Vol.10, No.

3 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION September, 2011

Earthq Eng & Eng Vib (2011) 10: 313-323 DOI: 10.1007/s11803-011-0068-y

A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with

consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake
Peng Lei1†, Xie Lili1.2‡, Hu Jinjun1§ and Wang Dong1*

1. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China

2. School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China

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

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

1 Introduction effect into the attenuation relationships, including both

The near-fault effect has been a topic of great
interest in recent years to researchers who study ground
motion characteristics. Due to the gradually extensive
deployment of strong-motion instruments and the rapid
development of technologies, increasingly high quality
near-fault recordings data sets have been obtained,
especially after recent major earthquakes, and an in-depth
insight into the near-fault effect has become possible.
The hanging wall effect is an important component of
near-fault effects. Studies on attenuation relationship
have identified this effect in the past (Campbell, 1993;
Abrahamson and Somerville, 1996; Abrahamson and
Silva, 1997). Because of closer proximity of sites on the
hanging wall to faults as a whole than for sites at the same
distance on the footwall (Somerville and Graves, 2003;
Wang et al., 2008), the hanging wall effect is simply a
geometric phenomenon causing ground motions to be
larger at sites on the hanging wall than on the footwall.
By the classical means of analyzing residuals, studies
have been conducted to incorporate the hanging wall
Correspondence to: Peng Lei, Institute of Engineering
Mechanics, China Earthquake Bureau, Harbin 150080, China
E-mail: peng084@163.com
†
Graduate Student; ‡Professor; §Associate professor; *Doctor
Supported by: The National Basic Research Program of China or
973 Program, Under Grant No. 2007CB714200 and National
Natural Science Foundation of China Under Grant No.
50808166.
Received December 15, 2010; Accepted April 31, 2011
the general attenuation relationships such as the first
phase of NGA (next generation attenuation of ground
motion) models and the single earthquake- specific
attenuation relationships such as those in the analysis
of Abrahamson and Somerville (1996) and Shabestari
et al. (2003).
The 2008 Wenchuan earthquake was the most
devastating disaster to occur in the past few decades in
China, causing huge economic losses and a heavy death
toll. Meanwhile, it provided the most strong motion data
since the beginning of strong ground motion observation
in China. Based on the data set from this earthquake,
this study attempts to better quantify the hanging wall
effect exhibited in this earthquake. For the first step,
residuals on both hanging wall sites and footwall sites
were obtained by regression of the Wenchuan-specific
attenuation relationship and an obvious hanging
wall effect was identified by the bias of the residual
distribution. Then, a new model is developed based
on modification of two models previously proposed to
analyze the hanging wall effect in other earthquakes.
Finally, a comparison of results predicted by both the
present model and the Abrahamson and Silva’s NGA
model are presented and some discussions are provided.
2 Near-fault strong ground motion data set
In this study, the near-fault distance is defined as
the closest distance to the fault plane from a given
314 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
site. The hanging wall effect is simply a geometrically
related effect revealed by both empirical and numerical
examinations. Such an effect can also be eliminated
by defining a so called root-mean-square distance, by
which weighted averages are applied to sites located
on a hanging wall and a footwall (Wang et al., 2008).
However, since the primary objective of this paper is to
examine and model the hanging wall effect exhibited
in the Wenchuan earthquake, the normally used closest
distance is used to make the hanging wall effect emerge.
Recordings within a near-fault distance of 100 km were
used in this study. Furthermore, the closest distance from
each site to the ruptured fault was calculated using the
USGS fault plane solution (Chen and Gravin, 2008).
Recordings off the ends of the ruptured fault are excluded
from our data set. The recording stations are listed in
Table 1 as well as site conditions, rupture distance,
PGA, SA, etc. Since detailed site conditions were not
accessible at the time of this article, a general idea of
the site conditions for each site can only be derived by
the modest information given in the recording data files.
Therefore, site conditions are classified as simply soil or
rock. Figure 1 shows the fault vertical projection on the
ground surface, epicenter and the position of the stations
used in this study with respect to the fault projection as
well as their site conditions.
3 Specific attenuation relationships for the
Wenchuan earthquake
In this section, a simple form of attenuation
relationship is derived from regression analysis
performed on the recorded data with fault distances
of less than 100 km from this earthquake. The PGAH,
N
Surface projection of fault
Fault surface trace
Sichuan Province
Rock
Soil
Fig. 1 Distribution of stations used in this study with sites
classification of rock (upend triangle) and soil (solid
circle) and vertical projection of the fault solution by
USGS, and also the epicenter marked by a star shown
with respect to the fault. (Shadowed areas are excluded
from the study)
Vol.10
PGAN and PGAP (peak ground acceleration for
geometric mean horizontal components, fault normal
(FN) components, and fault parallel (FP) components),
and corresponding acceleration response spectra SAH,
SAN, SAP for 5% damping are derived by the same
attenuation relationship. Note that even though many
attenuation relationships are available, only the simplest
ones are needed for this study; thus the one used in
Abrahamson and Somerville (1996) is quoted. Then,
the specific attenuation relationship for the Wenchuan
earthquake considering the effects of site, geometric
spreading and near-source saturation is given as
y = b1 + b2 S + (b3 + b4 S ) ln(r + c) +  (1)
where y is the natural logarithm of PGAH, PGAN,
PGAP, SAH, SAN or SAP, S is a parameter introduced to
model the site conditions using 0 for rock sites and 1 for
soil sites, r denotes the distance in km used to represent
the geometric spreading effect, ε is the regression error,
and c is the near-source saturation term and assumed
to be a constant as we focus on a single earthquake.
By a nonlinear least square regression analysis, all
the coefficients in Eq. (1) are obtained and are listed
in Table 2 for PGAH, PGAN, PGAP and Table 3 for
spectral accelerations SAH, SAN, SAP. Corresponding
attenuation relationships are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
4 Modeling of hanging wall effect exhibited
in PGA
The hanging wall effect represents a systematic
difference between the ground motions at hanging wall
sites and footwall sites, and it is commonly accepted
that hanging wall sites experience more intense ground
motion than footwall sites at the same distance to fault.
Accordingly, the PGA residuals between the recordings
on the hanging wall and the footwall and the mean
attenuation relationship of all sites were examined.
Then, by comparing the resulting hanging wall residuals
against those of the footwall, it was found that residuals
of the hanging wall are mostly positive while residuals
of footwall are more likely to be negative when the
hanging wall effect exists. The positive trend of hanging
wall residuals means that the hanging wall ground
motions are more likely to be greater than predicted by
the mean attenuation relationship, while the negative
trend of footwall residuals means that the footwall
ground motions are more likely to be smaller relative to
the values predicted by the mean attenuation relationship
(Abrahamson & Somerville, 1996).
4.1 Residual distribution of PGAH
Figure 4 shows residuals of the average PGAH;
note that the residuals at the side of the hanging wall
are mostly positive and the residuals at the side of
the footwall are mostly negative. This is consistent
 Table 1 Stations and related parameters used in this study

