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 ...
Amplification Factor 3 1 0.5 0.3 EPRI & Peninsular Range; 0.01 Sec; 0.001 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10 Figure 24: Soil amplification as a function of ground motion level from 1-D equivalent linear site response analyses (Silva, 2004). Colors denote VS30 as follows: light blue - 150m/s, magenta - 270m/s, green - 400m/s, red - 560m/s, and blue - 750m/s. Coef. a (log of Low-Strain Amp. Factor) Coef. a (log of Low-Strain Amp. Factor) -0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 -0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.01 Sec; Coefficient a 200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000 Vs30 (m/sec) 0.0105 Sec; Coefficient a 200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000 Vs30 (m/sec) C&Y2006 Page 31 RockSA Coef. b Coef. b -1.6 -1.0 -0.4 0.0 -1.6 -1.0 -0.4 0.0 0.01 Sec; Coefficient b 200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000 Vs30 (m/sec) 0.0105 Sec; Coefficient b 200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000 Vs30 (m/sec) Figure 25: Fit of models for coefficients a and b to the 1-D site response results from Silva (2004). The dashed lines represent fits using the functional forms in Equation 15. Choi and Stewart (2005) developed a model for the dependence of nonlinear site amplification on VS30 and the level of input rock motion. Figure 26 compares the variation of the parameter b computed from their models with results obtained from fitting Equation (15)
to the PEER-NGA pga data selected for use in this study. The functional form of Equation (15) provides a good match to the general behavior of the models developed by Choi and Stewart (2003). b -1.6 -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 Current Study Choi and Stewart (A&S) Choi and Stewart (Sadigh et al.) ; ( ) 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 2000 Vs30 phi1= -0.4823 ; phi2= -0.1928 ; phi3= -5.131 ; phi4= -2.299 Figure 26: Comparison of parameter b dependence on VS30 obtained by Choi and Stewart (2003) (blue curve – Abrahamson and Silva, 1997, reference motions, red – Sadigh et al., 1997, reference motions) with the trend obtained in this study from the PEER-NGA data (black line). Basin Depth: As discussed in Campbell (1997), a number of investigators have indicated the importance influence of sediment/basin depth on site ground motions and the parameter has been included in several of the models developed by Ken Campbell (e.g. Campbell, 1997). Day et al. (2006) developed a model for site amplification as a function of the depth to shear wave velocities of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.5 km/s (Z1.0, Z1.5, and Z2.5, respectively) based on 3-D ground motion simulations using the SCEC 3-D velocity model (Magistrale et al., 2000). We have found that Day et al.’s model compares well with site amplifications observed in the broad band data for earthquakes 0163, 0167, and 0170. The model developed by Day et al. (2006) represents site amplification solely in terms of the sediment depth. As shown on Figure 6, there is a high degree of correlation between VS30 and Z1.0 or Z2.5. Our preliminary analysis indicates that it is very difficult to separate the effect of these two parameters at low frequencies. Use of the Day et al. (2006) model results would require accounting for removal of portion of the site amplification represented by the function fS defined above. In addition, values of Z1.0 or Z2.5 are not readily available on a global basis. Therefore, we have developed the base model without including sediment thickness. We have computed residuals with respect to this model as a function of Z1.0 and Z2.5 and intend to develop ground motion adjustments that can be performed if these parameters are known for a site. C&Y2006 Page 32
- 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: The interpretation of the parameter
- 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: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 81 and 82: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
Amplification Factor<br />
3<br />
1<br />
0.5<br />
0.3<br />
EPRI & Peninsular Range; 0.01 Sec;<br />
0.001 0.003 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.3 1 3 10<br />
Figure 24: Soil amplification as a function of ground motion level from 1-D equivalent linear site<br />
response analyses (Silva, 2004). Colors denote VS30 as follows: light blue - 150m/s, magenta -<br />
270m/s, green - 400m/s, red - 560m/s, <strong>and</strong> blue - 750m/s.<br />
Coef. a (log of Low-Strain Amp. Factor)<br />
Coef. a (log of Low-Strain Amp. Factor)<br />
-0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0<br />
-0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0<br />
0.01 Sec; Coefficient a<br />
200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000<br />
Vs30 (m/sec)<br />
0.0105 Sec; Coefficient a<br />
200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000<br />
Vs30 (m/sec)<br />
C&Y2006 Page 31<br />
RockSA<br />
Coef. b<br />
Coef. b<br />
-1.6 -1.0 -0.4 0.0<br />
-1.6 -1.0 -0.4 0.0<br />
0.01 Sec; Coefficient b<br />
200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000<br />
Vs30 (m/sec)<br />
0.0105 Sec; Coefficient b<br />
200 300 500 700 1000 2000 3000<br />
Vs30 (m/sec)<br />
Figure 25: Fit of models <strong>for</strong> coefficients a <strong>and</strong> b to the 1-D site response results from Silva (2004).<br />
The dashed lines represent fits using the functional <strong>for</strong>ms in Equation 15.<br />
Choi <strong>and</strong> Stewart (2005) developed a model <strong>for</strong> the dependence of nonlinear site<br />
amplification on VS30 <strong>and</strong> the level of input rock motion. Figure 26 compares the variation of<br />
the parameter b computed from their models with results obtained from fitting Equation (15)