICALRESPONSE

=¢ EPICENTRAL DISTAI~
-50 tlO~- / ~p.---VERTICAL ALLUVIUM INTER" /,ALLUVIU
• 10 30[- ~C~ IINTER ~ - | IMEDIATE/'\ I
-50 • [;ED';"_."k, ] l
20|HORIZ0NT~t
L %:~ IROCKf- \ / i " 1
• 10 1OF • --..\J-HARD
J L .... HARD-l
/ F Y" ROCK]F TROCKI
i,,- O/ I I I I I / I I I ~1 I / / I I I I I /
II IV VI VIII X XII II IV VI VIII X XII II IV VI VIII X XII
0" I I I I
o 1 2 3 4 S 6 T 8 MM INTENSITY MM INTENSITY MM INTENSITY
MAGNITUDE
(a) Duration of acceleration
TRIFUNAC-BRADY [20] MEAN VALUESFOR HORIZONTAL ACCELERATIONS
ALLUVIUM SITE
HARD ROCK SITE SITE-DEPENDENT-- SITE-DEPENDENT--
_ALL DATA HORIZONTALRESPONSE VERTICALRESPONSE
BOLT [19] FOR EPICENTRALDISTANCE<25 KM
AND SIGNAL FREQUENCIES>1 HZ
BRACKETED ACCELERATION>0.05 G
.... BRACKETEDACCELERATION>O.1O G " I- W , N , R - ~..4-... ~ , H TME
EDRlATE
- ' 'v~~' ,\ ALLU~
IMEDIATE
Fig. 2 I. Duration of strong horizontal acceleration versus ~ ~I-HORIZONTAL J- ROCK~'~'~,:, ALLLiVlUg' R O C K ~ |
~101_ I_HARD ~ "~ _ HARDj '
magnitude and distance. | ROCK~ ROCK/
I I l I I I I I I I I l I I l l LI !
O II IV VI VIII X XII II IV VI VI X XII II IV VI VIII X XII
MM INTENSITY MM INTENSITY MM INTENSITY
hard rock sites are generally comparable to Bolt's
(b) Duration of velocity
results for a bracketed duration of 0.10 g. Each set of
results indicates an increase in duration with increasing
SITE-DEPENOENT-- SITE-DEPENDENT--
magnitude. 6uALLrDATA , , , HORIZONTALRESPONSE VERTICALRESPONSE
The influence of the distance from the earthquake 50~ ,,...~.~.I~
VERTICAL
source on the duration of strong shaking has been
studied by a number of investigators. Generally, the
20I- HORIZONTAL
trends obtained from these studies are dependent on ~s
L ,N~RME0,A~ RO.J LINTERMED,.~
the particular manner in which the duration is defined. /R,~,,,, / / R ~ ~, , , , !
For example, Trifunac and Brady indicate that, for a ,, , v v i v . , x x . ...vv, v.,xx,, ,, ,vv, v,.x xl,
,NT~S,~ ~ ,NrENsITY MM ,NTENSITY
given earthquake magnitude and site condition in the
western United States, the duration will increase with (c) Duration of displacement
increasing distance from the fault (fig. 21). They attri- Fig. 22. Trifunac-Brady [20] mean correlations of duration
bute this trend to dispersion effects, whereby signals with site intensity.
of different frequencies travel at different wave veloc-
ities, thereby spreading the strong-motion segment of
the ground motion history. In this regard, it is noted frequency seismic waves attenuate more strongly with
that the Trifunac-Brady definition of duration as pre- distance than do low frequency waves; therefore, he
viously described, is not sensitive to the absolute am- reasons that the mean duration of shaking, according
plitudes of the ground shaking; rather it is most closely to his definition, should attenuate in the same manner.
related to the time distribution of the ground shaking This trend is opposite to that obtained by Trifunac
over the entire length of the record. In contrast to and Brady; yet both appear plausible in view of the
this, Bolt's definition of duration is based on the time differing definitions of duration used in the two studies.
span between the first and last excursions greater than Trifunac and Brady also correlated the duration
a prescribed acceleration threshold; i.e. his definition with MM intensity and site conditions. Mean correla-
is sensitive to the absolute amplitude of the ground tions from their results are summarized in fig. 22 and,
shaking. Bolt then notes that the amplitudes of high together with the data-scatter effects indicated in the
392 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
Trifunac-Brady paper, indicate the following trends:
(a) The duration of strong motion tends to decrease
with increasing MM intensity, regardless of whether
accelerations, velocities or displacements are con-
sidered. Trifunac and Brady attribute this trend to dis-
persion effects and to more pronounced scattering for
longer travel paths.
