This article presents a ground motion database for California and its close surroundings (i.e. areas near the border in Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona) from earthquakes between 1999 and 2021. This data set includes events with magnitudes larger than 3.2 and focal depths less than 40 km, and it is available on DesignSafe. Ground motion records and events included in this data set are collected from 65 different seismic networks and processed with an automated software tool called gmprocess, which was developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Path measures such as rupture distance and epicentral distance are computed, 5%-damped spectral accelerations, duration metrics, and other ground motion intensity measures (IMs) are provided for records that pass the quality assurance check performed by the gmprocess toolkit. The quality of processed ground motions is also screened by using outlier detection algorithms and a multiple wave-train arrivals identification algorithm. In addition, site metadata are provided, including wave velocity information (from proxy-based time-averaged shear-wave velocity for the top 30 m, Vs30, and from P- and S-wave measured velocity profiles when available), predominant frequency measured from microtremor-based horizontal-to-vertical ratios (mHVSR), and site-specific (high-frequency spectral decay) values computed from multiple ground motions recorded at sites when available. The final database contains 287,804 three-component ground motions recorded at 3709 stations from 2641 earthquakes with magnitudes and distances ranging from 3.2 to 7.2 and 0.15 to 335 km, respectively. This ground motion database contributes to advancing both engineering seismology studies and earthquake engineering applications in shallow crustal tectonic settings.
AhdiSKSadiqSOlhanOBozorgniaYHashashYMAKwakDYParkDYongAStewartJP (2018) Development of a United States community shear wave velocity profile database. In BrandenbergSJManzariMT (eds.) Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Dynamics V: Seismic Hazard Analysis, Earthquake Ground Motions, and Regional-Scale Assessment, June 10–13, 2018, Austin, TX, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 291, pp 330–339.
2.
AhnJ-KKwakDYKimH-S (2021) Estimating VS30 at Korean Peninsular seismic observatory stations using HVSR of event records. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering146: 106650.
3.
AkiK (1993) Local site effects on weak and strong ground motion. Tectonophysics218: 93–111.
4.
Al AtikLKottkeAAbrahamsonNHollenbackJ (2014) Kappa (k) scaling of ground-motion prediction equations using an inverse random vibration theory approach. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(1): 336–346.
5.
AllenTIWaldDJ (2009) On the use of high-resolution topographic data as a proxy for seismic site conditions (VS30). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99(2A): 935–943.
6.
AllmannBPShearerPM (2007) Spatial and temporal stress drop variations in small earthquakes near Parkfield, California. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth112(B4): 4395.
AndersonJG (1991) A preliminary descriptive model for the distance dependence of the spectral decay parameter in southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America81(6): 2186–2193.
10.
AndersonJGHoughSE (1984) A model for the shape of the fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America74(5): 1969–1993.
11.
AoiSKunugiTFujiwaraH (2004) Strong-motion seismograph network operated by NIED: K-NET and KiK-net. Journal of Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering, 4(3), 65–74.
12.
BahrampouriMRodriguez-MarekAShahiSDawoodH (2021) An updated database for ground motion parameters for KiK-net records. Earthquake Spectra37(1): 505–522.
13.
BeresnevIAWenK-L (1996) Nonlinear soil response: A reality?Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America86(6): 1964–1978.
14.
BeyreutherMBarschRKrischerLMegiesTBehrYWassermannJ (2010) ObsPy: A Python toolbox for seismology. Seismological Research Letters81(3): 530–533.
15.
BommerJJStaffordPJAlarconJE (2009) Empirical equations for the prediction of the significant, bracketed, and uniform duration of earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99(6): 3217–3233.
16.
BooreDMWatson-LampreyJAbrahamsonNA (2006) Orientation-independent measures of ground motion. Bulletin of the seismological Society of America, 96(4A), 1502–1511.
17.
BooreDM (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(4): 1830–1835.
18.
BooreDMAkkarS (2003) Effect of causal and acausal filters on elastic and inelastic response spectra. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics32(11): 1729–1748.
19.
BooreDMBommerJJ (2005) Processing of strong-motion accelerograms: Needs, options and consequences. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering25(2): 93–115.
20.
CabasARodriguez-MarekABonillaLF (2017) Estimation of site-specific Kappa (κ0)-consistent damping values at KiK-net sites to assess the discrepancy between laboratory-based damping models and observed attenuation (of seismic waves) in the field. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(5): 2258–2271.
21.
CampbellKW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93(3): 1012–1033.
22.
