28.01.2013 Views

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Ground Motion Prediction (GMP)<br />

Group 1 – GMP | Poster Abstracts<br />

1-049<br />

BROADBAND GROUND MOTION SIMULATION OF THE 07/29/08 MW 5.4 CHINO<br />

HILLS EARTHQUAKE Graves RW<br />

The July 29, 2008 Mw 5.4 Chino Hills earthquake was an oblique-slip event occurring at a depth of<br />

about 14 km. The SCSN moment tensor solution gives the best fitting double couple solution as:<br />

strike=291, dip=59, rake=142 and Mo=1.53e+24 dyne-cm. In the epicentral region, observed PGA<br />

and PGV values were around 0.4 g and 37 cm/s, respectively. I simulate the broadband (0-20 Hz)<br />

waveforms for this event using the methodology of Graves and Pitarka (2004). At low frequencies<br />

(f < 1 Hz) the computation is purely deterministic and uses a 3D anealsitic FD simulation code with<br />

the <strong>SCEC</strong> CVM4. At high frequencies (f > 1 Hz), the computation uses a semi-stochastic<br />

representation of source and wave propagation effects. For the FD model, I used a grid spacing of<br />

125 m and a minimum shear velocity of 620 m/s. To account for the lower near surface shear<br />

velocities, a frequency dependent amplification function is applied to simulations on a site-by-site<br />

basis. These amplification functions are based on the site-specific values of Vs30 (Wills et al., 2000).<br />

The simulation covers a 125 km by 250 km region of Southern California and broadband threecomponent<br />

waveforms are calculated on a 1 km mesh over this region, resulting in about 32,000<br />

sites.<br />

Using a simple point source model with the 3D <strong>SCEC</strong> CVM4 velocity structure produces a<br />

reasonable fit to the recorded motions for frequencies less than 1 Hz, and matches the general<br />

characteristics of the broadband motions. At a number of basin sites, the simulation reproduces<br />

later arriving pulses that are seen in the data, and which are presumably due to basin generated<br />

phases. The point source simulation predicts stronger motions to the north and east of the epicenter<br />

than are seen in the recorded data.<br />

The fault area for this Mw 5.4 event is probably on the order of about 20 – 25 km2 (roughly 5 km by<br />

5 km). In the epicentral region, and for frequencies around 1 Hz, the point source approximation is<br />

probably not fully justified. Given a 5 km by 5 km finite-fault with strike=291 and dip=59, I<br />

consider another possible scenario where the rupture begins at the deep eastern end of the fault<br />

and then ruptures updip toward the southwest. The finite-fault simulation produces a slight<br />

westward shift of the peak motions compared to the point source result, which is more consistent<br />

with the observed pattern.<br />

1-050<br />

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS RECORDED AT THE FACTOR BUILDING AT<br />

UCLA Hauksson SE, and Kohler MD<br />

We have analyzed ground motions recorded in the steel, moment-frame Factor building at UCLA<br />

from nearby earthquakes. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, accelerometers were installed on<br />

every floor either at the mid-sections or corners of the building. We have used two methods for<br />

analyzing the recorded building motions. First, we created 2D animations of the building shaking<br />

as observed from four unique points of view. We have uploaded the highest-quality animations for<br />

public view on the website factor.gps.caltech.edu. The animations show time-varying horizontal<br />

displacements as recorded at each sensor in the building. They are played back at true-time speed<br />

and amplified to provide visible building shaking. Second, we have analyzed the rocking of the<br />

building for several of the strongest earthquakes. Two accelerometers each in the basement and<br />

subbasement detect vertical motions. We computed rocking as the difference between vertical<br />

motions on the east and west walls, and between motions on the north and south walls. Rocking<br />

2008 <strong>SCEC</strong> <strong>Annual</strong> <strong>Meeting</strong> | 95

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!