Data files from “CWB Free-Field Strong-Motion Data from the 21 September Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake”

W.H.K. Lee; T. C. Shin; K.W. Kuo; K. C. Chen; C.-F. Wu

doi:10.1785/0120000756

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70209195

Data files from “CWB Free-Field Strong-Motion Data from the 21 September Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake”

W.H.K. Lee·T. C. Shin·K.W. Kuo·K. C. Chen·C.-F. Wu

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Central Weather Bureau (CWB) of Taiwan completed a deployment of 1200 modern digital strong-motion instruments in 1996 at free-field sites and in buildings and bridges. Consequently, a very extensive set of strong-motion records were obtained for the M W = 7.6 Chi-Chi earthquake in 1999, including over 60 near-field records within 20 km of the fault ruptures. For documentation purposes, we included all relevant data files on the attached CD-ROM from our article, “CWB Free-Field Strong-Motion Data from the 21 September Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake” in this issue. We presented the data in four different ways to make the data more user friendly: (1) the original recorded data by accelerograph type; (2) the processed data in ASCII text format; (3) the processed data in SUDS format; and (4) the processed data in SAC format. (1)-(3) are exactly the same as in Lee et al. ( 2001 ), except the files are zipped (or compressed). (4) is provided for users using the SAC software on a Unix computer, and it also contains waveform plots of the data in PDF files for ease of viewing. The attached CD contains the full report of Lee et al. ( 2001 ) in 25 PDF files for viewing or printing. This full report described the data set and the data processing performed in details. It also contains plots of all processed data with an index map showing the fault, mainshock location, and the station location. We also provided a readme.txt on the CDROM to augment this Short Note with further explanations. We classify the recorded data files into four quality groups. Since the recorded strong-motion data are based on a triggering algorithm, a main concern is the amount of pre-event data and whether or not the record is long enough to cover the entire duration of the ground shaking at that station. In addition, we are concerned whether or not the record has defects (e.g., spikes, or a component was not recorded), and whether or not the record has absolute timing. In general, QA-class records are the best and can be used for any studies. QB-class records are the next best, except most of them do not have absolute timing. QC-class records cover the principal strong motions but may not have adequate pre-event data and/or post strong-motion data. QD-class records have some defects; they are included here for completeness and should not be used for most studies. Since most A800 accelerographs have a colocated A900 or A900A accelerograph, the user should use the A900 or A900A data files whenever possible. There are a readme file and six subdirectories containing the data files described in our article on the attached CDROM, under the directory of \LeeWHK: (1) readme.txt: an ASCII text file of this Short Note and additional explanations. (2) DOCfiles (subdirectory): documentary files in PDF format for viewing, and some files in ASCII text format for use in data processing. User should view or print the Reportxx.pdf files which describe the Chi-Chi strong-motion data set in details (xx is a number from 01 through 25). (3) Software (subdirectory): containing computer programs from the accelerograph manufacturers for viewing and converting the original recorded data; they are grouped by manufacturer. (4) ORGfiles (subdirectory): the original recorded data files grouped by accelerograph types; these files are for archival purposes only. (5) SUDfiles (subdirectory): the processed strong-motion data files in PC-SUDS format, and are grouped by quality class. (6) ASCfiles (subdirectory): the processed strong-motion data files are in ASCII text format and are grouped by quality class. (7) SACfiles (subdirectory): the processed strong-motion data files are in SAC format and are grouped by quality class. Within each quality class, the data are given by station. Each station has two files—xxx.pdf for viewing the three-component strong-motion data, and xxx_SAC.zip, a WINZIP file containing three SAC data files corresponding to the three components of the recorded acceleration. We use “xxx” here to denote the station name.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 21.97057° to 25.29546° latitude; 120.10619° to 121.95124° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

W.H.K. Lee, T. C. Shin, K.W. Kuo, K. C. Chen, C.-F. Wu. 2001. Data files from “CWB Free-Field Strong-Motion Data from the 21 September Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake”. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120000756

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Efficient physics‐informed ground‐motion simulations with reduced‐order models: CyberShake implications and high‐resolution site terms for southern San Andreas fault earthquakes

