Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Strong ground motion

Strong ground motion refers to the intense shaking of the Earth's surface caused by seismic waves from earthquakes, particularly near the fault rupture where accelerations can exceed those perceptible to humans and cause significant structural damage.^[1] This phenomenon is primarily associated with moderate to large earthquakes (typically magnitude 5 or greater) and is distinguished from weaker motions by its potential to generate forces capable of toppling buildings, triggering landslides, and inducing soil liquefaction.^[2]^[3] The measurement of strong ground motion relies on specialized instruments known as strong-motion seismometers or accelerographs, which record accelerations up to several times the acceleration due to gravity (g ≈ 9.8 m/s²), unlike broadband seismometers designed for weaker signals.^[4] Key parameters include peak ground acceleration (PGA), which quantifies the maximum rate of change in velocity and correlates with damage potential; peak ground velocity (PGV), indicating the overall energy of shaking; frequency content, which determines how vibrations interact with structures of varying natural periods; and duration, the length of time strong shaking persists, often defined using the integral of squared acceleration exceeding a threshold.^[2]^[5] These metrics are influenced by factors such as earthquake magnitude, source-to-site distance, fault rupture directivity (where shaking intensifies in the direction of rupture propagation), and local site conditions like soil type and basin geometry.^[2]^[3] Strong ground motion is central to seismology and earthquake engineering, providing data for probabilistic seismic hazard maps, ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs), and the design of resilient infrastructure.^[6] Organizations like the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintain networks such as the National Strong Motion Project, which operates over 660 stations to collect real-time data for events worldwide, informing tools like ShakeMap for rapid damage assessment.^[6] Historical records, including those from the 1994 Northridge earthquake (M6.7), demonstrate how near-fault effects amplify motions, leading to advancements in building codes that incorporate site-specific hazard levels with a defined probability of exceedance, such as a 2% chance in 50 years.^[2]^[3] Ongoing research focuses on stochastic modeling and empirical predictions to estimate motions from future events, emphasizing the role of source heterogeneities in controlling amplitude and variability.^[7]

Fundamentals

Definition

Strong ground motion refers to the intense shaking experienced near the source of an earthquake, characterized by high amplitudes of ground acceleration, velocity, or displacement that can cause damage to structures and infrastructure. Specifically, it encompasses motions where parameters such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) exceed thresholds like 0.1g (where g is the acceleration due to gravity), marking the approximate lower limit for motions relevant to engineering design and potential structural impacts.^[8]^[9] These motions are typically defined by their capacity to produce significant forces on buildings, with higher thresholds such as PGA > 0.2g often classifying the shaking as particularly strong in engineering standards.^[10] The term "strong ground motion" emerged in the early 20th century following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the 1929 World Engineering Congress, which highlighted the need for recording intense near-source shaking. This led to the design of the first U.S. strong-motion accelerographs by the National Bureau of Standards in 1931 (based on the Wood-Anderson seismometer), with installations managed by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in the early 1930s, capturing records from events like the 1933 Long Beach earthquake.^[11] This period marked the shift from traditional seismometers, which saturated during large events, to devices designed for high-amplitude recordings. In contrast to weaker seismic waves that attenuate over distance and are recorded globally by sensitive instruments, strong ground motion emphasizes near-field effects—typically within about 50 km of the fault—where high-amplitude shaking dominates due to direct rupture propagation and site amplification.^[1] These motions correlate with higher levels on intensity scales, such as Modified Mercalli Intensity VI or greater, where damage becomes evident.^[12]

Characteristics

Strong ground motion is characterized by several key parameters that quantify its intensity and impact. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) measures the maximum acceleration experienced at the ground surface, typically ranging from 0.1g to 1.0g during strong shaking, though extreme events can exceed 2g in the horizontal direction.^[13]^[14] Peak ground velocity (PGV) represents the maximum ground velocity, generally between 0.5 cm/s and 200 cm/s, with higher values near the fault.^[15] Peak ground displacement (PGD) indicates the maximum ground displacement, often 0.1 cm to 100 cm, reflecting longer-period motions that can cause significant structural deformation.^[15] These parameters are derived from accelerograms and highlight the rapid, intense nature of shaking in the near-source region. The frequency content of strong ground motion primarily spans 0.1 Hz to 30 Hz, encompassing a broad spectrum that excites structures across various natural periods.^[16] Within this range, low frequencies (below 1 Hz) dominate long-period responses, while higher frequencies (up to 30 Hz) contribute to short-period accelerations. Near-fault effects, such as forward directivity, introduce pulse-like motions with concentrated energy in the 0.5–10 Hz band, amplifying velocities and displacements perpendicular to the rupture propagation.^[16] Duration assesses the persistence of strong shaking, often defined as the significant duration between 5% and 95% (or 75%) of the Arias intensity, which integrates the squared acceleration over time to quantify cumulative energy (typically 1–2000 cm/s).^[15]^[17] This duration, ranging from 1 s to 50 s, influences fatigue in structures, with longer durations (e.g., 10–50 s for large events) increasing damage potential by prolonging energy input.^[15]^[17] Site effects significantly modify strong ground motion through local soil conditions, with soft soils amplifying amplitudes by factors of 2–5 compared to rock sites, particularly at site-specific resonant frequencies.^[18] This amplification arises from impedance contrasts and wave trapping in sedimentary basins, exacerbating motions in areas like alluvial plains or soft clay deposits.^[18] Variability in strong ground motion is influenced by fault type and hypocentral distance, leading to asymmetric shaking patterns. Strike-slip faults often produce more directional pulses due to directivity, while thrust faults generate hanging-wall effects that intensify near-surface motions.^[19] Hypocentral distance further modulates this variability, with intraevent standard deviations increasing up to 20–35 km before stabilizing, as scattering and attenuation effects dominate farther from the source.^[19]