(b) For a given MM intensity, the average duration
of strong motion for an alluvium site is about twice
that for a hard rock site.
(c) When all data are considered, regardless of site
conditions, the mean duration of strong shaking is
marginally greater for vertical motions than for horizon-
tal motions.
4. 4. Soils and geologic investigations at accelerograph
stations
When predicting earthquake motions based on
local soil properties at a site, it is important to con-
sider soil and geologic characteristics at locations of
prior strong motion measurements and the degree to
which these characteristics have been studied in the
past. The paragraphs that follow briefly describe the
availability of soils and geologic data from prior earth-
quake recording sites.
Of the approximately 400 records obtained to
date (1975) in the United States, more than half have
been recorded in upper levels of high-rise buildings;
therefore, they include the effects of the building re-
sponse as well as the response of the local soil deposits.
The remaining records of free-field earthquake motions
represent a diverse set of ground and geologic condi-
tions. Most of these records have been measured on
soil deposits and therefore include the modifying in-
fluence of the underlying soil materials. Only a few
measurements have been obtained on rock outcrops.
No subsurface measurements of ground shaking dur-
ing strong earthquakes have been obtained.
For most accelerograph stations located on soil
deposits, data on soil properties and geologic condi-
tions are often limited or nonexistent. Many stations
have no available data, and the site description simply
consists of the statement 'soil of undetermined charac-
ter'. Where data describing geologic and soil conditions
at accelerograph stations are available, they have been
obtained from a variety of studies, most of which were
conducted without concern for the behavior of the
site under seismic loads. For example, the primary
sources of soils data thus far having been boring logs
and foundation reports associated with mineral ex-
ploration and deep water wells, or civil works projects
and large buildings located near or at the accelero-
graph station. However, because of the nature of these
soils data and the specific needs they are intended to
fulfill, they are often neither complete nor accurate
enough to adequately describe the dynamic behavior
of the soil profile. For example, Hansen et al. [62]
compiled existing geologic, soil, and seismic informa-
tion from 78 accelerograph sites in California, and
concluded that only 2 of the 78 sites had subsurface
information sufficiently complete to permit a
thorough analysis of earthquake ground motions.
Because of such shortcomings in the knowledge of
site conditions at accelerograph stations, a number of
recommendations have been made to various state and
national legislative bodies in the United States re-
garding appropriate remedial measures. For example,
the Joint Committee on Seismic Safety in the State of
California has recommended to the California State
Legislature that '... greater effort and appropriate in-
strumentation should be devoted to studies of the ef-
fects of topography and the character of geologic
material on the distribution and amplitude of strong
ground motion' [63].
Unfortunately, most recommendations along these
lines have either not been implemented or are being
cfirried out on a low priority basis. One of the few
known cases in which subsurface instrumentation has
been used to evaluate dynamic effects of soil materials
was at Union Bay in Seattle, Washington. A three-level
accelerometer station was installed at this site in 1965
and was subsequently used to measure soil transmission
characteristics and motion from minor earthquakes
and distant underground nuclear events [64].
In addition to studies of the type conducted at
Union Bay, some attempts have been made to describe
subsurface soil conditions at various recording stations.
For example, site descriptions for a number of seismo-
scope and accelerograph stations were published in
1962 on the basis of shallow borings, well drilling logs,
and other less detailed sources of subsurface data [65].
Although a general indication of site condition is
provided, much of the data is not sufficiently reliable
for determining dynamic site response characteristics.
A similar catalog of strong motion site conditions was
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics o f earthquake ground motions
prepared following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake
[66]. Shallow refraction surveys were conducted at
many sites and provided substantially improved shear
wave velocity data for depths up to 100 ft. However,
shear wave velocities and other soil properties ob-
tained for deeper layers at these sites are less reliable
and are still not adequate for dynamic response analy-
ses.
A more recent and comprehensive program for
conducting soils investigations at accelerograph
stations is presently being carried out by a Shannon
& Wilson/Agbabian Associates joint venture for the
USNRC [67]. It consists of field investigations and
laboratory tests of the subsurface soil materials at
selected stations. In addition, background information
regarding the regional geology and seismic history for
these various sites is also included. Only now are initial
results of this investigation becoming available.
5. Summary
The development of vibratory motion criteria for
a nuclear plant site must be based on sound earth-
quake engineering fundamentals and current informa-
tion regarding earthquake-induced ground motions.
