Apparent Wave Velocity and Site Amplification at the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program Carquinez Bridge Geotechnical Arrays During the 2014 M6.0 South Napa Earthquake
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2018
Apparent Wave Velocity and Site Amplification at the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program Carquinez Bridge Geotechnical Arrays During the 2014 M6.0 South Napa Earthquake
The Carquinez Bridge geotechnical arrays are operated by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) and recorded a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of approximately 1.0g at ground surface during the 2014 South Napa earthquake. The recorded PGA was significantly larger than those at the nearby surface sites. This study considers surface and downhole recordings from the additional 28 earthquakes recorded at the same arrays to understand the effects of wave propagation and site response at these arrays. Several site response analyses are performed to understand soil nonlinearity using the observed ground accelerations during the 2014 South Napa sequence. Apparent shear wave velocities are calculated from downhole records, which show clear reduction as ground motion intensity increases. Empirical transfer functions (EFTs) are also calculated in which the resonance frequencies became lower during strong shaking during the 2014 South Napa main shock. The in-situ critical damping ratio appears to be frequency dependent in the soft clay deposits. Lower damping at frequencies greater than about 5 Hz may have contributed to the observed PGA at Array #1 during the main shock.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguirreJ., IrikuraK., 1997.
Nonlinearity, liquefaction, and velocity variation of soft soil layers in Port Island, Kobe, during the Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America87, ,
1244–
1258.
2.
BooreD. M., 2010.
Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100, ,
1830–
1835.
doi:10.1785/0120090400.
3.
BooreD. M., KishidaT., 2017.
Relations between some horizontal-component ground-motion intensity measures used in practice,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107, .
doi:10.1785/0120160250.
4.
CampbellK. W., BozorgniaY., 2014.
NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped linear response spectra,
Earthquake Spectra30, ,
1087–
1115.
5.
ÇelebiM., GhahariS. F., TacirogluE., 2015.
Unusual downhole and surface free-field records near the Carquinez Strait Bridges during the 24 August 2014 Mw 6.0 South Napa, California, earthquake,
Seismological Research Letters86, .
doi:10.1785/0220150041.
6.
Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD), 2014.
Available at http://www.strongmotioncenter.org/ (last accessed September 2016).
7.
DayS. M., BielakJ., DregerD., GravesR., LarsenS., OlsenK. B., PitarkaA., Ramirez-GuzmanL., 2006.
Numerical simulation of basin effects on long-period ground motion, paper 1857,
presented at the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,
18–22 April,
San Francisco, CA.
8.
DregerD. S., HuangM.-H., RodgersA., TairaT., WooddellK., 2015.
Kinematic finite-source model for the 24 August 2014 South Napa, California, earthquake from joint inversion of seismic, GPS, and InSAR data,
Seismological Research Letters Volume86, ,
327–
334.
doi:10.1785/0220140244.
9.
ElgamalA. W., ZeghalM., TangH. T., SteppJ. C., 1995.
Lotung downhole array. I: Evaluation of site dynamic properties,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering121, ,
350–
362.
10.
FukushimaY., KinoshitaS., SatoH., 1992.
Measurement of Q−1 for S waves in mudstone at Chikura, Japan—comparison of incident and reflected phases in borehole seismograms,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America82, ,
148–
163.
11.
HaddadiH. R., KawakamiH., 1998a.
Modeling wave propagation by using normalized input-output minimization (NIOM) method for multiple linear systems,
Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu1998 (
1998b),
29–
39.
12.
HaddadiH. R., KawakamiH., 1998b.
Characteristics of vertical component strong ground motions by NIOM (normalized input-output minimization) method,
The 10th Japanese Earthquake Engineering Symposium ,
No. C-618,
1187–
1192.
13.
HaddadiH. R., KawakamiH., 2000.
Analysis of soil nonlinear properties at Port Island by NIOM method during 1995 Hyogo-ken-Nanbu Earthquake in Japan,
in12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,
Paper No. 1729,
Auckland, New Zealand,
30 January–4 February 2000.
14.
HaddadiH. R., ShakalA., HuangM., 2016.
Study of ground motion nonlinear effects at cgs geotechnical arrays using wave propagation analysis of strong-motion data,
Seismological Society of America 2016 Annual Meeting ,
Reno, NV,
20–22 April 2016,
poster number 13.
15.
IdrissI. M., SunJ. I., 1992.
SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits ,
Center for Geotech-nical Modeling Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis.
16.
JovičićV., CoopM. R., 1998.
