Strong Earthquake Motion Estimates for the UCSB Campus, and Related Response of the Engineering 1 Building

Strong Earthquake Motion Estimates for Three Sites on the U.C. Riverside Campus

“…The excellent agreement between the calculations with the three different models is described in detail in the Phase 2 report for U.C. Santa Barbara (Archuleta et al, 2000b) and will not be repeated in full here. An example of the comparison is given in Figure 4.8.…”

Strong earthquake motion estimates for three sites on the U.C. San Diego campus

“…The validation of the EGF method was presented in details in the UCSB (Archuleta et al, 2000a) and UCR (Archuleta et al, 2000b) Phase 2 reports. It will not be repeated here.…”

“…It will not be repeated here. In this study we used the method of Archuleta et al (2000a), but with the substitution of theoretical Green's functions for the EGF's. The theoretical Green function method has been validated in a number of earthquake models by different researchers.…”

“…As discussed in Chapter 4, these downhole motions were then propagated upward using the nonlinear soil profile. For the As noted by Archuleta et al, 2000a, (the report on ground motion estimates for the U.C. Santa Barbara campus), the source model we use for ground motion simulations has stochastic components.…”

“…One of the model assumptions is that the spatial correlation of these timing variations is negligible. This assumption is probably not an important limitation at short periods (less than ~ 0.5 seconds) nor at larger distances (exceeding ~10-20 km) from the fault (see the validation study in Archuleta et al, 2000a). At periods exceeding about 0.5 seconds, however, pulse coherence can lead to enhanced (reduced) near-fault ground motion due to forward (backward) rupture directivity.…”