Abrahamsonand Litehiser 1989 Equation

Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America

Vol. 79 June 1989 No. 3
ATTENUATI ON OF VERTI CAL PEAK ACCELERATI ON
BY N. A. ABRAHAMSON AND J. J. LITEHISER
ABSTRACT
Peak vert i cal accel er at i ons from a sui t e of 585 st rong ground moti on records
from 76 wor l dwi de ear t hquakes are fi t to an at t enuat i on model t hat has a
magni t ude de pe nde nt shape. The r egr essi on uses a t wo- st ep pr ocedur e t hat i s
a hybri d of t he Joyner and Boore ( 1981) and Campbel l ( 1981) r egr essi on met hods.
The r esul t i ng vert i cal at t enuat i on rel at i on is
I ogl oav( g) -- - 1 . 1 5 + 0 . 2 4 5 M - 1. 096 I ogl o( r + e 2s6M) + 0. 096F - 0. 0011Er,
wher e M i s magni t ude, r is t he di st ance in ki l omet er s to t he cl osest approach of
t he zone of ener gy r el ease, F is a dummy var i abl e t hat is 1 for r ever se or r ever se
obl i que event s and 0 ot her wi se, and E i s a dummy var i abl e t hat is 1 for i nt er pl at e
event s and 0 for i nt rapl at e event s. The st andar d error of Iogloav i s 0. 296.
Because t he vert i cal to hori zont al accel er at i on ratio is al so sought , t he at t en-
uati on of t he hori zont al peaks from t he same sui t e of records i s al so obt ai ned
usi ng t he same r egr essi on pr ocedur e. The resul t i ng hori zont al at t enuat i on rel a-
tion is
Iog~oaH(g) = - 0 . 6 2 + 0 . 1 7 7 M - 0. 982 Iog~o(r + e '284M) + 0. 132F - 0. 0008Er,
wher e aH is t he peak accel er at i on of t he l arger of t he t wo hori zont al component s.
The st andar d error of IogloaH is 0. 277.
The expect ed rati o of peak vert i cal to peak hori zont al st rong ground moti on
pr edi ct ed by t he s e equat i ons is envel oped by t he wi del y used r ul e- of - t humb
val ue of t wo- t hi r ds for ear t hquakes wi th magni t udes l ess t han 7. 0 and di st ances
gr eat er t han 20 km. The expect ed rati o e x c e e ds 1.0 for ear t hquakes wi t h mag-
ni t udes gr eat er t han 8. 0 at ver y short di st ances. The st andar d error of Iog~o(V/H)
i s 0. 20, whi ch i s l ess t han t he st andar d error of ei t her t he vert i cal or hori zont al
accel er at i on. Ther ef or e, t he peak vert i cal and hori zont al accel er at i ons for a gi ven
record are st rongl y cor r el at ed and we can have more conf i dence in t he pr edi ct ed
rati o t han in ei t her t he pr edi ct ed vert i cal or hori zont al peaks.
INTRODUCTION
The empirical charact eri zat i on of st rong ground mot i on at t enuat i on has always
emphasi zed horizontal shaking. Thi s follows from t he principal use of strong-
mot i on ampl i t ude data: t he eart hquake resi st ant engineering of structures. The
t ransi ent vertical eart hquake loads have been viewed as relatively uni mpor t ant
per t ur bat i ons of t he loads i mposed by t he eart h' s gravitational field. Hori zont al
(t hat is, lateral) eart hquake loads, although j ust as t ransi ent , are oft en viewed as
t he largest horizontal loads t hat a st ruct ure will ever have to bear. Wi del y used
building codes, such as t he Uni form Building Code (Int ernat i onal Conference of
549
5 5 0 N. A. AB R AHAMS ON AND J . J . L I T E HI S E R
Building Officials, 1985 or earlier editions), as well as recent recommendations of
local jurisdictions developing their own building codes (Building Seismic Safety
Council, 1985), do not consider vertical seismic loads at all. Even for the dynamic
design of critical facilities such as nuclear power plants, it is generally assumed t hat
the peak vertical acceleration is simply some fraction of the peak horizontal
acceleration. A value of two-thirds is most often used as the maximum effective
ratio between vertical and horizontal accelerations (Newmark and Hall, 1982).
There is no doubt that, on average, vertical accelerations are smaller t han
horizontal accelerations for strong-motion data from earthquakes of all sizes re-
corded at all distances. In fact, when averaging over all strong ground motions
records, the two-thirds ratio is conservative. Yet for larger earthquakes recorded at
2
shorter distances. The V/ H ratio seems to increase to values greater t han ~. A
glimpse of this behavior was provided by the very first useful records of damaging
earthquake motion. The magnitude 6.2 Long Beach earthquake of 1933 was recorded
at several sites, one at a source distance of just over 6 km. Thel V/ H ratio for this
record was just over 1.0. Data from other earthquakes, most notably the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake, seem to indicate t hat this behavior may be represent-
ative. Bureau (1981) analyzed 75 strong-motion accelerograms recorded at distances
of 10 km or less and found t hat the V/ H ratio was 1.0 or larger for magnitudes
greater t han 6. Campbell (1982) developed an expression for peak vertical acceler-
ation attenuation using the same near-source data (recorded within 50 km of the
rupture zone) compiled previously to study the near-source characteristics of peak
horizontal acceleration (Campbell, 1981). His expression implied t hat the V/ H ratio
exceeded 1.0 for earthquakes of magnitude 7 or greater at distances less t han 5 km.
It is precisely the large earthquakes at near distances t hat often contribute most
significantly to earthquake design load estimates. This suggests t hat separate
attenuation relations may be required for the peak vertical and peak horizontal
ground motions. The data to develop peak vertical relations exist and are as readily
available as horizontal data.
The current study has two purposes. Its primary purpose is to develop an empirical
algebraic description of peak vertical ground accelerations as a function of earth-
quake size and distance. Although work on attenuation of vertical acceleration has
been limited, attenuation of horizontal acceleration has been the subject of intensive
study since the early 1970's. Campbell (1985), for example, presents a summary
table of strong-motion attenuation relations published between 1974 and 1984 in
which 16 citations appear for the attenuation of horizontal acceleration. Additional
papers (for example, Luco, 1985; Boore and Atkinson, 1987; Sabetta and Pugliese,
1987; Toro and McGuire, 1987; Campbell, 1988; Fukushima e t a l . , 1988) on this or
closely related topics have been published since. We have tried to adopt as much
data and as many insights as possible from these earlier studies to our current
study.
The second purpose of this paper is to develop estimates for the V/ H ratio. Two
obvious choices are available: regression on the horizontal data, then forming the
ratio of the vertical and horizontal attenuation expressions, or regression directly
on the V/ H data. Although the second approach is more direct, we choose the first
approach because interest in horizontal attenuation relations remains high.
All studies of strong motion attenuation must consider and discuss basic topics
such as data selection, the attenuation model used for regression, and the method
of regression. Although we too must discuss these topics as they apply to the current
study, we attempt to make our discussion as brief as possible by referring to previous
studies whenever possible. In particular, the papers of Joyner and Boore (1981) and
ATTENUATION OF VERTICAL PEAK ACCELERATION 551
Campbel l (1981) provi de t he st art i ng poi nt for our anal ysi s. The s e s ame aut hors
have wri t t en t wo very us ef ul revi ews o f t he anal ysi s of s t rong- mot i on at t enuat i on
(Campbel l , 1985; Joyner and Boore, 1988).
In addi t i on t o t reat i ng an augme nt e d data set and emphas i zi ng verti cal data, one
aspect of t hi s s t udy represent s an ext ens i on, rather t han a si mpl e adapt at i on, o f
previ ous work: we us e a regressi on me t hod t hat i s a hybri d o f t he Joyner and Boore
(1981) and Campbel l (1981) met hods .
STRONG-MOTION DATA BASE
The fundamental data used for this study are the vertical peak accelerations from
records whose horizontal peaks were analyzed by Joyner and Boore (1981) and
TABLE 1
LIST OF EARTHQUAKES
Focal Tectonic
Number EarVhquake Date Magnitude " Mechanism* Envlronment
1 Long Beach 3/11/33 6.2 1 1
2 Helena, Montana 10/31/35 5.5 2 0
3 Imperial Valley 5/19/40 7.1 1 !
4 Santa Barbara 7/01/41 5.9 4 1
5 Kern County 7/21/52 7.7 5 1
6 Daly City 3/22/57 5.3 1 1
7 Hebgen Lake, Montana 8/18/59 7.1 2 0
8 Parkfield 6/28/66 6.0 1 1
9 Fairbanks, Alaska 6/21/67 5.7 1 1
10 Kovna, India 12/10/67 6.5 1 1
11 Borrego Mtn. 4/09/68 6.7 1 1
12 Santa Rosa (1) 10/02/69, 04:56 5.6 1 1
13 Santa Rosa (2) 10/02/69, 06:19 5.7 1 1
14 Lytle Creek 9/12/70 5.4 1 1
15 San Fernando 2/09/7 ! 6.6 4 1
16 Bear Valley 2/24/72 5.1 1 1
17 Sitka, Alaska 7/30/72 7.6 1 1
18 Managua, Nicaragua 12/23/72 6.2 1 1
19 Point Mugu 2/21/73 5.9 4 1
20 Lima, Peru 10/03/74 7.6 4 1
21 Lima, Peru 11/09/74 7.2 4 1
22 Hollister 11/28/74 5.1 1 1
23 Oroville 8/01/75 5.7 2 1
24 Kalapana, Hawaii 11/29/75 7.1 2 0
25 Gazli, USSR 5/17/76 7.0 4 0
26 Santa Barabara 8/13/78 5.1 4 1
27 Tabas, Iran 9/16/78 7.7 4 0
28 Bishop 10/04/78 5.7 1 1
29 St. Elias, Alaska 2/28/79 7.2 4 1
30 Coyote Lake 8/06/79 5.9 1 1
31 hnperial Valley 10/15/79, 23:16 6.9 1 1
32 hnperial Valley (AS) 10/15/79, 23:19 5.0 1 1
33 Livermore (1) 1/24/80 5.5 1 1
34 Livermore (2) 1/27/80 5.6 1 1
35 Horse Canyon 2/25/80 5.3 1 1
36 Mammoth Lakes 1 5/25/80, 16:33 6.1 3 1
37 Mammot h Lakes (AS) 5/25/80, 16:35 5.0 3 1
38 Mammot h Lakes 2 5/25/80, 16:49 6.0 3 1
39 Mammot h Lakes 3 5/25/80, 19:44 6.1 3 1
40 Mammot h Lakes (AS) 5/25/80, 20:35 5.7 3 1
41 Mammot h Lakes 4 5/27/80, 14:50 6.0 3 1
42 Mexicali Valley, Mexico 6/09/80 6.1 1 1
552 N. A. ABRAHAMSON AND J. J. LITEHISER
TABLE 1- - Cont i nued
List of Earthquakes
Number Earthquake Date Magnitude Focal Tectonic
Mechanism* Envlronmentt
43 Eureka 11/08/80 7.2 1 1
44 SMART 1 Event 5 1/29/81 5.7 4 1
45 Westmorland 4/26/81 5.6 1 1
46 Coalinga 10/25/82 5.4 4 1
47 Long Valley 1/07/83 5.4 3 1
48 Coalinga (MS) 5/02/83, 23:42 6.5 4 1
49 Coalinga (AS) 5/09/83, 02:49 5.1 4 1
50 SMART 1 Event 22 5/10/83 5.6 2 1
51 Coalinga (AS) 6/11/83, 03:09 5.1 4 1
52 SMART 1 Event 23 6/21/83 6.4 5 1
53 SMART 1 Event 24 6/24/83 6.7 5 1
54 Long Valley 7/03/83 5.2 3 1
55 Coalinga (AS) 7/09/83, 07:40 5.3 4 1
56 Coalinga (AS) 7/22/83, 03:43 5.0 4 1
57 Coalinga (AS) 7/25/83, 22:31 5.1 4 1
58 Coalinga (AS) 9/09/83, 09:16 5.3 5 1
59 SMART 1 Event 25 9/21/83 6.5 5 1
60 Borah Peak, Idaho 10/28/83 6.9 3 0
61 Western Idaho 10/29/83 5.8 2 0
62 Morgan Hill 4/24/84 6.1 1 1
63 Western Idaho 8/22/84 5.8 3 0
64 Bishop 11/23/84 5.9 3 1
65 SMART 1 Event 33 6/12/85 5.2 3 1
66 Mexico (MS) 9/19/85 8.1 4 1
67 Mexico (AS) 9/21/85 7.5 4 1
68 Nahanni, Canada 12/23/85 6.9 4 0
69 SMART 1 Event 39 1/16/86 5.5 2 1
70 Ohio 1/31/86 5.0 1 0
71 SMART 1 Event 40 5/20/86 6.4 5 1
72 SMART 1 Event 41 5/20/86 5.5 5 1
73 Palm Springs 7/08/86 5.9 5 1
74 Chalfant Valley 7/21/86 6.0 1 1
75 E1 Salvador 10/10/86 5.4 1 1
76 SMART 1 Event 45 11/14/86 7.8 4 1
* 1 = Strike-slip, 2 = Normal, 3 = Normal oblique, 4 = reverse, 5 = reverse oblique.
t Tectonic Environment: 0 = intraplate, 1 = interplate.
Campbell (1981), supplemented by more current strong-motion data for earthquakes
occurring through 1986. The earthquakes used in this study are listed in Table 1
and the peak accelerations are listed in Appendix A. There are 585 recordings from
76 worldwide earthquakes. All earthquakes used in this study have focal depths of
less t han 25 kin. Just over three-fourths of the records are from 45 earthquakes in
California where the frequency of events and the density of strong-motion instru-
ments are both high. All station recordings listed contain a measurement of peak
vertical acceleration, and all but 13 contain measurements of both horizontal
component peaks. In those few cases where only one horizontal acceleration value
is given, it is generally the larger horizontal component.
We adopt Campbell's definitions of earthquakes magnitude and distance which
differ slightly from the Joyner and Boore definitions of these two important
independent parameters. Thus, the distance from earthquake to recording station
used in this study is defined as the closest distance from the station to the zone of
energy release. Whenever a distance value for a particular recording is listed in
ATTENUATI ON OF VERTICAL PEAK ACCELERATI ON 5 5 3
Campbell, it is used directly. For other records, distances are taken from other
studies or are computed from our own best estimate of the closest surface expression
of the associated earthquake faulting or the inferred source extent based on the
distribution of aftershocks. Similarly, magnitudes are adopted directly from Camp-
bell when available and, otherwise, are taken as either Ms (surface-wave magnitude)
or ML (local magnitude), following Campbell, where Ms is used if it is greater t han
or equal to 6.
