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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the rupture, although this region is mostly to the hanging wall side of a projection of the rupture to the surface (i.e. on the hanging wall of the fault, but the foot wall side of the rupture). It seams reasonable that there should be some increased motion in this area for a buried fault. 1-Rjb/Rcld 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 x (line 1) or y (lines 2 and 3) Line 1 (y=0) Line 2 (x=3) Line 3 (x=10) Figure 17: Variation of the term [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] with location for the three lines shown on Figure 15. Top of rupture is at a depth of 5 km at x=0. The effectiveness of the term [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] to capture the hanging wall effect was tested by fitting the selected PEER-NGA data for peak acceleration with a regression model without a hanging wall term. The residuals were found to be correlated with [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] with a p- n value of 0.0024. Exploratory analysis indicated that the model [ 1− R JB / RRUP ] with n equal to 2 and ½ produced poorer fits to the data (larger standard error) than a linear model (n= 1). No significant difference between normal and reverse faulting data was found (p value of 0.63 for adding a normal fault difference in the correlation). The behavior of the residuals with respect to [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] was checked by separately fitting the data on the hanging wall, 60º ≤ θSITE ≤ 120º, and footwall, -60º ≤ θSITE ≤ -120º sides of the rupture, excluding sites directly above the rupture (RJB=0). Figure 18 shows the residuals and linear fits with respect to [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] constrained to go through 0 at [ 1− RJB / RRUP] =0. The solid lines show the mean trend and the dashed lines the 90% confidence interval for the mean. The residuals on the hanging wall and footwall side of the ruptures have essentially identical trends. Previous empirical models (Abrahamson and Silva, 1997; Campbell and Bozorgnia, 2003) have limited the hanging wall effect to faults with dip angles, δ, less than 70º. Assuming the hanging wall effect is a geometric effect, one might expect that it might correlate with δ. Figure 19 shows residuals for sites on the hanging wall of reverse faults (RJB = 0) plotted versus δ. The data indicate increasing motion with decreasing δ. The trend was modeled with linear functions with 90º - δ, cos(δ) and cos 2 (δ). All three functions show a significant trend with the residuals, with cos 2 (δ) providing a slightly better fit than the other two models. Similar results were found including data from sites with [ 1− RJB / RRUP] > 0.8 and for data from sites with RJB < 5 km. C&Y2006 Page 25
Figure 18: Intra-event residuals for dip-slip earthquake for a model without a hanging wall term. The residuals were fit with a linear regression line constrained to pass through 0 at [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] = 0. Solid line shows the mean trend and the dashed lines indicate the 90% confidence interval for the mean. Figure 19: Intra-event residuals from fitting a model without a hanging wall term for sites with RJB = 0 and FHW = 1 plotted against fault dip, δ. Although, the term [ 1− RJB / RRUP ] appears to model well the hanging wall effect, there are two additional aspects it does not capture. Assuming that the hanging wall effect is a C&Y2006 Page 26
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: the top of rupture located at x = 0
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:
RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
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 and 132:
Vs30 (m/sec) 1400 1200 1000 800 600
Page 133 and 134:
Figure D-1. Epicenter distribution
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?