This paper presents the development of large-scale simulation-based data sets used to inform new site amplification models for Central and Eastern North America (CENA). Linear elastic, equivalent linear, and nonlinear one-dimensional site response simulations of site conditions in CENA are employed. An analysis tree is introduced to capture the range of expected CENA geologic conditions. Independent variables include the following: (1) representative and random shear wave velocity (VS) profiles using data from the literature; (2) randomized, nonlinear shear modulus reduction and damping vs. shear strain curves with constraint on soil shear strength; and (3) outcrop ground motions representative of the VS = 3,000 m/s CENA reference rock condition. The resulting database of 1,747,278 simulations is conditioned on several parameters relevant to site amplification, which facilitates model development that is the subject of a companion paper. The database is openly available for use by other researchers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AboyeS. A., AndrusR. D., RavichandranN., BhuiyanA. H., and HarmanN., 2015. Seismic site factors and design response spectra based on conditions in Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake Spectra31, 723–744.
2.
AnchetaT. D., DarraghR. B., StewartJ. P., SeyhanE., SilvaW. J., ChiouB. S. J., WooddellK. E., GravesR. W., KottkeA. R., BooreD. M., KishidaT., and DonahueJ. L., 2013. PEER NGA-West2 Database, PEER Report 2013/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
3.
BooreD. M., 1983. Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73, 1865–1894.
4.
BooreD. M., 2003. Prediction of ground motion using the stochastic method, Pure and Applied Geophysics160, 635–676.
5.
BooreD. M., 2005. SMSIM—Fortran Programs for Simulating Ground Motions from Earthquakes: Version 2.3—A Revision of OFR 96-80-A, Tech. Rep., United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
6.
BooreD. M., 2013. The uses and limitations of the square-root-impedance method for computing site amplification, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, 2356–2368.
7.
BooreD. M., 2015. Point-Source Stochastic-Method Simulations of Ground Motions for the PEER NGA-East Project, NGA-East Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 11–49.
8.
BooreD. M., and ThompsonE. M., 2015. Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105(2A), 1029–1041.
9.
BorcherdtR. D., and GlassmoyerG., 1994. Influences of local geology on strong and weak ground motions recorded in the San Francisco Bay region and their implications for site-specific building-code provisions, The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 644 198—Strong Ground Motion, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1551-A, A77–A108.
10.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2015. NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, Tech. Rep. FEMA P-1050-1, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
11.
CampbellK. W., 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, 1012–1033.
12.
CampbellK. W., 2009. Estimates of shear-wave Q and κ0 for unconsolidated and semiconso-lidated sediments in Eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, 2365–2392.
13.
DarendeliM. B., 2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material Damping Curves, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
FrankelA., MuellerC., BarnhardT., PerkinsD., LeyendeckerE. V., DickmanN., HansonS., and HopperM., 1996. National Seismic-Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996, Open-File Report 96-532, United States Geological Survey, Denver, CO.
16.
FullertonD. S., BushC. A., and PennellJ. N., 2003. Map of Surficial Deposits and Materials in the Eastern and Central United States (East of 102 Degrees West Longitude), United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
17.
FultonR. J., 1995. Surficial Materials of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
18.
GouletC. A., BozorgniaY., and AbrahamsonN., 2015. NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, PEER Report No. 2015/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
19.
GouletC. A., KishidaT., AnchetaT. D., CramerC. H., DarraghR. B., SilvaW. J., HashashY. M. A., HarmonJ., StewartJ. P., WooddellK. E., and YoungsR. R., 2014. PEER NGA-East Database, PEER Report 2014/17, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
20.
GraizerV., 2015. Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Centeral and Eastern United States, in NGA-East: Median Ground-Motion Models for the Central and Eastern North America Region, Rep. No. 2015/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 213–249.
21.
GroholskiD. R., HashashY. M. A., KimB., MusgroveM., HarmonJ, and StewartJ. P., 2016. Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering142, 04016042.
22.