Lat Long Rrup Soil PGAH SAH(cm/s2) SAN(cm/s2) SAP(cm/s2)

Station code PGAN PGAP
(ºN) (ºE) (km) type (cm/s2) (cm/s2) (cm/s2) 0.1s 0.5s 0.6s 2.0s 0.1s 0.5s 0.6s 2.0s 0.1s 0.5s 0.6s 2.0s

Hanging wall stations

062WUD 104.99 33.35 72.42 S 162.82 316.69 42.362 315.98 334.58 342.55 354.53 41.93
164.27 161.39 325.14 334.77 327.18 282.89 42.792
062WIX 104.48 32.95 66.30 R 153.79 67.579 25.845 171.96 310.55 68.189 67.62 23.40
116.04 111.33 231.09 68.816 69.449 67.538 28.537
051JZG 104.32 33.12 89.34 S 177.08 122.64 22.981 698.88 554.87 190.42 95.481 22.53
187.1 166.68 622.72 201.39 212.98 157.51 23.439
051JZW 104.21 33.03 88.69 S 139.5 411.48 97.06 91.914 30.46
123.78 153.38 435.35 130.69 113.85 25.124 460.6 175.97 141.03 20.717
051PWM 104.52 32.62 39.29 S 247.89 735.83 492.67 193.91 32.68
228.38 269.06 765.68 386.07 171.33 32.426 796.74 302.53 151.39 32.166
051SPT 103.6 32.64 94.03 R 33.31 46.674 102.98 52.621 22.68
31.861 29.091 47.439 97.376 58.45 21.374 48.216 92.077 64.926 20.135
051SPA 103.64 32.51 81.18 S 157.44 429.94 179.39 117.1 24.11
137.06 116.04 523.61 155.81 107.6 19.54 637.69 135.33 98.868 15.835
051HSD 102.98 32.07 85.53 S 102.54 363.61 137.08 144.93 13.72
88.488 87.638 328.97 107.72 98.402 13.459 297.63 84.658 66.809 13.194
051HSL 103.26 32.06 67.94 S 125.77 340.3 133.4 69.359 16.33
98.344 156.19 303.08 103.9 65.523 14.605 269.93 80.927 61.9 13.06
051MXD 103.68 32.04 42.59 S 196.63 360.79 882.49 650.57 59.00
165.18 210.87 305.26 638.1 589.73 71.187 258.27 461.39 534.58 85.884
051LXT 103.45 31.56 24.18 S 303.14 852.45 210.46 191.26 47.55
325.97 271.61 992.55 265.17 211.31 67.753 1155.7 334.11 233.45 96.527
051LXM 103.34 31.57 28.58 S 331.31 620.97 598.48 328.42 49.96
334.55 328.11 675.44 662.24 363.49 48.051 734.69 732.78 402.31 46.214
051LXS 102.91 31.53 47.27 S 240.87 648.61 167.05 87.332 18.23
225.76 210.89 788.26 140 87.373 23.044 957.99 117.33 87.413 29.122
051MXT 103.85 31.68 16.14 R 342.73 746.83 667.33 400.61 83.18
359.39 299.52 880.59 663.62 375.47 84.341 1038.3 659.93 351.91 85.517
051MXN 103.73 31.58 15.66 S 433.47 1157.1 746.22 836.36 74.41
476.65 349.13 1083.5 777.5 914.26 85.263 1014.6 810.1 999.42 97.689
051MZQ 104.09 31.52 1.05 S 880.88 2109.8 1078.5 740.64 259.8
849.45 791.99 1877.5 957.57 840.03 281 1670.8 850.23 952.76 303.91
051WCW 103.18 31.04 9.80 S 771.73 1261.3 719.51 331.38 55.31
753.18 602.26 1322.5 1138.5 596.65 97.525 1386.6 1801.6 1074.3 171.96
Foot wall stations
051GYS 105.84 32.15 55.93 S 596.81 242.18 218.88 50.92
309.61 293.54 326.55 560.75 304.14 209.41 46.842 526.88 381.96 200.35 43.086
051CXQ 105.93 31.74 95.86 S 474.86 198.46 206.66 46.00
184.96 227.37 150.46 451.16 204.91 236.6 55.401 428.64 211.58 270.89 66.709
051JYC 104.99 31.9 24.09 S 457.4 601.13 737.01 119.5
291.14 269.04 281.77 478.38 646.85 704.86 107.56 500.32 696.05 674.11 96.771
051JYH 104.63 31.78 11.74 S 1479.7 290.95 276.99 101.8
442.89 449.51 404.72 1559 327.75 255.45 88.821 1642.5 369.2 235.59 77.436
051JYD 104.74 31.78 18.59 S 986.25 491.68 525.69 118.39
483.45 368.57 588.22 920.76 462.55 453.31 127.46 859.62 435.14 390.89 137.21
051AXT 104.3 31.54 11.28 S 422.42 469.73 377.22 150.88
245.15 295.32 203.51 447 512.48 466.69 130.38 473.02 559.12 577.38 112.67
051SFB 103.99 31.28 13.74 S 1159.1 898.55 604.25 171.6
598.83 524.42 652.97 976.76 1177.4 760.42 217.16 823.09 1542.8 956.94 274.81
051DYB 104.46 31.29 42.16 S 294.28 190.49 201.6 109.47
119.52 111.55 128.06 306.93 234.7 247.23 99.54 320.13 289.17 303.19 90.506
051PXZ 103.76 30.91 30.41 R 105.66 214.2 196.26 85.76
102.77 129.55 81.529 128.25 303.81 244.07 102.46 155.66 430.89 303.53 122.41
051CDZ 104.09 30.55 81.31 R 169.15 102.64 112.22 110.12
68.025 60.1 76.996 175.22 111.21 120.22 67.342 181.51 120.5 128.78 41.183
051DXY 103.52 30.59 42.36 S 242.87 213.28 218.41 75.56
147.53 157.85 103.29 271.44 245.83 234.63 87.225 303.38 283.35 252.05 100.68
051XJL 103.8 30.38 77.56 R 236.52 144.99 159.51 98.63
97.155 82.743 81.375 229.14 120.11 142.2 84.501 222 99.502 126.76 72.392
051PJW 103.63 30.29 74.47 S 179.61 144.92 122.3 57.36
109.79 107.4 112.24 193.58 175.3 124.4 56.479 208.64 212.06 126.53 55.611
051QLY 103.26 30.42 40.41 S 691.42 191.08 220.86 48.25
169.74 159.57 166.97 548.9 171.9 180.29 39.211 435.76 154.65 147.17 31.864
051PJD 103.41 30.25 64.14 S 285.93 344.18 168.56 81.50
181.31 169 168.6 294.14 407.81 225.48 80.714 302.58 483.2 301.62 79.93
051HYT 103.37 29.91 94.92 S 276.32 353.81 188.4 36.37
141.46 106.1 162.77 217.88 368.94 215.81 32.762 171.8 384.73 247.2 29.504
No.3 Peng Lei et al.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 315
316 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.10