A special subset of the data base is provided by recordings from the SMART 1
accelerograph array in T~aiwan. A recent review of the data from this array appears
in Abrahamson et al. (1987). The main SMART I array consists of 37 strong motion
seismometers within a 2 km radius. Peak accelerations for this array are defined in
Appendix A as the array average for each event. Therefore, these peak accelerations
are more stable estimates t han the single station accelerations. The variation of the
accelerations across the array are discussed in Abrahamson (1988). The location of
the central station is used for all earthquake-to-station distance determinations. In
all, 10 earthquakes in our data base were recorded by the SMART 1 array. Of these
10 events, five have rnb and Ms < 6 as determined by the International Seismological
Centre or the U.S. Geological Survey. The mb values are used to define the sizes of
these five events rather t han ML because ML for Taiwan appears t be systematically
high for moderate size events (Abrahamson, 1988).
Figure 1 is a plot of the distribution with magnitude and distance of the 585
recordings. The data base includes accelerations for distance from 0.08 km (plotted,
for convenience, at 0.1 kin) to 400 km, although the bulk of the data is for distances
of less t han 100 km. Earthquake magnitudes range from 5.0 to 8.1. As is typical
with most strong-motion data sets, there is a significant correlation between
magnitude and distance: the correlation coefficient is 0.52.
The data used in this study were recorded on instruments located generally either
in the free-field, on an abutment of a dam or bridge, or in the basement or on the
ground floor of a building. Following Joyner and Boore (1981), the geologic foun-
dation conditions of the recordings are classified as either "rock" or "soil" in
Appendix A. In terms of the Campbell (1981) geological classification scheme,
classifications C, D, and E are considered rock and A, B, and F are considered soil.
Of the 585 recordings in Appendix A, 159 are classified as rock sites, 324 are
classified as soil sites, and 102 are unclassified. Since site condition information is
not readily available for many of the stations listed in Appendix A, we do not
attempt to use site geology as part of the regression analysis, but rather examine a
possible site geology dependence in the residuals.
Each event is classified by gross tectonic environment and fault type. Two tectonic
environments are used: interplate and intraplate. The faulting is classified as strike-
slip, normal, normal olbique, reverse, or reverse oblique. These five fault types are
combined into two groups: normal-strike-slip events and reverse events.
The four independent parameters used in the regression analysis are magnitude,
distance, fault type, and tectonic environment. The correlation matrix for these
four independent parameters is given in Table 2.
The dependent parameters are peak vertical acceleration and peak horizontal
acceleration. We define peak horizontal acceleration in this study as the larger of
the two peaks from both horizontal components for a given record. This is done to
be in accord with our understanding of general engineering practice and with the
definition of peak acceleration for the single vertical component.
Although the purpose of this paper is to determine the distance and magnitude
B . 5 . . . . . . . . I ' ' L ' " ' '1 . . . . .
B. 0
7 . 0
b~
::::)
H 6 . 5 ~ 3 5 m ~ ,
z
.<
< ><
6 . 0 ~ ~, <~> ~ ~> ,C
5 . 5 ~
~>~> 3 > ~ ~>
C~
5 . 0 - l l l ~
4 . 5 w I I , , , , , [ I , , . , . | , , , , , , ,
O . 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
CLOSEST DISTANCE (kin)
FIG. 1. Distribution in magnitude and distance of the strong-motion data used in this study. The
vertical lines indicate the distance bins used for the weighting scheme.
dependence of the peak vertical acceleration and the vertical-to-horizontal acceler-
ation ratio, a few global statistics of the data base are usefully acknowledged here.
The average vertical-to-horizontal peak acceleration ratio for the entire data set is
0.61. The larger horizontal peak for a given record is, on average, 1.13 times the
mean of the two horizontal peaks for t hat record. The average vertical to horizontal
peak ratio, when the mean horizontal peak is considered, is 0.68.
REGRESSION MODELS AND METHODS
Following previous studies on the attenuation of horizontal acceleration (for
example, Campbell, 1985), we consider an attenuation relation of the general form
log~oa~(g) = f~(M) + f2(r, E) + f3(r, M, E) +/4(/~), (1)
TABLE 2
CORRELATI ON MATRI X FOR THE I NDEPENDENT PARAMETERS
M r F E
M 1. 00
r 0 . 5 2 1. 00
F 0 . 2 3 0 . 1 8 1. 00
E - 0 . 2 6 - 0 . 1 7 0. 03 1. 00
where au is t he peak vertical at t enuat i on; f l ( M) is a funct i on of eart hquake
magnitude; f2(r, E) is a funct i on of eart hquake-t o-recordi ng-si t e distance and t he
t ect oni c envi ronment ; f3 (r, M, E) is a nonseparabl e funct i on of magnitude, distance,
and tectonic envi ronment ; and f4(F) is a funct i on of fault type. Usually, either f2 (r,
E) or f3(r, M, E) is used in an at t enuat i on expression but not both. If t he distance
dependence of peak acceleration is separable from the' magni t ude dependence, t hen
f2(r, E) is used; if not, t hen f3(r, M, E) is used. The adopt i on of equat i on (1) along
wi t h t he specification of t he funct i onal forms of fl, f2 or f3, and f4 defines t he
regression model. The way in which t he model is fit to t he dat a defines t he regression
method.
The selection of an f2 or an f3 t ype model is an i mport ant issue. The f l , / 2 model
assumes t hat t he di st ance and magni t ude have separable influences on peak accel-
eration, so t hat at bot h near and far di st ances t he difference bet ween acceleration
peaks from two di fferent event s is uniquely det ermi ned by t hei r specific magnitudes.
The shape of t he at t enuat i on curve does not depend on eart hquake magnitude. In
cont rast , t he f l , / 3 model assumes t hat t he influences of distance and magni t ude are
nonseparabl e. The distance must be specified to det ermi ne t he difference in at t en-
uat i on peaks for any specific pai r of magnitudes. The shape of t he at t enuat i on curve
is allowed t o be magni t ude-dependent . Bot h models allow for sat urat i on of peak
acceleration for large magni t ude eart hquakes, but t he fl, [3 model allows t he
sat urat i on effect to be di st ance-dependent .
In this investigation, we use a regression model and met hod t hat is a hybri d of
t he models and met hods used by Campbell (1981) and Joyner and Boore (1981). In
t erms of equat i on (1), Campbell considers an/ 1, [3 t ype model. (Campbell includes
a fault t ype t er m in his later analyses: Campbell, 1982, 1988.) The form of t hese
funct i ons results in a nonl i near probl em t hat is solved using nonl i near l east -squares
regression. Explicit weighting of t he dat a by distance is used in t he analysis. In
cont rast , Joyner and Boore consider an fl, /2 t ype model. Thei r model is also
nonl i near but it can be linearized by employing an iterative scheme t o solve for one
of t he paramet ers. Implicit equal weighting of each event is used in det ermi ni ng t he
const ant s of fl. Bot h t he Campbell and Joyner and Boore regression methodologies
are easily modified t o include a t erm for fault type: f4 (F). The details of t hese two
regression methodologies are given in t he original papers. An outline of a simple
modification of t he two methodologies is given i mmedi at el y below and a hybri d
met hodol ogy is t hen developed.
Joyner and Boore Type Regression
The Joyner and Boore (1981) regression met hodol ogy is first modified t o include
a fault t ype t er m and to di fferent i at e bet ween i nt erpl at e and i nt rapl at e anelastic
at t enuat i on. Thi s regression model uses an equat i on of t he form
~B
lOgloa,(g) = laB(M) +f~ (r, E) + f4(F), (2)
556 N. A. ABRAHAMSON AND J. J. LI TEHI SER
where
JB
f2 (r, E) = -logl0(r 2 + h 2 ) 1/2 + E b ( r 2 + h 2 ) ~/2, (3)
and
/4(F) - F(b, (4)
where E is a dummy variable t hat is i for interplate earthquakes and 0 for intraplate
earthquakes and F is a dummy variable t hat is 1 for reverse or reverse oblique
events and 0 otherwise. In equation (3), the coefficient of loglo(r 2 + h 2 ) ~/2 term is
constrained to be -1, which restricts its physical interpretation to the effect of far-
field geometrical spreading from a point source. The b coefficient, for values less
t han zero, represents anelastic attenuation. Significant distance, r , is defined as the
closest distance to the surface projection of fault rupture. It does not, therefore,
include a depth term. The constant, h, compensates for this and looks, in fact, very
much like depth. It is not depth, however, but rather a term t hat is globally
determined for the whole data set. That is, it is independent of the event or the
magnitude. Its inclusion in equation (3) allows modeling of the characteristic
flattening of peak acceleration at small distances and keeps acceleration estimates
from increasing without bound as the distance approaches zero.
The Joyner and Boore regression method employs a two-step approach. The first
step is summarized as follows. Let (a,)ik be the kth vertical peak acceleration
recording from the j th earthquake. Set h to a reasonable arbitrary value and
minimize the sum of the squares of the residuals defined by
residjk = I l o g l o [ ( a v ) j ~ ( r ~ k + h2)~/2]} - f ~i=~ a i S i j + E j b ( r ~ k + h 2 ) ~ / 2 } , (5)
where N is the total number of earthquakes, a j is a parameter for t hej th earthquake,
and 5it is the Kronecker delta function. Compute the variance of the residuals.
Select a new h and repeat the procedure. The value of h for which the variance of
the residuals is minimized yields preferred values for h, b, and the aj's.
The second step in the Joyner and Boore regression methodology is to solve for
fl (M) and f4 (F) in terms of the a t (M, F)' s. A plot of a t versus M t (the magnitude of
t hej th earthquake) indicates t hat this parameter generally increases with increasing
M (see, for example, Fig. 3 of Joyner and Boore, 1981). Both linear and quadratic
parameterizations of f l ( M ) were analyzed by Joyner and Boore in their study of
peak horizontal attenuation.
A major computational advantage of the Joyner and Boore regression methodol-
ogy is t hat it can be linearized by using the iterative procedure described above to
solve for h. In addition, the first step in the regression involves inversion of a sparse
matrix t hat can be easily inverted analytically. This leads to very fast program
execution.
In trial application of this model and methodology to our data set, we found t hat
b was very small and positive. This coefficient has no physical interpretation with
a positive value. A similar finding has been reported by Sabetta and Pugliese (1987)
for a data base of Italian strong-motion records. For this reason, we do not use the
JB
f2 (r, E) model in this study.
Campbell Type Regression
The Campbell (1981) regression methodology is also modified to include a fault
type term. This modified model uses an equation of the form
logloa,(g) = fC(M) +fC(r, M, E) + f4(F), (6)
where
fC(r, M, E) = - c loglo(r + H( M) ) + Ebr, (7a)
and
H( M) = hlexp(h2M). (7b)
In this form, the attenuation curves are allowed to show different dependence on
earthquake magnitude for different distances. Significant distance, r, is now defined
as the closest approach to the recording site of the zone of energy release. The
fl (M) term is modeled as a linear function of M:
de(M) = ~ + tiM. (8)
A nonlinear least-squares regression analysis is performed simultaneously on all six
parameters: a, ~, ~, c, hi, and h2.
Hybrid Regression
The Joyner and Boore and Campbell models both have some drawbacks. The
Joyner and Boore method requires an f2 type model and therefore cannot accom-
modate a distance-dependent saturation of peak acceleration at large magnitudes.
The Campbell method, on the other hand, does not address the correlation between
distance and magnitude. This problem is described below.
Fukushima et al. (1988) demonstrated t hat the correlation between magnitude
and distance can lead to poor estimation of the distance decay parameter (c in
equation 7a) if a single simultaneous regression is performed. They found t hat the
distance decay estimated from the entire data set does not agree with the average
decay estimated for individual events (see t hei r Fig. 3). Since our data set also
exhibits a correlation between distance and magnitude (see Table 2) we must
consider this problem. (Note t hat Campbell (1981) avoided this problem by selecting
a data set t hat had a small correlation between distance and magnitude: 0.06).
Fukushima et al. found t hat using the Joyner and Boore two-step regression method
decouples the distance and magnitude determination and yields a distance decay
term t hat agrees with the average distance decay term found for individual events.
Our hybrid regression is a two-step procedure t hat owes elements to both the
published Campbell (1981) and Joyner and Boore (1981) procedures described above.
The goal of our hybrid model is to combine the two-step approach of Joyner and
Boore with an f3 type model such as used by Campbell. The first step uses the
Joyner and Boore method with an f2 model to determine the distance decay
parameter c. Then, with c held constant, the second step uses the Campbell method
with an f3 model to determine the remaining parameters.
As mentioned earlier, use of the f2 form given in equation (3) results in a
nonphysical value for b. As a result, we drop the b term from the f2 model. In
addition, we feel t hat constraining the coefficient of the log term to - 1 is too
restrictive. Since we use Campbell's definition of distance, we use r + h rather t han
(r 2 + he) 1/2. Therefore, in step 1, we use an/2 model given by
f2(r) = c logl0(r + h). (9)
With this form, the first step of the Joyner and Boore regression method can be
repeated with equation (5) rewritten as
resid;k = loglo[(av)jk]- { ~i=1 a i ( S i j + c l o g i o ( r j k + h ) } . (10)
As before, a range of reasonable values for h is searched to find the minimum
variance solution. The c term corresponding to the minimum variance solution is
denoted 5. Using 5 from step 1, the second step of the hybrid regression uses an f~
model given by equation (8), an f4 model given by equation (4), and an fa model
given by
f3(r, M, E) = - 6 loglo(r + H ( M ) ) + Ebr. (11)
An important issue concerns the form of H ( M ) . This term determines the character
of peak acceleration saturation at short distances. The Joyner and Boore method
uses a constant for H (M) while the Campbell method uses an exponential function
of magnitude (equation 7b). The form of H(M) is important in controlling the
predicted accelerations at short distances. This term is discussed in detail in the
results section.
Weighting
In an ideal data set, there would be a uniform sampling of peak acceleration over
all magnitudes and distances; however, we have a limited data set. Some events
have only one recording while other events have multiple recordings. The well-
recorded events are important, but it is not desirable to have them completely
control the regression. For this reason, weights are introduced into the regression.
The methodology used by Joyner and Boore (1981) does not explicitly weight the
data, but it does implicitly give equal weight to each event in determining the
magnitude dependence ([1 (M)). Campbell (1981), on the other hand, uses explicit
weights. The weights are determined by dividing the data into a number of subsets
based on distance. In each distance interval, each earthquake is given equal weight
by assigning a relative weight of 1/njz to the record where n~z is the total number of
recordings for the j th earthquake within t he / t h distance bin. The weights are then
normalized so t hat they sum to the total number of recordings.
