103/25/04 NGA Workshop Parameterization of Basin Response Based on 3D Simulations by PEER/SCEC 3D Ground Motion Project Team PI: Steven M. Day San Diego.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Real-Time Estimation of Earthquake Location and Magnitude for Seismic Early Warning in Campania Region, southern Italy A. Zollo and RISSC-Lab Research.

Advertisements

Mid-Term Review Meeting, February 13-14, Tutzing Seismic wave Propagation and Imaging in Complex media: a European network IVO OPRSAL.

PREDICTION OF RESPONSE SPECTRAL PARAMETERS FOR BHUJ EARTHQUAKE (26TH JANUARY 2001) USING COMPONENT ATTENUATION MODELLING TECHNIQUE By DR. SAROSH.H. LODI.

Ground Motion Scaling Based on 1-D Rock Simulations N. Abrahamson NGA Workshop #5 March 24, 2004.

Slip Rate Studies Along the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga Fault System Using Geomorphic and 10 Be Cosmogenic Surface Exposure Age Constraints.

1 CVM Efforts in Wellington, New Zealand John Louie, Nevada Seismological Lab Collaborators: R. Benites, G. McVerry, & W. R. Stephenson, GNS Science S.

Active Folding within the L.A. Basin with a focus on: Argus et al. (2005), Interseismic strain accumulation and anthropogenic motion in metropolitan Los.

10/09/2007CIG/SPICE/IRIS/USAF1 Broadband Ground Motion Simulations for a Mw 7.8 Southern San Andreas Earthquake: ShakeOut Robert W. Graves (URS Corporation)

Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.

Need for an accurate Reno velocity model to understand amplification in the Reno Basin Aasha Pancha.

1 High Performance Computing at SCEC Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California.

Will Performance-Based Engineering Break the Power Law? Tom Heaton John Hall Anna Olsen Masumi Yamada Georgia Cua.

1 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 ATC-63 Selection and Scaling Method Charles Kircher Curt B. Haselton Gregory G.

Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Gail M. Atkinson, UWO David M. Boore, USGS (BSSA, 2006)

Response of Steel MRF to Puente Hills simulated motions Anna Olsen Tom Heaton Dean John Hall Caltech Civil Engineering.

Science for a changing world The USGS and the Development of the Nevada Great Basin Community Velocity Model.

J. Louie 2/24/2005 Refraction Microtremor for Shallow Shear Velocity in California Urban Basins John Louie, Nevada Seismological Lab UNR students: J. B.

March 7, 2008NGA-East 2nd Workshop1 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRONG MOTION SIMULATIONS FOR CEUS Paul Somerville and Robert Graves URS Pasadena MOTIVATION:

Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.

Overview of NGA Database, Model Development to Date, and Next Steps PEER-NGA Workshop April 12, 2005.

Preliminary PEER-NGA Ground Motion Model Brian Chiou and Robert Youngs PEER-NGA Workshop 7 December 3, 2004.

03/24/2004NGA Workshop: Validation1 BROADBAND SIMULATION METHODOLOGY: A HYBRID DETERMINISTIC AND STOCHASTIC APPROACH  Use Deterministic Methodology at.

Project Review and Summary of NGA Supporting Research Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #6 July, 2004.

Database of Ground Motions For NGA East A Presentation by Chris Cramer at the Stakeholder NGA East Workshop NIST Gaithersburg, MD March 7, 2008.

Preliminary Models for PGA and 1-Sec Spectral Acceleration B. Chiou and R. Youngs (NGA Workshop, December 3, 2004)

Average properties of Southern California earthquake ground motions envelopes… G. Cua, T. Heaton Caltech.

11/02/2007PEER-SCEC Simulation Workshop1 NUMERICAL GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS: ASSUMPTIONS, VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION Earthquake Source Velocity Structure.

PEER-SCEC WORKSHOP ON GROUND MOTION SIMULATION AND BUILDING RESPONSE SIMULATION with focus on long period ground motions and tall buildings PEER Nov 2,

Ground Motion Parameters Measured by triaxial accelerographs 2 orthogonal horizontal components 1 vertical component Digitized to time step of

UseIT Tutorial # 3 Earthquakes in the Southern California Fault System Tom Jordan June 16, 2011.