Measurement

Instruments

Strong ground motion is primarily recorded using accelerographs and strong-motion seismometers, which are designed to capture high-amplitude accelerations during earthquakes that exceed the capabilities of standard seismometers. Accelerographs measure ground acceleration directly, while strong-motion seismometers often employ force-balance accelerometers to achieve high fidelity in recording. These instruments typically feature a dynamic range exceeding 111 dB (equivalent to full-scale accelerations of ±2 g or more with micro-g resolution) and a flat frequency response from 0.02 to 50 Hz, enabling accurate capture of both low- and high-frequency components of shaking.^[20]^[21] The development of these instruments began in the early 20th century with analog devices. In the 1930s, the first strong-motion seismographs, such as mechanical accelerographs, were introduced to record peak accelerations during damaging earthquakes, with pioneers like Kyoji Suyehiro in Japan and John Freeman in the United States advocating for their use following the 1923 Tokyo earthquake. These early analog systems used film or paper records and had limited dynamic range, often clipping at accelerations above 0.2 g. The transition to digital recording occurred in the late 1970s, with the introduction of digital accelerographs that offered improved resolution and broader bandwidth, revolutionizing data quality and enabling real-time processing. By the 1980s and 1990s, broadband digital sensors became standard, incorporating force-balance feedback mechanisms for linear response across a wide amplitude range.^[22]^[11] Key networks have been instrumental in deploying these instruments globally. The U.S. Geological Survey's National Strong-Motion Program (NSMP), established in 1931 under the Coast and Geodetic Survey, pioneered systematic recording in the United States, initially focusing on California and expanding to over 700 stations by the 21st century. In Japan, the K-NET (Kyoshin Network) and KiK-net (Kiban Kyoshin Network) were launched in the late 1990s by the National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience following the 1995 Kobe earthquake; K-NET comprises about 1,000 surface stations for free-field measurements, while KiK-net includes 700 borehole pairs for site response studies. The European Strong-Motion Database (ESM), developed through EU-funded projects starting in the late 1990s and formalized in its current form by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia around 2010, aggregates data from national networks across Europe and the Mediterranean, supporting over 10,000 records from events since the 1930s.^[11]^[23]^[24] Deployment strategies prioritize high-risk seismic zones to maximize data utility for engineering and hazard assessment. Instruments are sited in free-field locations near faults, as well as on structures like buildings, bridges, and dams to evaluate site-specific amplification and structural response. Triggering mechanisms are set to activate recording at low acceleration thresholds, typically above 0.01 g, to capture moderate events while minimizing false triggers from non-seismic noise; modern digital systems often use continuous recording to eliminate triggering biases altogether. Borehole installations, as in KiK-net, provide baseline data unaffected by surface soils.^[25]^[20] Calibration ensures instrument reliability, with standards requiring traceability to national metrology institutes. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 16063 series, particularly Part 21 for comparison methods using reference transducers, guides calibration procedures to achieve amplitude accuracy within 5% and phase accuracy within 5 degrees over the 0.1–100 Hz range. In the United States, calibrations follow NIST-traceable protocols, while specific strong-motion guidelines emphasize periodic field verification to maintain performance during deployment.^[20]

Data Processing

Raw strong ground motion data, typically recorded as acceleration time series from seismometers or accelerographs, undergo a series of processing steps to correct for instrumental and environmental artifacts, ensuring the resulting datasets are reliable for engineering analysis and seismic hazard assessment. These steps transform noisy, uncalibrated recordings into corrected acceleration, velocity, and displacement traces, as well as derived quantities like response spectra, while preserving the physical characteristics of the ground motion.^[26] Baseline correction is a fundamental initial step to remove low-frequency drifts in acceleration records caused by sensor tilt, rotational effects, or electronic offsets during an earthquake. Common techniques include polynomial fitting, where a low-order polynomial (typically second- or third-degree) is least-squares fitted to the pre-event and post-event portions of the record to estimate and subtract the baseline trend, thereby minimizing artificial velocity and displacement offsets. This method is widely adopted because it effectively handles inconsistent initial velocities and accelerations without introducing high-frequency artifacts, as demonstrated in applications to vibration signals from seismic events.^[27]^[28] Filtering follows baseline correction to attenuate noise outside the frequency band of interest while retaining the signal's dynamic content. Bandpass filters, such as fourth-order Butterworth filters with passbands from 0.05 to 50 Hz, are routinely applied to eliminate low-frequency instrumental noise (e.g., from tilt) and high-frequency electronic or site-generated noise, which can dominate in strong motion records. Care must be taken to avoid over-filtering, as aggressive high-frequency cutoffs above 20-25 Hz may distort peak accelerations and spectral amplitudes critical for engineering design, particularly in near-fault recordings where high-frequency content exceeds 30 Hz.^[29]^[30] Once acceleration is corrected and filtered, double integration yields velocity and displacement time series, but this process amplifies baseline errors, leading to spurious long-period trends. To mitigate these, integration is often performed with concurrent baseline correction, such as iterative adjustment of the acceleration record to ensure zero net displacement over the event duration, or by incorporating instrument response simulations like those of the Wood-Anderson seismograph to validate the recovered displacements against expected low-frequency behavior. This approach has been validated in processing historical strong motion data, where uncorrected integrations can overestimate permanent displacements by factors of 2-5.^[31]^[32] Response spectra computation derives engineering-relevant parameters from the processed time series, quantifying the ground motion's potential to excite structures at various periods. Pseudo-acceleration spectra, which approximate the maximum acceleration of a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator, are calculated for a standard 5% critical damping ratio, as this value balances realism with computational efficiency for most civil structures and is enshrined in seismic design codes worldwide. The spectra are typically computed over periods from 0.01 to 10 seconds using numerical integration of the equation of motion, providing peak values that inform building code spectra and performance-based design.^[33]^[34] Quality control throughout processing ensures data integrity, with key metrics including signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) thresholds exceeding 3:1 in the primary frequency band to confirm the signal dominates over background noise, particularly for low-amplitude records. Additionally, checks for clipping—where amplitudes saturate the instrument's dynamic range—are performed by inspecting for flattened peaks in the time series or spectral irregularities, often using automated algorithms to flag and exclude affected portions, as clipped data can underestimate peak ground accelerations by up to 20-50%. These metrics, recommended in standard processing guidelines, help maintain dataset usability for hazard modeling.^[35]^[36]^[26]

