| Abstract: | System identification (SI) methods are used to determine empirical Green's functions (EGF) for soil intervals at the Port Island Site in Kobe, Japan and in shake table model tests performed by the Port and Harbor Research Institute (PHRI) to emulate the site during the 17 January 1995 Hyogo‐ken Nanbu earthquake. The model form for the EGFs is a parametric auto‐regressive moving average (ARMA) model mapping the ground motions recorded at the base of a soil interval to the top of that interval, hence capturing the effect of the soil on the through‐passing wave. The consistency of site response at Port Island before, during, and after the mainshock is examined by application of small motion foreshock EGFs to incoming ground motions over these time intervals. The prediction errors (or misfits) for the foreshocks, the mainshock, and the aftershocks, are assessed to determine the extent of altered soil response as a result of liquefaction of the ground during the mainshock. In addition, the consistency of soil response between field and model test is verified by application of EGFs calculated from the shake table test to the 17 January input data. The prediction error is then used to assess the consistency of behaviour between the two cases. By using EGFs developed for small‐amplitude foreshock ground motions, ground motions were predicted for all intervals of the vertical array except those that liquefied with small error. Analysis of the post‐liquefied ground conditions implies that the site response gradually returns to a pre‐earthquake state. Site behaviour is found to be consistent between foreshocks and the mainshock for the native ground (below 16 m in the field) with a normalized mean square error (NMSE) of 0.080 and a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.5g. When the soil actually liquefies (change of state), recursive models are needed to track the variable soil behaviour for the remainder of the shaking. The recursive models are shown to demonstrate consistency between the shake table tests and the field with a NMSE of 0.102 for the 16 m to surface interval that liquefied. The aftershock ground response was not modelled well with the foreshock EGF immediately after the mainshock (NMSE ranging from 0.37 to 0.92). One month after the mainshock, the prediction error from the foreshock modeled was back to the foreshock error level. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley Sons, Ltd. |