Table 2 Values of coefficients of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for different components of PGA
Component b1 b2 b3 b4 c ε
PGAH 7.9988 -0.46955 -0.8552 0.25216 1.8543 0.40592
PGAN 8.6887 -1.0401 -1.0309 0.39635 2.2206 0.39189
PGAP 7.3232 0.084031 -0.68251 0.11166 1.4655 0.45574

Table 3 Values of coefficients of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for different components of SA at several periods
Component Period (s) b1 b2 b3 b4 c ε
SAH 0.1 8.8802 -0.94880 -0.92116 0.43436 0.82994 0.45529
0.5 8.7459 -0.77373 -0.948000 0.29963 3.01370 0.63148
0.6 8.0680 -0.22258 -0.80906 0.12463 3.04810 0.60202
2.0 4.4587 1.66290 -0.16787 -0.46188 0.91246 0.63394
SAN 0.1 9.5339 -1.56710 -1.07990 0.58915 1.34520 0.45361
0.5 9.2772 -0.76037 -1.06640 0.29392 5.13010 0.66642
0.6 8.0570 0.044951 -0.79881 0.061037 2.97330 0.63420
2.0 5.1994 1.20190 -0.36784 -0.32000 1.33450 0.63510
SAP 0.1 8.2533 -0.35547 -0.76789 0.28483 0.40300 0.49233
0.5 8.2715 -0.81422 -0.84117 0.31222 1.05420 0.63746
0.6 8.0802 -0.49123 -0.81954 0.18844 3.13710 0.61145
2.0 3.7413 2.10670 0.027129 -0.60003 0.51033 0.67757

103
Peak acc. of different components (cm/s2)

102

PGA H
Recorded PGAH
PGAN
Recorded PGAN
PGAP
Recorded PGAP

101 0
10 101 102
Rupture distance (km)