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.

Large-scale 3-D Simulations of Spontaneous Rupture and Wave Propagation in Complex, Nonlinear Media Roten, D. 1, Olsen, K.B. 2, Day, S.M. 2, Dalguer, L.A.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.

Broadband Ground Motion Simulation Plans Paul Somerville URS SCEC Ground Motion Simulation Validation Progress Workshop Sept 9, 2012.

1 SCEC Broadband Platform Development Using USC HPCC Philip Maechling 12 Nov 2012.

CENA GMPEs from Stochastic Method Simulations: Review, Issues, Recent Work David M. Boore Blue Castle Licensing Project (BCLP) Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis.

Session 1A – Ground Motions and Intensity Measures Paul Somerville Andrew Whittaker Greg Deierlein.

SCEC Workshop on Earthquake Ground Motion Simulation and Validation Development of an Integrated Ground Motion Simulation Validation Program.

Shiann-Jong Lee 1, Dimitri Komatitsch 2,3, Yu-Chang Chan 1, Bor-Shouh Huang 1 and Jeroen Tromp 4 1 Institute of Earth Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei,

Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.

Sigma - Background Norm Abrahamson Sep 30, Sigma for CEUS EPRI (2006) –Truncation of log-normal distribution –Evaluation of Application of NGA sigma.

GROUND MOTION VARIABILITY: COMPARISON OF SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE GROUND MOTIONS Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Washington State University, USA Fabrice Cotton, LGIT,

Ground motion simulations in the Pollino region (Southern Italy) for Mw 6.4 scenario events.

06/22/041 Data-Gathering Systems IRIS Stanford/ USGS UNAVCO JPL/UCSD Data Management Organizations PI’s, Groups, Centers, etc. Publications, Presentations,

Visualizing TERASHAKE Amit Chourasia Visualization Scientist Visualization Services San Diego Supercomputer center Geon Visualization Workshop March 1-2,

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update 3 November 2014 through 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.

Near Fault Ground Motions and Fault Rupture Directivity Pulse Norm Abrahamson Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

CyberShake and NGA MCER Results Scott Callaghan UGMS Meeting November 3, 2014.

NGA Project Review and Status Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #5 March, 2004.

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update November 3, 2014 – 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.

Novel Approach to Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Modeling Vladimir Graizer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Erol Kalkan California Geological Survey.

NGA Dataset Brian Chiou NGA Workshop #5 March 24, 2004.

John G. Anderson Professor of Geophysics

SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting

2020 NEHRP Provisions Issues Ground Motion

How the ground shakes? Dr. Syed Mohamed Ibrahim M.Tech., Ph.D., by

Kinematic Modeling of the Denali Earthquake

Date of download: 11/2/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.

NGA-East Tentative Plan

Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center

Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015

LA Basin Story Tectonics Geology Faults Velocity Structure Seismicity

03/24/04 NGA Workshop: Fling.

SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting No. 6

Campbell & Bozorgnia NGA Ground-Motion Relation

by J. Galetzka, D. Melgar, J. F. Genrich, J. Geng, S. Owen, E. O

Preliminary PEER-NGA Ground Motion Model

End-Users Needs in Seismic Hazard Analysis

March 21-22, University of Washington, Seattle

Presentation transcript:

103/25/04 NGA Workshop Parameterization of Basin Response Based on 3D Simulations by PEER/SCEC 3D Ground Motion Project Team PI: Steven M. Day San Diego State University March 25, 2004

203/25/04 NGA Workshop Simulations Completed –85 different earthquake simulations 10 faults from SCEC Community Fault Model 6 rupture scenarios for each (hypocenter and slip model variations) 10 cross-check simulations (1 per fault) 15 1D reference simulations

303/25/04 NGA Workshop Faults Modeled 1. Sierra Madre (7.0) 2. Santa Monica SW (6.3) 3. Hollywood (6.4) 4. Raymond (6.6) 5. Puente Hills I (6.8) 6. Puente Hills II (6.7) 7. Puente Hills (all) (7.1) 8. Compton (6.9) 9. Newport-Inglewood (6.9) 10. Whittier (6.7)