Modeling and Prediction

Ground Motion Prediction Equations

Ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs), also known as attenuation relations, are empirical or semi-empirical models that estimate the intensity of strong ground motion, such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) or spectral acceleration, as a function of earthquake source parameters, propagation path, and site conditions. These equations are derived from regression analyses of recorded strong-motion data and are essential for seismic hazard assessment and engineering design. The general form of a GMPE is typically expressed in logarithmic space to account for the wide variability in ground motion amplitudes:

\log_{10} Y = f(M, R, \mathbf{S}) + \epsilon

where Y is the ground motion intensity measure (e.g., PGA), M is the moment magnitude, R represents source-to-site distance metrics (e.g., rupture distance R_{rup} or Joyner-Boore distance R_{JB}), \mathbf{S} denotes site parameters (e.g., shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m, V_{S30}), and \epsilon captures aleatory variability, often assumed to be normally distributed with zero mean and standard deviation \sigma.^[37] One of the seminal GMPEs is the Boore-Joyner-Fumal (BJF) model of 1997 using strong-motion data from California earthquakes, which provided an early framework for predicting horizontal PGA and velocity on rock sites. The BJF equation takes the form \log y = \alpha + \beta M - \log r + b r, where y is the ground motion parameter, r = \sqrt{d^2 + h^2} (with d as hypocentral distance and h as a fictitious depth), \beta scales magnitude effects, and b r approximates anelastic attenuation. This model incorporated site amplification based on V_{S30} and nonlinear soil response. Subsequent advancements in the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) project led to the NGA-West2 suite of GMPEs in 2014, which expanded on BJF by integrating effects such as hanging-wall amplification (stronger motions on the hanging-wall side of dipping faults) and basin depth (via sediment depth parameter z_{1.0} for long-period amplification in deep basins). The NGA-West2 models, including those by Boore et al. and Abrahamson et al., were developed using an extensive database of over 20,000 recordings from active tectonic regions.^[38]^[39]^[40] The functional components of GMPEs generally include magnitude scaling, which often follows an exponential form like c_1 (M - M_h) + c_2 (8.5 - M) for M > M_h (a hinge magnitude around 6.0) to capture saturation at high magnitudes for PGA, and distance attenuation comprising geometric spreading (approximating point-source $1/R or extended-source $1/\sqrt{R} for body waves) and anelastic damping (e.g., \exp(-\alpha f R), where \alpha is frequency-dependent and f is spectral period). For example, in NGA-West2 models, the distance term is \left[ c_1 + c_2 (M - M_{ref}) \right] \ln(R_{JB}/R_{ref}) + c_3 (R_{JB} - R_{ref}), balancing near-source nonlinear effects with far-field decay. Site terms add amplification, typically nonlinear for soft soils, using V_{S30} to scale motions relative to a reference rock condition.^[37]^[40] Regional adaptations of GMPEs account for tectonic regime differences, with subduction zone models showing elevated long-period (T > 1 s) motions compared to crustal fault models due to deeper rupture interfaces and slower near-source attenuation in oceanic slabs. For instance, the Youngs et al. (1997) model for subduction zones, based on global data from Japan and other regions, predicts higher spectral accelerations at longer periods for interface events (e.g., up to 110 cm/s² at 0.5 Hz for M ≥ 8 at 100 km) than crustal equivalents like BJF, while in-slab events attenuate more rapidly beyond 100 km. Crustal GMPEs, such as those in NGA-West2, emphasize shallow active faults with hanging-wall effects, whereas subduction models incorporate slab geometry and hypocentral depth. More recent models, such as those from the NGA-Subduction project (2022), build on this foundation using larger global datasets to better capture regional variations in subduction zone shaking. Uncertainty is quantified via the total standard deviation \sigma \approx 0.5 in natural log units for PGA (often split into between-event \tau \approx 0.3 and within-event \phi \approx 0.4 components), with values decreasing slightly for larger magnitudes or longer periods due to ergodic assumptions in mixed-effects regressions.^[41]^[37]^[40]^[42] Validation of GMPEs relies on residual analysis against observed data from global databases, such as the PEER NGA-West2 database containing recordings from over 600 events in California and other active regions. Residuals, defined as \ln(Y_{obs}/Y_{pred}), are examined for bias (mean ≈ 0) and trends across magnitude, distance, and site classes using mixed-effects models to separate aleatory and epistemic uncertainties; for NGA-West2, residuals show no significant bias, confirming model reliability for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.^[43]^[40]

