Recent CSMIP/Caltrans Downhole Array Data and their Application in Site Specific Analysis H. Haddadi 1, V. Graizer 1, A. Shakal 1, P. Hipley 2 1 – California.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Charles R. Real and Anthony F. Shakal California Geological Survey Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area: Blind Test of Predicted Ground Response of.

Advertisements

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

Development of an In-Situ Test for Direct Evaluation of the Liquefaction Resistance of Soils K. H. Stokoe, II, E. M. Rathje and B.R. Cox University of.

J. Louie 9/5/2005 OutlineOutline 1.Refraction Microtremor for Shallow Vs 2.ReMi-Borehole Comparison 3.Los Angeles Transect 4.Las Vegas Transect 5.Effect.

Finding the Distance to the Epicenter of an Earthquake!

Geology for Engineers The San Andreas Fault: The Geological and Civil Engineering Implications.

By Ray Ruichong ZHANG Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, USA HHT-based Characterization of Soil Nonlinearity and Liquefaction in Earthquake Recordings.

NGA Site Response Study Joseph Sun, Tom Shantz, Zhi-Liang Wang.

Record Processing Considerations for Analysis of Buildings Moh Huang California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program California Geological Survey Department.

Local Site Effects Seismic Site Response Analysis CEE 531/ESS 465.

Earthquakes and earthquake (or seismic) waves Pages , ,

Modeling Seismic Response for Highway Bridges in the St. Louis Area for Magnitude 6.0 to 6.8 Earthquakes J. David Rogers and Deniz Karadeniz Department.

Seismic Waves CH 8.2 NCSCoS Warm-up  How are earthquakes and plate tectonics related?  What do you know about waves?  What do you remember about.

Seismic waves. When an earthquake occurs shockwaves of energy, called seismic waves, are released from the earthquake focus. They shake the Earth and.

Rupture, Seismic Waves, and Shaking. Earthquake Origins and Seismic Waves –Focus point where earthquake rupture occurs Shallow focus - 70 km or less (80%

Panel Discussion: PBEE Practice and Needs Paul Somerville, URS Joe Maffei, R&C Ron Hamburger, SGH Lloyd Cluff, PG&E Tom Shantz, Caltrans Jim Malley, Degenkolb.

Lecture-15 1 Lecture #15- Seismic Wave Overview. Lecture-15 2 Seismograms F Seismograms are records of Earth’s motion as a function of time.

Earthquake Hazard Assessment in the Pacific Northwest: Site Response Thomas L. Pratt U. S. Geological Survey School of Oceanography University of Washington.

ECIV 724 A Dynamics of Structures Instructor: Dr. Dimitris C. Rizos 300 Main St. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering (803)

Wave Type (and names) Particle MotionOther Characteristics P, Compressional, Primary, Longitudinal Dilatational Alternating compressions (“pushes”) and.

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

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

Studying Earthquakes. Seismology: the study of earthquakes and seismic waves.

LESSONS FROM PAST NOTABLE EARTHQUAKES. Part III Walter Hays, Global Alliance for Disaster Reduction, Vienna, Virginia, USA.

VII. Earthquakes A.Introduction B.Source of seismic energy C.Propagation of seismic energy D.Recording earthquakes E.Magnitude scales.

How and where are earthquake waves detected and recorded? A seismograph is an instrument that records earthquake waves. It is also used to determine the.

Earthquake Hazard Session 1 Mr. James Daniell Risk Analysis

1 Automated Processing of Earthquake Swarm Records at Very Short Epicentral Distances José M. Cepeda Universidad Centroamericana, (UCA) San Salvador, El.

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

Kenneth W. Hudnut USGS, Pasadena, CA West Newport Beach Association Public Forum, Newport Beach City Hall March 5, 2003 Coping with ‘quakes.

Napa Earthquake - Results Strong shaking in epicentral area, low-level shaking throughout Bay area Recorded strong motion: 340 ground response stations.

NESC Academy 1 Unit 24 Seismic Shock. NESC Academy Nine people were killed by the May 1940 Imperial Valley earthquake. At Imperial, 80 percent of the.