403/25/04 NGA Workshop Six Rupture Scenarios Per Fault 2 hypocenters –1/4 fault-length from each end –7/10 fault-width down dip 3 slip models –Constructed following Somerville (1999) –Constant rupture velocity (2.8 km/s) –Rise time scaled to empirical formula: Log(T r )=0.5(M w +10.7) + log(2.9x10 -9 )

503/25/04 NGA Workshop Coordination Scheme UCB -LLNLUCSBCMUURS (RG)URS (AP) S. MadreF,R,SC S. Mon.F,RC HollyWF,RC RaymF,RC P.Hills6.8F,RC P.Hills6.7F,RC P.Hills7.1F,R,R,SC CompF,R,SC N-I N.R,SFC Whit N.RFC F = 6 3D scenarios C = single cross-check R = 1D rock reference simulation S = 1D basin-profile simulation

603/25/04 NGA Workshop Output Full time histories 3 velocity components 1600 surface points per simulation Basin and rock sites sampled ~300,000 synthetic time histories and associated metadata in digital library

703/25/04 NGA Workshop Cross-check (cont’d) Sierra Madre Scenario Compares FD and FE codes at 16 sites (N-S component): –FD (UCB/LLNL) red –FE (CMU) green

803/25/04 NGA Workshop Response Spectra Data Set synthetic Sa ordinates (2-10 second period range) source distances local basin depth measures (depths to 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 km/s isosurfaces) Sa files available on web

903/25/04 NGA Workshop 3D÷1D_rock Sa Ratios Frequency (Hz) ln(Sa Ratio) Frequency (Hz)

1003/25/04 NGA Workshop Vertically Incident SH Response ln(Sa Ratio) Frequency (Hz)

1103/25/04 NGA Workshop Basin Depth Effect Curves

1203/25/04 NGA Workshop Curve Fits to Basin Depth Effect ( Separately Optimized at Each Period)

1303/25/04 NGA Workshop Curve Fits to Basin Depth Effect ( 6-parameter model for Depth and Period Dependence)

1403/25/04 NGA Workshop Basin Effect Relative to 1-D Soil (2000 m Depth to Isosurface)

1503/25/04 NGA Workshop 1D Rock Simulations vs A-S Regression Model Period (sec) Underprediction Factor

1603/25/04 NGA Workshop Transfer Function from “Very Hard Rock” to Boore/Joyner “Generic Rock”

1703/25/04 NGA Workshop

1803/25/04 NGA Workshop 1.5 Km/s Isosurface Map

1903/25/04 NGA Workshop 8 Sec Sa Mean Residual Map

2003/25/04 NGA Workshop 5 Sec Sa Mean Residual Map

2103/25/04 NGA Workshop 3 Sec Sa Mean Residual Map

2203/25/04 NGA Workshop RMS Residuals

2303/25/04 NGA Workshop 8 sec Sa RMS Residual Map

2403/25/04 NGA Workshop 5 sec Sa RMS Residual Map

2503/25/04 NGA Workshop 3 sec Sa RMS Residual Map

2603/25/04 NGA Workshop Summary Source-averaged 3D effect is largely captured by basin depth term (depth to 1.5 km/s isosurface) Mean and variance are period-dependent Results almost certainly double-count effects partially represented in “rock” regression equations With ~500 m depth sites (instead of 0 depth) taken as “rock” reference: –absolute amplitudes at long period (5 sec) come into agreement with A-S rock regression (i.e., under-prediction eliminated) –Addition under-prediction at shorter periods probably partly a source effect (which would be removed by our analysis of ratios) –Maximum basin effect reduced to ~2 2 sec) to ~3 10 sec)

2703/25/04 NGA Workshop Summary (cont’d) Little or no systematic basin-edge effect in source- averaged residuals Likewise, no clear basin-edge effect in source- averaged standard deviations

2803/25/04 NGA Workshop Directions for Additional Work Analysis of current synthetic data set for –Basin-specific (e.g., L.A., San Fernando, San Gabriel) variations –Event-specific basin effects Simulations for additional regions (e.g., Santa Clara Valley? Imperial Valley? others) to examine transportability of results Push simulations to ~1 Hz