HarmonJ. A., HashashY. M. A., StewartJ. P., RathjeE. M., CampbellK. W., SilvaW. J., and IlhanO., 2018a. NGA-East Geotechnical Working Group Seismic Site Response Simulation Database, DesignSafe-CI. doi:10.17603/DS2P67X.
23.
HarmonJ., HashashY. M. A., StewartJ. P., RathjeE. M., CampbellK. W., SilvaW. J., and IlhanO., 2018b. Site amplification functions for Central and Eastern North America – Part II: Model development and evaluation, Earthquake Spectra35(2), in press.
24.
HashashY., PhillipsC., and GroholskiD. R., 2010. Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis, in Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 24–29 May, 2010, Paper No. OSP 4.
25.
HashashY. M. A., DashtiS., RomeroM. I., GhayoomiM., and MusgroveM., 2015. Evaluation of 1-D seismic site response modeling of sand using centrifuge experiments, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering78, 19–31.
26.
HashashY. M. A., GroholskiD., MusgroveM., ParkD., PhillipsC., and TsaiC. -C., 2011. DEEPSOIL V5.0, Manual and Tutorial, Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.
27.
HashashY. M. A., KottkeA. R., StewartJ. P., CampbellK. W., KimB., MossC., NikolaouS., RathjeE. M., and SilvaW. J., 2014. Reference rock site condition for Central and Eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104, 684–701.
28.
HashashY. M. A., MusgroveM. I., HarmonJ. A., GroholskiD. R., PhillipsC. A., and ParkD., 2015. DEEPSOIL 6.0, User Manual, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 116 pp.
29.
HashashY. M. A., MusgroveM. I., HarmonJ. A., GroholskiD. R., PhillipsC. A., and ParkD., 2016. DEEPSOIL V6.1, User Manual, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 137 pp.
30.
HoughS. E., and AndersonJ. G., 1988. High-frequency spectra observed at Anza, California: implications for Q structure, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America78, 692–707.
31.
HwangH. H. M., LinH., and HuoJ. -R., 1997. Site coefficients for design of buildings in Eastern United States, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering16, 29–40.
32.
JakyJ., 1948. Pressure in silos, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 21–30 June, 1948, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 103–107.
33.
KamaiR., AbrahamsonN. A., and SilvaW. J., 2014. Nonlinear horizontal site amplification for constraining the NGA-West2 GMPEs, Earthquake Spectra30, 1223–1240.
34.
KayenR. E., CarkinB. A., CorbettS. C., ZangwillA. S., LaiL., and EtstevezI., 2013. Seismic-Shear Wave Velocity and Ground Motion Amplification Factors for 50 Sites Affected by the Mineral, Virginia M5.8 Earthquake of 23 August 2011, Rep. No. 2015-1099, U.S. Geological Survey.
35.
KottkeA. R., HashashY. M. -A., StewartJ. P., MossC. J., NikolaouS., RathjeE. M., SilvaW. J., and CampbellK. W., 2012. Development of geologic site classes for seismic site amplification for Central and Eastern North America, in 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2012, 24–28 September, 2012, Lisbon, Portugal.
36.
MayneP. W., and KulhawyF. H., 1982. K0–OCR relationships in soil, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division108, 851–872.
37.
McGuireR. K., SilvaW. J., and CostantinoC. J., 2001. Technical Basis for Revision of Regulatory Guidance on Design Ground Motions: Hazard- and Risk-Consistent Ground Motion Spectra Guidelines (NUREG/CR-6728), United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD.
38.
MenqF. -Y., 2003. Dynamic Properties of Sandy and Gravelly Soils, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
39.
MoonS. -W., HashashY. M. A., and ParkD., 2017. USGS hazard map compatible depth-dependent seismic site coefficients for the Upper Mississippi Embayment, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering21, 220–231.
40.
MuellerC. S., BoydO. S., PetersenM. D., MoschettiM. P., RezaeianS., and ShumwayA. M., 2015. Seismic hazard in the Eastern United States, Earthquake Spectra31, S85–S107.
41.