Simulation Methods

Simulation methods for strong ground motion rely on physics-based approaches to generate synthetic seismograms for earthquake scenarios where empirical recordings are unavailable, enabling the prediction of shaking intensity, duration, and frequency content at specific sites. These techniques model the earthquake source, wave propagation through heterogeneous media, and site effects, contrasting with probabilistic ground motion prediction equations by emphasizing deterministic or semi-stochastic rupture physics. Key methods include kinematic source models, dynamic rupture simulations, and hybrid approaches, each addressing different aspects of the seismic process from fault slip to high-frequency scattering. Kinematic source models represent the earthquake rupture as a prescribed distribution of slip on discrete fault patches, without solving the full dynamic equations of motion. The fault is discretized into subfaults, each assigned parameters such as slip amplitude, rupture velocity (typically 70-80% of shear-wave speed), and rise time, which governs the duration of slip on each patch (1-10 seconds). Synthetic seismograms are then generated by convolving these source time functions with Green's functions that account for wave propagation in a 1D or 3D velocity structure. This approach, often using the frequency-wavenumber (f-k) method for efficiency, produces broadband ground motions up to 10 Hz and has been validated against observed data for events like the 1994 Northridge earthquake. A seminal characterized source model incorporates strong motion generation areas with heterogeneous slip to capture near-fault effects, improving spectral matches to empirical observations. Dynamic rupture simulations solve the full elastodynamic wave equation coupled with fault friction laws to spontaneously evolve the rupture process from initial stress conditions. Using finite-difference or finite-element methods on 3D velocity models, these simulations incorporate constitutive relations like slip-weakening or rate-and-state friction, where frictional resistance evolves with slip velocity and contact time (state variable, often 0.1-10 seconds). For instance, rate-and-state friction captures velocity-weakening behavior leading to unstable slip, with parameters such as steady-state friction coefficient (0.6-0.8) and direct effect parameter (a ≈ 0.01). These models resolve ground motions from low frequencies (DC to 1 Hz) and are computationally intensive, requiring supercomputing for large faults, but provide insights into rupture directivity and supershear transitions that amplify peak ground accelerations up to 2g. Validation against empirical ground motion prediction equations shows good agreement for magnitude 6-7 events, with stress drops of 1-10 MPa driving high-frequency content. Hybrid approaches combine deterministic low-frequency modeling (0-1 Hz) from kinematic or dynamic sources with stochastic high-frequency components (>1 Hz) to simulate broadband motions efficiently. The EXSIM method, for example, extends finite-fault stochastic simulation by subdividing the fault into patches, each radiating uncorrelated high-frequency energy modulated by a deterministic low-frequency envelope derived from a kinematic slip model. This captures scattering and attenuation effects via frequency-dependent quality factor (Q) models, producing accelerograms with realistic duration (10-100 seconds) and spectral decay. Input parameters include fault geometry (length 10-200 km, width 5-20 km), rise time (1-10 seconds), and stress drop (1-10 MPa), tuned to match regional attenuation. Such methods are validated by comparing simulated response spectra to empirical ground motion prediction equations, achieving misfits below 20% for frequencies up to 20 Hz in crustal events. These simulation methods are applied in scenario modeling for seismic hazard assessment, generating shaking maps for potential future earthquakes to inform building codes and emergency planning. For the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (M7.8), kinematic and hybrid simulations reconstructed peak ground velocities up to 1 m/s in the epicentral region, revealing basin-edge amplification in the San Francisco Bay Area that contributed to widespread damage; these results align with historical intensity reports and guide modern hazard maps for the San Andreas Fault.

Impacts

Structural Damage

Strong ground motion induces structural damage primarily through inertial forces that generate lateral accelerations in buildings and infrastructure, often exceeding gravitational forces in high-seismic zones. These forces are characterized by peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV), which correlate with spectral accelerations in response spectra—plots depicting the maximum response of single-degree-of-freedom oscillators to ground motion across various natural periods.^[44] When the predominant period of the ground motion aligns with a structure's natural period, resonance amplifies accelerations, leading to excessive drifts and stresses. For mid-rise buildings, with natural periods typically ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 seconds, this resonance can significantly heighten demands during shaking with periods in the 0.2- to 0.5-second range common in many earthquakes.^[44]^[45] Key damage mechanisms include shear failure in foundations and elements, triggered by high PGA values exceeding 0.4g, which overwhelm shear capacities and cause cracking or sliding at the soil-foundation interface.^[46] Another mechanism is pounding between adjacent structures, arising from differential motions due to varying stiffness or periods, resulting in localized impacts that exacerbate corner column damage and facade failures.^[44] Vulnerability varies by material: unreinforced masonry structures, lacking ductility, often experience out-of-plane wall failures and collapses at PGAs around 0.2g, while steel frames, designed with ductile detailing, can resist up to approximately 0.5g before significant yielding, though connections remain susceptible to brittle fracture.^[47]^[48] Tall structures face additional amplification of higher-mode responses, increasing overturning moments and base shear. Non-structural elements, such as ceiling tiles, partitions, and elevators, contribute substantially to damage from strong motion, with falling hazards posing risks from dislodged components during drifts exceeding 0.007 to 0.025 times the story height.^[44] Prolonged shaking can also induce liquefaction in saturated soils, leading to settlement and tilting of foundations, with volume losses causing differential displacements that crack slabs and utilities.^[49]^[50] Mitigation strategies effectively reduce transmitted motion and damage potential. Base isolation systems, using elastomeric bearings or sliding pads, decouple the superstructure from the ground, lengthening the effective period and reducing accelerations by 50-80%, thereby limiting interstory drifts.^[44] For high-rise buildings, tuned mass dampers—mass-spring systems tuned to the structure's fundamental mode—dissipate vibrational energy, reducing peak displacements and accelerations by up to 25% in the upper stories.^[44] These approaches, when integrated into design, enhance overall resilience without relying solely on qualitative intensity assessments.^[44]