This paper has related these concepts to the characteri-
zation of earthquake events and ground motions, the
geologic factors that affect ground shaking at a site,
and the current strong motion data base.
Ground shaking at a site is an extremely complex
process that cannot be predicted with certainty by
current methods. The many geologic factors that affect
ground shaking - such as the source mechanism,
source-site transmission path, and local site condi-
tions - combine in different ways for different earth-
quakes. To illustrate this point: measurements and
damage observations from past earthquakes have, in
some cases, indicated a strong dependence on local
soil conditions and, in other cases, on the character-
istics of the source mechanism and the transmission
path.
The current strong-motion data base is of primary
importance in the development of vibratory motion
criteria. When using this data base, the engineer should
be aware of how the strong motion records were
processed, the quantity and site locations of strong
motion records in the United States, and the reliability
393
and completeness of information describing the geolo-
gy and local soil conditions at the accelerograph
stations. Empirical correlations between ground re-
sponse, MM intensity, magnitude, distance, and local
site conditions have been developed from this data
base, and can provide impoJtant information for use
in formulating criteria. However, evaluation of results
from a particular correlation should be based on the
number and type of records used in its development,
whether the correlation includes the most recent
strong-motion data, how the data were processed to
develop the correlations, and the statistical scatter in
the data. All of these considerations will enable the
engineer to utilize the strong-motion data base to its
best advantage, permitting proper application of the
data and interpretation of its results.
Acknowledgements
This paper is excerpted from a recent report by
Shannon and Wilson, Inc., and Agbabian Associates
[4]. The report was part of a USNRC program directed
toward expanding the current technology associated
with predicting earthquake ground motions and the
behavior of soil materials subjected to earthquakes.
Significant contributions to the report were made by
M.S. Agbabian, J.W. Workman and G.A. Young of
Agbabian Associates; and I. Arango, R.P. Miller,
H.H. Waldron and S.D. Wilson of Shannon & Wilson,
Inc. H.B. Seed of the University of California,
Berkeley, was special consultant. Assistance and direc-
tion in preparing the report was provided by J.
Harbour of USNRC, technical monitor for the joint
venture.
References
[1 ] USAEC, Seismic and geologic siting criteria for nuclear
power plants, Appendix A, 10 CFR, Part 100, Federal
Register, 38: 218, Nov. (1973).
[2] H.H. Waldron, R.P. Miller and S.D. Werner, Geotechnical
investigations at nuclear power plant sites, Nucl. Eng.
Des. (this issue).
[3] S.D. Werner, Procedures for developing vibratory ground
motion criteria at nuclear plant sites, Nucl. Eng. Des.
36 (1976) 000-000.
[4] Shannon and Wilson, Inc. and Agbabian Associates
(SW/AA), Procedures for evaluation of vibratory ground
 394 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
motions of soil deposits at nuclear power sites, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, Washington, D.C., June (1975)
(NUREG-75/072).
[5 ] N.M. Newmark and E. Rosenblueth, Fundamentals of
Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. (1971).
[6] C.F. Richter, Elementary Seismology, Freeman, San
Francisco (1958).
[7] G.W. Housner, Strong ground motions, In: Earthquake
Engineering, ed. R.L. Wiegle, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J. (1970).
[8] D.E. Hudson, Strong motion seismology, Proc. of the
Int. Conf. on Microzonation for Safer Construction
Research and Application, Vol. 1, University of
Washington, Seattle (1972).
[9] T.H. Thomas et al., Nuclear reactors and earthquakes,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commision, Division of Reactor
Development, Washington, D.C., Aug. (1963)
(T1D-7024).
[10] S.V. Medvedev, W. Sponheuer and V. Karnik, Seismische
Scala, Inst. ffir Bodendynamik und Erdbebenforschung,
Jena (1963).
[11 ] A. Sieberg, Erdbebenkunde, Fischer, Jena (1923).
[12] H. Kawasumi, Measures of earthquake danger and expec-
tancy of maximum intensity throughout Japan as in-
ferred from the seismic activity in historical times, Bull.
Earthquake Res. Inst., Tokyo Univ. 29 (1951).
[ 13 ] K.V. Steinbrugge et al., San Fernando earthquake,
February 9, 1971, Pacific Fire Rating Bureau, San
Francisco, Aug. (1971).
[14] S.D. Werner, A Study of earthquake input motions for
seismic design, R-6914-925, Agbabian-Jacobsen Associ-
ates, Los Angeles, June (1970) (TID-25438).
[15] N.M. Newmark and W.J. Hall, Seismic design criteria for
nuclear reactor facilities, Proc. of the Fourth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile
(1969).