MusgroveM., HarmonJ., HashashY. M. A., and RathjeE., 2017. Evaluation of the DEEPSOIL software on the DesignSafe cyberinfrastructure, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering143.
42.
NikolaouS., GoJ. E., BeyzaeiC. Z., MossC., and DemingP. W., 2012. Geo-seismic design in the Eastern United States: state of practice, in Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice: Keynote Lectures from GeoCongress 2012 (RollinsK. and ZekkosD., eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 828–854.
43.
ParkerG. A., HarmonJ. A., StewartJ. P., HashashY. M. A., KottkeA. R., RathjeE. M., SilvaW. J., and CampbellK. W., 2017. Proxy-based VS30 estimation in Central and Eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107, 117–131.
44.
ParkerG. A., StewartJ. P., HashashY. M. A., RathjeE. M., CampbellK. W., and SilvaW. J., 2018. Empirical linear seismic site amplification in Central and Eastern North America, Earthquake Spectra35(2), in press.
45.
PetersenM. D., MoschettiM. P., PowersP. M., MuellerC. S., HallerK. M., FrankelA. D., ZengY., RezaeianS., HarmsenS. C., BoydO. S., FieldN., ChenR., RukstalesK. S., LucoN., WheelerR. L., WilliamsR. A., and OlsenA. H., 2014. Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps, Open-File Report 2014–1091, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
46.
PetersenM. D., MoschettiM. P., PowersP. M., MuellerC. S., HallerK. M., FrankelA. D., ZengY., RezaeianS., HarmsenS. C., BoydO. S., FieldN., ChenR., RukstalesK. S., LucoN., WheelerR. L., WilliamsR. A., and OlsenA. H., 2015. The 2014 United States national seismic hazard model, Earthquake Spectra31, S1–S30.
47.
PezeshkS., ZandiehA., and TavakoliB., 2011. Hybrid empirical ground-motion prediction equations for Eastern North America using NGA models and updated seismological parameters, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America101, 1859–1870.
48.
PhillipsC., and HashashY. M. A., 2009. Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering29, 1143–1158.
49.
RathjeE. M., DawsonC., PadgettJ. E., PinelliJ. -P., StanzioneD., AdairA., ArduinoP., BrandenbergS. J., CockerillT., DeyC., EstevaM., HaanF. L., Jr., HanlonM., KareemA., LowesL., MockS., and MosquedaG., 2017. DesignSafe: New cyberinfrastructure for natural hazards engineering, Natural Hazards Review18.
50.
RomeroS. M., and RixG. J., 2005. Ground Motion Amplification in the Upper Mississippi Embayment, Report No. GIT-CEE/GEO-01-1, National Science Foundation Mid America Center, Urbana, IL.
51.
SilvaW. J., LiS., DarraghR. B., and GregorN. J., 1999. Surface Geology Based Strong Motion Amplification Factors for the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles Areas: P. G. & E. PEER Task 5.B Final Report, Pacific Engineering and Analysis, El Cerrito, CA, 109 pp.
52.
SomervilleP. G., McLarenJ. P., SaikiaC. K., and HelmbergerD. V., 1990. The 25 November 1988 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake: source parameters and the attenuation of strong ground motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America80, 1118–1143.
53.
SykoraD. W., and StokoeK. H., 1983. Correlations of In Situ Measurements in Sands of Shear Wave Velocity, Soil Characteristics, and Site Conditions, Geotechnical Engineering Report, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
54.
ToroG. R., 1995. Probablistic Models of Site Velocity Profiles for Generic and Site-Specific Ground Motion Amplification Studies, Tech. Rep. 779574, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.
55.
WallingM., SilvaW., and AbrahamsonN., 2008. Nonlinear site amplification factors for constraining the NGA models, Earthquake Spectra24, 243–255.
56.
YeeE., StewartJ. P., and TokimatsuK., 2013. Elastic and large-strain nonlinear seismic site response from analysis of vertical array recordings, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering139, 1789–1801.
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.