Campbell uses nine distance intervals for data in the range of 0 to 50 km. The
first four bins are 2.5 km wide. At distances greater t han 10 km, the bins are of
equal width on the logarithm of distance. For our study, the data extends out to 400
kin, so we need more distance bins t han are given by Campbell. We simply continue
the equal bin width on the logarithm of distance out to 400 km. The only exception
is t hat the last two bins are combined because there are so few data at large
distances. The distance bins used in this study are shown in Figure 1.
RESULTS
Vertical Acceleration
A number of trial solutions for the attenuation of peak vertical acceleration were
performed for the data of Appendix A. The effects of various data winnowing
schemes such as removal of acceleration peaks from single-recording earthquake
(after Joyner and Boore, 1981) and removal of records from shallow or soft soil
sites (after Campbell, 1981) were also considered.
The effects of data winnowing are small (less than, and generally much less than,
10 per cent) in the magnitude range 5 to 8 and distance range 0 to 100 km considered
in detail. Effects on the uncertainty of the estimate, as measured by the variance of
the regression solutuion, are also small for all of the winnowing schemes considered.
The Appendix A data base is large enough so t hat removal of any small subset of
the data has little effect on the results. The results discussed below are deri~ed
using the extended Campbell weighting scheme and all of the data listed in Appendix
A.
Using the two-step hybrid regression method, we first compute the distance decay
parameter, c. For vertical acceleration, we find 5 = -1.096. The second step follows
a Campbell type regression with ~ held fixed.
An important question concerns the H(M) function: is this function magnitude
dependent or not? To address this question, we use a nonparametric form of H(M)
given by
7
H(M) = F~ hjGj, (12)
j =l
where Gj is a dummy variable t hat partitions the earthquakes into half magnitude
bins. The resulting nonparametric fit is shown in Figure 2. There is an indication
t hat H(M) increases with increasing magnitude and an exponential form seems
appropriate; however, this conclusion depends critically on the two upper magnitude
bins. It is important to note t hat the largest magnitude bin (8.0 to 8.4) contains
only one event: 1985 Mexico. Since this event produced low peak accelerations, the
resulting h2 value is large. Therefore, this event may have a strong effect on the
resulting H (M) function.
For reference, we first fit the data using a constant for H(M). Next, we fit the
data using Campbell's exponential form for H(M) (equation 7b). The H(M) func-
tions are plotted in Figure 2. The exponential form produces a lower total variance
compared to the constant form, but the fit at short distances is controlled by the
1985 Mexico earthquake. Since this earthquake may be anomalous, it is not desirable
to have it control the regression. In addition, the hi term is not well-determined by
the regression: its value is 0.0088 with an asymptotic standard error of 0.073 and it
is highly correlated with h2 (0.99). As an alternative, we use a simplified exponential
model in which hi is restricted to unity. This model is much more stable in t hat the
1985 Mexico earthquake does not completely control the fit at short distances. This
model also has the advantage t hat all of the parameters are well-determined.
Therefore, we adopt the form
H(M) = exp(h2M). (13)
Th e r es ul t i ng ver t i cal a t t e n u a t i o n r el at i on is gi ven by
l ogl 0av( g) = - 1 . 1 5 + 0. 245M - 1.096 lOglo(r + e 25~M)
+ 0 . 0 9 6 F - 0. 0011Er, (14)
wi t h a s t a n d a r d er r or of 0.296. Th e a s ympt ot i c s t a n d a r d er r or s of t he r egr es s i on
p a r a me t e r s ar e l i st ed in Ta b l e 3. Th e ver t i cal a t t e n u a t i o n cur ves f or n o r ma l / s t r i k e -
6 ~ 1 I I I I I
5 5
45
5
5
~ _ ~ * j ~ " ~ ~ ' H ( M ) = h 1
- 5 I I I I I I
5 . 0 5 . 5 6 . 0 6 . 5 7 . 0 7 . 5 8 . 0 B . 5
M A G N I T U D E
FIG. 2. Nonparametric magnitude dependence of the H(M) function for vertical peak acceleration.
The vertical bars indicate -+1 S.E. The regression results of three different forms of H(M) are also shown.
TABLE 3
PARAMETERS ESTIMATES AND ASYMPTOTIC STANDARD ERRORS
Vertical Horizontal
Parameter
Est. Asym. s,e. Est. Asym. s.e.
6 1.096 0.072 -0.982 0.068
-1.146 0.095 -0.624 0.089
0.245 0.017 0.177 0.015
h2 0.256 0.025 0.284 0.025
0.096 0.028 0.132 0.026
b - 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 - 0 . 0 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 0 3
slip event s are pl ot t e d i n Fi gur e 3. Th e sol i d cur ves ar e f or t he i nt er pl at e t ect oni c
e nvi r onme nt and t he das hed cur ves ar e f or t he i nt r apl at e t ect oni c envi r onment .
Compar i s ons of t he pr edi ct ed wi t h t he obser ved accel er at i ons are made in Fi gur e
4. Th e dat a ar e gr ouped i nt o hal f - magni t ude i nt er val s and are r educed t o a c ommon
f aul t t ype by scal i ng t he r ever se a nd obl i que r ever se peak accel er at i on by 10 -96.
Agai n, t he sol i d cur ves are f or t he i nt er pl at e t ect oni c e nvi r onme nt and t he das hed
cur ves are for t he i nt r apl at e t ect oni c envi r onment . For each magni t ude i nt er val ,
t he cent r al cur ve is t he medi an accel er at i on f or t he me a n magni t ude and t he
boundi ng cur ves ar e t he 84t h and 16t h per cent i l e levels f or t he upper and l ower
bound magni t udes, r espect i vel y. The s e fi gures show t ha t cur ves pr ovi de a good fi t
t o t he dat a over all magni t ude i nt er val s except f or t he uppe r mos t magni t ude range.
Th e onl y event i n t he 8.0 t o 8.4 magni t ude r ange is t he 1985 Mexi co ear t hquake.
Th e accel er at i ons r ecor ded al ong t he coast , di r ect l y above t he r upt ur e zone, were
low. Some r es ear cher s have suggest ed t ha t t he r upt ur e of t hi s event was anomal ous l y
s moot h (Aki e t a l . , 1987; St eacy e t a l . , 1987). A s moot h r upt ur e woul d pr oduce l ower
accel er at i ons t ha n an une ve n r upt ur e. Wha t e ve r t he cause, onl y r ecor di ngs f r om
addi t i onal gr eat ear t hquakes are l i kel y t o resol ve t hi s a ppa r e nt di scr epancy.
Th e wei ght ed r esi dual s f or dat a wi t hi n 10 km are shown in Fi gur e 5. The r e is a
smal l posi t i ve sl ope t o t he wei ght ed resi dual s, but i t is not si gni f i cant l y di f f er ent
f r om zero at t he 90 per cent conf i dence l evel suggest i ng t ha t a mor e compl ex H( M)
f unct i on is not r equi r ed.
1 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . .
M8
M7
M6
. M5
0. 1
, , , ' x' k
o o
\
~> 0 . 0 1
X
O . 0 0 1 . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . I . . . .
o . 1 l O l O O l O O O
C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ( k i n )
FIG. 3. Vertical peak acceleration attenuation curves (equation 14) for magnitudes 5 through 8. The
solid curves are for interplate earthquakes and the dashed curves are for intraplate earthquakes.
562 N. A. AB R AHAMS ON AND J . J . L I T E HI S E R
~'~ 1 0 , L L L I I I [ ] U I H H L I I l L l l l l I l I I L E I I l l l l L i l L l l l I I t l l l L l l ] n f i l i a l I I I t L I L U I L I I ~ I L l L I H l a l I I l l l n l l l I I Z l n l l
MAGNI TUDE 5. 0 - 5. 4" MAGNITUDE 5. 5 - 5. 9- MAGNITUDE B.O - B+4
Z
c:,
~ . <D g
c~ 0
+ + o o ; o ~ ' ~
L , J
> \ \
< . + + . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . .
~ 0 . 0 0 1
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 O. 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 O. 1 1 0 l O 0 1 0 0 0
C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ( k i n ) C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ( k m ) C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ~ k m )
~ 1 0 ' " " m l ' ' " ' " ' l * L L " " L ] , , E r a _ + L ' " m L ~ ' " ' " 1 * L L m i ; I t L t m : + _ . . . . ~ l l n , [ ; l l m , t I I L H m l ~ ' I L m l .
M A G N I T U D E 8 . 5 - 6 . 9 - i M A G N I T U D E 7 . 0 - 7 . 4 = M A G N I T U D E 7 . 5 - 7 . 9
z
o ( 9 -+"
~ G
M .
c~ 0 . 1
0 . 0 1
~ D
o . O O l . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I _ . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . I , , \ ;
1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 ) 0 0 O. 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 O. 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ( k m ) C L O S E S T D ' r S T A N C E ( k i n ) C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ( k m )
= <
. ~ 0 . 1
o. ol i
0 . 0 0 1
O. 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
FIG. 4. Co mp a r i s o n of t h e pr e di c t e d a n d o b s e r v e d p e a k ve r t i c a l accel er at i ons T h e c o mp a r i s o n i s
ma d e by h a l f - ma g n i t u d e r a n g e s f r o m 5. 0 t o 5. 4 ( pa ne l a) t o 8. 0 t o 8. 4 ( pa ne l g) a n d t h e d a t a h a v e be e n
r e duc e d t o a c o mmo n f a ul t t y p e ( St r i k e - s l i p / n o r ma l ) . T h e sol i d c ur ve s ar e f or i n t e r p l a t e e a r t h q u a k e s
(ci rcl es) a n d t h e d a s h e d c ur ve s ar e f or i n t r a p l a t e e a r t h q u a k e s ( t r i angl es ) . For e a c h s et of c ur ve s , t h e
c e nt r a l c ur ve i s t h e me d i a n a c c e l e r a t i on f or t h e me a n ma g n i t u d e i n t h e ma g n i t u d e r a nge a n d t h e
b o u n d i n g c ur ve s ar e t h e 84 a n d 16 pe r c e nt i l e l evel s f or t h e u p p e r a n d l ower b o u n d ma g n i t u d e s ,
r es pect i vel y.
I 1 I I I I
[ ]
[ ]
2
[ ]
< []
r~ 1 []
b-4
W
r~ [] [] []
-i- i ~ [] [][]
[ ]
-I B
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
- 2 I I I I l I
5 . 0 5 . 5 6 . 0 6 . 5 7 . 0 7 . 5 8 . 0 B . 5
M A G N I T U D E
FIG. 5. Near-source (r < 10 kin) weighted residuals for the vertical attenuation relation (equation
14).
We consider the effect of site geology (soil versus rock) by examining the residuals
from equation (14). The mean weighted residual of logl0av is -0. 008 __ 0..029 for
rock stations and 0.002 ___0.015 for soil stations. Therefore, for the simple geologic
classification scheme used in this study, the site geology effect on vertical acceler-
ation is not significantly different from zero.
Ratio of Vertical to Horizontal Peak Acceleration
The second objective of this study is to estimate the ratio of peak-vertical to
peak-horizontal acceleration. This ratio, coupled with the vertical acceleration
at t enuat i on relation given above, implies a horizontal attenuation relation. Because
interest in horizontal at t enuat i on relations remains high (although not a particular
objective of this study), and because our regression models are already configured
to handle peak acceleration values, we repeat the hybrid regression procedure using
the larger component of peak horizontal data of Appendix A and t hen take the ratio
of the solution rat her t han directly regressing on the ratio data.
Repeating the first step of the hybrid regression on the weighted peak horizontal
acceleration data, we find t hat 5 = -0.982. Again, we consider a nonparametric fit
for H(M). The horizontal data shows a stronger magnitude dependence of H(M)
t han does the vertical data. Repeating the fitting procedure used for the vertical
564 N. A. AB R AHAMS ON AND J . J . L I T E HI S E R
data, we find t hat the Campbell exponential form for H(M) is again controlled by
the 1985 Mexico earthquake for our data set. As a result, the horizontal peak
accelerations are modeled by the same simplified exponential form given in equation
(13). The resulting horizontal attenuation relation is given by
lOgloaH(g) --0.62 + 0.177M - 0.982 loglo(r + e ' 2 s 4 M)
+ 0. 132F- 0.0008Er, (15)
with a standard error of 0.277. Again, the asymptotic standard errors of the
regression parameters are listed in Table 3.
The ratios of vertical to horizontal peak acceleration predicted by equation (14)
and (15) are plotted in Figure 6. For comparison, the ratios predicted by Campbell
(1982) are also shown. The Campbell (1982) horizontal acceleration has been scaled
by 1.13 to account for his use of the average of the two peak horizontal accelerations
rather t han the larger peak horizontal acceleration. The expected ratio from this
study shows a much smaller magnitude dependence t han the expected ratios from
Campbell (1982).
Analysis of the logl0(V/H) residuals indicates t hat the V/H ratio data is approx-
imately log normally distributed with a standard error of 0.20; however, the residuals
deviate from a log normal distribution above the 2a level. This standard error is
much smaller t han the standard error of either the vertical or the horizontal data
and indicates t hat the vertical and horizontal accelerations are highly correlated.
The predicted and observed ratios are compared in Figure 7. The data are again
grouped into half-magnitude intervals and have been reduced to a common fault
2 . 5 . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . : j
/
2 . 0 - ~
",
' i
\
1 . 5
>
' i
F - , t
Mf f - _ _ ~ _ ,
< 1 0 : ,
M6 " " '
, ~ - . , _
0 . 5 " ~ "~'&" ,.-.- " " " ' ~
O . O f . , , , , , I i i I , . , , . I , . , , . l l l l e i , , . . I
O . 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
FI G. 6. P r e d i c t e d V/ H c u r v e s f o r s t r i k e - s l i p / n o r ma l e v e n t s f o r ma g n i t u d e s 5 t h r o u g h 8. T h e h e a v y
s o l i d c u r v e s a r e f o r i n t e r p l a t e e a r t h q u a k e s a n d t h e h e a v y d a s h e d c u r v e s a r e f o r i n t r a p l a t e e a r t h q u a k e s .
T h e l i g h t d a s h e d c u r v e s a r e b a s e d o n t h e C a mp b e l l ( 1 9 8 2 ) h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l a t t e n u a t i o n r e l a t i o n s .