Fig. 2 Comparison of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for PGAH, PGAN and PGAP at soil site

with observations in previous analysis of the hanging hanging wall sites at a distance range of 8 km to 30 km
wall effect on near-fault ground motions. In Fig. 4, is 0.29±0.15 (Abrahamson and Somerville, 1996) and
the footwall residuals are placed at a negative rupture in the Chi-Chi earthquake, at a distance range of 3 km
distance for purposes of comparison with hanging wall to 30 km, the hanging wall bias is 0.43±0.058 and the
residuals. Note that in the 5 km to 40 km distance range, footwall bias is 0.03±0.006 (Shabestari and Yamazaki,
the hanging wall has the most significant effect, and the 2003). Such a large variety among the results from
residuals have a mean bias of 0.3147±0.1408. However, different earthquakes may be a result of scarce near-
the scarcity of data in the short rupture distance area fault data and mechanism of faults. The synthetic results
and especially the lack of available data renders the (Wang et al., 2008 and Wang, 2010) suggested that as
analysis of the Wenchuan-specific hanging wall effect the dip of the fault increases from 0º to 90°, the hanging
inconclusive with regard to exactly how intensively wall effect immediately becomes increasingly obvious
the hanging wall effect impacts the near fault ground and then gradually weakens after a peak at around 20º
motions, even though it can be inferred from the current dipping until it completely disappeared at 90º dipping.
results that an obvious hanging wall effect did exist in Furthermore, the hanging wall effect is larger for reverse
this devastating earthquake. From an overview of the and thrust earthquakes than for strike-slip earthquakes
previous studies of hanging wall effect, it was found (Somerville and Graves, 2003).
that in the Northridge earthquake, the mean bias of the
No.3 Peng Lei et al.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 317

104

Spectral acc. of differrent components (cm/s2)

104
Spectral acc. of differrent components (cm/s2)

T=0.1 s T=0.5 s

103 103

102 SAH 102 SAH

Recorded SAH Recorded SAH
SAN SAN
Recorded SAN Recorded SAN
SAP SAP
Recorded SAP Recorded SAP
101 101
100 101 102 100 101 102
Rupture distance (km) Rupture distance (km)

104 104

Spectral acc. of differrent components (cm/s2)

Spectral acc. of differrent components (cm/s2)

T=0.6 s T=2.0 s

103 103

102 SAH
102 SAH
Recorded SAH Recorded SAH
SAN SAN
Recorded SAN Recorded SAN
SAP SAP
Recorded SAP Recorded SAP
101 101
100 101 102 100 101 102
Rupture distance (km) Rupture distance (km)

Fig. 3 Comparison of the Wenchuan-specific attenuation relationship for SAH, SAN and SAP at soil site

1.5
terms of piecewise function as shown below in Eqs.
Soil site
Rock site
(2) and (3) that were used for the Northridge and Chi-
1.0 Chi earthquakes, respectively. These two models have
a similar form, and both have four boundary distances
0.5 x1, x2, x3, x4 to be determined. Thus, the AS1996 model
PGAH residual

0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Footwall
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Rupture distance (km)
Fig. 4 Residuals of PGAH at recording sites during Wenchuan
earthquake with those at hanging wall placed at
positive rupture distance and those at footwall placed
at negative rupture distance
4.2 Empirical model of the hanging wall effect
for PGAH
As noted above, the hanging wall effect exhibits a
trend, with residuals of hanging wall sites having more
extensive ground motion as shown in the residuals of the
PGAH in Fig. 4. It is possible and necessary to model
the trend specifically for the earthquake of concern to
thoroughly analyze its hanging wall effect. Abrahamson
and Somerville (1996) (AS1996) and Shabestari and
Yamazaki (2003) (KS2003) both proposed models in
requires supplementation of data from other earthquakes
due to limited data from Northridge earthquake. Then,
data from the Northridge earthquake was used alone
to regress the coefficient c of the model after boundary
distances have been fixed. Thus, an inter-event error (i.e.,
Hanging wall error originated from variability from one earthquake
to another) was introduced (Abrahamson and Youngs,
1992). The model, therefore, to some extent deviates
from the accurate modeling of the hanging wall effect in
one earthquake. In addition, it was found that the process
of obtaining the four boundary distances is quite intricate
and it was difficult to determine how the authors could
obtain the four boundary distances all being an exact
integer, if the least square method was used to regress
them. Of course, the final results may be rounded, but
such a process would also introduce subjectivity.
The KS2003 model differs from the AS1996 only
in that the constant value which was used to describe
the lasting part of the most obvious hanging wall effect
between distances of x2, x3 in the AS1996 model is
changed into a function of Pr d (r ) Hanging wall − Pr d (r ) All .
This function is designed to move the general mean
attenuation value based on data from all the sites away
from the mean attenuation value based on the data from
 318 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol.10

