Geo-Marine Letters Volume 36, 2016, electronic supplementary material

Similar documents
VALIDATION AGAINST NGA EMPIRICAL MODEL OF SIMULATED MOTIONS FOR M7.8 RUPTURE OF SAN ANDREAS FAULT

Comparisons of ground motions from the M 9 Tohoku earthquake with ground-motion prediction equations for subduction interface earthquakes

Vertical to Horizontal (V/H) Ratios for Large Megathrust Subduction Zone Earthquakes

Spatial Correlation of Ground Motions in Seismic Hazard Assessment

Knowledge of in-slab earthquakes needed to improve seismic hazard estimates for southwestern British Columbia

RECORD OF REVISIONS. Page 2 of 17 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.06, Rev. 0

FINSIM---a FORTRAN Program for Simulating Stochastic Acceleration Time Histories from Finite Faults

Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) from a Global Dataset: The PEER NGA Equations

Eleventh U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering Integrating Science, Engineering & Policy June 25-29, 2018 Los Angeles, California

THE EFFECT OF THE LATEST SUMATRA EARTHQUAKE TO MALAYSIAN PENINSULAR

Hazard Feedback using the. current GMPEs for DCPP. Nick Gregor. PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study. SWUS GMC Workshop 2 October 22, 2013

STUDYING THE IMPORTANT PARAMETERS IN EARTHQUAKE SIMULATION BASED ON STOCHASTIC FINITE FAULT MODELING

Non-Ergodic Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses

Incorporating simulated Hikurangi subduction interface spectra into probabilistic hazard calculations for Wellington

Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs

Hybrid Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Using NGA Models and Updated Seismological Parameters

Ground Motion Prediction Equations: Past, Present, and Future

Proposed Approach to CENA Site Amplification

Deterministic Generation of Broadband Ground Motions! with Simulations of Dynamic Ruptures on Rough Faults! for Physics-Based Seismic Hazard Analysis

7 Ground Motion Models

Updating the Chiou and YoungsNGAModel: Regionalization of Anelastic Attenuation

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

THE EFFECT OF DIRECTIVITY ON THE STRESS PARAMETER DETERMINED FROM GROUND MOTION OBSERVATIONS

NEXT GENERATION ATTENUATION (NGA) EMPIRICAL GROUND MOTION MODELS: CAN THEY BE USED IN EUROPE?

Hybrid Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Using NGA Models and Updated Seismological Parameters

Overview of National Seismic Hazard Maps for the next National Building Code

Ground Motion Prediction Equation Hazard Sensitivity Results for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Site (PVNGS)

NGA-Subduction: Development of the Largest Ground Motion Database for Subduction Events

Damping Scaling of Response Spectra for Shallow CCCCCCCCCrustalstallPaper Crustal Earthquakes in Active Tectonic Title Line Regions 1 e 2

DIRECT HAZARD ANALYSIS OF INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA

Updated Graizer-Kalkan GMPEs (GK13) Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 Workshop 2 Berkeley, CA October 23, 2013

GEM-PEER Global GMPEs Project Guidance for Including Near-Fault Effects in Ground Motion Prediction Models

Usability of the Next Generation Attenuation Equations for Seismic Hazard Assessment in Malaysia

New Prediction Formula of Fourier Spectra Based on Separation Method of Source, Path, and Site Effects Applied to the Observed Data in Japan

THE RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Application to the 2015 Canadian National Seismic Hazard Maps

Introduction to Strong Motion Seismology. Norm Abrahamson Pacific Gas & Electric Company SSA/EERI Tutorial 4/21/06

A note on ground motion recorded during Mw 6.1 Mae Lao (Northern Thailand) earthquake on 5 May 2014

Ground-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Cascadia Subduction Zone Megathrust Earthquakes Based on a Stochastic Finite-Fault Model

Effects of 3D basin structure on long-period ground motions in SW British Columbia, Canada, for large scenario earthquakes

Kappa for Candidate GMPEs

ACCOUNTING FOR SITE EFFECTS IN PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS: OVERVIEW OF THE SCEC PHASE III REPORT