1 Chapter 6: Motion in a Plane. 2 Position and Velocity in 2-D Displacement Velocity Average velocity Instantaneous velocity Instantaneous acceleration.

Projectiles Horizontal Projection Horizontally: Vertically: Vertical acceleration g  9.8 To investigate the motion of a projectile, its horizontal and.

Earthquake Engineering GE / CEE - 479/679 Topic 13. Wave Propagation 2

Theoretical Basis for Rotational Effects in Strong Motion and Some Results Vladimir Graizer California Geological Survey Menlo Park,

PEER 2G02 – Code Usage Exercise: OpenSees Zhaohui Yang UCSD 2/15/2005.

NEEDS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED GEOTECHNICAL EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Earthquake is Inevitable: The Disaster is Not.

NERIES JRA4 Meeting Rome 4 and 5 December 2006 TASK A: SITE SELECTION Monography of the station CATANIA Station code CAT__ Servizio Sismico Nazionale.

SEISMIC WAVE BASICS.

C. Guney Olgun Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech Thomas A. Barham, Morgan A. Eddy, Mark Tilashalski, Martin C. Chapman,

Site Specific Response Analyses and Design Spectra for Soft Soil Sites Steven F. Bartlett, Ph.D., P.E. I-15 NATIONAL TEST BED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM.

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

Dr. David Wald United States Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado & Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado Dr. David Wald

CH04. Problems. Relative Motion Textbook (9 th Ed, CH04, P.75) 75 A train travels due south at 30 m/s (relative to the ground) in a rain that is blown.

Chigasaki Research Institute J-Power / Electric Power Development Co.,Ltd. Ground Motion Measurement in Accelerator Test Facility at KEK ･ KEK ･ ICEPP.

Recording earthquake motion & identifying seismic waves.

Fault Plane Solution Focal Mechanism.

September 18, 2002Ahmed Elgamal 1 Seismic Waves Ahmed Elgamal.

Goal  Locate the epicenter of an earthquake. What is an Epicenter? A point on the surface of the Earth directly above the FOCUS of the earthquake. The.

1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS USING MICROTREMORS Boğaziçi University Kandilli observatory and Earthquake Research Institute Department of Geophysics Korhan.

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

Speed Velocity and Acceleration. What is the difference between speed and velocity? Speed is a measure of distance over time while velocity is a measure.

Earthquake Site Characterization in Metropolitan Vancouver Frederick Jackson Supervisor – Dr. Sheri Molnar.

Site effect characterization of the Ulaanbaatar basin

A NUMERICAL PREDICTION OF FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY OF 2D BASINS WITH SMALL SHAPE-RATIO(W/H) Neeraj Kumar and Prof. JP Narayan Department of Earthquake Engineering.

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

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

Design Spectra.

Building a Las Vegas Seismic Model

Earthquakes Photo credit: USGS.

Graphing Motion Walk Around

Earthquake Magnitude Ahmed Elgamal

Engineering Geology and Seismology

Dr. Praveen K. Malhotra, P.E.

Design Spectra.

Locating an Earthquake's

Presentation transcript:

Recent CSMIP/Caltrans Downhole Array Data and their Application in Site Specific Analysis H. Haddadi 1, V. Graizer 1, A. Shakal 1, P. Hipley 2 1 – California Geological Survey, Office of Strong Motion Studies 2 – California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Office of Earthquake Engineering

California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program(CSMIP) operates 13 geotechnical arrays throughout the state of California, 8 of them instrumented with the support of Caltrans. Geotechnical ArrayNo. of Depths No. of Sensors Sensors’ Depth (m)Site GeologyPartner 1El Centro – Meloland4120, 30, 100, 195Deep AlluviumCaltrans 2Eureka5150, 19, 33, 56, 136Deep Soft Alluvium Caltrans 3Half Moon Bay – Tunitas4120, 5, 12, 45Alluvium, Soft Rock Caltrans 4Hayward – San Mateo Bridge5150, 10, 23, 46, 91Deep AlluviumCaltrans 5Los Angeles – La Cienega4120, 18, 100, 252Deep Soft Alluvium Caltrans 6Los Angeles – Obregon Park260, 70Alluvium, Sandstone Caltrans 7Los Angeles Vincent Thomas (East) 4120, 18, 46, 91Deep Soft Alluvium Caltrans 8Los Angeles Vincent Thomas (West) 5210, 15, 30, 91, 189Deep Soft Alluvium Caltrans

