<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Seulgi Moon</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Alan Yong</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Lingseng Meng</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Paul Davies</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Jessica Lin</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2019</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;In engineering seismology, the time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;⁠&lt;i&gt;V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;) of the upper 30&amp;nbsp;m of the crust (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;) is the primary parameter used in ground‐motion models to predict seismic site effects. &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;is typically derived from&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;in situ&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;recordings of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S&lt;/sub&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, although proxy‐based approaches (using geologic and/or geomorphometric classifications) are provisionally adopted when measurement‐based &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;are sparse or not readily available. Despite the acceptance of proxy approaches, there are limited studies that examine the empirical relationships between &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;and topographic attributes measured from various length scales and different resolutions of the digital elevation model. In this study, we examine the relationships between compiled &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;measurements from 218 sites in southern California and topographic metrics of slope and relief measured over various length scales. We find that the correlations between topographic metrics and &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;are weak but statistically significant. The correlations are improved when topographic slopes and relief are measured over length scales longer than typical hillslopes and &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;sites are separated by different geologic groups. This is likely because &lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;&lt;i&gt;⁠V&lt;/i&gt;&lt;sub&gt;S30⁠&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="inline-formula no-formula-id"&gt;⁠&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, especially on the rock sites, is better reflected in topographic metrics that capture large‐scale topographic relief, as well as landscape positions such as hilltops and valley bottoms.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1785/0120190076</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Seismological Society of America</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Length-scale-dependent relationships between VS30 and topographic slopes in southern California</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>