[16] G.W. Housner, Behavior of structures during earthquakes,
J. Eng. Mech. Div., Amer. Soc. Civ. Eng. 85 (EM4), Oct.
(1959).
[17 ] A. Arias, A measure of earthquake intensity, In: Seismic
Design for Nuclear Power Plants, ed. R.J. Hansen,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,
Mass. (1970).~.
[ 18 ] G.W. Housner, Measures of severity of earthquake
ground shaking, Proc. of First National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich., June (1975).
[19] B.A. Bolt, Duration of strong ground motion, Proc. of
the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Rome, Italy (1973).
[20] M.D. Trifunac and A.G. Brady, A study on the duration
of strong earthquake motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer.
65 (3), June (1975).
[21 ] G.W. Housner, Requirements of seismic analysis and
research needs, Paper presented at Annual Environ-
mental Meeting, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Oct. 1969.
[22] H.O. Wood, Distribution of apparent intensity in San
Francisco, In: The California Earthquake of April 18,
1906, Report of the State Earthquake Investigation
Commission, Vol. 1., Carnegie Institution, Washington,
D.C. (1908).
[23] H.B. Seed et al., Soil conditions and building damage in
1967 Caracas earthquake, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.,
Amer. Soc. Cir. Eng. 98 (SM8) Aug. (1972).
[24] M.D. Trifunac and J.N. Brune, Complexity of energy
release during the Imperial Valley, California, Earth-
quake of 1940, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 60 (1), Feb.
(1970).
[25] P.G. Richards, Dynamic properties of an earthquake
source, Proc. of the Fifth World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Rome, Italy (1973).
[26] M.G. Bonilla and J.M. Buchanan, Interim report on
worldwide historic surface faulting, Open file report,
United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
(1970).
[27] G.W. Housner, Important features of earthquake ground
motion, Proc. of the Fifth World Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Rome, Italy (1973).
[28] R.V. Whitman, Effect of local soil conditions upon
seismic threat to nuclear power plants, Stone & Webster
Engineering Corp., Boston (1968).
[29] ll.B. Seed, The influence of local soil conditions on earth-
quake damage, Proc., Soil Dynamics Specialty Session,
7th Int. Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, Aug. (1969).
[30] D.E. Hudson, Destructive earthquake ground motions,
In: Applied Mechanics in Earthquake Engineering, ed.
W.D. Iwan, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York (1974).
[31 ] R.B. Matthiesen, Seismic engineering program, proposed
program for FY 76, NSF-CA 114, United States Geolog-
ical Survey, Dept. of Interior, Sept. (1975).
[32] ERDA news release No. 75-138, 24 July 1975, Infor-
mation from ERDA 1 (18), July (1975).
[ 33 ] California Institute of Technology (CIT), Strong Motion
Earthquake Accelerograms, Vols. I-IV, Parts A-Y, CIT
Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, Pasadena
(1969-1975).
[34] O.W. Nuttli, Magnitude, intensity, and ground motion
relations for earthquakes in the central United States,
Proc. of the Int. Conference on Microzonation for Safer
Construction Research and Application, Vol. 1, Univer-
sity of Washington, Seattle, Nov. (1972).
[35 ] B.F. Howell, Jr., Average regional seismic hazard index
in the United States, Paper presented at 69th Annual
Meeting of Seismological Society of America, Las Vegas,
Nevada, Mar. (1974).
[36] M.L. Sbar and L.R. Sykes, Contemporary compressive
stress and seismicity in eastern North America: An ex-
ample of intra-plate tectonics, Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 84
(6), June (1973).
[37] O.W. Nuttli, Seismic wave attenuation and magnitude
relations for eastern North-America, J. Geophys. Res.
78 (5), Feb. (1973).
 S.D. Werner / Engineering characteristics of earthquake ground motions
[38] B.J. Mitchell, Radiation and attenuation of Rayleigh
waves from the southeastern Missouri earthquake of
October 21, 1965, J. Geophys. Res. 78 (5), Feb. (1973).
[39] P.C. Jennings et al., Simulated earthquake motions for
design purposes, Proc. of the Fourth World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile (1969).
[40] M. Amin and A. H-S. Ang. A nonstationary stochastic
model for strong-motion earthquakes, Structural
Research Series No. 306, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois, Apr. (1966).
[411 C.A. Cornell, Stochastic process models in structural
engineering, Technical Report 34, Stanford University,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Palo Alto, California, May
(1964).