only the hanging wall sites. Since there was a rich near the hanging wall and the footwall (Abrahamson and
fault data set from the Chi-Chi earthquake, the authors Somerville, 1996). Therefore, x1 should be determined
used only the Chi-Chi data. Nevertheless, the KS2003 by the depth of the upper edge of a dipping fault. Then,
model also seems to have a problem determining the to determine the rest of the six unknowns i.e., the x2 and
four boundary distances, and the process of finding these c1 to c5, six conditions can be established, including: (1)
distances is still intricate. In addition, the KS2003 model four continuity conditions of R1 and R2 and their first
used the mean attenuation value only in the range of x2, x3 derivatives with respective to r at the joint point x2, and
to obtain Pr d (r ) Hanging wall − Pr d (r ) All , and the coefficients (2) two suite regression analyses using iterations of the
c1, c2 equal to the values of Pr d ( x2 ) Hanging wall − Pr d ( x2 ) All boundary distance x2 to achieve a least total summation
and Pr d ( x3 ) Hanging wall − Pr d ( x3 ) All , respectively. of the squared residuals, one on the recorded data over
Consequently, the influence of data falling in the the region of x1 to x2 and one on the recorded data over
distance range of less than x2 and larger than x3 was the entire region.
ignored, resulting in a bias to be generated.
4.3 Comparison of the proposed model with the
⎧ 0 for 0 ≤ r ≤ x1 AS1996 and KS2003 models
⎪
⎪ c ⎡cos( π(r − x1 ) + π) + 1⎤ for x1 < r < x2 Figure 5 shows a comparison of PGAH residuals
⎪ 2 ⎢⎣ x2 − x1 ⎥
⎦ obtained by using the Northridge earthquake data fitted
⎪ by the proposed model and by the AS1996. Note that
( )
HW r = ⎨ c for x2 ≤ r ≤ x3
⎪c the two models yield almost the same results. However,
⎪ ⎡cos( π(r − x3 ) ) + 1⎤ for x3 < r < x4 as stated previously, the AS1996 model introduced an
⎪ 2 ⎢⎣ x4 − x3 ⎥
⎦ inter-event error by mixing data from other earthquakes
⎪ in determining the boundary distances, and its definition
⎩ 0 for r ≥ x4
of the distance limits the effect of the disappearance;
AS1996 model (2) thus, the results depart from the actual hanging wall
effect. However, due to the scarcity of data, and also
the dominant influence of intra-event errors compared to
⎧ c1 ⎡ π(r − x1 ) ⎤ inter-event errors, this type of departure was not obvious
⎪ 2 ⎢cos( x − x + π) + 1⎥ for x1 < r < x2
⎪ ⎣ 2 1 ⎦ and discernable. Thus, the proposed model is designed
⎪ to avoid these aspects of bias, and the resulting curve
HWeffect = ⎨Pr d(r )Hanging wall − Pr d(r )All for x2 ≤ r ≤ x3
⎪c is balanced among the data. A similar comparison is
⎪ 2 ⎡cos( π(r − x3 ) + 1) ⎤ for x3 < r < x4 shown in Fig. 6 for the Chi-Chi earthquake data fitted
⎪⎩ 2 ⎢⎣ x4 − x3 ⎥
⎦ by the proposed model and by KS2003. Note that these
two models predict a significant difference, even though
KS2003 model (3) the KS2003 model involves no inter-event error terms.
The major difference between the two models is in the
where HW (r ) and HWeffect denote residuals of PGAs on KS2003’s omission of the influence of the data that falls
hanging walls used in AS1996 and KS2003, respectively. in the distance range of less than x2 and larger than x3.
In this study, to improve the models of AS1996 and The Chi-Chi earthquake provides much more data than
KS2003, it is suggested that: (1) the hanging wall effect the Northridge earthquake, and the data distributes more
should be reduced gradually instead of being restricted evenly over the distance range, thus the departure from
in a definite distance limit, and disappear immediately
once the rupture distance limit is over, such as the
distance limit x4 in AS1996 and KS2003; and (2) all data 1.5
on hanging wall sites should be used in the regression Our model
Model in AS1996
analysis. Based on the analysis results, the model is 1.0 Northridge recording data

