Part 4 – Problem 04: As our National Code and Eurocode show little resemblance than ASCE, could you provide us some supplementary information about ‘others’ category?( what is the precise meaning of grid/slab/fault etc.)

These are all potential seismic sources that are mapped and considered in the hazard calculation. Interface and slab (sometimes labeled intraslab) sources indicate the location of a source relative to a subduction zone. Faults represent seismic sources from known or mapped faults. Grids indicate potential background seismicity not related to a known fault, and use […]

Part 4 – Problem 05: According to the deliverable, Grid, slab, and other sources without a defined m and r should be grouped in the “Other” category. Should we change the component to source:slab/grid/fault etc. in order to complete the ‘other’ category in the table?.

The “other” category can be evaluated by leaving the deaggregation as “total.” All remaining percentages without an m and r value can be added to make up the “other” percentage.

Part 4 – Problem 06: Should we consider the ‘other’ category (slab, grid etc.) together or each one of them separately in the table? (for example, at T=1.00s, for slab we have 3 different values and for grid we have 7 different values; do we have to list each one of them or add them?)

Please just add them together and present the total only. There is no need to distinguish between these sources for this assignment.

Part 4 – Problem 07: It is stated that “Grid, slab, and other sources without a defined m and r should be grouped in the “Other” category”. Just for example, for T1 – the deaggregation results on the USGS website do not show a defined m and r for two source sets with the type “fault”. However, when the deaggregation report is download, the m and r are given for them. Should this be counted/not counted as having a defined m and r?

That part of the assignment should only be referring to what appears on the webpage, not the downloaded report. Please keep those fault sources without m and r presented on the webpage (such as “Geologic Model Full Rupture”) in the Other category. These are expected to be minor sources and may not always represent actual […]

Part 5 – Problem 01: The data from PEER and the data from the given seed motion spreadsheet seem to have different time scales(i.e. The independent variable, T, has different sets of values for the two different sources. Are we expected to manipulate the PEER data and/or modify the spreadsheet?

You are not expected to manipulate and /or data or modify the spreadsheet. The given seed motions’ period (T) and pseudo-spectral acceleration were obtained using a different  method than what PEER is using, hence the discrepancy in the T values. it is okay to use a different set of T values for the response spectrum […]