Correlation with Intensity Scales

Strong ground motion parameters, particularly peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV), are empirically linked to the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale through probabilistic relationships derived from large datasets of instrumental recordings and felt reports. For instance, MMI VII—marked by difficulty standing, hanging objects swinging, and moderate damage to ordinary buildings—typically corresponds to PGA thresholds of 0.1–0.2g. These linkages are formalized in conversion equations, such as those developed by Worden et al. (2012), which use total least squares regression to model the joint probability distribution between MMI and ground motion metrics like PGA and PGV, enabling reversible predictions with reduced residuals when incorporating magnitude and distance effects.^[51] Analogous relations exist for other macroseismic scales. In the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98), intensity VIII, involving heavy damage to vulnerable structures and moderate damage to well-built ones, aligns with PGV values of approximately 20–50 cm/s, as derived from bilinear regressions between observed intensities and ground motion parameters.^[52] For the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) seismic intensity scale, which ranges from 0 to 7, PGV shows a strong nonlinear correlation with instrumental intensities above 4, where higher levels (e.g., 6–7, indicating widespread destruction) correspond to PGV exceeding 50 cm/s, based on two-stage linear regressions from strong-motion records.^[53] Despite these correlations, significant limitations arise from the subjective nature of intensity assessments, which rely on human observations and structural vulnerability, in contrast to the objective, site-specific measurements of strong ground motion. This subjectivity introduces variability, exacerbated by spatial heterogeneity due to local site effects like soil amplification, which can cause intensities to deviate substantially over short distances. Empirical studies highlight this through scatter plots of intensity versus log(PGA) or log(PGV), fitted with regression models from global datasets, yielding standard deviations (σ) of 0.3–0.5 MMI units that quantify prediction uncertainty.^[51] The foundational work linking intensities to accelerograph data dates to Gutenberg and Richter (1942), who calibrated early intensity scales against limited strong-motion recordings from California earthquakes, establishing initial quantitative ties between perceived shaking and acceleration that informed subsequent global models.

Notable Examples

Historical Earthquakes

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake, with a moment magnitude of 7.9, provided early insights into strong ground motion through indirect evidence such as the toppling of chimneys and other objects, yielding estimated peak ground accelerations (PGA) ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 g in the epicentral region. These estimates were derived from analyzing the dynamic response of rigid objects to horizontal accelerations, marking the first widespread studies correlating such motions with structural damage patterns across unreinforced masonry buildings and infrastructure. The 1923 Great Kanto earthquake in Japan, magnitude 7.9, was one of the earliest events to yield accelerograph records, capturing motions near the epicenter in Yokohama and Tokyo. These analog recordings from instruments like the Omori horizontal pendulum accelerograph highlighted the role of near-fault effects in amplifying motions, influencing initial efforts to develop empirical prediction models for urban seismic hazards.^[54] In the United States, the 1933 Long Beach earthquake (magnitude 6.4) produced the first strong-motion accelerograms on American soil, with the maximum recorded PGA of 0.22 g at the Compton station.^[55] This event exposed vulnerabilities in unreinforced masonry structures, particularly schools, with more than 70 destroyed and 120 damaged, prompting immediate regulatory changes.^[55]^[56] Prior to widespread instrumental deployment, analysis of these historical earthquakes relied on isoseismal maps—contours of observed shaking intensity—and qualitative data from eyewitness accounts and damage surveys to retrospectively estimate ground motions.^[57] Such methods allowed for the mapping of intensity gradients, correlating qualitative descriptions of object displacement and structural failure with inferred PGA levels, though with inherent uncertainties due to sparse data.^[57] The legacies of these events profoundly shaped global seismic standards; for instance, the widespread collapse of wooden and masonry structures in unreinforced zones during the Great Kanto earthquake led to Japan's 1924 Urban Building Law, the nation's first national seismic design code mandating horizontal force considerations equivalent to 10% of building weight.^[58] Similarly, the Long Beach disaster spurred the Field Act in California, enforcing stricter school construction codes to mitigate strong-motion risks.^[55]