AT T E NUAT I ON OF VE R T I C AL P E AK AC C E L E R AT I ON 5 6 5
10 ~ ]Hml I ~Hmt I I LtL.m I , , . . ~ ~ = =t.mj , , , . m I i , . , m I , L..m I~ I I t , . . l t I,HLn I t ILII]IL] I LIIIL~
MA GNI T UDE 5 . 0 - 5 . 4 - ~ I MA GNI T UDE 5 . 5 - 5 . 9 ! ~ MAGNI T UDE 6 ~ D - 6 . 4 -
(21 -
~ : 0 . 1 "=- - -
A - B C
0 . 0 1 f r Hr l l l i I rHrml rrrlZm[ rrHrr i , r , . , , , l rr+r,rrrl ; r, rl r. l . , ; r . r t f i r r t l l i r f , r m l .r;,l;lfl , rrru,
O. 1 l O l O 0 1DO0 0 . 1 1 10 1 0 0 l O 0 0 O. 1 10 1 0 0 OOO
C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E (km) C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E (km) C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E ( k m
10 ~ ' ' " ' " ' I ' ~ ' " " ' I ' ' " " I E , . m ! , L . u . , I L , , . m . 1 , L . , L J , , I , I L . l ~ ' ' " " " I ' ' ' ' ' " ' I ' ' " ' " ' I ' '""Q
I MA GNI T UDE 6 , 5 - 6 . 9 ! AAGNI TUDE 7 . 0 - 7 . 4- - MA G N I T U D E ' 7 . 5 - 7 . 9 !
o
H 0
o~ 0 . 1 0 -= -=
D E F
O . 0 1 I r H r m I r r r r r . ~ , ; + . . r l t r r . , , , . . I , r ; . . r l , r r r l t r , l t t , , , r r r J r r , , l . 1 , r . , , l . , r t r , , , i r , , , ,
O . 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 O. 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 O . 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0
CL OSEST D I S T A N C E ( k i n ) CL OSEST D I S T A N C E ( k r n ) CL OSEST D I S T A N C E ( k i n )
- ~ I Ag NI T UDE B . O - B. 4~.
>
o
e
<
ag D. 1
G
D. I 10 100 0 0 0
C L O S E S T D I S T A N C E (kin
FI G. 7. C o mp a r i s o n o f t h e p r e d i c t e d a n d o b s e r v e d V/ H r a t i o s . T h e c o mp a r i s o n i s ma d e b y h a l f -
ma g n i t u d e r a n g e s f r o m 5. 0 t o 5. 4 ( p a n e l a ) t o 8. 0 t o 8. 4 ( p a n e l g) a n d t h e d a t a h a v e b e e n r e d u c e d t o a
c o mmo n f a u l t t y p e ( S t r i k e - s l i p / n o r ma l ) . T h e s o l i d c u r v e s a r e f o r i n t e r p l a t e e a r t h q u a k e s ( c i r c l e s ) a n d
t h e d a s h e d c u r v e s a r e f o r i n t r a p l a t e e a r t h q u a k e s ( t r i a n g l e s ) . F o r e a c h s e t o f c u r v e s , t h e c e n t r a l c u r v e i s
t h e me d i a n a c c e l e r a t i o n f o r t h e me a n ma g n i t u d e i n t h e ma g n i t u d e r a n g e a n d t h e b o u n d i n g c u r v e s a r e
t h e 8 4 a n d 16 p e r c e n t i l e l e v e l s f o r t h e u p p e r a n d l o we r b o u n d ma g n i t u d e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
5 6 6 N. A. ABRAHAMSON AND J. J. LI TEHI SER
type. Again, the solid curves are for the interplate tectonic environment and the
dashed curves are for the intraplate tectonic environment. For each magnitude
interval, the central curve is the median acceleration for the mean magnitude and
the bounding curves are the 84th and 16th percentile levels for the upper and lower
bound magnitudes, respectively. The predicted ratios show good agreement with the
observed ratios.
We consider the effect of site geology on the V/ H ratio by examining the V/ H
residuals using equations (14) and (15). The mean weighted residual of lOglo(V/H)
is 0.034 + 0.016 for rock sites and 0.005 + 0.010 for soil sites. The soil site bias is
not significantly different from zero, but the rock site bias is significantly different
from zero at the 90 per cent confidence level. On average, the V/ H ratio for rock
stations is about 8 per cent larger t han predicted by equations (14) and (15).
CONCLUSI ONS
This study supports several conclusions. First, the vertical peak acceleration data
are best fit by a model whose shape is magnitude dependent. The amount of data
from very small distances for large earthquakes is limited, but the magnitude-
dependent shape is statistically significant at the 90 per cent confidence level.
Second, we recognize t hat the standard errors of our solutions are larger t han have
been reported by previous studies (notably Campbell, 1981 and Joyner and Boore,
1981). This is due to the expanded data set of Appendix A t hat includes some
outliers t hat were excluded from previous studies (for example, the Pacoima Dam
record from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake) or were not yet available (for
example, the high accelerations from the 1985 Nahanni earthquake). The data seem
to require the standard errors derived. Third, although some vertical accelerations
exceed the horizontal acceleration for the same record, these cases are exceptions.
The expected ratio of vertical to horizontal peak acceleration remains below 1.0 for
earthquakes with magnitude less t han 8.0 at distances greater t han 1.0 kin. Fourth,
the standard error of the ratio is less t han the standard error of either the horizontal
or vertical attenuation relations. Therefore, the peak vertical and horizontal accel-
erations for a given record are strongly correlated and we can have more confidence
in the predicted ratio t han in either the predicted vertical or horizontal peak
acceleration. Finally, using a gross site geology classification scheme of soil or rock,
the site effect on vertical acceleration is not significant. However, the site effect on
the V/ H ratio is significant with rock sites yielding larger V/ H ratios t han soil sites.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
J i m Mar r one provi ded much assi st ance i n t he pr epar at i on of t he figures and Appendi x A. t~en
Campbel l a nd Dave Boore provi ded useful comment s on t he manuscr i pt . Thi s st udy was f unded ent i rel y
by Becht el Techni cal Gr a nt 97275-009.
REFERENCES
Abr ahams on, N. A. (1988). St at i st i cal pr oper t i es of peak ground accel erat i ons recorded by t he SMART
1 array, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 78, 26-41.
Abr ahamson, N. A., B. A. Bol t , R. B. Darragh, J. Penzi en, and Y. B. Ts ai (1987). The SMART 1
accel erograph array (1980-1987): a review, Eart hquake Spect ra 3, 263- 287.
Aki, K., S. Steacy, M. Campillo, H. Kawase, and F. S~nchez- Sesma (1987). Source, pat h and si t e effects
on st r ong gr ound mot i on dur i ng t he Mi choacan ear t hquake of 1985 (abst ract ), EOS 68, 1354.
Boore, D. M. and G. M. At ki ns on (1987). St ochast i c pr edi ct i on of ground mot i on and spect ral response
par amet er s at har d- r ock si t es i n east er n Nor t h America, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 73, 440- 467.
Bui l di ng Sei smi c Safet y Counci l (1985). NEHRP Recommended Pr ovi si ons for t he Devel opment of
Seismic Regul at i ons for New Bui l di ngs, r epor t pr epar aed for t he Federal Emer gency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Bureau, D. J. (1981). Near-source peak ground accelerations (abstract), Earthquake Notes 52, 81.
Campbell, K. W. (1981). Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am.
71, 2039-2070.
Campbell, K. W. (1982). A study of the near-source behavior of peak vertical acceleration (abstract),
LOS 63, 1037.
Campbell, K. W. (1985). Strong motion attenuation relations: a ten-year perspective, Earthquake Spectra
1,759-804.
Campbell, K. W. (1988). Predicting strong ground motion in Utah, in Evaluation of Regional and Urban
Earthquake Hazards and Risk in Utah, Hays and Gori, Editors, U.S. Geol. Surv. Profess. Paper (in
press).
Fukushima, Y., T. Tanaka, and S. Kataoka (1988). A new attenuation relationship for peak ground
acceleration derived from strong-motion accelerograms, Proc. of the 9th World Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo, Japan (in press).
International Conference of Building Officials (1984). Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California.
Joyner, W. B. and D. M. Boore (1981). Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion
records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am. 71, 2001-2038.
Joyner, W. B. and D. M. Boore (1988). Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground
motion, Proc. Earth. Engin. Soil Dyn. I I - - Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE,
Park City, Utah, 43-102.
Luco, J. E. (1985). On strong ground motion estimates based on models of the radiated spectrum, Bull.
Seism. Soc. Am. 75, 641-649.
Newmark, N. M. and W. J. Hall (1982). Earthquake Spectra and Design, Monograph prepared for
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
Sabetta, F. and A. Pugliese (1987). Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from Italian
strong-motion records, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 77, 1491-1513.
Steacy, S., K. Aki, and M. Campillo (1987). The Michoacan earthquake of 1985: dislocation or crack
growth (abstract), LOS 68, 1354.
Toro, G. R. and R. K. McGuire (1987). An investigation into earthquake ground motion characteristics
in eastern North America, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 77, 468-489.
BECHTEL CIVIL, INC.
P.O. BOX 3965
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94119
Manuscript received 9 February 1988
APPENDIX. PEAK ACCELERATION DATA
Sta Dist 3 Peak Acc. (g)
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 H1 H2 V Source~5
1 Long Beach Pub Utl Bld 131 S 6.4 C 0,216 0.183 0.223 7,8
1 Vernon CMD Terminal 288 S 22.0 C 0,163 0.135 0.150 7,8
1 LA Subway Terminal 136 R 28.0 C 0.100 0.064 0.049 7,8
2 Helena Fed Bldg 2229 R 8.0 C 0.156 0. 141 0.099 7,8
3 E1Centro Sta 9 117 S 10.0 C 0.359 0.224 0.278 7,8,15
4 Santa Barbara Courthous 283 S 10.0 C 0.239 0.190 0.080 7,8
5 Taft Lincoln School 1095 S 42.0 C 0.196 0.177 0.123 7,8,15
5 Santa Barbara Courthouse 283 S 85.0 J 0.135 0.090 0.051 7,15
5 LA Hollywd Storage Lot 135 S 107. 0 J 0.062 0.044 0.022 7,15
5 PasadenaAthenaeam 475 S 109.0 J 0.053 0.048 0.033 7,15
5 San Luis Obispo Rec Bldg 1083 R 148.0 J 0.059 0.042 0.029 7,15
5 Colton 113 S 156.0 J 0.0t4 0. 011 0.012 5,15,50
5 Bishop, LA Water Dept 1008 S 224.0 J 0.018 0.014 0.006 5,15,50
5 Hollister City Hall 1028 S 293.0 J 0.010 0.007 0.005 5
5 E1 Centro Sta 9 117 S 370.0 J 0.004 0.003 5,15,50
6 SF Golden Gate Park 1117 R 8.0 C 0.127 0. 105 0. 051 7,8,15
6 SFState Bldg 1080 S 12.0 C 0.103 0.067 0.050 7,8
6 SF Alexander Bldg 1065 S 14.0 C 0.055 0.050 0.036 7,8
6 SFSo Pacific Bldg 1078 S 14.0 C 0.048 0.048 0.034 7,8