[421 D. Linehan, Geological and seismological factors in-
fluencing the assessment of a seismic threat to nuclear
reactors, In: Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, ed.
R.J. Hanson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1970).
[43] G.A. Eiby, The assessment of earthquake felt intensities,
Proc. of the Third World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Aukland and Wellington, New Zealand
(1965).
[44] H.W. Coulter, H.H. Waldron and J.F. Devine, Seismic
and geologic siting considerations for nuclear facilities,
Proc. of the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Rome, Italy (1973).
[45 ] F. Neumann, Earthquake Intensity and Related Ground
Motion, University of Washington Press, Seattle (1954).
[46] M.D. Trifunac and A.G. Brady, On the correlation of
seismic intensity scales with the peaks of recorded
strong ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 65 (1),
Feb. (1975).
[47 ] B. Gutenberg and C.F. Richter, Earthquake magnitude,
intensity, energy and acceleration, Paper 11, Bull.
Seismol. Soc. Amer. 46 (2), Apr. (1956).
[48] G.W. Housner, Intensity of earthquake ground shaking
near the causative fault, Proc. of the Third World Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, Aukland and
Wellington, New Zealand (1965).
[49 ] J.A. Blume, Earthquake ground motion and engineering
procedures for important installations near active faults,
Proc. of the Third World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. IV, Aukland and Wellington, New
Zealand (1965).
[50] K. Kanai, Improved empirical formula for characteristics
of stray earthquake motions, Proc., Japanese Earthquake
Symposium, 1 - 4 (in Japanese) (1966)
[51 ] W.G. Milne and A.G. Davenport, Distribution of earth-
quake risk in Canada, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 59 (2),
Apr. (1969).
[52] L. Esteva, Seismic risk and seismic design decisions, In:
Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, ed. R.J. Hansen,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,
Mass. (1970).
[53] W.K. Cloud, Strong motion earthquake records, In:
395
Earthquake Resistant Design of Engineering Structures,
University of California, Berkeley, June (1972).
[54] R.A. Page et al., Ground motion values for use in the
seismic design of the Trans-Alaska pipeline system,
Geological Survey Circular 672, United States Geological
Survey, Washington, D.C. (1972).
[55] M.D. Trifunac and A.G. Brady, Correlations of peak ac-
celeration, velocity, and displacement with earthquake
magnitude, distance, and site conditions, Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. J. (1976) (in press).
[56] P.C. Jennings and G.W. Housner, Conclusions and re-
commendations, In: Engineering Features of the San
Fernando Earthquake, February 9, 1971, ed. P.C.
Jennings, EERL 71-02, Earthquake Engineering
Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, June (1971).
[57] P.B. Schnabel and H.B. Seed, Acceleration in rock for
earthquakes in the western United States, EERC-72-2,
University of California, Berkeley (1972).
[58] H.B. Seed et al., Characteristics of rock motions during
earthquakes, EERC-68-5, University of California,
Berkeley (1968).
[59] O.W. Nuttli, Design earthquakes for the central United
States, Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi,
Jan. (1973).
[60] N.N. Ambraseys, Dynamics and response of foundation
materials in epicentral regions of strong earthquakes,
Proc. of the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Rome, Italy (1973).
[611 L. Esteva and E. Rosenblueth, Espectros de temblores a
distancias moderadas y grandes, Bol. Soc. Mex. Ing. Sism.
2 (1) (1964).
[62] W.R. Hansen et al., Geotechnical data compilation for
selected strong-motion seismograph sites in California,
Woodward-Lundgren & Associates, Oakland, California,
Dec. (1973).
[63] July 31, 1971 preliminary report on the San Fernando
earthquake, presented to the Legislation of the State of
California by the Special Subcommittee of the Joint
Committee on Seismic Safety, 1971.
[64] H.B. Seed and I.M. Idriss, Analysis of ground motions
at Union Bay, Seattle, during earthquakes and distant
nuclear blasts, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 60 (1), Feb.
(1970).
[65] C.M. Duke and D.J. Leeds, Site characteristics of
Southern California strong-motion earthquake stations,
62-55, University of California, Dep. of Engineering, Los
Angeles, Nov. (1962).
[66] C.M. Duke et al., Subsurface conditions in the San
Fernando earthquake region, ENG-UCLA-72-10, Univer-
city of California, Los Angeles (1972).
[67] Shannon and Wilson, Inc. and Agbabian Associates,
Ferndale, Parkfield, Cholame, and E1 Centro, California,
In: Geotechinical and Strong Motion Earthquake Data
from U.S. Accelerograph Stations, Vol. 1 (1975) (draft).