revised as:
PGAH residual

R = R1 = c1r 2 + c2 r + c3 for x1 ≤ r ≤ x2 0.5

(4)
R = R2 = exp(c4 r + c5 ) for r ≥ x2 0

where the residual R may refer to both the PGA and SA -0.5
on hanging wall sites; the boundary distances x1 and x2
and coefficient c1, c2, c3, c4 and c5 are all to be determined -1.0
Footwall Hanging wall
by residual distribution of hanging wall sites. In -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Rupture distance (km)
particular, because the hanging wall effect originated
from the general proximity of the hanging wall sites to Fig. 5 Comparison of the predictions by using the proposed
a fault plane, sites directly over the ground surface trace model and the AS1996 when applied to the Northridge
earthquake
of the fault rupture or the vertical projection of the upper
edge of a buried fault should be the division between
No.3 Peng Lei et al.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 319
the actual hanging wall effect due to the omission of
some sections of data would become significant. The
modeling curve of KS2003 in Fig. 6 turns out to enclose
almost all the data in the distance range of less than
40 km, where the most significant hanging wall effect
occurs, while the proposed model runs through all data
in a more balanced way. The results indicate that the
KS2003 model predicts a much higher hanging wall
effect for the Chi-Chi earthquake. On the other hand,
due to the abundance of near-fault data from the Chi-
Chi earthquake, the proposed model can ensure that
the hanging wall effect weakens smoothly at distances
of around 50 km rather than being forced to disappear
immediately, as expected when designing the model.
Further, this type of slowly disappearing effect also can
be captured in some NGA models, such as the model
developed by Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007).
0.6
0.4
0.2
PGA resultant residual
0
-0.2
-0.4
Our model
Model in KS2003
-0.6 Rotated PGA of recording in Chi-Chi earthquake
-0.8 Footwall
-60 -40 -20
Rupture distance (km)
Fig. 6 Comparison of the predictions by using the proposed
model and KS2003 when applied to the Chi-Chi
earthquake
4.4 Application of the proposed model to the
Wenchuan earthquake to model the hanging
wall effect in PGAH
The USGS fault solution for the Wenchuan
earthquake used herein suggests that the upper edge
of the fault is buried at a depth of merely 0.7411 km.
However the field investigation carried out by Chinese
investigators (General Introduction to Engineering
Damage During Wenchuan Earthquake, 2008; Li et al.,
2008) observed many areas with large permanent ground
displacement caused by the fault rupture reaching
ground surface. So, it was assumed that x1 was located
at 0 km. In this Wenchuan earthquake specific model,
c3 = 0 since the model presumes no hanging wall effect
at a distance of x1, which is nil here. Using the procedure
described above results in:
2c1 x2 + c2
c4 = , c5 = ln(c1 x22 + c2 x2 ) − c4 x2
c1 x22 + c2 x2
The values of the coefficients and boundary distances
are listed in Table 4. A comparison of the residual
Table 4 Boundary distances and coefficients of model for
hanging wall effect of the PGAH in Wenchuan
earthquake
Parameter Value
x1 (km) 0
x2 (km) 39.29
c1 -0.0006943
c2 0.0314
c3 0
c4 -0.1433
c5 3.8093
distribution is shown in Fig. 7, where the hanging
wall effect term used in the AS NGA model with some
modifications to the original form used in Abrahamson
and Silva (1997) is also plotted. The previous model
lead to jumps in the hanging wall effect scaling for some
cases and it was not clear how to apply the model for
steeply dipping faults (Abrahamson and Silva, 2008).
In fact, the previous model used in the ground motion
attenuation relationship of Abrahamson and Silva (1997)
has some similarities with the AS1996 model proposed
by Abrahamson and Somerville to model the hanging
wall effect in the Northridge earthquake exclusively.
Then, as the proposed model is compared with the
AS1996 model in the preceding context, it would be
favorable to have a comparison of the hanging wall
Hanging wall effect term in the AS NGA compared to the hanging
0 20 40 60 wall effect term in other NGA models. Note that the AS
NGA model predicts a much greater hanging wall effect
than observed in almost the entire range of distance
except the final portion. The proposed model yields
a much better estimation of this effect. In addition, it
may be inferred that the hanging wall effect of PGAH
in this event exists in a predictable level for the distance
range with the most significant effect. However, the AS
NGA model presumes that an abrupt rise of values over
the division of the hanging wall and footwall, which is
different from the preference of Campbell and Bozorgnia
(2007) and Chiou and Youngs (2006). Campbell and
Bozorgnia (2007) suggests that a smooth transition
between the hanging wall and the footwall exists, while
the NGA models have no zero value over the division
of the hanging wall and footwall. Differing from the
above models, the proposed model defines a zero value
on the division. Finally, the AS NGA model inherits the
characteristics of the hanging wall term in the previous
model that the hanging wall effect vanishes at a definite
distance, which introduces more uncertainty and may be
the cause of the significant underestimation of the effect
at the ending range of distance.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to note that all the
NGA models used a new measure of ground motion,
GMRotI50, defined in Boore et al., (2006) instead of
the traditional geometrical mean of two horizontal
components used in this study. The traditional geometric
mean is calculated as the squared foot of the product