6 Oakland City Hall 1049 S 24.0 C 0.047 0.029 0.023 7,8
7 Bozeman, Mont. 2205 S 95.0 B 0.055 0. 033 0.026 5,50
7 Butte, Mont. 2201 R 175.0 B 0.043 0.034 0.021 5,50
7 Helena, Mont. 2202 R 208.0 B 0.013 0. 011 0.008 5,50
8 Cholame sta 2 1013 S 0.08 C 0.73 0.509 0.349 7,8,15
8 Cholame sta 5 1014 S 5.5 C 0.467 0. 403 0. 181 7,8,15
8 Cholame sta 8 1015 S 9.6 C 0.279 0.276 0.138 7,8,15
8 Temblor 1438 R 10.6 C 0. 411 0.282 0.165 7,8,15
8 Cholame sta 12 1016 S 14.9 C 0.072 0.066 0. 061 7,8,15
8 San Luis Obispo Rec Bldg 1083 R 63.6 J 0.018 0.016 0.007 7,15
8 Taft Lincoln School 1095 S 105.0 J 0.012 0.008 0.007 7,15
9 Fairbanks Duck Hall 2721 R 15.0 C 0.056 0.056 0.053 5,8,50
10 KoynaDam (Gallery 1A) R 3.2 C 0.63 0,49 0.34 8,17
11 E1CentroSta9 117 S 45.0 C 0.142 0, 061 0.036 7,8,15
11 PerrisReservoir 270 R 105.0 J 0.018 0.012 0.006 5,15,50
11 SanOnofreNPP 280 R 122.0 J 0.048 0.042 0.064 7,15
11 Colton 113 S 130.0 J 0. 031 0.024 0.022 7,15
11 SanBernadino, DevilsCan 116 R 141.0 J 0. 011 0.009 0.009 5,7,15
11 Cedar Springs, CWD 112 S 147.0 J 0.006 0.006 0.003 5,15,50
11 Long Beach Terminal ls. 130 S 187.0 J 0.010 0.010 0.006 7,15
11 Pasadena, Anthenaeum 475 S 197.0 J 0.010 0.007 0.004 7,15
11 Pasadena, SeismoLab 266 R 200.0 J 0.007 0.006 0.002 5,15,50
11 Pear Blossom Pump Plant 269 S 203.0 J 0.006 0.005 0.006 5,15,50
11 LAHoUywdStorageLot 135 S 211.0 J 0.013 0.012 0.005 7,15
12 San Pablo, CC JC 1093 S 62.0 J 0.005 0.002 0. 001 15,50
12 Pleasant Hill, DVC 1057 R 77.0 B 0.007 0.005 0.002 5
12 S.F. 390 Main 1074 R 79.0 B 0. 011 0.007 0.004 5
12 S.F. Alexander Bldg 1065 S 79.0 B 0.008 0.008 0.003 5
12 S.F. Bethlehem Bldg 1071 S 79.0 B 0.015 0.014 0.007 5
12 S.F. So. Pac. Bldg 1078 S 79.0 B 0.016 0.013 0.007 5
12 Oakland City Hall 1049 S 82.0 B 0.006 0.005 0.002 5
12 APEEL Array Sta 1 1001 S 109.0 B 0.018 0. 011 0.002 5
12 APEEL Array Sta 2 1002 S 110.0 B 0.017 0.012 0.002 5
13 San Pablo, CC JC 1093 S 62.0 J 0. 003 0. 003 0.003 15,50
13 Pleasant Hill DVC 1057 R 77.0 B 0.009 0.008 0.002 5
13 S.F. 390 Main 1074 R 79.0 B 0.012 0.009 0.004 5
13 S.F. Alexander Bldg 1065 S 79.0 B 0.012 0.008 0.003 5
13 S.F. Bethlehem Bldg 1071 S 79.0 B 0.027 0.014 0.007 5
13 S.F. So. Pac. Bldg 1078 S 79.0 B 0.020 0.016 0.008 5
A- 1
Sta Dist3 Peak Acc. (g)
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 H1 H2 V Sources 5
13 Oakland City Hall 1049 S 82.0 B 0. 013 0.006 0.004 5
13 APEEL Array sta 1 1001 S 109.0 B 0.029 0. 027 0.002 5
13 APEELArraySta2 1002 S 110.0 B 0. 021 0. 021 0.009 5
14 Wrightwood 290 R 15.0 C 0.205 0.146 0.076 7,8,15
14 Cedar Spring Miller Cn 111 R 18.0 C 0.086 0. 057 0. 093 7,8,15
14 Cedar Springs CWD 112 R 18.0 C 0.073 0.062 0. 044 7,8,15
14 Devils Canyon Filter P1 116 R 19.0 C 0.179 0. 164 0.094 7,8,15
14 San Bern., Hall of Rcrds 274 S 28.0 C 0.119 0.065 0.055 7,8
14 Colton SCE Substation 113 S 29.0 C 0. 045 0. 039 0.042 7,8,15
14 PuddingstoneReservoir 278 R 32.0 C 0.022 0. 019 0.018 7,8
15 Pacoima Dam Abutment 279 R 3.2 C 1. 251 1. 242 0.718 7,8
15 LA Orion Blvd 241 S 7.5 C 0.258 0.140 0.178 7,8
15 LA Van Owen St. 458 S 9.7 C 0.118 0. 111 0.111 7,8
15 LA 15910 Ventura Blvd 461 S 14.3 C 0.148 0. 135 0.120 7,8
15 PasadenaJPL 267 S 14.8 C 0.215 0.160 0.146 7,8
15 LA 15250 Ventura Blvd 466 S 15.4 C 0.225 0.152 0.108 7,8
15 LaLankershimBlvd 220 R 15.4 C 0. 181 0.154 0.085 7,8
15 LA 14724 Ventura Blvd 253 S 15.4 C 0. 263 0. 207 0.101 7,8
15 LA Griffith Park 141 R 16.9 C 0.188 0.180 0.138 7,8,15
15 Pasadena Seismo Lab 266 R 18.4 C 0.204 0.096 0. 093 7,8,15
15 Lake Hughes Sta 12 128 R 18.7 C 0.374 0. 288 0.164 7,8,15
15 LA Hollywd PE lot 135 S 20.5 C 0.217 0.187 0. 119 7,8,15
15 LA Hollywd storage 133 S 21.3 C 0.153 0. 115 0.058 7,8
15 Pasadena Millikan Lib 264 S 21.8 C 0.206 0.189 0.108 7,8
15 Pasadena Athenaeum 475 S 22.5 C 0.114 0. 103 0.106 7,8,15
15 Lake Hughes Sta 9 127 R 22.6 C 0.147 0. 131 0.089 7,8,15
15 CastaicOldRdgRt 110 R 22.8 C 0.335 0.289 0.180 7,8,15
15 LA Water + Power 137 R 24.1 C 0.188 0.137 0.078 7,8
15 Alhambra, Fremont Ave 482 S 24.8 C 0. 121 0.117 0.084 7,8
15 Lake Hughes Sta 4 126 R 24.9 C 0.200 0.159 0.170 7,8,15
15 LA 1640Marengo 181 S 25.2 C 0.147 0.139 0.086 7,8
15 LAZonal Ave 190 R 25.5 C 0.083 0. 071 0.060 7,8
15 Palmdale Fire Sta 262 S 27.6 C 0.150 0.118 0. 105 7,8,15
15 Santa AnitaDam 104 R 27.9 C 0.223 0.172 0.070 7,8
15 Lake Hughes Sta 1 125 S 29.6 C 0.152 0. 115 0.102 7,8,15
15 Vernon CMD Terminal 288 S 30.7 C 0. 111 0. 085 0.047 7,8
15 FairmontReservoir 121 R 32.1 C 0.103 0.068 0.043 7,8
15 Pearblossom Pump Plant 269 R 35.5 C 0.148 0. 103 0.056 7,8,15
15 LA Century Blvd 229 S 36.1 C 0.069 0. 058 0.028 7,8
15 LA Lincoln Blvd 244 S 36.1 C 0.035 0. 034 0.047 7,8
15 LAAirportBlvd 247 S 36.1 C 0. 045 0. 041 0.025 7,8
15 Gormon Oso Pump Plant 1052 S 46.7 J 0.112 0. 087 0.041 7,15
15 Palos Verdes Estates 411 S 56.9 J 0. 043 0. 025 0.020 7,15
15 Wrightwood 290 S 60.7 J 0.057 0. 047 0.037 7,15
15 Long Beach Terminal Is 130 S 61.4 J 0.030 0. 029 0.016 7,15
15 Port Hueneme Navy Lab 272 S 62.0 J 0.027 0.026 0.011 7,15
15 Fort Tejon 1096 S 64.0 J 0.028 0. 023 0.018 7,15
15 Edmonston Pump Plant 1027 R 66.0 J 0.057 0.026 0.047 7,15
15 Wheeler Ridge 1102 82.0 J 0.034 0.028 0.015 7,15
15 Cedar Springs CWR 111 R 87.0 J 0. 021 0.016 0.010 7,15
15 Cedar Springs CWD 112 88.0 J 0. 031 0. 025 0.012 7,15
15 Colton 113 91.0 J 0.039 0. 034 0.026 7,15
16 Hollister City Hall 1028 S 31.0 C 0.03 0.02 0. 01 5,8,15
17 Sitka Mag Obs 2714 S 45.0 C 0.11 0.09 0.05 5,8,15
18 ManaguaEssoRefinery 3501 S 5.0 C 0.39 0.34 0.33 8,15,16
19 Port Hueneme Naval Lab 272 S 24.0 C 0.13 0.08 0.04 5,8,15
19 Jensen Filter Plant 655 R 53.0 A 0.031 0.014 5,15
19 LA, 16633 Ventura 497 S 50.0 A 0.06 0.03 0.01 44
A- 2
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 HI H2 V Sources 5
19 LA, 18321 Ventura 610 S 51.0 A 0.043 0.016 5
19 Santa Monica, 201 Ocean 657 51.0 A 0.036 0.012 5
19 LA, 16661 Ventura 118 S 53.0 A 0.042 0.016 5
19 LA, 16255 Ventura 512 S 54.0 A 0.036 0.016 5
19 LA, 415 Washington 560 S 54.0 A 0.09 0.07 0.02 44
19 LA, 16055 Ventura 259 S 55.0 A 0.032 0.013 5
19 LA, 15910 Ventura 461 S 55.0 A 0.040 0.023 5
19 Culver City 990 61.0 A 0.05 0.04 0.03 44
19 LA, 9841, Airport 247 S 61.0 A 0.05 0.05 0.02 44
19 LA, 9750 Airport 586 S 62.0 A 0.04 0.03 0.02 44
19 LA, 5249 Century 589 S 63.0 A 0.05 0.04 0.02 44
19 LA, 5260 Century S 63.0 A 0.05 0.05 0.01 44
19 LA, 4411 Eleventh 524 S 66.0 A 0.06 0.05 0.04 44
19 LA, 4827 Central 645 S 72.0 A 0.06 0.05 0.02 44
20 Lima Geophys Inst 4302 S 38.0 C 0.24 0.21 0.13 8,45
20 Lima Huaca Residence 4304 S 40.0 C 0.18 0.17 0.13 8,45
21 Lima, La Molina 4305 103.0 H 0.14 0.11 0.05 45
21 Lima, Geophys Inst 4302 S 95.0 H 0.08 0.05 0.03 8,45
22 San Juan Baufista 1377 S 8.9 C 0.12 0.05 0. 05 5,8,15
22 Hollister City Hall 1028 S 10.8 C 0.17 0.10 0.07 5,8,15
22 Gilroy Gavilian Col. 1250 S 10.8 C 0.14 0.10 0.03 5,8,15
22 SAGO Central 1032 R 20.0 H 0.011 0.013 5,15
22 Stone Canyon East 1202 38.0 H 0.03 0.02 0.05 45
23 Oroville Seismo Sta 1051 R 8.0 C 0.11 0.10 0.12 8,15,39
23 Marysville 1291 S 30.0 C 0.07 0.06 0.04 8,15,39
23 Chico 1292 S 31.0 C 0.08 0.06 0.03 8,15,39
23 Paradise KEWG Trans 1293 R 32.0 C 0.04 0.03 0.03 8,15,39
24 Panaluu 2803 S 27.0 C 0.12 0.10 0.05 8,47
24 I-Iilo, Cloud Phys Lab 2808 R 45.0 C 0.22 0.11 0.10 8,47
24 Honokaa 2809 76.0 A 0.11 0.09 0.04 47
25 Karakyr, USSR 9110 R 3.5 C 0.752 0.668 1.324 8,11
26 Goleta UCSB Phys Plant 885 S 7.7 C 0.39 0.24 0.14 8,15,34
26 Goleta UCSB North Hall 5093 S 7.7 C 0.44 0.27 0.11 8,34
26 St. Barbara Courthouse 283 S 9.8 C 0.21 0.10 0.07 8,15,34
26 St. Barbara Freitas 5137 S I0.1 C 0.22 0.11 0.06 8,34
26 Goleta Substation 9022 R 11.8 C 0.28 0.24 0.09 8,15
26 Gibraltar Dam R Abut 941 R 18.1 C 0.04 0.04 0.03 8
26 Cachuma Dam Toe 106 R 25.9 C 0.07 0.03 0.02 8,34
27 Tabas S 3.0 C 0.942 0.875 0.737 26
27 Dayhook S 17.0 A 0. 391 0.379 0.184 26
27 Boshrooyeh S 28.0 A 0.116 0.110 0.082 26
27 Ferdows S 110.0 A 0.106 0.099 0.053 41
27 Khezri S 160.0 A 0.026 0.024 0.024 41
27 Bajestan S 160.0 A 0. 091 0.068 0.030 41
27 Sedeh S 170.0 A 0.027 0.024 0.027 41
27 Birjand S 175.0 A 0.019 0.016 41
27 Kashmer S 250.0 A 0.036 0.034 0.032 41
28 Long Valley Dam L.Abut 1444 R 7.6 C 0.26 0.17 0.17 8,18
28 Bishop 1008 S 27.1 C 0.06 0.03 0.03 8,18
28 Mammoth Lakes H.S. 1490 S 29.0 C 0.07 0.05 0.04 8,18
28 Benton, Jct 6 & 120 1325 S 34.2 C 0.06 0.06 0.04 8,18
29 Icy Bay 2734 S 38.3 C 0.16 0.11 0.07 8,15,27
29 Yakutat 2728 S 92.7 A 0.09 0.06 0.02 15
30 Coyote Creek 1445 S 3.9 C 0.23 0.16 0.10 8,15,33
30 Gilroy Sta 6 1413 R 4.0 C 0.42 0.34 0.17 8,15,33
30 Gilroy Sta 4 1411 S 4.9 C 0.26 0.24 0.44 8,15,33
30 Gilroy Sta 3 1410 S 6.3 C 0.27 0.26 0.15 8,15,33
30 Gilroy Sta 2 1409 S 8.0 C 0.26 0.20 0.18 8,15,33
A-3
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 H1 I-I2 V Sources 5
30 Gilroy Sta 1 1408 R 8.9 C 0.13 0.10 0.08 8,15,33
30 San Juan Bautista 1377 S 14.4 C 0.I1 0.09 0.12 8,15,33
30 Sail Juan Bautista Over 1492 S 16.2 C 0.12 0.08 0.06 8,15,33
30 Halls Valley 1422 S 24.8 C 0.05 0.04 0.03 8,15,33
30 Salinas 1414 S 35.0 A 0.10 0.10 0.06 33
30 Bear Valley Sta 12 1481 37.3 A 0.09 0.08 0.07 33,42
31 E1 Centro Sta 7 5028 S 0.2 C 0.52 0.36 0.65 8,15,49
31 Meloland FF 5155 S 0.2 C 0.318 0.296 0.231 15,19,49
31 MelolandFooting 5155 S 0.2 C 0.326 0.279 0.172 8,19
31 Meloland Abut 1 5155 S 0.2 C 0.422 0.277 0.274 8,19
31 Meloland Abut 3 5155 S 0.2 C 0.385 0.35 0.25l 8,19
31 E1Centro Sta 5 952 S 1.0 C 0.56 0.40 0. 71 8,15,49
31 E1Centro Sta 6 942 S 1.4 C 0.72 0.45 1. 74 8,15,49
31 Bonds Comer 5054 S 2.8 C 0.81 0.66 0.47 8,15,49
31 E1Centro Sta 8 958 S 3.5 C 0.64 0.50 0.55 8,15,49
31 E1Centro Sta4 955 S 4.4 C 0.61 0.38 0.32 8,15,49
31 Dogwood Rd 5165 S 4.8 C 0.51 0.37 0.93 8,15,49
31 Aeropuerto 6616 S 5.2 A 0.316 0.240 0.179 15,49
31 E1Centro Sta 9 117 S 5.8 C 0.40 0.27 0.38 8,15,49
31 Brawley Airport 5060 S 7.0 C 0.22 0.17 0.18 8,15,49
31 ICSB 5090 S 7.0 C 0.35 0.32 0.19 8,49
31 ICSBfree-field 5154 S 7.0 C 0. 243 0.237 0.270 8,15,49
31 Holtville P.O. 5055 S 7.3 C 0.26 0.22 0. 31 8,15,49
31 E1Centro Sta 10 412 S 8.2 C 0.23 0.20 0.15 8,15,49
31 E1Centro Sta 3 5057 S 9.3 C 0.27 0.22 0.15 8,15,49
31 MexicaliSAHOP 6619 S 9.8 A 0.459 0. 311 0.332 15,49
31 Calexico Fire Sta 5053 S 10.1 C 0.28 0.22 0. 21 8,15,49