Modern Records

The 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, with a moment magnitude of 6.9, produced some of the earliest modern digital strong ground motion records, including a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of approximately 0.8g at the Takatori station, located near the fault rupture. This record captured pulse-like near-fault motions that contributed to the collapse of numerous elevated highways and bridges, such as the Hanshin Expressway, due to forward directivity effects amplifying horizontal velocities up to 150 cm/s.^[59] The event's dense network of over 100 accelerometers provided high-resolution data on site-specific amplification, highlighting how soft alluvial soils in the Osaka Basin intensified shaking and facilitated the spread of fires through ruptured gas lines.^[60] The 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, magnitude 7.6, stands out for recording one of the highest PGAs in modern history, reaching nearly 1g at stations like TCU129 along the Chelungpu fault.^[61] Surface rupture effects were prominent, with fault-parallel displacements up to 12 meters directly influencing near-fault records, where vertical accelerations exceeded 0.7g and induced significant structural pounding in buildings.^[62] These motions, captured by Taiwan's Central Weather Bureau network of over 400 stations, demonstrated how hanging-wall effects doubled PGA values compared to footwall sites, providing key data for understanding rupture directivity in thrust faults.^[63] In the 2011 Tohoku earthquake off Japan's Pacific coast, magnitude 9.0, offshore and coastal strong motion networks recorded extreme accelerations up to 2.7g at the K-NET station MYG004 in Miyagi Prefecture, the highest ever instrumentally measured.^[64] These records, from over 1,000 K-NET and KiK-net stations, revealed interactions between seismic waves and the ensuing tsunami, where long-period basin effects prolonged surface motions and amplified coastal velocities to over 300 cm/s. The subduction zone rupture, spanning 500 km, underscored the role of deep sediment layers in generating basin-edge generated waves that exacerbated shaking in urban areas like Sendai.^[65] Japan's KiK-net, with borehole sensors at depths of 100-2,000 meters paired with surface instruments, has been instrumental in quantifying site amplification, showing factors up to 3 times higher at the surface compared to rock conditions during events like Tohoku.^[66] These paired records illustrate nonlinear soil response, where soft sediments deamplify high frequencies but amplify low ones, with borehole data revealing deamplification during intense shaking.^[67] Contributions from KiK-net datasets have informed updates to the NGA-East ground motion models, incorporating ergodic site terms from Japanese crustal events to improve predictions for central and eastern North America.^[68] The 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake sequence, including the magnitude 7.8 Pazarcık event, recorded PGAs exceeding 0.5g across a broad region along the East Anatolian Fault, with near-fault values up to 0.94g at stations like Kahramanmaraş.^[69] These motions, captured by Turkey's AFAD network of over 200 accelerometers, highlighted pulse-like characteristics from bilateral rupture propagation, informing resilient design standards for active strike-slip faults in seismically vulnerable areas.^[70] The records emphasize the need for fault-proximal instrumentation to capture velocity pulses that drive collapse in mid-rise structures.^[71] More recent events continue to provide valuable data on strong ground motions. The 2024 Hualien earthquake in Taiwan (M7.4) recorded PGAs up to approximately 0.8 g near the fault, highlighting basin effects and directivity in a reverse fault setting with dense instrumentation from the Taiwan Strong Motion Instrumentation Program.^[72] Similarly, the March 28, 2025, Myanmar earthquake (M7.7) along the Sagaing fault produced extreme accelerations exceeding 1.5 g at select stations, offering insights into strike-slip rupture dynamics and site amplification in a region with limited prior records.^[73]

