Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

More documents

Recommendations

Info

defined at high acceleration levels. Amplification factors are given with respect to sitecondition B (rock) and Site C (i.e., "rock" classification for most attenuationrelationships, e.g., Abrahamson and Silva 1997). Current attenuation relationships (i.e.,Abrahamson and Silva 1997) and probabilistic maps use an intermediate baseline sitecondition of B-C. Due to the relative scarcity of data of B sites relative to C sites, their“rock” sites are more closely analogous to Site C. This should be taken intoconsideration when applying the recommended amplification factors to currentattenuation relationship and probabilistic map values.The results of this study strongly support the development of an attenuationrelationship based on the proposed site classification scheme. With this new relationship,spectral acceleration values for a site could be estimated directly without the use ofamplification factors. A better estimate of the uncertainty involved in ground motionestimation could be made with this direct approach, rather than the approach appliedherein that required ratios of spectral ordinates.Recommendations for Future ResearchWhile the work in this report has increased the understanding of seismic siteresponse, it also identified a number of issues that warrant further investigation:(1) Inclusion of additional earthquakes to the database of ground motions used inthis study.(2) Development of new attenuation relationships that use the geotechnical sitecategories presented in this report.(3) Evaluation of near-fault site effects with nonlinear coupled response analyses.29
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors wish to thank Dr. Walter Silva of Pacific Engineering and Analysisfor his assistance in providing the ground motion database used in this study; Dr. FrançoisE. Heuze of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for his assistance in sharingtheir geotechnical database; Dr. Paul Somerville for providing event-specific attenuationrelationships for the Northridge and Loma Prieta Earthquakes; Dr. Mladen Vucetic, Dr.Sands Figuers, and Dr. David Rogers for providing essential geotechnical data for groundmotion sites; Dr. Jon Stewart for the information on the Oakland Bart Station site andnumerous sites in Southern California; and Dr. Susan Chang for her willingness to shareknowledge and information on ground motion site classification. Financial support wasprovided by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the David and Lucile PackardFoundation.30
Page 1 and 2: Pacific Earthquake EngineeringResea
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACTSeismic site response and t
Page 5 and 6: REFERENCES.........................
Page 7 and 8: (a) it requires a relatively extens
Page 9 and 10: guideline and are not essential to
Page 11 and 12: an input outcropping rock motion fo
Page 13 and 14: amplification at long periods assoc
Page 15: The ground motion database provided
Page 19 and 20: factors. The analysis of these site
Page 21 and 22: for close distances to the zone of
Page 23 and 24: As a basis for comparison, the eart
Page 25 and 26: Table 6 compares the standard devia
Page 27: In general, it appears that greater
Page 30 and 31: gives equal weight to each earthqua
Page 32 and 33: SUMMARYConclusionsThe strong ground
Page 36 and 37: REFERENCESAbrahamson, N. A. and Sil
Page 38 and 39: Fumal, T. E., Gibbs, J. F., and Rot
Page 40 and 41: Proceedings, CALTRANS First Annual
Page 42 and 43: TABLES
Page 44 and 45: Table 2. Sites located on the footw
Page 46 and 47: Table 3b. Regression coefficients a
Page 48 and 49: Table 5. Subdivision of sites class
Page 50 and 51: Table 7a. Spectral acceleration amp
Page 52 and 53: Table 8a. Spectral acceleration amp
Page 54 and 55: Table 9a. Short-period (F a ) and m
Page 56 and 57: Figure 1. Relationship between stru
Page 58 and 59: Spectral Amplification Ratio54321De
Page 60 and 61: B sitesB11C sitesC1C22827C3D1C1115D
Page 62 and 63: 6a-0.8b54B and CD-1.2a32100.01 0.1
Page 64 and 65: 1.21Spectral Acceleration (g's)0.80
Page 66 and 67: 1.415 kmSpectral Acceleration (g's)
Page 68 and 69: 10PGASpectral Acceleration (g)10.1S
Page 70 and 71: 1.5PGA1.5T = 0.3 s11Residual (in Ln
Page 72 and 73: 1.5PGA1.5T = 0.3 sResidual (in Ln s
Page 74 and 75: 1T = 1.0 s0.5Residual (in Ln scale)
Page 76 and 77: B sites1.901.70Factor1.501.301.100.
Page 78 and 79: B sites1.901.70Factor1.501.301.10PG
Page 84 and 85:
2.50F a2.30Amplification Factor2.10
Page 86 and 87:
Table A-1. Ground motion stations s
Page 88 and 89:
Table A-1. (Cont.)Station Name Agen
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Table A-1. (Cont.)D.e.a. - Duke et
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Table A-3. Site categories in the 1
Page 104 and 105:
Notes for Table A-4.1. H = total (v
Page 106 and 107:
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX BCDMG 24461- A
Page 108 and 109:
USC 99 - Arcadia - 855 Arcadia Av.D
Page 110 and 111:
USC 14 - Beverly Hills - 12520 Mulh
Page 112 and 113:
USC 57: Canyon country - W. Lost Ca
Page 114 and 115:
USC 34 - LA Fletcher Dr.Date: June
Page 116 and 117:
Leona Valley sites (1-6)CDMG 24305C
Page 118 and 119:
CDMG 14404 - Rancho Palos Verdes -
Page 120 and 121:
CDMG 14405 - Rolling Hills Estates
Page 122 and 123:
CDMG 24644 - Sandberg - Bald Mounta
Page 124 and 125:
USGS 5081Date: June 3, 1998Time: 2:
Page 126 and 127:
USC 51 - Malibu - St. Adams Episcop
Page 128 and 129:
Formula for Spectral Amplification
Page 130 and 131:
(Table C4) and the number of sites
Page 132 and 133:
Table C1. Coefficients for determin
Page 134 and 135:
Table C3. Weights used to combine s
Page 136 and 137:
Table C4b. Regression coefficients
Page 138:
PEER REPORTSPEER reports are availa
show all

Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?