Geotechnical ArrayNo. of Depths No. of Sensors Sensors’ Depth (m)Site GeologyPartner 9Parkfield–Turkey Flat #1260, 24RockCSMIP 10Parkfield–Turkey Flat #2390, 11, 23AlluviumCSMIP 11San Francisco – Golden Gate Bridge 13152RockGolden Gate Br. District 12Tarzana – Cedar Hill B260, 60Soft RockROSRINE 13Treasure Island7210, 7, 16, 31, 44, 104, 122Fill, Alluvium, Rock NSF More than 60 low amplitude recordings from earthquakes with 2.4<M<7.1 were recorded. The strongest acceleration of about 0.5g was recorded at the Los Angeles La Cienega array during the M4.2 earthquake of Sep. 9, 2001 (Epicentral Distance: 2.7 km, Depth: 8 km).

Los Angeles - La Cienega Geotech Array M4.2 Earthquake of Sep 9, 2001 (  2.7 km) Acceleration (g) East South Up

M4.2 Earthquake of Sep. 9, 2001 (South Comp) and S- wave velocity profile Los Angeles - La Cienega Geotech Array S_wave Velocity (m/s)

Comparison of Ground Motion and One Dimensional Model M4.2 Earthquake of Sep. 9, 2001 (South Comp) Los Angeles - La Cienega Geotech Array

Comparison of Ground Motion and Shake91 Model at the Surface M4.2 Earthquake of Sep. 9, 2001 (South Comp) Los Angeles - La Cienega Geotech Array

Eureka Geotech Array P_ and S_ Wave Velocity Profile

M5.1 Earthquake of June 17, 2002 (  37 km) Eureka Geotech Array East Up Acceleration (g) South

Surface -19 m -33 m -56 m -136 m Max Acc: 0.03 (g) Close View of Acceleration Time Histories M5.1 Earthquake of June 17, 2002 (South Comp) Eureka Geotech Array

Surface -19 m -33 m -56 m -136 m Correlation Analysis M5.1 Earthquake of June 17, 2002 (South Comp) Eureka Geotech Array

M7.1 Hector Mine Earthquake of Oct 16, 1999, East Comp (  203 km) Los Angeles - La Cienega Geotech Array Acceleration (g) Velocity (cm/sec) Displacement (cm)

Particle Motion of Hector Mine Earthquake (Oct. 16, 1999) at the Surface Los Angeles - La Cienega Geotech Array Horizontal PlaneVertical Plane R T R Up

T R R Particle Motion of Hector Mine Earthquake (Oct. 16, 1999) at the Surface Vincent Thomas Geotech Array Horizontal PlaneVertical Plane

Summary CSMIP operates 13 geotechnical arrays in California. More than 60 low amplitude recordings from earthquakes with 2.4<M<7.1 are recorded. Processed data of Geotechnical arrays are available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/csmip/GeotechnicalArrayData Dynamic properties of soil (such as wave velocity and amplification) are studied using the records of Geotech arrays. Shake91 model worked well for simple source and vertical wave propagation cases. Basin Effect is observed in surface wave records of Geotech Arrays in Los Angeles area during the Hector Mine Earthquake.

Maximum Amplitude and Arrival Time of Displacement M7.1 Hector Mine Earthquake of Oct 16, 1999 Los Angeles – La Cienega Geotech Array

Maximum Amplitude of Displacement and Arrival Time at different Directions M7.1 Hector Mine Earthquake of Oct 16, 1999 Vincent Thomas Geotech Array

La Cienega Geotech Array Spectral Ratio Of Hector Mine Earthquake

Eureka Geotech Array M5.1 Earthquake of June 17, 2002 Correlation Analysis of Vertical Component Surface -19 m -33 m -56 m -136 m