4.4 Article

Shear-Wave Velocity Characterization of the USGS Hawaiian Strong-Motion Network on the Island of Hawaii and Development of an NEHRP Site-Class Map

期刊

出版社

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0120100276

关键词

-

资金

  1. George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) under NSF [CMS-0086605]
  2. FEMA [HSFEHQ-06-D-0162, HSFEHQ-04-D-0733]
  3. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior [08HQGR0036]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the level and nature of ground shaking in Hawaii for the purposes of earthquake hazard mitigation and seismic design, empirical ground-motion prediction models are desired. To develop such empirical relationships, knowledge of the subsurface site conditions beneath strong-motion stations is critical. Thus, as a first step to develop ground-motion prediction models for Hawaii, wspectral-analysis-of-surface-waves (SASW) profiling was performed at the 22 free-field U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) strong-motion sites on the Big Island to obtain shear-wave velocity (V-S) data. Nineteen of these stations recorded the 2006 Kiholo Bay moment magnitude (M) 6.7 earthquake, and 17 stations recorded the triggered M 6.0 Mahukona earthquake. V-S profiling was performed to reach depths of more than 100 ft. Most of the USGS stations are situated on sites underlain by basalt, based on surficial geologic maps. However, the sites have varying degrees of weathering and soil development. The remaining strong-motion stations are located on alluvium or volcanic ash. V-S30 (average V-S in the top 30 m) values for the stations on basalt ranged from 906 to 1908 ft/s [National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classes C and D], because most sites were covered with soil of variable thickness. Based on these data, an NEHRP site-class map was developed for the Big Island. These new V-S data will be a significant input into an update of the USGS statewide hazard maps and to the operation of ShakeMap on the island of Hawaii.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据