D’AmicoMFelicettaCSchiappapietraEPacorFGallovičFPaolucciRPugliaRLanzanoGSgobbaSLuziL (2019) Fling effects from near-source strong-motion records: Insights from the 2016 Mw 6.5 Norcia earthquake, Central Italy. Seismological Research Letters90(2A): 659–671.
23.
DobryRIdrissIMNgE (1978) Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America68(5): 1487–1520.
24.
EdwardsBNtinalexisM (2021) Defining the usable bandwidth of weak-motion records: Application to induced seismicity in the Groningen Gas Field, the Netherlands. Journal of Seismology25(4): 1043–1059.
25.
GannCVJiCCabasA (2022) Changes in the implied high-frequency attenuation parameter Kappa based on site response analysis with increasing shear strains. In: Geo-congress 2022, Charlotte, NC, 17 March 2022, pp. 268–277. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
26.
GhofraniHAtkinsonGM (2014) Site condition evaluation using horizontal-to-vertical response spectral ratios of earthquakes in the NGA-West 2 and Japanese databases. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 67, 30–43.
27.
GuyMPattonJFeeJFeeJHearneMMartinezEKetchumDWordenCQuitorianoVHunterESmoczykGSchwarzS (2015) National Earthquake Information Center systems overview and integration. Open-file report 2015–1120. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
28.
HaendelAAndersonJGPilzMCottonF (2020) A frequency-dependent model for the shape of the Fourier amplitude spectrum of acceleration at high frequencies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(6): 2743–2754.
29.
HaukssonEUnruhJ (2007) Regional tectonics of the Coso geothermal area along the intracontinental plate boundary in central eastern California: Three-dimensional Vp and Vp/Vs models, spatial-temporal seismicity patterns, and seismogenic deformation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth112(B6): 4721.
HeathDCWaldDJWordenCBThomsonEMSmoczykGM (2020) A global hybrid Vs30 map with a topographic slope–based default and regional map insets. Earthquake Spectra36(3): 1570–1584.
32.
HusidRL (1969) Caracteriı sticas De Terremotos: Anaılisis General. Revista IDIEM8(1): 21–42.
33.
JiCCabasABonillaLFGelisC (2021) Effects of nonlinear soil behavior on Kappa (κ): Observations from the KiK-net database. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 2138–2157.
34.
JiCCabasABonillaFGelisC (2022a) Variability in Kappa (κ r): Contributions from the computation procedure. In: Geo-congress 2022, Charlotte, NC, 17 March, pp. 370–379. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
35.
JiCCabasACottonFBindiD (2020) Within-station variability in Kappa: Evidence of directionality effects. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(3): 1247–1259.
36.
JiCCabasAKottkeAMacedoJLiuCPilzM (2022b) A DesignSafe ground motion database: Time series, engineering metrics, and site metadata. DesignSafe-CI. DOI: 10.17603/DS2-SYC5-NK92.
37.
KaklamanosJBradleyBAMoolacattuANPicardBM (2020) Physical hypotheses for adjusting coarse profiles and improving 1D site-response estimation assessed at 10 KiK-net sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(3): 1338–1358.
38.
KennettBLNEngdahlER (1991) Traveltimes for global earthquake location and phase identification. Geophysical Journal International105(2): 429–465.
39.
KonnoKOhmachiT (1998) Ground-motion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America88(1): 228–241.
40.
KothaSRCottonFBindiD (2018) A new approach to site classification: Mixed-effects Ground Motion Prediction Equation with spectral clustering of site amplification functions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering110: 318–329.
41.
KrischerLSmithJLeiWLefebvreM (2016) An adaptable seismic data format. Geophysical Journal International207(2): 1003–1011.
42.
KtenidouO-JGelisCBonillaL-F (2013) A study on the variability of Kappa (k) in a borehole: Implications of the computation process. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103(2A): 1048–1068.
43.
KwakDAhdiSKWangPZimmaroPBrandenbergSJStewartJP (2021) Web Portal for Shear Wave Velocity and HVSR Databases in Support of Site Response Research and Applications. San Pedro, CA: UCLA Geotechnical Engineering Group.
44.
LoviknesKKothaSRCottonFSchorlemmerD (2021) Testing nonlinear amplification factors of ground-motion models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America111(4): 2121–2137.
45.
MayorJBoraSSCottonF (2018) Capturing regional variations of hard-rock κ0 from coda analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(1): 399–408.
46.
McPhillipsDFHerrickJAAhdiSYong AlanKScottH (2020) Updated Compilation of VS30 Data for the United States. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
47.
MeiteRWotherspoonLKaklamanosJMcGannCRHaydenaC (2020) Sensitivity of 1-D ground motion predictions to analysis codes and material models using KiK-net vertical arrays. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering133: 106113.
