This manuscript describes a subset of CyberShake numerically simulated ground motions that were selected and vetted for use in engineering response-history analyses. Ground motions were selected that have seismological properties and response spectra representative of conditions in the Los Angeles area, based on disaggregation of seismic hazard. Ground motions were selected from millions of available time series and were reviewed to confirm their suitability for response-history analysis. The processes used to select the time series, the characteristics of the resulting data, and the provided documentation are described in this article. The resulting data and documentation are available electronically.
ASCE (2016) Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-16 (ASCE/SEI 7-16). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute.
3.
BakerJWJayaramN (2008) Correlation of spectral acceleration values from NGA ground motion models. Earthquake Spectra24(1): 299–317.
4.
BakerJWLeeC (2018) An improved algorithm for selecting ground motions to match a conditional spectrum. Journal of Earthquake Engineering22(4): 708–723.
5.
BakerJWGouletCLucoNRezaeianSTengG (2020) A subset of CyberShake ground motion time series for response history analysis (Version 1.0.1). Zenodo.
6.
BakerJWLinTShahiSKJayaramN (2011) New ground motion selection procedures and selected motions for the peer transportation research program. PEER Technical Report 2011/03, March. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
7.
BijelićNLinTDeierleinGG (2019a) Evaluation of building collapse risk and drift demands by nonlinear structural analyses using conventional hazard analysis versus direct simulation with CyberShake seismograms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America109(5): 1812–1828.
8.
BijelićNLinTDeierleinGG (2019b) Quantification of the influence of deep basin effects on structural collapse using SCEC CyberShake earthquake ground motion simulations. Earthquake Spectra35(4): 1845–1864.
9.
BooreDM (1983) Stochastic simulation of high-frequency ground motions based on seismological models of the radiated spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America73(6A): 1865–1894.
10.
BooreDM (2010) Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measures of seismic intensity from two horizontal components of motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(4): 1830–1835.
11.
BooreDMStewartJPSeyhanEAtkinsonGM (2014) NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra30(3): 1057–1085.
12.
BradleyBAPettingaDBakerJWFraserJ (2017) Guidance on the utilization of earthquake-induced ground motion simulations in engineering practice. Earthquake Spectra33(3): 809–835.
13.
CrouseCBJordanTH (2016) Development of new ground-motion maps for Los Angeles based on 3-d numerical simulations and NGAWest2 equations. In: Proceedings of the SMIP17 seminar on utilization of strong motion data, Berkeley, CA, 19 October.
14.
CrouseCBJordanTHMilnerKRGouletCACallaghanSGravesRW (2018) Site-specific MCER response spectra for Los Angeles region based on 3-d numerical simulations and the NGAWest2 equations. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference in earthquake engineering, vol. 518, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.
15.
DregerDSBerozaGCDaySMGouletCAJordanTHSpudichPAStewartJP (2015) Validation of the SCEC broadband platform v14.3 simulation methods using pseudospectral acceleration data. Seismological Research Letters86(1): 39–47.
16.
FieldEHDawsonTEFelzerKRFrankelADGuptaVJordanTHParsonsTPetersenMDSteinRSWeldonRJWillsCJ (2009) Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 2 (UCERF 2). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America99(4): 2053–2107.
17.
GouletCAAbrahamsonNASomervillePGWooddellKE (2015) The SCEC broadband platform validation exercise: Methodology for code validation in the context of seismic-hazard analyses. Seismological Research Letters86(1): 17–26.
18.
GravesRWPitarkaA (2010) Broadband ground-motion simulation using a hybrid approach. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America100(5A): 2095–2123.
19.
GravesRWPitarkaA (2015) Refinements to the Graves and Pitarka (2010) broadband ground-motion simulation method. Seismological Research Letters86(1): 75–80.
20.
GravesRWJordanTHCallaghanSDeelmanEFieldEJuveGKesselmanCMaechlingPMehtaGMilnerKOkayaDSmallPVahiK (2011) CyberShake: A physics-based seismic hazard model for Southern California. Pure and Applied Geophysics168(3–4): 367–381.
21.
HamburgerRBonnevilleDCrouseCDolanJDEnfieldBFurrJHansonRHarrisJAHeintzJHolmesWHooperJKircherCLucoNMcCabeSPekelnickyRSiuJRezaeianSSchneiderPStewartJPSattarSTongMYuanJ (2017) Development of the Next Generation of Seismic Design Value Maps for the 2020 NEHRP Provisions. Washington, DC: Other Government Series, National Institute of Building Sciences.
22.
JordanTHCallaghanSGravesRWWangFMilnerKRGouletCAMaechlingPJOlsenKBCuiYJuveGVahiKYuJDeelmanEGillD (2018) CyberShake models of seismic hazards in southern and central California. In: Proceedings of the US national conference on earthquake engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.
23.
LATBSDC (2008) An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council.
24.
LeeEJChenP (2016) Improved basin structures in southern California obtained through full-3d seismic waveform tomography (F3DT). Seismological Research Letters87(4): 874–881.
25.
MoehleJPHamburgerROBakerJWBrayJDCrouseCBDeierleinGGHooperJDLewMMaffeiJRMahinSAMalleyJNaeimFStewartJPWallaceJW (2017) Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings version 2.0. Technical Report PEER Report 2017/06, April. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
26.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPMMuellerCSMoschettiMPFrankelADRezaeianSMcNamaraDELucoNBoydOSRukstalesKSJaiswalKSThompsonEMHooverSMClaytonBSFieldEHZengY (2020) The 2018 update of the US national seismic hazard model: Overview of model and implications. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 5–41.
ShahiSKBakerJW (2014) An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2456–2466.
29.
SmallPGillDMaechlingPJTabordaRCallaghanSJordanTHOlsenKBElyGPGouletC (2017) The SCEC unified community velocity model software framework. Seismological Research Letters88(6): 1539–1552.
30.
TabordaRAzizzadeh-RoodpishSKhoshnevisNChengK (2016) Evaluation of the southern California seismic velocity models through simulation of recorded events. Geophysical Journal International205(3): 1342–1364.
31.
TengGBakerJ (2019) Evaluation of SCEC CyberShake ground motions for engineering practice. Earthquake Spectra35(3): 1311–1328.
