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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix D Processing and Model Fits to TriNet/ShakeMap Data (Incomplete) Dataset Ground-motion dataset used in this analysis was compiled by USGS (Boatwright, per. communication) from the TriNet. It includes PGA (in units of %g) and PGV (in units of cm/sec) from 252 earthquakes (Figure D-1). Since only the larger of the tow horizontal components is provided, we divide the listed PGA value by 1.13 to adjust the value down to the expected level of average horizontal component. A subset of 102 events are selected and used in the analysis; see below for description of selection criteria. Epicenter location, focal depth, and local magnitude ML of each earthquake are from the SCSN catalog. Moment magnitude (Mw) is based on the moment tensor solution catalog, also from SCSN. Since most earthquakes are small in size and therefore without a finite source model, rupture distance is imputed using the same procedure as documented in Appedix ?. For site conditions, we used the Vs30 value in the NGA database or estimated it using the same correlation between Vs30 and geological unit as was used in NGA. The geological unit at the station coordinate is provided by Chris Wills using the recently refined CGS site-conditions map (Wills et al., 2005). For stations without geological unit and NGA Vs30, we used the site category given in the USGS data file (column ‘C’) to estimate Vs30 using Table ? in Wills et al. (2001?): C=1, Vs30 = 674 (m/sec) C=2, Vs30 = 423 (m/sec) C=3, Vs30 = 281 (m/sec) C=4, Vs30 = 165 (m/sec). Selection of Data Subset When earthquake epicenter is outside or near the boundary of the strong-motion station network the majority of the recording stations often lie in a limited distance range. Such earthquakes are removed because they are not very useful to the characterization of distance attenuation. The removed earthquakes are plotted as blue circles in Figure 1. Furthermore, the quality of PGA data degrades as distance increases. Because of the large number of records a full quality control is not feasible. Instead, we removed PGA from beyond the cutoff distance of 130 * (M-2) (km), slightly more generous than the cutoff distance of 100 * (M-2) (km) recommended by Boatwright et al. (2003) for northern California earthquakes. We also removed data that are obviously in errors. The final subset includes 102 earthquakes, ranging in magnitude from 3.39 to 5.17, and 9060 PGA data, with values ranging from 0.0007 to 24.5 (%g).
Figure D-1. Epicenter distribution of the TriNet data. Following this figure are plots of the pga values for the individual earthquakes. The dashed line on each figure is the global model developed in this study and the solid line is the event-specific fit.
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 and 10:
EQID Earthquake M Table 3: Inferred
Page 11 and 12:
Site Average Shear Wave Velocity: A
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
Page 61 and 62:
Sa (g) Sa (g) 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.00
Page 63 and 64:
Sa (g) Sa (g) 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.
Page 65 and 66:
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS FORTRAN routin
Page 67 and 68:
Table 6: Example Calculations Perio
Page 69 and 70:
REFERENCES Abrahamson, N.A., and Si
Page 71 and 72:
Frankel, A., A. McGarr, J. Bicknell
Page 73 and 74:
Appendix A Recordings from PEER-NGA
Page 75 and 76:
RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
Page 121 and 122: Appendix B Estimation of Distance a
Page 123 and 124: Figure B-2: Data for aspect ratio v
Page 125 and 126: Probability . 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0
Page 127 and 128: Appendix C Estimation of Vs30 at CW
Page 129 and 130: Percent of Total 50 40 30 20 10 0 G
Page 131: Vs30 (m/sec) 1400 1200 1000 800 600
Page 135 and 136: PSA (g) 10^-1 10^-2 10^-3 10^-4 10^
Page 137 and 138: PSA (g) 10^-1 10^-2 10^-3 10^-4 10^
Page 139 and 140: PSA (g) 10^-1 10^-2 10^-3 10^-4 10^
Page 141 and 142: PSA (g) 10^-1 10^-2 10^-3 10^-4 10^
Page 143 and 144: PSA (g) 10^-1 10^-2 10^-3 10^-4 10^
Page 145 and 146: PSA (g) 10^-1 10^-2 10^-3 10^-4 10^
Page 147 and 148: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 149 and 150: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 151 and 152: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 153 and 154: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 155 and 156: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 157 and 158: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 159 and 160: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 161 and 162: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 163 and 164: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 165 and 166: T0.010S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 167 and 168: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 169 and 170: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 171 and 172: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 173 and 174: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 175 and 176: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 177 and 178: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 179 and 180: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 181 and 182: T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 183 and 184:
T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 185 and 186:
T0.200S 1 0.1 0.01 1 0.1 0.01 1130
Page 187 and 188:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 189 and 190:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 191 and 192:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 193 and 194:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 195 and 196:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 197 and 198:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 199 and 200:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 201 and 202:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 203 and 204:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1 0.1 0.01
Page 205 and 206:
T1.000S 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 1130 m/s 5
Page 207 and 208:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
Page 209 and 210:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
Page 211 and 212:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
Page 213 and 214:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
Page 215 and 216:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
Page 217 and 218:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
Page 219:
T3.000S 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.1 0.01 0.0
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?