48.
ParolaiSBindiD (2004) Influence of soil-layer properties on k evaluation. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America94(1): 349–356.
49.
PerronVHollenderFBardPGélisCGuyonnet-BenaizeCHernandezBKtenidouO-J (2017) Robustness of Kappa (κ) measurement in low-to-moderate seismicity areas: Insight from a site-specific study in Provence, France. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107(5): 2272–2292.
50.
PerronVLaurendeauAHollenderFBardP-YGélisCTraversaPDrouetS (2018) Selecting time windows of seismic phases and noise for engineering seismology applications: A versatile methodology and algorithm. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering16(6): 2211–2225.
51.
PilzMCottonF (2019) Does the one-dimensional assumption hold for site response analysis? A study of seismic site responses and implication for ground motion assessment using KiK-net strong-motion data. Earthquake Spectra35(2): 883–905.
52.
PilzMCottonFZaccarelliRBindiD (2019) Capturing regional variations of hard-rock attenuation in Europe. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(4): 1401–1418.
53.
RathjeEMDawsonCPadgettJEPinelliJ-PStanzioneDAdairAArduinoPBrandenbergSJCockerillTDeyCEstevaMHaanFLJrHanlonMKareemALowesLMockS (2017) DesignSafe: New cyber infrastructure for natural hazards engineering. Natural Hazards Review18(3): 06017001.
54.
RekoskeJMThompsonEMMoschettiMPHearneMAagaardBTParkerGA (2020) The 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquake sequence ground motions: Processed records and derived intensity metrics. Seismological Research Letters91(4): 2010–2023.
55.
RennoletSBMoschettiMPThompsonEMYeckWL (2018) A flatfile of ground motion intensity measurements from induced earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas. Earthquake Spectra34(1): 1–20.
56.
RoumeliotiZHollenderFGuéguenP (2020) Rainfall-induced variation of seismic waves velocity in soil and implications for soil response: What the ARGONET (Cephalonia, Greece) vertical array data reveal. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America110(2): 441–451.
57.
Site EffectS Assessment Using AMbient Excitations (SESAME) (2004) Guidelines for the implementation of the H/V spectral ratio technique on ambient vibrations: Measurements, processing and interpretation. EVG1-CT-2000–00026, 62. Belgium: European Commission. Available at: http://sesame.geopsy.org/Papers/HV_User_Guidelines.pdf (accessed on July 12, 2022)
58.
ThompsonEMWordenCB (2018) Estimating rupture distances without a rupture. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108(1): 371–379.
59.
ThompsonEMWaldDJWordenCB (2014) A VS30 map for California with geologic and topographic constraints. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2313–2321.
60.
Van HoutteCDrouetSCottonF (2011) Analysis of the origins of (Kappa) to compute hard rock to rock adjustment factors for GMPEs. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101(6): 2926–2941.
61.
Van HoutteCKtenidouO-JLarkinTFrancois-HoldenC (2014) Hard-site 0 (Kappa) calculations for Christchurch, New Zealand, and comparison with local ground-motion prediction models. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(4): 1899–1913.
62.
WaldDJAllenTI (2007) Topographic slope as a proxy for seismic site conditions and amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97(5): 1379–1395.
63.
WangP (2021) Wltcwpf/hvsrProc: First release. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.4724141.
64.
WangPZimmaroPStewartJ (2021a) Horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio database access and analysis. DesignSafe-CI. DOI: 10.17603/DS2-NN2E-WM79.
65.
WangPZimmaroPBuckreisTEGospeTBrandenbergSJAhdiSKYongAStewartJP (2022) Relational database for horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratios. Seismological Research Letters93(2A): 1075–1088.
66.
WangPZimmaroPGospeTYongAStewartJP (2021b) Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratios from California Sites: Open-Source Database and Data Interpretation to Establish Site Parameters. Berkeley, CA: UCLA Natural Hazards Risk and Resiliency Research Center.
67.
WatheletMChatelainJ-LCornouCDi GiulioGGuillierBOhrnbergerMSavvaidisA (2020) Geopsy: A user-friendly open-source tool set for ambient vibration processing. Seismological Research Letters91(3): 1878–1889.
68.
XuBRathjeEMHashashYStewartJCampbellKSilvaWJ (2020) κ0 for soil sites: Observations from KiK-net sites and their use in constraining small-strain damping profiles for site response analysis. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 111–137.
69.
YongAThompsonEMWaldDJKnudsenKLOdumJKStephensonWJHaefnerS (2016) Compilation of VS30 data for the United States. Data series 978. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
