gives equal weight to each earthquake, while the other gives a weight inversely

proportional to the variance of the sample mean. The equations and coefficients
used to
determine the amplification factors are given in Appendix C. The resulting ampli
fication
factors are shown in Figures 19 and 20, and are given in Tables 7 and 8. The sta
ndard
deviations for each site condition were averaged using the same weighting scheme
s, and
are also presented in Tables 7 and 8.
For long periods (T > 1.0 s) the difference in amplification factors between
earthquakes is significantly smaller than the difference in amplification factor
s between
site type. For shorter periods, however, differences between earthquakes are com
parable
to differences due to site type.
Amplification factors with respect to Site B (Figures 19a and 20a) show a
significant degree of nonlinearity. On the other hand, spectral amplification fa
ctors from
Site D to Site C are nearly linear, mainly because of the linearity observed in
the
Northridge data (Figure 18b). This effect is increased when weighting factors in
versely
proportional to sample variance are applied (Figure 20b) as a result of the larg
er number
of Site C and Site D data points in the Northridge Earthquake (see Figure 21 for
the
weights for each earthquake).
A comparison of Figures 20a and 20b illustrates the dramatic difference in
spectral amplification factors that results from taking either rock (Site B) or
weatheredsoft
rock/shallow stiff soil (Site C) as the baseline site condition. Current practic
e takes
an intermediate site condition as reference. The large differences in behavior b
etween