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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Amplification w.r.t. Vs30 = 1130 m/sec<br />
0.09 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.701.00 2.00 4.00 7.00<br />
llll<br />
l<br />
l llllll<br />
lll<br />
ll<br />
l<br />
lllllll<br />
llll l lllllll<br />
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll<br />
llllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllll<br />
lll<br />
l ll<br />
l<br />
lllllllllllllllll<br />
ll ll<br />
l<br />
l l l<br />
l<br />
lllll<br />
llllll<br />
lllllll<br />
lllllllllllll<br />
l llll llll<br />
l lll<br />
ll ll<br />
ll<br />
lll ll<br />
lllll<br />
ll llllllllllll<br />
l lll lllllll<br />
l ll<br />
l<br />
l<br />
lll<br />
l<br />
llllllll<br />
l l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
lll<br />
ll<br />
l<br />
lllll<br />
ll l<br />
ll<br />
l<br />
l<br />
lll<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l lllll<br />
lll<br />
ll l l l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l<br />
l l l l l l<br />
l l<br />
3 Sec; PEA 2004<br />
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.70 1.00 2.00<br />
Sa (g) on Rock (Vs30 = 1130 m/sec)<br />
150 m/sec<br />
270 m/sec<br />
560 m/sec<br />
750 m/sec<br />
1130 m/sec<br />
<strong>Motion</strong> on Reference Condtion<br />
C&Y2006 Page 56<br />
Amplification Factor<br />
0.09 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.701.00 2.00 4.00 7.00<br />
150 m/sec<br />
270 m/sec<br />
560 m/sec<br />
750 m/sec<br />
1130 m/sec<br />
3 Sec; Choi <strong>and</strong> Stewart, 2005<br />
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.70 1.00 2.00<br />
Figure 38d: Nonlinear site amplification predicted by ground motion model developed in this study<br />
compared to those computed by Silva (2004) – on left, <strong>and</strong> Choi <strong>and</strong> Stewart – on right, <strong>for</strong> spectral<br />
period of 3.0 seconds.<br />
Comparison with Previous <strong>Model</strong>: Figures 39 <strong>and</strong> 40 compare the response spectra<br />
predicted by the ground motion model developed in this study with response spectra<br />
predicted by the models developed by Sadigh et al. (1997). The comparisons require an<br />
assessment of VS30 representative of the Sadigh et al. (1997) relationships. For soil, we have<br />
used a value of 310 m/s, the velocity suggested by Boore et al. (1997) as representative of<br />
generic soil. For generic rock, Boore et al. (1997) suggested a value of 620 m/s. However,<br />
we think that this may be higher than the average <strong>for</strong> the data used by Sadigh et al. (1997),<br />
which included recordings from many site that are now classified as NEHRP C. There<strong>for</strong>e,<br />
we selected a velocity of 520 m/s <strong>for</strong> purpose of making the comparisons. Figures 41, 42,<br />
43, <strong>and</strong> 44 provide comparisons of the magnitude <strong>and</strong> distance scaling <strong>for</strong> the two models.<br />
The model developed in this study produces ground motion estimates than are in general<br />
similar to those obtained using the Sadigh et al. (199&) model. The new model tends to<br />
produce lower ground motions in the distance range of 10 to 50 km <strong>and</strong> larger ground<br />
motions at larger distances. The models are more similar <strong>for</strong> soil than <strong>for</strong> rock, which is to<br />
be expected given that the majority of ground motion data is recorded on soil sites.
Change language