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 ...
Figure 28: Comparison of fits to expanded data sets (red plus black points) and PEER-NGA data only (black points) for individual earthquakes using truncated regression. Truncation levels are indicated by the horizontal dashed lines for the enhanced (red) and PEER-NGA only (black) data sets. Only neutral site were used for reverse faulting earthquakes. Figure 29: Estimates of γ from analysis of the extended data sets (Table 4). Red curve shows the model developed by a fit to the combined California earthquake data set. C&Y2006 Page 37
Table 4: Estimate of Anelastic Attenuation Parameter γ For Individual Earthquakes EQID Earthquake M PEER-NGA Data Set Expanded Data Set γ Number of Recordings C&Y2006 Page 38 γ Number of Recording s Region 0127 Northridge 6.69 -0.0108 122 -0.0092 154 California 0129 Kobe 6.9 -0.0020 22 -0.0076 157 Japan 0137 Chi-Chi 7.62 -0.0096 305 Taiwan 0157 San Juan Bautista 5.17 -0.0392 2 -0.0188 23 California 0158 Hector Mines 7.13 -0.0056 82 -0.0088 163 California 0160 Yountville 5 -0.0088 24 -0.0162 76 California 0162 Mohawk Val, Portola 5.17 -0.0191 6 -0.0148 36 California 0163 Anza-02 4.92 -0.0164 72 -0.0178 193 California 0165 CA/Baja Border Area 5.31 -0.0433 9 -0.0145 142 California 0166 Gilroy 4.9 -0.0054 34 -0.0115 136 California 0167 Yorba Linda 4.265 -0.0851 12 -0.0102 207 California 0169 Denali 7.9 -0.0082 23 Alaska 0170 Big Bear City 4.92 -0.0004 35 -0.0101 262 California 0171 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-02 5.9 -0.0063 277 Taiwan 0172 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-03 6.2 -0.0151 225 Taiwan 0173 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-04 6.2 -0.0130 241 Taiwan 0174 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-05 6.2 -0.0130 310 Taiwan 0175 Chi-Chi, Taiwan-06 6.3 -0.0122 260 Taiwan Loma Linda 4.5 -0.0154 93 California Parkfield 6 -0.0111 308 California San Simeon 6.5 -0.0070 225 California The combined extended data from the 13 California earthquakes was fit by a function form that produce a smooth transition from the value γ at magnitudes less than 5 to values at larger magnitudes. A continued linear decrease in the absolute value of γ was judged to not be appropriate based on analyses of simulated motions using the Atkinson and Silva (2000) model and because the value of γ computed for the M 7.9 Denali earthquake was similar to the values obtained for the larger California earthquakes in the range of M 6.5 to 7.1. Analyses of individual smaller magnitude earthquakes in the TriNet data set (Appendix D) did not indicate a continued decrease in γ. The resulting relationship is: { max( 4, 0) } γ ( pga) = −0. 00804 − 0. 00785/ cosh M − (19) California This relationship is plotted on Figure 29. The limited data for earthquakes from other regions (Kobe, Japan; Denali, Alaska; Chi-Chi main shock and aftershocks, Taiwan) are generally consistent with this relationship. The data indicate that the value of γ for Taiwan may be slightly greater than that for California, but the difference is much less than the 50-percent larger values obtained from the initial regressions using the full PEER-NGA data base. We believe that our short-term solution should provide an appropriate model for California earthquake ground motions. The model parameters will be based on strong motion data
- 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: term [ 1 Φ( y ( θ ) + τ ⋅ z ,
- 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
- Page 83 and 84: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 85 and 86: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 87 and 88: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
Figure 28: Comparison of fits to exp<strong>and</strong>ed data sets (red plus black points) <strong>and</strong> <strong>PEER</strong>-<strong>NGA</strong> data<br />
only (black points) <strong>for</strong> individual earthquakes using truncated regression. Truncation levels are<br />
indicated by the horizontal dashed lines <strong>for</strong> the enhanced (red) <strong>and</strong> <strong>PEER</strong>-<strong>NGA</strong> only (black) data sets.<br />
Only neutral site were used <strong>for</strong> reverse faulting earthquakes.<br />
Figure 29: Estimates of γ from analysis of the extended data sets (Table 4). Red curve shows the<br />
model developed by a fit to the combined Cali<strong>for</strong>nia earthquake data set.<br />
C&Y2006 Page 37
Change language