31 El Centro Sta 2 5115 S 10.2 C 0.43 0.33 0.17 8,15,49
31 E1Cenlro Sta 11 5058 S 12.2 C 0.38 0.38 0.16 8,15,49
31 WestmorlandF.S. 5169 S 12.6 C 0.106 0. 081 0.090 8,15,49
31 Parachute Test Site 5051 S 13.1 C 0.20 0.11 0.18 8,15,49
31 Cucapah 6617 S 13.8 A 0.310 0. 115 15~49
31 EICentro Sta 1 5056 S 16.4 C 0.15 0.15 0.10 8,15,49
31 EICentro Sta 12 931 S 18.0 C 0.15 0.11 0.08 8,15,49
31 Chihuahua 6621 S 18.4 A 0.267 0.263 0.215 15,49
31 El Centro Sta 13 5059 S 21.5 C 0.15 0.12 0.06 8,15,49
31 Calipatria Fire Sta 5061 S 22.2 C 0.13 0.09 0.07 8,15,49
31 Compuertas 6622 S 23.7 A 0.188 0.149 0.066 15,49
31 Cerro Prieto 6604 R 24.0 A 0.167 0.149 0.198 15,49
31 Superstition Mtn. 286 R 24.5 C 0.21 0.12 0.09 8,15,49
31 Salton Sea 5062 S 28.0 C 0.06 0.06 0.03 8,15,49
31 Plaster City 5052 S 30.5 C 0.07 0.05 0.03 8,15,49
31 Delta 6605 S 33.0 A 0.349 0.235 0.152 15,49
31 Niland 724 S 34.0 C 0.10 0.07 0.03 8,15,49
31 Victoria 6610 S 44.0 A 0. 163 0.122 0.056 15,49
31 Cochella Canal 4 5066 S 47.7 C 0.14 0.I 1 0.04 8,15,49
31 Ocotillo Wells 5050 S 60.0 A 0.05 0.04 0.03 15,49
31 Yuma, Arizona 2316 S 64.0 A 0.03 0.03 0.02 15,49
32 Holtville P.O. 5055 S 9.0 H 0.264 0.116 0.042 15,49
32 El Centro Sta6 942 S 10.1 H 0. 263 0.175 0.080 15,49
32 El Centro Sta 7 5028 S 10.2 H 0.230 0.147 0.086 15,49
32 Dogwood Rd 5165 S 10.6 H 0.147 0.146 0.103 15,49
32 E1 Centro Sta 5 952 S 10.9 H 0.286 0.235 0.117 15,49
32 E1Centro Sta 8 958 S 10.9 H 0.157 0.128 0.056 15,49
32 E1CentroSta4 955 S 11.6 H 0.237 0.168 0.079 15,49
32 El Centro Sta 9 117 S 11.6 H 0.133 0.078 0.086 15,49
32 E1Centxo Sta 10 412 S 13.0 H 0.055 0. 051 0.026 15,49
32 Calexico Fire Sta 5053 S 13.2 H 0.097 0. 071 0.034 15,49
A- 4
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 ~m) Ref 4 H1 H2 V Sources 5
32 Bonds Corner 5054 S 13.7 H 0.129 0.074 0.052 15,49
32 E1Centro Sta 11 5058 S 15.4 H 0.192 0.098 0,063 15,49
32 El Centro Sta 3 5057 S 15.7 H 0.147 0.103 0,039 15,49
32 E1Centro Sta 2 5115 S 18.3 H 0.154 0.089 0.054 15,49
32 E1 Cenlxo Sta 1 5056 S 24.4 H 0.060 0. 033 0. 033 15,49
32 Brawley Airport 5060 S 25.5 H 0.057 0. 045 0.043 15,49
33 San Ramon, Kodak Bldg 1418 S 17.6 A 0.15 0.06 0.03 15,20,42
33 San Ramon, 2241 SRV 1383 S 18.5 A 0. 053 0,042 0.018 15,20,42
33 Antioch 1308 S 22.3 A 0.04 0.01 0. 03 15,20,42
33 Tracy 1298 S 29.6 A 0.094 0.055 0.039 15,20,42
33 Fremont, Mission SJ 1299 S 34.1 A 0.063 0. 051 0.028 15,20,42
33 APEEL Sta 3E 1219 R 41.1 A 0.077 0.060 0.023 15,20,42
33 Halls Valley 1422 S 45.4 A 0.078 0. 055 0.028 20,42
34 FagundezRanch 8.9 A 0.254 0.217 0.095 15,20
34 Morgan Temtory Park 12.9 A 0.272 0.189 0.078 15,20
34 San Ramon, Kodak Bldg 1418 S 19.4 A 0.28 0.09 0.04 15,20,42
34 San Ramon, 2241 SRV 1383 S 23.9 A 0. 053 0.042 0.018 15,20,42
34 Antioch Contra Loma 27.7 A 0.04 0.03 0.01 15,20
34 'Fremont, Mission SJ 1299 S 30.1 A 0.11 0.04 0.02 15,20,42
34 Antioch 1308 S 31.9 A 0.110 0.048 0.018 15,20,42
34 APEEL Sta 3E 1219 R 38.7 A 0.076 0.044 0.016 15,20,42
35 TerwiUigerValley 5045 8.3 H 0. 123 0.088 0.063 15,28
35 Pinyon Flat Obs 5044 13.4 H 0. 133 0.118 0.058 15,28
35 Anza Fire Sta 5160 S 13.5 H 0. 073 0.067 0. 041 15,28,42
35 blurkey Creek Park 5043 21.4 H 0.097 0.076 0. 101 15,28
35 Rancho de Anza 5047 21.4 H 0.096 0.096 0. 051 15,28
35 PuerlaLaCruz 933 S 26.0 H 0. 181 0. 114 0.090 28,42
35 Palm Desert 5132 S 30.1 H 0. 094 0.072 0.054 28,42
35 Thousand Palms 5068 36.4 I4 0.082 0.050 0.049 15,28
35 Sage 901 R 36.6 I4 0. 111 0.084 0.174 28,42
35 Cranston Forest Sta 5042 36.8 14 0.110 0. 094 0.038 15,28
35 lndio, So Cal Gas 5067 39.0 14 0.094 0.060 0.020 15,28
35 Borrego Air Ranch 5049 41.8 14 0.040 0.032 0.016 15,28
35 San Jacinto 5006 44.0 H 0. 047 0.044 0.064 28
35 North Palm Springs 5070 44.8 H 0.022 0.017 0.028 15,28
35 Hemet City Lib 5091 46.5 H 0.057 0.046 0.058 28
35 San Jacinto 5005 47.5 I-I 0.080 0.062 0.052 28
35 Fun Valley 5069 48.1 H 0. 033 0. 028 0. 011 15,28
35 Cabozon P.O. 5073 49.6 H 0.017 0.016 0. 011 15,28
35 White Water Cyn Trout 5072 53.4 H 0.022 0.016 0.022 15,28
36 Convict Lake 1324 S 1.0 A 0.464 0.428 0.433 40,42,43
36 Mammoth Lakes 14.S. 1490 S 3.2 A 0.327 0.237 0.264 40,42,43
36 Long VaUey dam, dnstr 1444 R 3.2 A 0. 11 0.069 0.075 40,42,43
36 MonoLake 1323 S 35.0 A 0.079 0.057 0.044 40,42,43
37 Convict l ake 1324 S 8.9 14 0.06 0.04 0.04 40,42,43
38 Convict Lake 1324 S 1.0 A 0.20 0.17 0.14 40,42,43
38 Mammoth Lakes H.S. 1490 S 3.2 A 0.43 0.37 0.27 40,42,43
38 Long Valley dam, dn str 1444 R 3.2 A 0.04 0.01 0.02 40,42,43
39 Convict Lake 1324 S 1.0 A 0,239 0. 193 0.197 40,42,43
39 Long Valley dam, dnstr 1444 R 3.2 A 0. 11 0.062 0.075 40,42,43
40 Convict Lake 1324 S 1.0 A 0.49 0.38 0.35 40,42,43
41 Convict Lake 1324 S 1.0 A 0. 331 0.267 0.197 40,42,43
41 Long Valley dam, dn str 1444 R 3.2 A 0. 243 0.172 0.09 40,42,43
41 Paradise Lodge 12.0 A 0.119 0.090 0.09 40,42,43
41 Benton 1325 S 33.0 A 0.177 0. 11 0.068 40,42,43
41 Bishop 1008 S 34.0 A 0.078 0. 041 0.024 40,42,43
42 Victoria 6610 S 7.3 A 0.848 0.786 1.00 1
42 CerroPrieto 6604 S 10.0 A 0. 675 0.575 0.307 1
A-5
Eqk Station Name No.1 G 2 (Ion) Ref 4 H1 H2 V Sources 5
42 Chihuahua 6621 S 15.0 A 0.154 0.070 0.097 1
42 Cucapah 6617 S 21.0 A 0.076 0.060 1
42 SAHOP 6619 S 31.0 A 0.073 0.060 0.043 1
42 Aeropuerto 6616 S 33.0 A 0. 031 0. 023 0.019 1
42 MexicaliHospital 6624 35.0 A 0.047 0.045 0.033 1
42 Bonds Comer 5054 S 38.0 A 0.13 0.12 0.03 1,28
42 Calexico 5053 S 41.0 A 0. 041 0. 041 0.031 1,28
42 E1Centro Sta 11 5058 S 55.0 A 0. 051 0. 041 0.010 1,28
43 Butler Valley Sta 2 1112 R 66.0 A 0.10 0.08 0.04 29
44 Average of 26 records 1 S 21.0 A 0.129 0.105 0.046 51
45 Westmorland F.S. 5169 S 5.3 A 0.49 0.39 0.80 8,21
45 Salton Sea 5062 S 5.8 A 0.20 0.19 0.22 8,23
45 Brawley Airport 5060 S 16.1 A 0.18 0.16 0.11 8,23
45 Superstition Mtn 286 R 16.5 A 0.11 0.09 0.06 8,23
45 Parachute Test Site 5051 S 17.0 A 0.23 0.16 0.16 8,23
45 El Centro Sta 2 5115 S 30.0 A 0.05 0.03 0.02 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 5 952 S 30.0 A 0.06 0.05 0.01 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 1 5056 S 31.0 A 0.06 0.05 0.03 8,23
45 El Centro Sta 6 942 S 31.0 A 0.06 0.05 0.03 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 7 5028 S 31.0 A 0.05 0.03 0.01 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 9 117 S 31.0 A 0.04 0.03 0.04 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 10 412 S 31.0 A 0.04 0.03 0.02 8,23
45 E1 Centro Sta 3 5057 S 32.0 A 0.03 0.02 0.02 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta4 955 S 32.0 A 0.02 0.02 0.01 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 8 958 S 32.0 A 0.05 0.05 0.03 8,23
45 Piaster City 5052 S 32.0 A 0.03 0.02 0.01 8,23
45 E1 Cenlro Diff Array 5165 S 34.0 A 0.08 0.05 0.02 8,23
45 E1 Centro Sta 11 5058 S 34.0 A 0.06 0.05 0.04 8,23
45 E1Centro Sta 12 931 S 36.0 A 0.05 0.05 0.02 8,23
45 E1Centxo Sta 13 5059 S 38.0 A 0.03 0.03 0.01 8,23
45 Holtville 5055 S 38.0 A 0.03 0.03 0.02 , 8,23
45 Niland 724 S 48.0 A 0.19 0.11 0.13 8,21
45 Calexico 5053 S 69.0 A 0.02 0.02 0.01 8,23
46 PVPP Bsmt 1162 S 25.8 H 0.08 0.06 0.03 30
46 PVPP Switchyard 1162 S 25.8 H 0.11 0.09 0.05 30
47 Long Valley Dam,L. Abut 1444 R 23.6 H 0.09 0.06 0.06 31
48 PVPP Switchyard 1162 S 6.8 A 0.54 0.46 0.38 31
48 PVPP Basement 1162 S 6.8 A 0.31 0.28 0.22 31
48 Parkfield VC 2E R 23.9 A 0.179 0.122 0.067 6,22
48 Cantua Creek School S 25.9 A 0.288 0.226 0.114 6,22
48 ParkfieldVC 1E 26.2 A 0.232 0.178 0.084 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ16 28.1 A 0.184 0.144 0.062 6,22
48 Slack Canyon R 28.7 A 0. 173 0.137 0.053 6,22
48 Parkfield VC 1W 28.9 A 0.090 0.086 0.070 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ15 29.6 A 0.194 0. 125 0.084 6,22
48 Parkfield VC 2W 30.1 A 0.089 0.079 0.058 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ14 30.1 A 0.275 0.264 0.097 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ12 30.4 A 0.113 0.110 0.071 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ 8 31.6 A 0.134 0.116 0.054 6,22
48 Parkfield VC 3W R 31.7 A 0.139 0. 101 0.056 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ10 R 31.7 A 0. 133 0.075 0.046 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 3E 32.1 A 0.095 0.072 0.055 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ 7 32.7 A 0.122 0.120 0.055 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ9 32.8 A 0. 051 0.050 0.027 6,22
48 Parkfield SC 4E R 33.9 A 0.074 0.065 0.029 6,22
48 Parkfield VC 4W 34.0 A 0.057 0.039 0.028 6,22
48 Parkfield FZ 6 34.4 A 0.057 0.056 0.028 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 2E 35.2 A 0.082 0.077 0.039 6,22
A-6
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 ~km) Ref 4 H1 1-12 V Sources 5
48 Parkfield FZ 11 35.6 A 0.087 0.079 0.043 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ4 36.3 A 0.122 0.067 0.047 6,22
48 Parkfield SC 3E 36.4 A 0. 151 0.107 0.034 6,22
48 Parkfield VC 5W 36.6 A 0.065 0.049 6,22
48 ParkfieldGH 1W 37.1 A 0.122 0.066 0.035 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 2W 39.0 A 0.084 0.075 0.037 6,22
48 Parkfield FZ 3 S 39.6 A 0.164 0.140 0.050 6,22
48 Parkfield SC 2E R 39.8 A 0.089 0.062 0.033 6,22
48 Parkfield VC 6W 40.5 A 0.078 0.054 0.038 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 3W R 40.8 A . 0.138 0.123 0.067 6,22
48 ParkfieldSC IE 41.2 A 0.127 0.105 0.069 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ2 S 41.3 A 0.135 0.119 0.041 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 4W 42.8 A 0.099 0.056 0.030 6,22
48 ParkfieldC 3E R 43.5 A 0.046 0.044 0.027 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 5W 45.2 A 0.073 0.055 0.035 6,22
48 ParkfieldFZ1 S 45.2 A 0.143 0.112 0.041 6,22
48 Parkfield C 2E R 45.4 A 0.039 0.027 0.017 6,22
48 ParkfieldC IE 46.4 A 0.093 0. 091 0.059 6,22
48 Parkfield C 2WA 47.3 A 0.114 0. 111 0.044 6,22
48 Parkfield C 3W 48.1 A 0.099 0.084 0.034 6,22
48 Parkfield C 4W 49.0 A 0.133 0.133 0.041 6,22
48 Parkfield GH 6W 49.3 A 0.069 0.064 0.036 6,22
48 Parkfield C 4AW 50.1 A 0. 071 0.052 0.025 6,22
48 Parkfield C 5W 51.2 A 0.140 0.13.6 0.034 6,22
48 Parkfield C 6W 52.7 A 0.133 0.096 0.034 6,22
48 Parkfield C 8W 54.2 A 0. 101 0.099 0.027 6,22
48 ParkfieldC 12W 58.2 A 0.047 0.044 0.022 6,22
48 Bear Valley Sta. 10 1479 S 70.9 A 0.06 0.04 0.02 31,42