320 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
of the peak values of the two as-recorded orthogonal
horizontal components. This definition of ground motion
depends on the orientation of the sensor as installed in
the field. This means that the ground motion parameter
could differ for the same ground motion when the
sensor has a different orientation. This dependence on
the sensor’s orientation is most significant for strongly
correlated motions that often occur at periods of 1 sec
or longer (Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2007). The new
measure of ground motion, GMRotI50, removes the
dependence on the sensor orientation, as it is computed
based on a set of geometric means of the as-recorded
orthogonal horizontal motions rotated through all
possible non-redundant rotation angles. And, a single-
1.5
1.0
0.5
PGAH residual
0
-0.5
Soil site
Rock site
-1.0 Our model curve
Hanging wall effects term in AS NGA
Footwall
-1.5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Rupture distance (km)
Fig. 7 Comparisons of residuals of PGAH for all sites
evaluated by the present model and the AS NGA model
period-independent rotation to minimize the spread of
the rotation-dependent geometric mean over the usable
range of oscillator periods is used (Boore et al., 2006).
In effect, in this Wenchuan earthquake specific analysis,
the use of a traditional geometric mean introduced
no dependence on the sensor’s orientation. And, the
comparison of the new measure, GMRotI50, with the
traditional way shows that the GMRotI50 provides a
theoretically larger ground motion, but only by a small
amount (less than 3%). This means that the comparison
of the proposed model of the hanging wall effect in the
Wenchuan earthquake using traditional geometric mean
with the AS NGA model is feasible.
5 Modeling of hanging wall effect exhibited in
SAH in Wenchuan earthquake
Following the landmark paper on rupture directivity
by Somerville et al. (1997), a great deal of empirical
and numerical studies (Spudich and Chiou, 2008;
Spudich et al., 2006; Hwang et al., 2001; Shabestari and
Yamazaki, 2003; Bray and Adrian, 2004; Hu, 2009) have
been performed. However, there are many influencing
factors involved in the rupture directivity effect and a
small near-fault data set, thus the empirical analysis
of the rupture directivity effect is not efficient and is
not included in the first phase of NGA. It is generally
Vol.10
recognized that the rupture directivity has a significant
effect in long periods. Therefore, the residuals of SAH
at several periods from short to long are examined in
an attempt to identify the influence of the directivity
effect. Because of the large reverse slip in some areas
of the fault plane (Chen and Gavin, 2008), it is assumed
that the difference between the spectral acceleration
residuals of the hanging wall and the footwall caused
by the hanging wall effect would be influenced by the
rupture directivity effect at long periods.
5.1 Residual distribution of SAH
The residuals of SAH at four different periods
are plotted in Fig. 8 with the hanging wall sites at a
positive rupture distance and the footwall sites at a
negative rupture distance. Note that at the short period
of 0.1s, residuals within 60 km on the hanging wall
side are inclined to be mostly positive and those on the
footwall side are inclined to be mostly negative. Thus,
the distribution of residuals at 0.1 s means the hanging
wall sites experienced much larger ground motion than
the footwall sites. Several authors have indicated that
the strong motions on the hanging wall are greater than
on the footwall of a dipping fault, which are referred to
Hanging wall as hanging wall effects (Abrahamson and Somerville
(1996) for the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Chang et al.
for the 1999 Chichi earthquake, and Si and Midorikawa
for the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake). Thus,
at 0.1 s, the hanging wall effect is strong. At median
periods of 0.5 s and 0.6 s, a neutral trend happens, i.e.,
the residuals on both the hanging wall and footwall sides
seem to be evenly distributed on the either side of the
zero line. Finally, at long period of 2.0 s, a completely
reverse distribution occurs — the hanging wall sites have
their residuals mostly negative while the footwall sites
have mostly positive residuals. Actually, the hanging
wall effect decreases as the period increases. Without
the existence of the hanging wall effect, residuals on the
hanging wall side and footwall side should be evenly
distributed on either side of the zero line like the pattern
of 0.5 s and 0.6 s in Fig. 8. However, from the outcome
of this study, the difference was reduced at first, and then
it continued to reverse over the balance ending with the
situation that the footwall sites have mostly positive
residuals. Therefore, it may be that the rupture directivity
effect shows its influence on ground motions at long
periods, of 1.0 s longer, and the seemly extraordinary
trend of residuals at periods of 2.0 s in Fig. 8 might be due
to rupture directivity effect in this earthquake. From the
distribution of stations around the fault shown in Fig. 1,
note that on the side of the footwall, most stations were
located close to the fault trace while stations on the
hanging wall were mostly located far away from the
fault trace, around which the rupture directivity effect
is mostly concentrated for a reverse fault (Somerville
et al., 1997; Shabestari and Yamazaki, 2003; Spudich
and Chiou, 2008). Even from the simulation results
of Spudich et al. (2008), the rupture directivity effect
No.3 Peng Lei et al.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 321

