Estimating site-specific strong earthquake motions

Abstract The Campus Earthquake Program (CEP) of the University of California (UC) started in March 1996, and involved a partnership among seven campuses of the UC—Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz—and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The aim of the CEP was to provide University campuses with site-specific assessments of their earthquake strong motion exposure, to complement estimates they obtain from consultants according to the state-of-the-practice (SOP), i.e. Building Codes (UBC 97, IBC 2000), and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). The Building Codes are highly simplified tools, while the more sophisticated PSHA is still somewhat generic in its approach because it usually draws from many earthquakes not necessarily related to the faults threatening the site under study. Between 1996 and 2001, the site-specific studies focused on three campuses: Riverside, San Diego, and Santa Barbara. Each campus selected 1–3 sites to demonstrate the methods and procedures used by the CEP: Rivera Library and Parking Lots (PL) 13 and 16 at UCR, Thornton Hospital, the Cancer Center, and PL 601 at UCSD, and Engineering I building at UCSB. The project provided an estimate of strong ground motions at each selected site, for selected earthquake scenarios. These estimates were obtained by using an integrated geological, seismological, geophysical, and geotechnical approach, that brings together the capabilities of campus and laboratory personnel. Most of the site-specific results are also applicable to risk evaluation of other sites on the respective campuses. The CEP studies have provided a critical assessment of whether existing campus seismic design bases are appropriate. Generally speaking, the current assumptions are not acknowledging the severity of the majority of expected motions. Eventually, both the results from the SOP and from the CEP should be analyzed, to arrive at decisions concerning the design-basis for buildings on UC campuses.

[1]  David D. Jackson,et al.  Seismic hazards in southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 , 1996 .

[2]  A. Elgamal,et al.  Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response , 2002 .

[3]  T. Watanabe,et al.  Stability of earthquake ground motion synthesized by using different small-event records as empirical Green's functions , 1990, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[4]  William A. Bryant,et al.  Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California , 1996 .

[5]  Michael F. Riemer,et al.  Strong earthquake motion estimates for three sites on the U.C. San Diego campus , 2002 .

[6]  F. E. Heuze,et al.  A coupled seismic-geotechnical approach to site-specific strong motion , 1997 .

[7]  K. Aki.  Scaling law of seismic spectrum , 1967 .

[8]  S. Hartzell.  Earthquake aftershocks as Green's functions , 1978 .

[9]  J. Brune.  Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes , 1970 .

[10]  Jamison H. Steidl,et al.  Finite-fault site-specific acceleration time histories that include nonlinear soil response , 2003 .

[11]  Paul W. Kasameyer,et al.  Validation of a procedure for calculating broadband strong-motion time histories with empirical Green's functions , 1996 .

[12]  Shawn Larsen,et al.  Calculation of broadband time histories of ground motion: Comparison of methods and validation using strong-ground motion from the 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1999, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[13]  Mladen Vucetic,et al.  A direct simple shear device for measuring small-strain behavior , 1995 .

[14]  B. Hardin,et al.  VIBRATION MODULUS OF NORMALLY CONSOLIDATED CLAY , 1968 .

[15]  Norman ed Abrahamson,et al.  Proceedings of the MCEER Workshop on Ground Motion Methodologies for the Eastern United States , 1999 .

[16]  R. Dobry,et al.  Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response , 1991 .

[17]  Ahmed Elgamal,et al.  Strong Earthquake Motion Estimates for Three Sites on the U.C. Riverside Campus , 2000 .

[18]  Alexei G. Tumarkin,et al.  Empirical ground motion prediction , 1994 .

[19]  Daniel Lavallée,et al.  Nonlinear site response; laboratory modeling as a constraint for modeling accelerograms , 1998 .

[20]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  The slip history of the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake determined from strong-motion, teleseismic, GPS, and leveling data , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[21]  Pierre-Yves Bard,et al.  Ground motion prediction with the empirical Green's function technique: an assessment of uncertainties and confidence level , 2000 .

[22]  L. Matešić,et al.  Strain-rate effect on soil secant shear modulus at small cyclic strains , 2003 .

[23]  Steven M. Day,et al.  Stochastic Fault Stress: Implications for Fault Dynamics and Ground Motion , 2002 .

[24]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Modification of Empirical Strong Ground Motion Attenuation Relations to Include the Amplitude and Duration Effects of Rupture Directivity , 1997 .

[25]  Paul G. Richards,et al.  Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods , 1980 .