48 Bear Valley Sta. 12 1481 S 85.7 A 0.08 0.08 0.03 31,42
48 L.Success Dam,down str. 1484 120.7 A 0.09 0.04 0.01 31
49 Anticline Rdge,FF R 12.6 H 0.56 0.56 0.30 31
49 Anticline Rdge,pad R 12.6 H 0.48 0.47 0.37 31
49 Anticline Ridge, Palmer Av S 12.7 H 0.28 0.21 0.12 3
49 Oil Flds Fire Sta.,FF R 12.7 H 0.25 0.18 0.16 31
49 Palmer Av. R 12.8 H 0.26 0.22 0.10 31
49 OilCity R 13.2 H 0.30 0.24 0.10 31
49 Skunk Hollow R 13.5 H 0.15 0.12 0.12 31
49 Oilfields-Skunk Hollow S 13.8 FI 0.35 0.30 0.23 3
49 Coalinga CI-IP S 15.7 H 0.13 0.11 0.08 3
49 PVPP Basement 1162 S 16.3 H 0.14 0.05 0.04 31
49 Burnett Co. S 16.6 H 0.09 0.08 0.07 31
49 Sulphur Baths R 18.9 H 0.02 0.01 0.01 3
49 Harris Ranch S 19.8 H 0.15 0.08 0.07 3
50 Average of 35 records 1 S 35.4 H 0.047 0.037 0.026 51
51 OilCity R 10.1 H 0.09 0.09 0.09 31
51 Transmitter HI. 11.4 H 0.06 0.06 0.04 31
51 Burnett Co. S 15.6 H 0.20 0.14 0.07 31
54 Long Valley Fire Sta. 12.9 H 0.05 0.04 0.02 31
54 Long Valley Dam,L Abut 1444 R 16.8 H 0.08 0.07 0.05 31,42
55 Oil City R 10.5 H 0.38 0.37 0.21 31
55 Transmitter HI. 11.3 H 0.20 0.19 0.12 31
55 AnticlineRdge,pad R 11.7 H 0.42 0.24 0.11 31
A- 7
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 H1 H2 V Sources 5
55 Oil Flds Fire Sta.,FF R 12.8 H 0.09 0.09 0.07 31
55 Oil Flds Fire Sta.,pad R 12.8 H 0.09 0.09 0.07 31
55 Skunk Hollow R 13.9 H 0.17 0.14 0.15 31
55 Coalinga CHP S 14.4 H 0.18 0.17 0.09 3
55 Palmer Av. R 14.5 H 0.20 0.12 0.07 31
55 Burnett Co. S 15.2 H 0.14 0.10 0.08 31
55 Sulphur Baths R 16.0 H 0.07 0.07 0.04 3
56 OilCity R 10.9 H 0.30 0.25 0.12 31
56 Transmitter HI. 12.3 H 0.30 0.25 0.08 31
56 Coalinga (CHP) S 12.8 H 0.21 0.13 0.11 3
56 Burnett Co. S 13.4 H 0.17 0.11 0.04 31
56 Oil Flds Fire St.,FF R 13.7 H 0.14 0.13 0.04 31
56 Oil Flds Fire St.,pad R 13.7 H 0.16 0.13 0.04 31
56 Sulphur Baths R 13.8 H 0.06 0.02 0.03 3
56 Palmer Av. R 14.5 H 0.33 0.30 0.08 31
56 Skunk Hollow R 15.4 H 0.15 0.09 0.04 31
57 Oil City R 10.5 H 0.37 0.24 0.22 31
57 TransmitterH1. 11.6 H 0.39 0.28 0.12 31
57 Coalinga CHP S 12.8 H 0.71 0.48 0.38 3
57 OilFlds Fire Sta.,FF R 13.0 H 0.15 0.10 0.06 31
57 Oil Flds Fire Sta,,pad R 13.0 H 0.18 0.12 0.06 31
57 Burnett Co. S 13.5 H 0.66 0.39 0.26 31
57 PalmerAv. R 13.9 H 0.18 0.15 0.17 31
57 Sulphur Baths R 14.2 H 0.19 0.18 0.17 3
57 Skunk Hollow R 14.6 H 0.14 0.06 0.09 31
58 Oil Flds Fire Sta.,Ff R 7.1 H 0.14 0.09 0.09 31
58 Oil Flds Fire Sta.,pad R 7.1 H 0.17 0.12 0.07 31
58 Skunk Hollow R 8.1 I-I 0.10 0.09 0.05 31
58 Anticline Rdge,field R 8.1 H 0.23 0.18 0.05 31
58 AnticlineRdge.pad R 8.1 H 0.20 0.18 0.09 31
58 Anticline Rdge,nonh R 8.1 FI 0.29 0.17 0.06 31
58 Anticline Rdge,south R 8.1 H 0.08 0.06 0.04 31
58 PVPP Free Field 1162 S 10.1 H 0.06 0.04 0.05 31
58 Oil City R 10.1 H 0.09 0.07 0.04 31
60 TRA-670 S 89.0 A 0.023 0.022 0.019 14
60 TRA-642 S 90.0 A 0.030 0.029 0.018 14
60 CPP-601-2 92.0 A 0.044 0.038 0.038 14
60 CPP-610 93.0 A 0.078 0.058 0.035 14
60 TAN-719 S 94.0 A 0.050 0.040 0.016 14
60 PBF-620-2 R 97.0 A 0. 051 0.050 0.032 14
60 ANL-767 110.0 A 0.033 0.032 0.031 14
60 ANL-768 110.0 A 0.048 0.038 0.028 14
61 Smith Ranch 21.4 A 0.08 0.06 0.04 31
62 Coyote Creek Dam 1017 3.2 N 1.29 0.72 0.40 25,42
62 Halls Valley 1422 S 3.2 N 0.31 0.13 0.11 25,42
62 Anderson Dam 3.8 N 0.409 0. 301 0. 201 25,42
62 Gilroy Sta 6 1413 R 11.6 N 0.34 0.23 0.43 25,42
62 SJinterchange 12.2 N 0.123 0.083 0.082 25,42
62 Gilroy Sta 4 1411 S 12.6 N 0.37 0.23 0.40 25,42
62 Gilroy Sta 7 13.7 N 0.19 0.11 0.46 25,42
62 Gilroy Sta 3 1410 S 14.4 N 0.20 0.20 0.40 25,42
62 Gilroy Sta 2 1409 S 14.9 N 0.22 0.16 0.61 25,42
A- 8
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 ~km) Ref 4 H1 H2 V Sourees5
62 SJ Town Park Towers 1507 S 15.4 N 0.06 0.06 0.05 25,42
62 Gilroy Gavilan Col. 1250 15.9 N 0.12 0.10 0.12 25,42
62 SJ Great Western 1506 S 15.9 N 0.06 0.06 0.04 25,42
62 Gilroy Sta 1 1408 R 16.0 N 0.10 0.08 0.I0 25,42
62 SJ Santa Clara Co Bldg 1508 S 16.7 N 0.04 0.03 0.02 25,42
62 Agnes Hospital 1301 S 23.0 N 0.04 0.04 0.03 25,42
62 Corralitos Eureka Cyn Rd 1251 S 24.1 N 0.12 0.09 0.07 25,42
62 Lexington Dam 1415 25.0 N 0.02 0.02 0.01 25,42
62 Saratoga West Vly Col 1460 27.0 N 0.10 0.04 0.03 25,42
62 Hollister Diff Array 27.9 N 0.094 0.089 0.222 25,42
62 Watsonville Tel Bldg 29.5 N 0.11 0.06 0.09 25,42
62 San Juan Bautista F.S. S 29.9 N 0.04 0.03 0.06 25,42
62 LivermoreVA 1226 S 30.7 N 0.022 0.016 0. 011 25,42
62 Fremont Mission San Jose 1299 S 31.6 N 0.03 0.02 0.02 25,42
62 HollisterWarehouse 32.1 N 0.11 0.06 0.31 25,42
62 HollisterCityHaU 1028 S 32.2 N 0.078 0.077 0.425 25,42
62 San Justo DAM R Abut 33.2 N 0.076 0.059 0.060 25,42
62 San Justo Dam L Abut 34.4 N 0.074 0.038 0.034 25,42
62 Hollister Damler Res. 35.9 N 0.078 0.060 0.076 25,42
62 Palo Alto 1900 Embarcadero 1469 37.0 N 0.03 0.03 0.02 25,42
62 Palo Alto VA 1227 S 38.0 N 0.022 0.022 0.018 25,42
62 BelmontEnvirotech Bldg 1467 39.2 N 0.02 0.02 0.01 25,42
62 Capitola 1376 S 39.2 N 0.15 0.10 0.05 25,42
62 Stanford Quad 41.1 N 0.027 0. 023 0.022 25,42
62 Stanford SLAC Survey Hill 43.3 N 0.027 0.016 0.020 25,42
62 Stanford SLAC Testlab 44.0 N 0.032 0. 031 0.022 25,42
62 Hayward CSUH 1524 45.6 N 0.02 0.01 0.01 25,42
62 San Ramon Kodak Bldg 1418 S 46.5 N 0.03 0.02 0.02 25,42
62 Apeel 2E 1121 S 47.3 N 0.03 0.03 0.02 25,42
62 Santa Cruz UCSC Lick Obs 1384 R 47.3 N 0.07 0.04 0.04 25,42
62 Apeel 1E 1180 S 47.7 N 0.04 0.03 0.02 25,42
62 Salinas John & Work St 1414 S 50.0 N 0.04 0.03 0.06 25,42
62 Redwood City Canada Col. 1468 50.3 N 0.01 0.01 0.01 25,42
63 Dickey, Idaho 17.9 H 0.33 0.16 0.19 32
64 Bishop Paradise Lodge R 5.0 A 0.24 0.20 0.20 37
64 Crowley Lake S 12.9 A 0.15 0.11 0.09 37
64 Long Valley Dam R 13.7 A 0.08 0.08 0.06 37
64 McGeeCreek,surface S 16.6 A 0.11 0.10 0.09 32
64 Bishop 873 N Main St S 18.2 A 0.07 0.04 0.03 37
64 Bishop LAWP 1008 S 18.8 A 0.06 0.04 0.04 37
64 Convict Creek 1324 S 22.1 A 0.06 0.06 0.04 37
64 Mammoth Lakes Sheriff R 27.8 A 0.04 0.02 0.02 37
64 Chalfant Zack Ranch S 29.6 A 0.10 0.09 0.05 37
64 Mammoth Lakes H.S. S 32.9 A 0.04 0.03 0.03 37
64 Mammoth Lakes H.S. (FF-) S 32.9 A 0.05 0.03 0.03 37
64 Benton 1325 S 40.6 A 0.03 0.03 0.03 37
64 Tinemaha Dam R 54.0 A 0.01 0.01 0.01 37
65 Average of 33 records 1 S 45.0 H 0.076 0.050 0.022 51
66 CaletadeCompos R 7.2 A 0.144 0. 141 0.091 2
66 LaVillita R 12.0 A 0.127 0.124 0.059 2
66 LaUnion R 16.0 A 0.169 0. 151 0.131 2
66 Zihuatanejo R 25.0 A 0.164 0.105 0.106 2
66 Papanoa R 45.0 A 0.112 0.102 0.081 2
66 EI Suchil R 93.0 A 0.092 0.072 0.041 2
66 Atoyac R 115.0 A 0.060 0.054 0.061 2
66 E1Cayaco R 132.0 A 0.049 0.042 0.024 2
66 Coyuca R 157.0 A 0.040 0.036 0.020 2
66 Xaltianguis R 184.0 A 0.025 0.018 0.020 2
A- 9
Eqk Station Name No.1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 H1 I4_2 V Sources 5
66 LaVenta R 174.0 A 0. 021 0.018 0.016 2
66 Cerro de Piedra R 189.0 A 0.025 0.015 0.015 2
66 E1Ocotito R 194.0 A 0. 051 0.030 0.020 2
66 Los Mesas R 212.0 A 0.022 0.018 0.019 2
66 CUMV, Ciudad U., Mex. City R 400.0 A 0.040 0.035 0.020 35
66 CUIP, Ciudad U., Mex. City R 400.0 A 0.035 0.029 0.021 35
66 CUO1, Ciudad U., Mex. City R 400.0 A 0.035 0.028 0.022 35
66 SCT, Sec. de Com. y Trans. S 400.0 A 0. 171 0.100 0.037 36
66 CAF, Cent. de Abastos Frig S 400.0 A 0.097 0.082 0.028 36
66 CAO, Cent. deAbastos Ofic S 400.0 A 0. 081 0.070 0.037 36
67 Zihuatanejo R 15.0 A 0.132 0.122 0.092 2
67 Papanoa R 15.0 A 0.204 0.204 0.153 2
67 LaUnion R 26.0 A 0.077 0.049 0.059 2
67 E1Suchil R 51.0 A 0. 081 0. 051 0.041 2
67 LaVillita R 56.0 A 0. 041 0.034 0.020 2
67 Atoyac R 72.0 A 0. 081 0.075 0.074 2
67 E1Cayaco R 89.0 A 0. 061 0.044 0.021 2
67 Coyuca R 112.0 A 0. 051 0. 041 0.031 2
67 Xaitianguis R 146.0 A 0.015 0. 011 0.018 2
67 LaVenta R 146.0 A 0.018 0. 013 0.014 2
67 Cerro dePiedra R 161.0 A 0.010 0.010 0.010 2
68 Site 1 R 9.0 A 1. 340 1. 100 2.370 52,53
68 Site3 R 16.0 A 0.190 0.190 0.180 52,53
69 Average of 33 records S 24.3 H 0.230 0.204 0.183 51
70 Perry Nuclear Power 18.9 H 0.18 0.10 0.11 9
71 Avemge of 35 records S 64.0 A 0.200 0.170 0.040 51
72 Average of 34 records S 74.2 H 0.045 0.035 0.014 51
73 Whitewater Trout Farm 5072 7.6 A 0.66 0.50 0.44 10
73 Desert Hot Springs 12149 S 8.1 A 0.330 0.274 0.563 13
73 North Palm Springs 5070 9.1 A 0.70 0.68 0.78 10
73 Morongo Valley 5071 9.4 A 0.23 0.22 0.35 10
73 Palm Springs Desert Hosp 2299 S 16.4 A 0.19 0.16 0.13 12
73 Fun Valley 5069 17.0 A 0.14 0.13 0.09 10
73 Cabazon 5073 17.2 A 0.22 0.21 0.38 10
73 Palm Springs Airport 12025 S 17.9 A 0.199 0.167 0.192 13
73 Silent Valley Poppet F 12206 R 26.9 A 0.145 0.119 0.099 13
73 Palm Desert Kiewit Bid 2284 S 27.8 A 0.12 0.07 0.09 12
73 Joshua Tree Fire Sta. 22170 S 28.9 A 0.067 0.052 0.042 13
73 San Jacinto, Soboba 12204 S 33.0 A 0.256 0. 243 0.208 13
73 Landers Fire Station 22T13 S 36.9 A 0. 103 0.084 0.056 13
73 Indio 40.4 A 0.13 0.06 0.06 10
73 San Jacinto Valley Cem 12202 S 40.8 A 0. 071 0.064 0.055 13
73 Hemet Stetson Ave F.S. 12331 S 44.6 A 0.149 0.136 0.096 13
73 Indio Coachella Canal 12026 S 46.6 A 0.057 0.052 0.061 13
73 WinchesterPageBrosR 13201 S 48.1 A 0.112 0.109 0.073 13
73 Winchester Hidden Vail 13200 R 53.2 A 0:.089 0.079 0.043 13
73 Winchester Bergman Ran 13199 R 58.9 A 0.096 0.072 0.079 13
73 Murrieta Hot Springs 13198 R 64.6 A 0.054 0. 051 0.034 13
73 Riverside Airport 13123 S 72.4 A 0.053 0. 041 0.025 13
73 PuertaLaCruzUSFSSB 12168 R 73.3 A 0.077 0. 061 0.044 13
73 TemeculaCDFFireSta. 13172 S 74.2 A 0.107 0.102 0.031 13
73 Hesperia 23321 S 76.5 A 0.043 0.038 0.034 13
74 Long Valley Dam L. Abu R 22.3 A 0.36 0.15 0.11 24
74 Long Valley Fire Sta. S 27.1 A 0.03 0.03 0.02 24
74 McGee Creek Surface S 31.9 A 0.09 0.08 0.06 24
74 Montgomery Pass S 39.3 A 0.11 0.11 0.06 24
75 Nail. seismol. Obs. 11 S 1.0 A 0.66 0.54 0.37 38
75 Nail. Geographic Inst. 5 S 1.3 A 0.54 0.40 0.46 38
A- 10
Sta Dist 3 Peak Ace. (g)
Eqk Station Name No. 1 G 2 (km) Ref 4 HI H2 V Sources 5
75 Geotech Investig. Cent 6 S 1.6 A 0.71 0.42 0.40 38
75 Hotel Camino Real 14 S 3.4 A 0.47 0.34 0.26 38
75 Centro Americana Univ. 16 S 4.2 A 0.43 0.39 0.24 38
75 Hotel Sheraton 18 R 6.0 A 0.32 0.22 0.15 38
76 Average of 34 records S 39.0 A 0.156 0.134 0.086 51
1 Station number are from the U. S. Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and Geology, or
other local agency.