References

[1]
Strong-Motion Seismology - ScienceDirect.com
Strong-motion seismology is concerned with the measurement, interpretation, and estimation of strong shaking generated by potentially damaging earthquakes.
[2]
Ground Motion | Pacific Northwest Seismic Network
The strength of ground shaking is measured in the velocity of ground motion, the acceleration of gound motion, the frequency content of the shaking, and how ...
[3]
Ground Motion | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Near the ground surface, strong shaking can result in nonlinear soil behavior or raise pore fluid pressure causing liquefaction. Likewise, the geometry of a man ...
[4]
Not all ground-motion sensors are created equal
Oct 29, 2019 · Broadband seismometers are sensitive to weak motions, while strong-motion seismometers record large ground motions. Broadband sensors are for ...
[5]
A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion
A simple definition of the duration of strong earthquake ground motion based on the mean-square integral of motion has been presented.
[6]
National Strong Motion Project - Earthquake Hazards Program
The NSMP operates and maintains strong-motion instruments at more than 660 ground, free-field and reference sites, and more than 3200 channels of data.
[7]
Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground ...
Theoretical prediction of ground motion calls for stochastic source models because source heterogeneities control the amplitude of ground motion at most, if not ...
[8]
Earthquake Hazards Program | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov
Strong motion. Ground motion of sufficient amplitude and duration to be potentially damaging to a building or other structure.
[9]
[PDF] Ground Motion-Based Testing of Seismic Hazard Models in the USA
PGA of 0.1g is our basis for selection for practical reasons as it represents the approximate lower limit of PGA considered important for engineering design ...
[10]
A Simple Test for Inhibition of Very Strong Shaking in Ground-Motion ...
Jul 14, 2017 · Defining upper bounds on earthquake ground motions is recognized to be an important problem in engineering seismology (Bommer et al., 2004).Missing: threshold | Show results with:threshold
[11]
NSMP History - Earthquake Hazards Program
Strong-motion recording in the United States has roots in the World Engineering Congress that convened in Tokyo in 1929. American engineers returned from ...
[12]
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale | U.S. Geological Survey
It was developed in 1931 by the American seismologists Harry Wood and Frank Neumann. This scale, composed of increasing levels of intensity that range from ...
[13]
Earthquake Hazards 201 - Technical Q&A - USGS.gov
Jan 1, 1995 · PGA (peak acceleration) is what is experienced by a particle on the ground, and SA is approximately what is experienced by a building, as ...
[14]
Characteristics of strong ground motions and structural damage ...
Aug 16, 2024 · The first earthquake produced extremely high PGA values in both horizontal (> 2 g) and vertical (> 1 g) components. At near field distances, ...
[15]
[PDF] Peak ground velocity and displacement, Arias intensity ... - Hal-BRGM
May 2, 2012 · The purpose of this short article is to extend the analysis of Douglas (2010) to strong- motion parameters other than PGA and SA, which are ...
[16]
[PDF] Frequency content indicators of strong ground motions
The frequency contents of the strong ground motions is a key parameter for explaining and understanding structural damage experienced during strong seismic ...
[17]
Ground‐Motion Model for Significant Duration Constrained by ...
Oct 18, 2023 · A duration ground‐motion model for crustal earthquakes based on the normalized Arias intensity (⁠ I A ⁠) is developed.ABSTRACT · INTRODUCTION · EXSIM SIMULATIONS FOR... · DATA SET
[18]
Site Effects on Strong Ground Motions - ScienceDirect.com
Site effects strongly amplify or deamplify seismic motions, especially near the surface. Soft soil layers can cause significant amplification, as seen in the ...Introduction · Physical Modeling Of Site... · Empirical Modeling Of Site...
[19]
Ground Motion and Intraevent Variability from 3D Deterministic ...
Nov 13, 2018 · (2015) found that the variability for bilateral strike‐slip faults tends to increase with distances up to about 20 km for PGV (up to 3 Hz) ...
[20]
[PDF] Instrumentation Guidelines for the Advanced National Seismic System
SM: Strong-motion sensor or data acquisition system, measures large amplitude motions, to date without the low-amplitude resolution of broadband seismometers.
[21]
[PDF] AC-73 Triaxial Force Balance Accelerometer - GeoSIG
Force Balance Accelerometer. Dynamic Range: 165 dB (per bin rel. full range). 156 dB (per bin rel. full scale rms). 134 dB (0.02 – 50 Hz, integrated PSD).
[22]
75th anniversary of strong motion observation—A historical review
This review covers recording earthquake motions up to the early 1900s, the first strong motion program in the 1930s, and the roles of Suyehiro and Freeman.
[23]
STRONG-MOTION SEISMOGRAPH NETWORK OPERATED BY NIED
May 6, 2004 · K-NET and KiK-net consist of 1030 and 669 stations, respectively, and uniformly cover almost all. Japan (Fig. 1). Most K-NET stations (Fig. 2) ...
[24]
ESM - Engineering Strong Motion database
ESM, the Engineering Strong-Motion Database, provides a set of facilities to search, select, download and analyse ground-motion data and associated metadata.
[25]
[PDF] COSMOS Guidelines for Installation of Advanced National Seismic ...
Jul 1, 2001 · This document is intended to guide those responsible for ANSS strong-motion station deployment in their planning and construction efforts ...
[26]
[PDF] Motion Record Processing and Commentary - COSMOS
Jun 25, 2005 · These are COSMOS guidelines and recommendations for strong-motion record processing and commentary, from the Consortium of Organizations for ...Missing: clipping | Show results with:clipping
[27]
Baseline Correction of Acceleration Data Based on a Hybrid EMD ...
Sep 19, 2021 · The polynomial detrending algorithm is the most widely used baseline correction method in recent years. This algorithm uses the least squares ...
[28]
Baseline correction of vibration acceleration signals with ...
Oct 20, 2016 · This study improves upon the traditional polynomial detrending method in order to correct the vibration acceleration signals with inconsistent initial velocity ...
[29]
Spatial variation of strong ground motions in a heterogeneous soil ...
2) Perform bandpass filtering in the range of 0.05–50 Hz on the data using the fourth-order Butterworth filter to eliminate the influence of environmental ...
[30]
High-frequency filtering of strong-motion records
Sep 16, 2010 · This article examines the effect of high-frequency noise (>5 Hz) on computed pseudo-absolute response spectral accelerations (PSAs). In contrast ...Missing: bandpass 0.05-50
[31]
[PDF] A new integration method of measured acceleration to velocity and ...
The proposed method is applied to calculate ground velocity and displacement from filtered earthquake acceleration records. ... Baseline Correction of Strong.Missing: Wood- Anderson
[32]
[PDF] MEASUREMENT, CHARACTERIZATION, AND PREDICTION
The accelerogram is first integrated to velocity without high-pass filtering. The final portion of the velocity trace after the strong motion has subsided is ...
[33]
Effect of damping on response spectral ordinates of ground motions ...
For engineering purposes, the ground motion intensity at a site has been historically characterized by 5%-damped pseudo-acceleration response spectral ordinates ...
[34]
[PDF] “R” package for computation of earthquake ground motion response ...
Figure 1.1 shows the 5% damped pseudo-acceleration response spectra based on the two individual horizontal component ground motions and the geometric mean ...
[35]
[PDF] 01HQGR0025 Ground-motion Relations for Puerto Rico Dariush ...