FINITE FAULT MODELING OF FUTURE LARGE EARTHQUAKE FROM NORTH TEHRAN FAULT IN KARAJ, IRAN

SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS. Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Seismic Hazard Analysis 5a - 1

ATTENUATION FUNCTION RELATIONSHIP OF SUBDUCTION MECHANISM AND FAR FIELD EARTHQUAKE

A SPECTRAL ATTENUATION MODEL FOR JAPAN USING DIGITAL STRONG MOTION RECORDS OF JMA87 TYPE

Modelling Strong Ground Motions for Subduction Events in the Wellington Region, New Zealand

3D GROUND MOTION IN THE GEORGIA BASIN REGION OF SW BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST SCENARIO EARTHQUAKES ABSTRACT

NGA-West 2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

Ground-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Subduction- Zone Earthquakes in Northern Taiwan

Strong Ground Motion Prediction of Future Large Earthquake from Niavaran Fault in Tehran, Iran by Finite Fault Method

UPDATED GRAIZER-KALKAN GROUND- MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR WESTERN UNITED STATES

Seismic hazard modeling for Bulgaria D. Solakov, S. Simeonova

Selection of Ground Motion Records for Two Dam Sites in Oregon

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER. NGA-West2 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Vertical Ground Motions

Developing ENA GMPE s Using Broadband Synthe=c Seismograms from Finite- Fault Simula=ons

Seismic Displacement Demands for Performance-Based Design and Rehabilitation of Structures in North America

ENGINEERING GROUND MOTION PARAMETERS ATTENUATION RELATIONSHIPS FOR GREECE

Modifications to Existing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Light of New Data

Japan Seismic Hazard Information Station

Site specific seismic hazard assessment a case study of Guanyin offshore wind farm 場址特定地震危害度評估 - 以觀音離岸風力發電廠為例

Determination of the seismicity and peak ground acceleration for Lombok Island: An evaluation on tectonic setting

SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE FOR SPATIALLY DISTRIBUTED STRUCTURES

Updated NGA-West2 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Active Tectonic Regions Worldwide

EARTHQUAKE CLUSTERS, SMALL EARTHQUAKES

A Guide to Differences between Stochastic Point Source and Stochastic Finite Fault Simulation Methods

INVESTIGATION ON ATTENUATION CHARACTERISTICS OF STRONG GROUND MOTIONS IN CHINA AND HONG KONG

ENGINEERING APPROACHES TO SITE SPECIFIC PROPAGATION OF VERTICAL GROUND MOTION FOR SEISMIC DESIGN

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Wood-frame Buildings in Southwestern British Columbia

Comparisons of Ground Motions from the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake with Empirical Predictions Largely Based on Data from California

Review of The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence and Implications. for Seismic Design Levels dated July 2011

An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra

A Consistent Cross-Border Seismic Hazard Model for Loss Estimation and Risk Management in Canada

Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 22(1) : (2010) Malaysia

Engineering Characteristics of Ground Motion Records of the Val-des-Bois, Quebec, Earthquake of June 23, 2010

ESTIMATION OF NEAR-FAULT STRONG GROUND MOTIONS FOR KEY ENGINEERING STRUCTURES

CHARACTERIZING SPATIAL CROSS-CORRELATION BETWEEN GROUND- MOTION SPECTRAL ACCELERATIONS AT MULTIPLE PERIODS. Nirmal Jayaram 1 and Jack W.

A STUDY ON SITE-SPECIFIC STRONG GROUND MOTION FOR SEISMIC RETROFIT DESIGN OF THE HANSHIN EXPRESSWAY LONG-SPAN BRIDGES IN OSAKA BAY AREA

Uniform Hazard Spectrum(UHS) for performance based seismic design

pygmm Documentation Release Albert Kottke

The effect of bounds on magnitude, source-to-site distance and site condition in PSHA-based ground motion selection

Development of U. S. National Seismic Hazard Maps and Implementation in the International Building Code

Arthur Frankel, William Stephenson, David Carver, Jack Odum, Robert Williams, and Susan Rhea U.S. Geological Survey

DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL HARD ROCK ATTENUATION RELATIONS FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN NORTH AMERICA

by Shahram Pezeshk, Arash Zandieh, Kenneth W. Campbell, and Behrooz Tavakoli Introduction