2 Station geology described as rock (R) or soil (S).
3 The shortest distance between the recording stion and the fault rupture surface (zone of energy release).
4 Reference source for distance estimate:
A Estimated from aftershock distribution
B Boom and Joyner (1980)
C Campbell (1981)
H HYlx~entral distance
J Joyner and Boore (1981)
N Niazi (1984)
5 Reference sources for pga data and station geology.
A- 11
ATTENUATI ON OF VERTICAL PEAK ACCELERATI ON 579
SOURCES OF S TRONG- MOTI ON DATA
1. Anderson, J. G., J. Prince, J. N. Brune, and R. S. Simons (1982). St rong-mot i on accelerograms, in
J. G. Anderson and R. S. Simons, Editors, The Mexicali earthquake of 9 June 1980. Earth. Eng.
Res. Inst. Newsletter 16, no. 3, 79-83.
2. Anderson, J. G., J. N. Brune, P. Bodin, J. Prince, R. Quaas, M. Dilate, D. Almora, and P. P~rez
(1985). Prel i mi nary present at i on of accelerogram data from the Guerrero strong motion accelero-
graph array, Michoacan-Guerrero, Mexico, earthquakes of 19 and 21 Sept ember 1985. Inst i t ut o de
Ingenieria, Uni versi dad Naci onal AutSnoma de Mdxico, Prel i mi nary Report GAA-1A, October 10,
1985.
3. Bennet t , J. H. and R. W. Sherburne, Editors (1983). The 1983 Coalinga, California earthquakes,
Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Special Publication 66, 335 p.
4. Bolt, B. A. and N. Abrahamson (1986). The Chile earthquake of March 3, 1985--seismological
features, Earthquake Spectra 2, 253- 272.
5. Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, A. A. Oliver, III, and R. A. Page (1978). Est i mat i on of ground motion
parameters, U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 795, 43 p.
6. California Division of Mi nes and Geology (1984). Magnetic tape of strong-motion data, Office of
St rong Mot i on Studies.
7. California Inst i t ut e of Technology (1969-1976). St rong motion earthquake accelerograms: Index
volume and Volume I - - uncor r ect ed accelerograms, parts A-Y, Eart hquake Engineering Research
Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
8. Campbell, K. W. (1981). Near-source at t enuat i on of peak horizontal acceleration, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am. 71, 2039-2070.
9. Cleveland Electric Il l i mi nat i ng Company (1986). Seismic Event Eval uat i on Report, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, docket nos. 50-440, 50-441.
10. Eart hquake Engi neeri ng Research Inst i t ut e (1986). Report on t he nort h Pal m Springs, California,
ear t hquake- - J ul y 8, 1986, Earth. Eng. Res. Inst. Newletter, EERI Special Earthquake Report,
September 1986, 20, no. 9, 12 p.
11. Hartzell, S, (1980). Faul t i ng process of t he May 17, 1976 Gazli, USSR earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc.
Am. 70, 1715-1736.
12. Huang, M. J., R. W. Sherburne, D. L. Parke, and A. F. Shakal (1986). CSMI P strong-motion
records from t he Pal m Springs, California earthquake of 8 Jul y 1986, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Office
of Strong Motion Studies, Report OSMS 86-05, 74 p.
13. Huang, M. J., D. L. Parke, R. W. Sherburne, and A. F. Shakal (1987). Processed strong motion
data from t he Pal m Springs eart hquake of 8 Jul y 1986, Par t I. Ground response records, Calif. Div.
Mines Geol., Office of Strong Motion Studies, Report OSMS 87-01,256 p.
14. Jackson, S. M. and J. Boatwright (1985). The Borah Peak, Idaho earthquake of October 28, 1 9 8 3 -
strong ground motion, Earthquake Spectra 2, 51-69.
15. Joyner, W. B. and D. M. Boore (1981). Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-
mot i on records including records from t he 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake, Bull. Seism.
Soc. Am. 71, 2011-2038.
16. Knudson, C. F. and F. Hansen A. (1973). Accelerograph and seismoscope records from Managua,
Nicaragua earthquakes. Eart h. Eng. Res. Inst., Conference Proc. on Managua, Nicaragua earthquake
of December 23, 1972. November 29 and 30, 1973, San Francisco.
17. Krishna, J., A. R. Chandrasekaran, and S. S. Saini (1969). Analysis of Koyna accelerogram of
December 11, 1967, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 59, 1719-1731.
18. McJunki n, R. D. (1978). Compilation of st rong-mot i on records recovered from t he Bishop, Califor-
nia, eart hquake of 4 October 1978, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Office of Strong Motion Studies, Report
78-7.1, 28 p.
19. McJunki n, R. D. and J. T. Ragsdale (1980). Compilation of strong-motion records and prel i mi nary
data from t he Imperial Valley earthquake of 15 October 1979, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Preliminary
Report 26, 53 p.
20. McJunki n, R. D. and J. T. Ragsdale (1980). St rong-mot i on records from t he Livermore earthquake
of 24 and 26 Januar y 1980, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Preliminary Report 28, 91 p.
21. McJunki n, R. D. and N. A. Kal i aki n (1981). St rong-mot i on records recovered from t he West mor-
land, California earthquake of 26 April, 1981, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Office of Strong Motion
Studies, Report 81-5.1, 11 p.
22. McJunki n, R. D. and A. F. Shakal (1983). The Parkfield strong-motion array, Calif. Geology 36,
no. 2, 27-34.
23. Maley, R. P. and E. C. Etheredge (1981), St rong-mot i on data from t he Westmorland, California
eart hquake of April 26, U.S. Geol. Surv., Open-File Rept. 81-1149.
24. Maley, R. P., E. C. Etheredge, and A. Acosta (1986). U.S. Geological Survey strong-motion records
from t he Chal fant Valley, California, earthquake of Jul y 21, 1986, U.S. Geol. Surv., Open-File Rept.
86-568, 19 p.
25. Niazi, M. (1984). Radial asymmet ry of t he observed PGA and question of focusing in t he near-
source region of April 24, 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake, in The 1983 Morgan Hill, California,
earthquake, J. H. Bennet t and R. W. Sherburne, Editors, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Special Publication
68, 265-271.
26. Niazi, M. (1986). Accelerograms of t he 1978 Tabas, Iran, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra 2 , 6 3 5 -
651.
27. Porcella, R. L., Edi t or (1979). Seismic engineering program report, Januar y- Apr i l 1979, U.S. Geol.
Surv. Circ. 818-A, 20 p.
28. Porcella, R. L., Edi t or (1983). Seismic engineering program report, May-August 1980, U.S. Geol.
Surv. Circ. 854-B, 25 p.
29. Porcella, R. L., Edi t or (1983). Seismic engineering program report, Sept ember-December 1980,
U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 854-C, 19 p.
30. Porcella, R. L., Editor (1985). Strong-motion program report, January-December 1982, U.S. Geol.
Surv. Circ. 965, 22 p.
33. Porcella, R. L., R. B. Matthiesen, R. D. McJunkin, and J. T. Ragsdale (1979). Compilation of
strong-motion records from the August 6, 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake, Calif. Div. Mines Geol.,
Preliminary Report 25, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 79-385, 71 p.
34. Porter, L. D. (1978). Compilation of strong-motion records recovered from the Santa Barbara
earthquake of 13 August 1978, Calif. Div. Mines Geol., Preliminary Report 22, 43 p.
35. Prince, J., R. Quaas, E. Mena, C. Carmona, D. Almora, P. P~rez A., G. Chavez, L. Alcantara, and
R. Delgado (1985). Acelerogramas en Ciudad Universitaria del sismo del 19 de Septiember de 1985.
InstrumentaciSn Sismica, Instituto de Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M~xico,
Informe IPS-10A, Septiembre 20, 1985.
36. Quaas, R., J. Prince, E. Mena, M. Tortes, L. Alcantara, P. P~rez A., D. Almora, G. Chavez, R.
Delgado, C. Carmona, M. A. Ofiate (1985). Los dos acelerogramas del sismo de Septiembre 19 de
1985, obtenidos en la central de abastos en M~xico D. F. InstrumentaciSn Sismica, Instituto de
Ingenieria, Universidad Nacional AutSnoma de Mfixico, Informe IPS-10C, Septiembre 23, 1985.
37. Shakal, A. F., R. W. Sherburne, and D. L. Parke (1984). CSMIP strong-motion records from the
Bishop, California earthquake, Calif. Din. Mines Geol., Office of Strong Motion Studies, Report 84-
12.
38. Shakal, A. F., M. J. Huang, D. L. Parke, and R. Linares (1986). Summary of processed strong-
motion data, San Salvador earthquake of October 10, 1986, Earth. Eng. Res. Inst., San Salvador
earthquake briefing, San Francisco, California, November 19, 1986, 8 p.
39. Sherburne, R. W. and C. J. Hauge (1975). Oroville, California, earthquake, I August 1975, Calif.
Div. Mines Geol., Special Report 124, 151 p.
40. Sherburne, R. W., Editor (1980). Mammoth Lakes, California earthquakes of May 1980, Calif. Div.
Mines Geol., Special Report 150, 141 p.
41. Shoja-Taheri, J. and J. G. Anderson (1987). The 1978 Tabas, Iran earthquake: an interpretation of
the strong motion records, Publication Preprint, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.
42. Switzer, J., D. Jonson, R. Maley, and R. Matthiesen (1981). Western hemisphere strong-motion
accelerograph station list--1980. U.S. Geol. Surv., Open-File Rept. 81-664.
43. Turpen, C. D. (1980). Strong-motion records from the Mammoth Lakes earthquakes of May 1980,
Calif. Din. Mines Geol., Preliminary Report 27, 42 p.
44: U.S. Geological Survey (1974). Seismic engineering program report, October-December 1974, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Circ. 713, 19 p.
45. U.S. Geological Survey (1975). Seismic engineering program report, January-March 1975, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Circ. 717-A, 17 p.
46. U.S. Geological Survey (1976). Seismic engineering program report, July-September 1975, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Circ. 717-C, 17 p.
47. U.S. Geological Survey (1976). Seismic engineering program report, October-December 1975, U.S.
Geol. Surv. Circ. 717-D, 16 p.
48. U.S. Geological Survey (1976). Seismic engineering program report, April-June 1976, U.S. Geol.
Surv. Circ. 736-B, 12 p.
49. U.S. Geological Survey (1982). The Imperial Valley, California, earthquake of October 15, 1979,
U.S. Geol. Surv., Profess. Paper 1254, 451 p.
50. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Geological Survey (1930-present).
United States earthquake (1928-present).
51. University of California, Berkeley (1986). SMART1 (Strong Motion instrument ARray in Taiwan)
data. U.C. Seismographic Stations at Berkeley.
52. Weichert, D. H., R. J. Wetmiller, and P. Munro (1986). Veretical earthquake acceleration exceeding
2 g?, the case of the missing peak, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 76, 1473-1478.
53. Weiche1% D. H., R. J. Wetmiller, R. B. Homer, P. S. Munro, and P. N. Mork (1986). Strong motion
records from the 23 December 1985, Ms 6.9 Nahanni, NWT, and some associated earthquakes,
Geol. Suru. of Canada, Open-File Rept. 86-1-PGC.

Abrahamsonand Litehiser 1989 Equation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abrahamsonand Litehiser 1989 Equation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bulletin of the

Seismological Society of America

You might also like