We compiled data for which the signal to noise ratio was at least a factor of 2. For each record, the time series were processed as follows: • Define S-window ( ...
[36]
Automated Detection of Clipping in Broadband Earthquake Records
Dec 22, 2021 · Clipped records in which the amplitude exceeds the dynamic range are relatively easy to identify visually yet challenging for automated ...
[37]
[PDF] Ground-motion prediction equations 1964–2010
This report summarizes all empirical ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs), to esti- mate earthquake peak ground acceleration (PGA) and ...Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[38]
Estimation of Ground Motion Parameters
Oct 18, 2011 · In this report we present the analysis of a large number of earthquake data to provide the basis for estimating the peak acceleration, ...Missing: Fumal equation
[39]
[PDF] us geological survey - David M. Boore
The purpose of this note is to present equations for ground-motion prediction that include the effect of fault type. Boore, David M., William B. Joyner, and ...
[40]
[PDF] NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped ...
We provide ground motion prediction equations for computing medians and standard deviations of average horizontal component intensity measures.
[41]
Empirical Ground-Motion Relations for Subduction-Zone ...
Aug 1, 2003 · We use the database to develop global ground-motion relations for interface and in-slab earthquakes, using a maximum likelihood regression method.
[42]
PEER Ground Motion Database - PEER Center
The web-based Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) ground motion database provides tools for searching, selecting and downloading ground ...PEER Reports · Sign_in · Sign_up · Documentation
[43]
[PDF] Earthquake-Resistant Design Concepts - FEMA
Mar 11, 2021 · This publication serves as a guide on current seismic design provisions in the United States and reaffirms FEMA's ongoing support of efforts to ...
[44]
[PDF] Soil-Structure Interaction for Building Structures - NEHRP
This report was prepared for the Engineering Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under the National Earthquake Hazards ...
[45]
[PDF] NONLINEAR REPONSE OF MSSS BRIDGES UNDER ... - ROSA P
For a ground motion with PGA of 0.4g, the bridges considered will sustain shear failure of columns in addition to bearing failure. This in turn can cause ...<|separator|>
[46]
[PDF] a methodology to assess seismic risk for - MAE Center
Existing unreinforced masonry buildings are highly vulnerable to earthquakes since most of these buildings were not designed for the level of seismic loads ...
[47]
[PDF] State of the Art Report on Past Performance of Steel Moment-Frame ...
This document provides practicing engineers and building officials with a resource document for understanding the behavior of steel moment-frame buildings ...
[48]
What are the Effects of Earthquakes? | U.S. Geological Survey
Liquefaction causes three types of ground failure: lateral spreads, flow failures, and loss of bearing strength. In addition, liquefaction enhances ground ...
[49]
[PDF] Liquefaction Induced Settlement of Structures | Scholars' Mine
May 26, 2010 · Soil liquefaction following earthquakes leads to excessive damage to a wide variety of structures. Settlement and rotation of structures.Missing: non- falling
[50]
Probabilistic Relationships between Ground‐Motion Parameters ...
Feb 1, 2012 · Probabilistic Relationships between Ground‐Motion Parameters and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California Available. C. B. Worden;. C. B. ...
[51]
Relationships between ground motion parameters and ...
Jul 16, 2020 · (2020) propose linear and bilinear relationships between macroseismic data, at scales EMS-98 and MCS, and GMPs such as PGA, PGV and Housner ...
[52]
Correlation of JMA instrumental seismic intensity with strong motion ...
Feb 25, 2002 · The relationships between the JMA seismic intensity and PGA, PGV, and SI were then derived performing a two-stage linear regression analysis.
[53]
Estimates of regional and local strong motions during the great 1923 ...
Mar 3, 2017 · This article is the first of a pair of articles that estimate regional and local strong motions from the 1923 Kanto, Japan, earthquake.Missing: peak | Show results with:peak
[54]
The 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
The ground shaking lasted about 10 seconds. The maximum recorded ground acceleration was 22 percent of the force of gravity. Note: Long Beach was the first ...
[55]
[PDF] lsoseismal Maps, Macroseismic Epicenters, and Estimated ...
Nov 23, 1982 · Maps may be purchased over the counter at the U.S. Geolog- ical Survey offices where books are sold (all addresses in above list) and at the ...
[56]
[PDF] KNOWLEDGE NOTE 1-2 Building Performance - GFDRR
Based on the lessons learned from the disaster, a seismic design code was introduced in the building code of 1924, the first national seismic design code ...
[57]
[PDF] Rocking Response of Equipment Anchored to a Base Foundation
Sep 14, 2001 · at the Takatori Station during the January 16, 1995, Kobe earthquake. ... Station motion is about 1.5 in., whereas all other strong motions ...
[58]
[PDF] Extension of Database on Exceptional Strong Motion Accelerograms
Jul 15, 2013 · The Takatori station that recorded the Hyogo-ken Nanbu. (Kobe) earthquake (M w 6.9) was about 600 m from the vertical projection of the fault ...
[59]
An Overview of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake
Oct 1, 2001 · The Chi-Chi earthquake is the only recorded event in the world with M > 7.5, rupture length > 70 km, and many PGA > 1g records.
[60]
Strong ground motion simulation of the 1999 Chi‐Chi, Taiwan ...
Jun 21, 2007 · We simulate the strong ground motion of 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake (M w = 7.6) by considering a three-dimensional source rupture model.
[61]
[PDF] December 1999 - Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
The average horizontal PGAs from the Chi-Chi earthquake recorded at distances less than 20 km are about 30% below the median PGAs based on commonly used ...
[62]
[PDF] The 03/11/2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku, Japan Earthquake - Amazon AWS
Maximum PGA of 2.7g was recorded at Miyagi Prefecture. MYG004. Page 12. Peak ... Peak ground acceleration. 0–0.2 m/s². 0.2–0.4. 0.4–0.8. 0.8–1.6. 1.6–3.2. 3.2 ...
[63]
Insights on the Japanese Subduction Megathrust Properties From ...
Oct 1, 2018 · In the case of Japan, the KiK-net provides high-quality earthquake acceleration records for one of the most active subduction zone of the world.
[64]
Calibration of amplification factors using KiK-net strong-motion records
Oct 19, 2007 · We investigate subsurface amplification factors using the KiK-net strong-motion data recorded both in the borehole and on the ground surface ...
[65]
Systematic assessment of nonlinear soil behavior at KiK-net sites in ...
Apr 4, 2025 · Using the surface-to-borehole ratio, we systematically capture the empirical effects of nonlinear soil response as the amplitude change and ...
[66]
[PDF] NGA-East: Ground-Motion Standard Deviation Models for Central ...
Jun 7, 2015 · Empirical ground motion prediction equations for active crustal earthquakes using the Japanese KiK-net database: Ergodic and site-specific ...
[67]
The 2023 Türkiye-Syria earthquake disaster was exacerbated by an ...
Feb 26, 2025 · For the PGA map, we combined the USGS ground shaking estimates for the Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6 earthquakes, recording the highest PGA value for each ...
[68]
Near-field ground motion intensity parameters of the major February ...
Aug 28, 2025 · The Mw 7.7 2023 earthquake occurred along the EAF, a major active fault in eastern Turkey. The fault is part of the complex system of faults ...
[69]
The Destructive Earthquake Doublet of 6 February 2023 in South ...
May 4, 2023 · On 6 February 2023, two large earthquakes with magnitude 7.8 and 7.6 rocked south‐central Türkiye and northwestern Syria.