1.5 1.5 Soil site

Soil site
Rock site Rock site

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
SAH residual

SAH residual
0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0
Footwall Hanging wall Footwall Hanging wall
-1.5 -1.5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Rupture distance (km) Rupture distance (km)

1.5 Soil site 1.5 Soil site

Rock site Rock site

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
SAH residual

SAH residual
0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1.0 -1.0
Footwall Hanging wall Footwall Hanging wall
-1.5 -1.5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Rupture distance (km) Rupture distance (km)
Fig. 8 Residuals of averaged SAH of 5% damping at periods 0.1 s, 0.5 s, 0.6 s and 2.0 s in the Wenchuan earthquake

would exhibit in a broader area away from the fault trace
on the footwall. Thus footwall stations will experience
much more influence from rupture directivity under
the conditions of the rupture directivity effect in the
Wenchuan earthquake, and thereby explaining the
reverse trend of residual distribution.
5.2 Empirical modeling of the hanging wall effect
for SAH
Because all first phase NGA models did not include
any rupture directivity effect factors, the rupture
directivity effect is mixed within the ground motion at
long periods. When modeling the hanging wall effect for
SAH and comparing it with the hanging wall function
for spectral acceleration in the AS NGA model, it would
be best to model the hanging wall effect for SAH only
at 0.1s to avoid introducing the influence of rupture
directivity so no rupture directivity effect is included in
the comparison. The same model as previously used as for
PGAH is again used here. By using a similar procedure
described in subsection 4.2 for PGAH, all coefficients
and boundary distances of the model obtained for SAH
of 0.1s based on the 0.1s residuals shown in Fig. 8 are
listed in Table 5 and the SAH residual distribution for
the Wenchuan earthquake is shown in Fig. 9. Note
that just like the previous analysis for PGAH, the AS
NGA once again predicts much larger SAH residuals.
However, in this case, it predicts a very short distance of
the hanging wall effect. In addition, in the distance range
where the AS NGA model predicts that the hanging wall
effect disappears, the hanging wall effect on SAH is
still very pronounced. Presumably, the scarcity of data
and the resulting aleatory distribution pattern of data
especially at large distances in this earthquake might be
the explanation for this phenomenon. But as mentioned
previously, it is possible that the AS NGA model’s
estimation of the ending distance of no effect would
introduce uncertainty and cause such a large difference.
However, the AS NGA model’s prediction does include
all data points on the hanging wall within the distance
range with the largest effect in Fig. 9. From this
phenomenon, it is possible that the hanging wall effect
of SAH in this earthquake remains in the predictable
level for a distance range with the most significant effect
as well. And, the AS NGA model achieved an acceptable
prediction of the hanging wall effect to some extent in
this earthquake.
Table 5 Boundary distances and coefficients of the model for
hanging wall effect of the SAH in Wenchuan earthquake
Parameter Value
x1 (km) 0
x2 (km) 24.17
c1 -0.0012313
c2 0.049363
c3 0
c4 -0.021441
c5 -0.22877
322 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION
1.5
1.0
0.5
PGAH residual
0 Abrahamson NA and Silva WJ (1997), “Empirical
-0.5
-1.0
Soil site
Rock site
Our model curve
Footwall
Hanging wall effects term in AS NGA
Hanging wall
-1.5
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Rupture distance (km)
Fig. 9 Comparisons of residuals of SAH for all sites evaluated
by the present model and the AS NGA model
6 Conclusions and discussions
In this paper, a new formula was developed to
evaluate the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan
earthquake based on modifications to two previous
models, the AS1996 and KS2003. The proposed model
in this paper offers some advantages over the AS1996
and KS2003 models. First, the proposed model make
full use of all data on the hanging wall; second, it has
only two boundary distances to fix in the process, so it
is easy to use; third, the proposed model suggests no
definite distance limit to pinch the effect, even though it
may have descended to be very small.
The proposed model was applied to the Wenchuan
earthquake and compared with the results from the
hanging wall effect factor in the Abrahamson and
Silva NGA model. From the comparison, the following
conclusions can be made.
(1) The AS NGA model provides a much larger
prediction of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan
earthquake.
(2) The AS NGA model inherited a characteristic
of the ending hanging wall effect at a definite distance,
which is exhibited in both the AS1996 model and the
hanging wall effect factor of Abrahamson and Silva’s
1997 attenuation relationship. This characteristic might
introduce uncertainty in determining the ending distance
and might contribute to a large difference between
the observed hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan
earthquake and the values predicted by the model.
(3) The reversed trend of residual distributions on
both sides of the hanging wall and the footwall at long
periods shows that the footwall stations have positive
residuals, and the rupture directivity effect exerts its
influence on ground motions around the fault trace, as
was presumed after analysis.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the National Strong
Motion Network for providing recordings of the
Vol.10
Wenchuan earthquake used in this study. The discussions
with Mr. Gong Maosheng, Zhou Baofeng and Ren Yefei
were extremely helpful.
References
Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow
Crustal Earthquakes,” Seismological Research Letters,
68(1): 94–109.
Abrahamson NA and Silva WJ (2008), “Summary of the
Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-motion Relations,”
Earthquake Spectral, 24(1): 67–97.
Abrahamson NA and Somerville PG (1996), “Effect
of the Hanging Wall and Footwall on Ground Motions
Recorded During the Northridge Earthquake,” Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 86(1B): S93–
S99.
Abrahamson NA and Youngs RR (1992), “A Stable
Algorithm for Regression Analyses Using the Random
Effect Model,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, 82(1): 505–510.
Boore DM, Jennie Watson-Lamprey and Abrahamson
DA (2006), “Orientation-independent Measures of
Ground Motion,” Bulletin of the seismological Society
of America, 96(4A): 1502–1511.
Bray JD and Adrian Rodriguez-Marek (2004),
“Characterization of Forward-directivity Ground
Motions in the Near-fault Region,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 24: 815–828.
Campbell KW (1993), “Empirical prediction of near-
source ground motion from large earthquakes,” Proc.
International Workshop on Earthquake Hazard and
large Dam, New Delhi, India.
Campbell KW and Bozorgnia Yousef (2007),
“Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations
for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of
Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters,” PEER
Report. 2007.
Chen Ji and Gavin Hayes (2008), “Finite Fault Model-
preliminary Result of the May 12, 2008 Mw 7.9 Eastern
Sichuan, China Earthquake,” Report by U.S. Geological
Survey, (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/
eqinthenews/2008/us2008ryan/finitefault. php, lasted
accessed 9 10th, 2009).
Chiou and Youngs (2006), “ Chiou and Youngs NGA
Empirical Ground Motion Model for the Average
Horizontal Component of Peak Acceleration and
Pseudo-spectral Acceleration for Spectral Periods of
0.01 to 10 Seconds,” Interim Report for USGS Review.
Hu Jinjun (2009), “Directivity Effect of Near-fault
Ground Motion and Super-shear Rupture,” PhD
Dissertation, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China
Earthquake Administration, Harbin, China.
Hwang RD, Yu GK, and Wang JH (2001), “Rupture
Directivity and Source-process Time of the September
No.3 Peng Lei et al.: A new attenuation model of near-fault ground motions with consideration of the hanging wall effect in the Wenchuan earthquake 323
20, 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake Estimated from
Rayleigh-wave Phase Velocity,” Earth Planets Space,
53: 1171–1176.
Li Yong, Zhou Rongjun et al. (2008), “Surface Rupture,
Reverse-strike Slip in the Wenchuan Earthquake,”
Journal of Chengdu University of Technology (Science
& Technology Edition), 35(4): 404–413. (in Chinese)
Shabestari KT and Yamazaki Fumio (2003), “Near-
fault Spatial Variation in Strong Ground Motion due
to Rupture Directivity and Hanging Wall Effect from
the Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake,” Earthquake Engng
Struct. Dyn, 32: 2197–2219.
Somerville PG and Graves RW (2003), “Characterization
of Earthquake Strong Ground Motion,” Pure Appl.
Geophys, 160(2003): 1811–1828.
Somerville PG, Smith NF, Graves RW (1997),
“Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion
Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and
Duration Effect of Rupture Directivity,” Seismological
Research Letters, 68(1): 199–222.
Spudich Paul and Chiou BSJ (2008), “Directivity in NGA
Earthquake Ground Motions: Analysis Using Isochrone
Theory,” Earthquake Spectral, 24(1): 279–298.
Spudich P, Chiou BSJ, Graves R, Collins N and
Somerville P (2006), “A Formulation of Directivity
for Earthquake Sources Using Isochrones Theory,”
U.S Geological Survey Open File Report 2004-1263,
available at http://usgs.gov/of/2004/1268/.
Wang Dong (2010), “The Hanging Wall/Footwall Effect
of Near-Fault Ground Motions,” PhD Dissertation,
Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake
Administration, Harbin, China.
Wang Dong, Xie Lili and Hu Jinjun (2008), “Geometric
Effect Resulting from the Asymmetry of Dipping Fault:
Hanging Wall/ Footwall Effect,” Acta Seismologica
Sinica, 30(3): 271–278.