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 ...
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
- Page 1 and 2: Chiou and Youngs PEER-NGA Empirical
- Page 3 and 4: data are consistent with strong mot
- Page 5 and 6: Figure 1: Magnitude-distance-region
- Page 7 and 8: Figure 2: Empirical ground motion d
- Page 9: EQID Earthquake M Table 3: Inferred
- Page 13 and 14: Figure 6: Relationship between VS30
- Page 15 and 16: 1 ) ∝ C2 × M + ( C2 − C ) × l
- Page 17 and 18: Figure 9: Peak acceleration data fr
- Page 19 and 20: C4+C5M slowly and the value of the
- Page 21 and 22: allows the interpretation of the co
- Page 23 and 24: Figure 13: Coefficients resulting f
- Page 25 and 26: the top of rupture located at x = 0
- Page 27 and 28: Figure 18: Intra-event residuals fo
- Page 29 and 30: Figure 21: Variation of HW* with ma
- Page 31 and 32: The interpretation of the parameter
- Page 33 and 34: to the PEER-NGA pga data selected f
- Page 35 and 36: EFFECT OF DATA TRUNCATION The initi
- Page 37 and 38: term [ 1 Φ( y ( θ ) + τ ⋅ z ,
- Page 39 and 40: Table 4: Estimate of Anelastic Atte
- Page 41 and 42: data truncated at a maximum distanc
- Page 43 and 44: faulting earthquakes at long period
- Page 45 and 46: Slope -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.
- Page 47 and 48: C&Y2006 Page 46 Table 5: Coefficien
- Page 49 and 50: c1 of T0.010S c1 of T1.000S MODEL R
- Page 51 and 52: esid 1 0 -1 -2 resid resid 1 0 -1 -
- Page 53 and 54: esid resid resid 1 0 -1 -2 1 0 -1 -
- Page 55 and 56: esid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 2 0 2
- Page 57 and 58: Amplification w.r.t. Vs30 = 1130 m/
- Page 59 and 60: Sa(g) Sa(g) 10 1 0.1 0.01 10 1 0.1
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