Recent advances in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) leverage physics‐based ground‐motion simulations to estimate seismic hazard, such as the CyberShake project. However, computational costs quickly escalate when performing PSHA for numerous faults or sites and can become prohibitively expensive. To reduce computational demands, CyberShake uses reciprocity and interpolates physics‐informed corrections from simulations conducted at fewer locations, but the accuracy of these interpolations remains poorly quantified. To quantify the interpolation accuracy, we derive high‐resolution, frequency‐dependent site terms for southern California and compare them with interpolated site terms using the CyberShake approach. We accomplish this by performing a set of earthquake point‐source simulations distributed along the nonplanar fault geometry for the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) extending from Bombay Beach to Lake Hughes. Using SeisSol, we simulate three minutes of viscoelastic seismic wave propagation for these sources and store the horizontal‐component Green’s functions for 480,000 sites. We then use a scientific machine learning approach based on interpolated proper orthogonal decomposition to construct an accurate reduced‐order model of the Green’s functions to efficiently predict effective amplitude spectra (EAS) for finite‐source rupture models of SSAF earthquakes. Using minimum curvature interpolation with tension, as used in CyberShake, we compare the interpolated site terms against our high‐resolution site terms. We identify local discrepancies with EAS differing by up to a factor of approximately three. Furthermore, we identify locations where unexpectedly high or low ground motions are missed when using the interpolated dataset for these earthquakes. We estimate that our approach may be used within CyberShake to reduce the time‐to‐solution by a factor of 336 for the entire earthquake rupture forecast. Our analysis of physics‐based site terms provides more insight into the seismic hazard due to SSAF ruptures and guides future developments by combining high‐performance computing and reduced‐order modeling techniques for PSHA.

California↗

USGS2026

Simulation-based scenario ShakeMaps for large magnitude (MW6.5+) crustal earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults, Washington, USA

Scenario ground‐motion maps based on empirical ground‐motion models (GMMs) provide a rapid and generally reliable means of estimating the amplitude and distribution of earthquake shaking. However, because GMMs are designed for broad applicability, they often rely on simplified representations of Earth structure, which can limit their accuracy in regions with complex source, path, and site effects. This can substantially impact the accuracy of predicted shaking in areas like western Washington State, where deep, interconnected basin structure exerts a strong influence on seismic‐wave propagation. In this study, we present a new suite of simulation‐based scenario ShakeMaps that characterize ground shaking from large‐magnitude ( ⁠ M W 6.5–7.5) earthquakes on the Seattle, Tacoma, and southern Whidbey Island faults. These maps are developed using results from recent 3D wave propagation simulations ( Stone et al. , 2022 , 2023 , 2025 ) that incorporate realistic rupture geometries, variable slip distributions, and a regional 3D seismic velocity model with shallow soils. Broadband ground motions are estimated by combining the low‐frequency (<1 Hz) deterministic seismograms from these studies with high‐frequency (1–10 Hz) stochastic seismograms. Simulated ground motions are corrected to account for the enforced minimum shear‐wave velocity and nonlinear site response. The resulting ShakeMaps represent median ground‐shaking estimates derived from multiple rupture scenarios with varying slip distributions and hypocenter locations for each fault. To extend ShakeMap coverage beyond the simulation domain (i.e., into eastern Washington, northern Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia), we scale GMM‐based ground‐motion estimates using amplification patterns observed in the simulations. These new ShakeMaps reveal the substantial influence of deep basin structure on shaking intensity, underscoring the importance of considering crustal structure complexity in regional hazard assessments for the Pacific Northwest.

Washington↗

USGS2026

Testing characteristic magnitude distributions in modern PSHA models

The characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis predicts a higher rate of large earthquakes than a Gutenberg–Richter extrapolation of the small‐earthquake rate would imply. Characteristic magnitude distributions have been commonly applied to faults in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), and in modern models they can emerge from the way short‐term seismicity constraints are combined with long‐term geologic and geodetic constraints. We test the characteristic magnitude distribution hypothesis by comparing the fault‐based magnitude distributions from the 2023 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM23) in the Western United States with observed seismicity over the past 93 yr. We find that observed magnitude distributions fall outside the model‐predicted confidence bounds in regions where NSHM23 produces characteristic magnitude distributions: in these regions, the model predicts higher rates of large earthquakes than are observed. An analysis of the earlier California model (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3) also reveals discrepancies between the modeled and observed magnitude distributions. In addition, we find that observed magnitude distributions near modeled faults are not significantly different from those in background regions. These results challenge the prevalence of characteristic magnitude distributions in fault‐based seismic hazard models and call for a reassessment of how disparate data sets are integrated in PSHA.

western United States↗