Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for ...

Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for ... Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical Ground Motion Model for ...

peer.berkeley.edu
from peer.berkeley.edu More from this publisher
08.04.2013 Views

Rupture Distances and Source-Site Geometry: One hundred and ten of the 173 earthquakes in the PEER-NGA database do not have associated finite fault models that can be used to compute the standard closest distance to rupture measures (e.g. rupture distance RRUP and Joyner-Boore distance, RJB) and the source-site geometry parameters such as hanging wall and foot wall positions and the source-site angle θSITE. Use of hypocentral distance, RHYP, and epicentral distance, REPI, for RRUP and RJB, respectively, introduces a bias in the values as in most situations RRUP < RHYP and RJB > REPI, event for small events. The various geometry and distance measures for these earthquakes were estimated by simulating earthquake ruptures using the earthquake size and known or inferred information on the hypocentral depth, fault strike, fault dip, and rupture mechanism. Appendix B describes the simulation process. Figure 3 shows the ratios of RJB/REPI and RRUP/RHYP for the 702 recordings from the 110 earthquakes and indicates the magnitude of the bias that could be introduced by using REPI for RJB and RHYP for RRUP. The analysis also provided estimates of the depth to the top of rupture, ZTOR, and rupture width, W, for these earthquakes. R_JB / R_EPI R_RUP / R_HYP 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1 10 100 1000 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 R_EPI (km) 0.0 1 10 100 1000 R_HYP (km) Figure 3: Ratio of estimated values of RJB and RRUP to REPI and RHYP for recordings from earthquakes without finite fault models in the PEER-NGA database. C&Y2006 Page 9

Site Average Shear Wave Velocity: Approximately two-thirds of the recordings in the PEER-NGA database were obtained at sites without measured values of shear wave velocity. As part of the database compilation, empirical correlations between surface geology and the average shear wave velocity in the top 30 meters, VS30 were developed (ref: PEER-NGA database report). These relationships together with assessments of the surface geology from geologic maps and site descriptions were used to estimate values of VS30 at the sites without measured velocities. Figures 3 and 4 show the distribution of the measured (solid circles) and estimated (open circles) values of VS30 versus magnitude and distance for the records selected for use from the PEER-NGA database. Also indicated on the figures are the divisions of the NEHRP site categories A through E. Figure 4: VS30-magnitude-region distribution of selected recordings. Closed symbols indicated measured values, open symbols indicate inferred values. NEHRP site classes are indicated along the bottom edge. C&Y2006 Page 10

Rupture Distances <strong>and</strong> Source-Site Geometry: One hundred <strong>and</strong> ten of the 173<br />

earthquakes in the <strong>PEER</strong>-<strong>NGA</strong> database do not have associated finite fault models that can<br />

be used to compute the st<strong>and</strong>ard closest distance to rupture measures (e.g. rupture distance<br />

RRUP <strong>and</strong> Joyner-Boore distance, RJB) <strong>and</strong> the source-site geometry parameters such as<br />

hanging wall <strong>and</strong> foot wall positions <strong>and</strong> the source-site angle θSITE. Use of hypocentral<br />

distance, RHYP, <strong>and</strong> epicentral distance, REPI, <strong>for</strong> RRUP <strong>and</strong> RJB, respectively, introduces a bias<br />

in the values as in most situations RRUP < RHYP <strong>and</strong> RJB > REPI, event <strong>for</strong> small events. The<br />

various geometry <strong>and</strong> distance measures <strong>for</strong> these earthquakes were estimated by simulating<br />

earthquake ruptures using the earthquake size <strong>and</strong> known or inferred in<strong>for</strong>mation on the<br />

hypocentral depth, fault strike, fault dip, <strong>and</strong> rupture mechanism. Appendix B describes the<br />

simulation process. Figure 3 shows the ratios of RJB/REPI <strong>and</strong> RRUP/RHYP <strong>for</strong> the 702<br />

recordings from the 110 earthquakes <strong>and</strong> indicates the magnitude of the bias that could be<br />

introduced by using REPI <strong>for</strong> RJB <strong>and</strong> RHYP <strong>for</strong> RRUP. The analysis also provided estimates of<br />

the depth to the top of rupture, ZTOR, <strong>and</strong> rupture width, W, <strong>for</strong> these earthquakes.<br />

R_JB / R_EPI<br />

R_RUP / R_HYP<br />

1.0<br />

0.8<br />

0.6<br />

0.4<br />

0.2<br />

0.0<br />

1 10 100 1000<br />

1.0<br />

0.8<br />

0.6<br />

0.4<br />

0.2<br />

R_EPI (km)<br />

0.0<br />

1 10 100 1000<br />

R_HYP (km)<br />

Figure 3: Ratio of estimated values of RJB <strong>and</strong> RRUP to REPI <strong>and</strong> RHYP <strong>for</strong> recordings from earthquakes<br />

without finite fault models in the <strong>PEER</strong>-<strong>NGA</strong> database.<br />

C&Y2006 Page 9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!