The measurement of stiffness anisotropy in clays with bender element tests in the triaxial apparatus,
Geotechnical Testing Journal21, ,
3–
10.
17.
KaklamanosJ., BradleyB. A., ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., 2013.
Critical parameters affecting bias and variability in site–response analyses using KiK-net downhole array data,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103, ,
1733–
1749.
18.
KauselE., AssimakiD., 2002.
Seismic simulation of inelastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics128, ,
34–
47.
19.
KimB., HashashY. M. A., StewartJ. P., RathjeE. M., HarmonJ. A., MusgroveM. I., CampbellK. W., SilvaW. J., 2016.
Relative differences between nonlinear and equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses,
Earthquake Spectra32, ,
1845–
1865.
20.
KishidaT., 2017.
Comparison and correction of modulus reduction models for clays and silts,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering143, ,
04016110. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001627.
21.
KishidaT., KayenR. E., KtenidouO.-J., SilvaW. J., DarraghR. B., Watson-LampreyJ., 2014a.
PEER Arizona Strong-Motion Database and GMPEs Evaluation ,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, CA,
PEER Report 2014/09.
22.
KishidaT., WangS., MazzoniS., MarkhamC., LuY., BozorgniaY., MahinS., BrayJ., PanagiotouM., StewartJ., DarraghR., AbrahamsonN., HollenbackJ., GutierrezC., ChiouB., MuinS., DregerD. S., 2014b.
Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 24, 2014 M6 South Napa Earthquake, Section 2 ,
Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance Association (GEER).
23.
KishidaT., WehlingT. M., BoulangerR. W., DrillerM. W., StokoeK. H.II, 2009.
Dynamic properties of highly organic soils from Montezuma Slough and Clifton Court,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering135, ,
525–
532.
24.
KwokA. O. L., StewartJ. P., 2006.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of theoretical 1D amplification factors for earthquake ground-motion prediction,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96, ,
1422–
1436.
25.
KwokA. O. L., StewartJ. P., HashashY. M. A., 2008.
Nonlinear ground-response analysis of Turkey flat shallow stiff-soil site to strong ground motion,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98, ,
331–
343.
doi:10.1785/0120070009.
26.
MogiH., KawakamiE., 2012.
Temporal change in propagation time of seismic waves observed at vertical array in the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant during, before, and after the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake,
Journal of Japan Association of Earthquake Engineering12, ,
36–
54(in Japanese).
27.
Northern California Earthquake Data Center (NCEDC), 2014.
Northern California Earthquake Data Center, UC Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, data set.
doi:10.7932/NCEDC.
28.
RixG., MengJ. A., 2005.
Non-resonance method for measuring dynamic soil properties,
Geotechnical Testing Journal28, ,
1–
8.
29.
SatohT., KawaseH., SatoT., 1995.
Evaluation of local site effects and their removal from borehole records observed in the Sendai region, Japan,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America85, ,
1770–
1789.
30.
ShibuyaS., MitachiT., FukudaF., DegoshiT., 1995.
Strain-rate effects on shear modulus and damping of normally consolidated clay,
Geotechnical Testing Journal18, ,
365–
375.
31.
StewartJ. P., AfshariK., HashashY. M. A., 2014.
Guidelines for Performing Hazard-Consistent One-Dimensional Ground Response Analysis for Ground Motion Prediction, PEER Report 2014/16 ,
Berkeley, CA.
32.
SugitoM., GodaH., MasudaT., 1994.
Frequency dependent equi-linearized technique for seismic response analysis of multi-layered ground,
Doboku Gakkai Ronbunshu493, ,
49–
58.
33.
ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., KayenR. E., Guzina, BojanB., 2009.
Impediments to predicting site response: seismic property estimation and modeling simplifications,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99, ,
2927–
2949.
doi:10.1785/0120 080224.
34.
ThompsonE. M., BaiseL. G., TanakaY., KayenR. E., 2012.
A taxonomy of site response complexity,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering41, ,
42–
43.
35.
VuceticM., DobryR., 1991.
Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response,
Journal of Geo-technical Engineering117, ,
89–
107.
36.
WaldhauserF., EllsworthW. L., 2000.
A double-difference earthquake location algorithm: method and application to the northern Hayward Fault, California,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America90, ,
1353–
1368.
37.
YoshidaN., KobayashiS., SuetomiI., MiuraK., 2002.
Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping,
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering22, ,
205–
222.
38.
ZalachorisG., RathjeE. M., 2015.
Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering141, ,
04015053.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
