Seismic velocities and geologic logs from borehole measurements at eight strong-motion stations that recorded the 1989 Loma Prieta, California, earthquake

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.F. Gibbs ◽  
T.E. Fumal ◽  
T.J. Powers
Keyword(s):  
Strong Motion ◽  
Seismic Velocities ◽  
Loma Prieta

Soil-Foundation-Structure Behavior at the Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf

1996 ◽  
Vol 1546 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-111
Author(s):  
G. Norris ◽  
R. Siddharthan ◽  
Z. Zafir ◽  
S. Abdel-Ghaffar ◽  
P. Gowda
Keyword(s):  
Pile Foundation ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Structural Failure ◽  
Loma Prieta ◽  
Soil Foundation ◽  
Batter Piles ◽  
Foundation Structure

The California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program's Loma Prieta records at Oakland Outer Harbor Wharf maybe used to study the free-field motions, the possible softening of soils surrounding the piles supporting the instrumented wharf, the determination of the motion on the instrumented wharf using free-field motion input and deflection-compatible lateral and vertical pile foundation stiffnesses, and conditions under which a soil-foundation interaction failure or structural failure of the batter piles might have developed.

scholarly journals Rupture model of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake from the inversion of strong-motion and broadband teleseismic data

1991 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 1540-1572 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Wald ◽  
Donald V. Helmberger ◽  
Thomas H. Heaton
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
High Gain ◽  
Temporal And Spatial Distribution ◽  
Origin Time ◽  
Loma Prieta Earthquake ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
Teleseismic Data ◽  
Loma Prieta

Abstract We have used 24 broadband teleseismic and 48 components of local strong-motion velocity records of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in a formal inversion to determine the temporal and spatial distribution of slip. Separate inversions of the teleseismic data (periods of 3 to 30 sec) or strong-motion data (periods of 1 to 5 sec) result in similar models. The data require bilateral rupture with relatively little slip in the region directly updip from the hypocenter. Slip is concentrated in two patches: one centered 6 km northwest of the hypocenter at a depth of 12 km and with a maximum slip of 350 cm, and the other centered about 5 km southeast of the hypocenter at a depth of 16 km and with a maximum slip of 460 cm. The bilateral nature of the rupture results in large amplitude ground motions at sites located along the fault strike, both to the northwest and the southeast. However, the northwestern patch has a larger moment and overall stress drop and is, consequently, the source of the largest ground motion velocities, consistent with the observed recordings. This bilateral rupture also produces relatively modest ground motion amplitudes directly updip from the hypocenter, which is in agreement with the velocity ground motions observed at Corralitos. There is clear evidence of a foreshock (magnitude between 3.5 and 5.0) or a slow rupture nucleation about 2 sec before the main part of the rupture; the origin time implied by strong-motion trigger times is systematically 2 sec later than the time predicted from the high-gain regional network data. The seismic moment obtained from either of the separate data sets or both sets combined is about 3.0 × 1026 dyne-cm and the potency is 0.95 km3.

The Loma Prieta earthquake, ground motion, and damage in Oakland, Treasure Island, and San Francisco

1991 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 2019-2047
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Hanks ◽  
A. Gerald Brady
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Strong Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Earthquake Ground Motion ◽  
Transverse Motion ◽  
Loma Prieta Earthquake ◽  
Loma Prieta ◽  
Treasure Island ◽  
Strong Ground

Abstract The basis of this study is the acceleration, velocity, and displacement wave-forms of the Loma Prieta earthquake (18 October 1989; M = 7.0) at two rock sites in San Francisco, a rock site on Yerba Buena Island, an artificial-fill site on Treasure Island, and three sites in Oakland underlain by thick sections of poorly consolidated Pleistocene sediments. The waveforms at the three rock sites display a strong coherence, as do the three sedimentary sites in Oakland. The duration of strong motion at the rock sites is very brief, suggestive of an unusually short source duration for an earthquake of this size, while the records in Oakland show strong amplification effects due to site geology. The S-wave group at Treasure Island is phase coherent with the Oakland records, but at somewhat diminished amplitudes, until the steps in acceleration at approximately 15 sec, apparently signaling the onset of liquefaction. All seven records clearly show shear-wave first motion opposite to that expected for the mainshock radiation pattern and peak amplitudes greater than expected for sites at these distances (95 ± 3 km) from an earthquake of this magnitude. While the association between these ground motion records and related damage patterns in nearby areas has been easily and eagerly accepted by seismological and engineering observers of them, we have had some difficulty in making such relationships quantitative or even just clear. The three Oakland records, from sites that form a nearly equilateral triangle about the Cypress Street viaduct collapse, are dominated by a long-period resonance (≃ 1 1/2-sec period) far removed from the natural frequency of the structure to transverse motion (2.5 Hz) or from high-frequency amplification bands observed in aftershock studies. A spectral ratio arbiter of this discrepancy confuses it further. The failure of the East Bay crossing of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge cannot be attributed to relative displacements of the abutments in Oakland and Yerba Buena Island, but the motions of the Bay Bridge causing failure remain unknown. The steps in acceleration at Treasure Island present unusual strong-motion accelerogram processing problems, and modeling suggests that the velocity and displacement waveforms are contaminated by a spurious response of the filtering operations to the acceleration steps. A variety of coincidences suggests that the Treasure island accelerogram is the most likely strong-motion surrogate for the filled areas of the Marina District, for which no mainshock records are available, but the relative contributions of bad ground, poor construction and truly strong ground motion to damage in the Marina District will never by known in any quantitative way. The principal lesson of all of this is that until a concerted effort is mounted to instrument ground and structures that are likely to fail during earthquakes, our understanding of the very complex relationships between strong ground motion and earthquake damage will, in general, remain rudimentary, imprecise, and vague.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document