Z1.0 and Z2.5 SoCal Values - Revision history

Maechlin at 18:40, 22 February 2011

2011-02-22T18:40:00Z

Maechlin at 18:38, 22 February 2011

2011-02-22T18:38:14Z

Maechlin at 20:37, 17 February 2011

2011-02-17T20:37:51Z

Maechlin at 20:37, 17 February 2011

2011-02-17T20:37:14Z

Maechlin at 01:18, 17 February 2011

2011-02-17T01:18:06Z

Maechlin: Created page with 'Robert Graves (USGS) has produced the following table of information about SoCal velocity models. The attached file contains Z1.0 and Z2.5 values for the NGA sites in southern C…'

2011-02-17T01:13:29Z

Created page with 'Robert Graves (USGS) has produced the following table of information about SoCal velocity models. The attached file contains Z1.0 and Z2.5 values for the NGA sites in southern C…'

Show changes

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 The reasoning for retaining the Z2.5 value in the 2nd case is that the tomography may have some resolution on this part of the structure.
-*[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/UCVM/socal_station_list_bdeps.txt Z1.0 and Z2.5 Data (Tab Delimited)]
+*[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/UCVM/socal_station_list_bdeps.txt Z1.0 and Z2.5 Data (Tab Delimited Text File)]
 --
 <pre>

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 The reasoning for retaining the Z2.5 value in the 2nd case is that the tomography may have some resolution on this part of the structure.
 --
 <pre>

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 All of these sites are within the region covered by CVM-H11.1.0.  Most (all?) are within the tomography and basin region covered by CVM-S4.For sites outside the basin regions, but within the tomography region in CVM-S4, the Z1.0 value is zero and the Z2.5 value is usually zero.
-This is how I have handled these sites in the tabulation:
+This is how Rob handled these sites in the tabulation:
 if Z1.0=0 and Z2.5=0, set both values to -99999 (means no data)
 if Z1.0=0 and Z2.5>0, set Z1.0=-99999 and retain Z2.5 value
-My reasoning for retaining the Z2.5 value in the 2nd case is that the tomography may have some resolution on this part of the structure.
+The reasoning for retaining the Z2.5 value in the 2nd case is that the tomography may have some resolution on this part of the structure.
 --

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 My reasoning for retaining the Z2.5 value in the 2nd case is that the tomography may have some resolution on this part of the structure.
 --
 <pre>

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 I have not submitted the tabulation to NGA, but I plan to do so in a couple of days.  Please let me know if you have any comments on this and I will incorporate them before sending to NGA.
 --
 # Author: Rob Graves
 # Date: Wed Feb 09 12:45:58 PST 2011
@@ Line 802: / Line 804: @@
 Valle de la Trinidad               	99999	RANM	31.398	-115.714	-99999	-99999	-99999	-99999	40	40	240	240
 El Centro - Meloland Geotechnic    	1794	CDMG	32.773	-115.447	900	900	3120	5240	1360	1360	3060	3060