×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

(OP)
Hi All,

I'm trying to perform a Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis in West Virginia.  I have done these previously in California where there are many discrete faults but that isn't the case in West Virginia.

Is this analysis typically performed in this part of the country to attempt to reduce the seismic design category as is the case in California?

My problem is: what fault would I use for the deterministic part of the analysis?  The discrete faults are 100's of km's away where attenuation relationships are not considered valid.    The only one valid for the Eastern US I have access to is Toro (97).  Is this a commonly used relationship in this part of the country?  Most of the probabilistic seismicity based on the 2008 USGS deaggregation is from gridded sources.  Is it customary to use the gridded source with the R and M as shown in the 2008 USGS deaggregation as a discrete fault in the deterministic analysis?

The other smaller problem is that I'm using the 2008 USGS Deaggregation for the probaibilistic part of the analysis.  It will only provide values for Vs-30 of Site Class A and B/C, whereas I need it for Site Class C.  I'm assuming I can just apply Fa and Fv coefficients to get to a Site Class C?

Thanks, any suggestions are appreciated.  

       

RE: Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

(OP)
One approach I am considering is to use the Deterministic Lower Limit as the Deterministic MCE as specified in ASCE 7-05.  However, this may be unconservative and I'm not sure how the reviewers would perceive it.

RE: Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

I know it's frowned upon, but consider cross posting at Seismology Engineering, since that may draw a mostly different audience.

I've got to ask, what are you building in West By God Virginia that requires site-specific hazard analysis?

DRG

RE: Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

(OP)
It's a 2 story fire station.  The site is right on the border of a Seismic Design Category so if I can get a very small reduction in the IBC parameters (through the site specific hazard analysis)the Seismic Design Category drops to the lower category resulting in much lower costs.

RE: Site Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis-Eastern US

(OP)
I figured out that the attenuation relationships used for the Eastern US are typically applicable to 1000 km.  However, the the lower limit on the deterministic response spectrum is high enough that the probabilistic response spectrum will govern when you are far from seismic sources.....mystery solved.  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources