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 ...
shown on each figure. The depths for southern California sites in the PEER-NGA data base, as well as the modeling performed by Day et al. (2006), are based on the SCEC Version 2 3- D velocity model (Magistrale et al., 2000). The SCES web site contains an updated Version 4 velocity model for southern California. The major change between Version 2 and Version 4 is in the velocity gradient at shallow depths, with the depths to VS of 1.0 km/s in the Version 4 model being systematically 60 percent of the depths in the Version 2 model. The depths to VS of 2.5 km/s is similar in Version 2 and Version 4 of the SCEC models. At this time, we are not prepared to propose a model for the effect of sediment depth because of the uncertainty in the Z1.0 depths for the southern California sites. We think that Z1.0 is a more practical parameter to use than Z2.5 because it is more likely to be available to a user based on site data. The residuals do indicate that large sediment depths lead to larger ground motions. The residuals also indicate that very thin sediment depths lead to smaller long period motions (Figures 37c and 37d). resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Z1 (m) C&Y2006 Page 53 resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Figure 37a: Intra-event residuals versus Z1.0 for spectral period of 0.01 seconds (pga). Plot on left shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 2 3-D velocity model and plot on right shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 4 3-D velocity model. resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Z1 (m) resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 Z1 (m) SCEC Version 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Figure 37b: Intra-event residuals versus Z1.0 for spectral period of 0.2 seconds. Plot on left shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 2 3-D velocity model and plot on right shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 4 3-D velocity model. Z1 (m)
esid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Z1 (m) C&Y2006 Page 54 resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Figure 37c: Intra-event residuals versus Z1.0 for spectral period of 1.0 seconds. Plot on left shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 2 3-D velocity model and plot on right shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 4 3-D velocity model. resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 SCEC Version 2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Z1 (m) resid 2 1 0 -1 -2 Z1 (m) SCEC Version 4 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Figure 37d: Intra-event residuals versus Z1.0 for spectral period of 3.0 seconds. Plot on left shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 2 3-D velocity model and plot on right shows sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 4 3-D velocity model. Comparisons with Data for Individual Earthquakes: Appendix E contains plots showing the model fit to the data for individual earthquakes. The predicted ground motions in these plots include the inter-event random effect. Nonlinear Soil Model: Figures 37a through 37b compare the site amplifications versus VS30 and ground motion amplitude predicted by the nonlinear soil model developed as part of this ground motion model with the site amplifications computed by Silva (2004) using equivalent linear site response analyses and by Choi and Stewart (2003) using empirical ground motion data. The soil model developed in this study compares well with the site response results computed by Silva (2004) for spectral periods of 0.01, 0.2, and 1.0 seconds and shows greater amplification at a spectral period of 3.0 seconds. The model compares well to Choi and Stewart’s results at spectral periods of 0.01 and 1.0 seconds, is more nonlinear at a spectral period of 0.2 seconds, and shows greater amplification a period of 3.0 seconds. Z1 (m)
- 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: esid resid resid 1 0 -1 -2 1 0 -1 -
- 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
- Page 89 and 90: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 91 and 92: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 93 and 94: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 95 and 96: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 97 and 98: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 99 and 100: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 101 and 102: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
- Page 103 and 104: RSN EQID Earthquake M Station No, S
esid<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
-1<br />
-2<br />
SCEC Version 2<br />
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400<br />
Z1 (m)<br />
C&Y2006 Page 54<br />
resid<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
-1<br />
-2<br />
SCEC Version 4<br />
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400<br />
Figure 37c: Intra-event residuals versus Z1.0 <strong>for</strong> spectral period of 1.0 seconds. Plot on left shows<br />
sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 2 3-D velocity model <strong>and</strong> plot on right shows sites with<br />
velocities based on SCEC Version 4 3-D velocity model.<br />
resid<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
-1<br />
-2<br />
SCEC Version 2<br />
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400<br />
Z1 (m)<br />
resid<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
-1<br />
-2<br />
Z1 (m)<br />
SCEC Version 4<br />
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400<br />
Figure 37d: Intra-event residuals versus Z1.0 <strong>for</strong> spectral period of 3.0 seconds. Plot on left shows<br />
sites with velocities based on SCEC Version 2 3-D velocity model <strong>and</strong> plot on right shows sites with<br />
velocities based on SCEC Version 4 3-D velocity model.<br />
Comparisons with Data <strong>for</strong> Individual Earthquakes: Appendix E contains plots showing<br />
the model fit to the data <strong>for</strong> individual earthquakes. The predicted ground motions in these<br />
plots include the inter-event r<strong>and</strong>om effect.<br />
Nonlinear Soil <strong>Model</strong>: Figures 37a through 37b compare the site amplifications versus VS30<br />
<strong>and</strong> ground motion amplitude predicted by the nonlinear soil model developed as part of this<br />
ground motion model with the site amplifications computed by Silva (2004) using equivalent<br />
linear site response analyses <strong>and</strong> by Choi <strong>and</strong> Stewart (2003) using empirical ground motion<br />
data. The soil model developed in this study compares well with the site response results<br />
computed by Silva (2004) <strong>for</strong> spectral periods of 0.01, 0.2, <strong>and</strong> 1.0 seconds <strong>and</strong> shows<br />
greater amplification at a spectral period of 3.0 seconds. The model compares well to Choi<br />
<strong>and</strong> Stewart’s results at spectral periods of 0.01 <strong>and</strong> 1.0 seconds, is more nonlinear at a<br />
spectral period of 0.2 seconds, <strong>and</strong> shows greater amplification a period of 3.0 seconds.<br />
Z1 (m)
Change language