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment of Quetta, Pakistan

Interpretive Map Series 24

Professor Terje Haukaas University of British Columbia, Vancouver terje.civil.ubc.ca. Earthquakes

Development of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for International Sites, Challenges and Guidelines

The transition period T L in the recommended spectra of the draft New Zealand Seismic Isolation Guidelines

Representative ground-motion ensembles for several major earthquake scenarios in New Zealand

LOWER PROBABILITY HAZARD, BETTER PERFORMANCE? UNDERSTANDING THE SHAPE OF THE HAZARD CURVES FROM CANADA= S FOURTH GENERATION SEISMIC HAZARD RESULTS

GMPEs for Active Crustal Regions: Applicability for Controlling Sources

DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRAL SHAPES FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN U.S. (CEUS) AND WESTERN U.S. (WUS) ROCK SITE CONDITIONS*

STRONG GROUND MOTION ATTENUATION IN THE SEA OF JAPAN (OKHOTSK-AMUR PLATES BOUNDARY) REGION

PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE 2012 BUILDING CODE O. REG. 332/12 AS AMENDED

EVALUATION OF SITE AMPLIFICATIONS IN JAPAN USING SEISMIC MOTION RECORDS AND A GEOMORPHOLOGIC MAP

Rupture directivity effects during the April 15, 2016 Kumamoto. Mw7.0 earthquake in Japan

Beyond Sa GMRotI : Conversion to Sa Arb, Sa SN, and Sa MaxRot

Transcription:

1 Geo-Marine Letters Volume 36, 016, electronic supplementary material Submarine landslides offshore Vancouver Island along the northern Cascadia margin, British Columbia: why preconditioning is likely required to trigger slope failure Nastasja A. Scholz 1, Michael Riedel,3+, Morelia Urlaub 3, George D. Spence 1, Roy D. Hyndman,1 1 School of Earth and Ocean Science, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C, Canada Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada-Pacific 9860 West Saanich Road, Sidney, BC, V8L 4B, Canada 3 GEOMAR, Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel, Wischhofstrasse 1-3, 4148 Kiel, Germany + Corresponding Author: e-mail: mriedel@geomar.de Phone: +49 (0)431 600 331 Fax: +49 (0431) 600 99

1 Atkinson (005) Atkinson (005) developed a ground motion prediction equation (GMPE) for the horizontal acceleration due to crustal and offshore earthquakes along the Cascadia margin using a hybrid-empirical approach. Due to the apparent similarity to Cascadia events, Atkinson (005) multiplied Californian relations with frequency-dependent factors to account for regional differences in crustal amplification. The resulting GMPE equation can be written as: Y 5 a1 a( M 6.0) a3( M 6.0) a4 log R a R (A.1) where Y is the site response and M the moment magnitude. Offshore events are calculated with the same equation and coefficients but the term (M-6.0) is replaced by (M-6.5). In equation A1 the distance parameter R is calculated via R D h, where D is the closest distance to the fault (i.e. hypocenter in the case of small earthquakes) and h is calculated via log h 0.05 0. 15M. Table A.1 summarizes the coefficients a 1 to a 5 resulting from Atkinson s (005) regression. Boore and Atkinson (008) Boore and Atkinson (008) developed an empirical GMPE for average horizontal ground accelerations for shaking periods between 0.01 s and 10 s. According to the authors the equations are valid for magnitudes between 5.0 and 8.0, for distances R JB < 00 km and V S30 of 180-1300 m/s. R JB (Joyner-Boore distance) is the closest distance to the surface projection of the fault plane whereas V S30 is the average S-wave velocity within the uppermost 30 m of the sediment column. In contrast to the other GMPEs used in this study, the GMPE of Boore and Atkinson (008) also includes the fault type. The final form of the equation of Boore and Atkinson (008) is: Y = F M (M) + F D (R JB, M) + F S (V S30, R JB, M) (A.) where F M, F D, and F S stand for magnitude scaling, distance function, and site amplification, respectively. The distance function can be written as R FD ( RJB, M ) c1 c( M M Ref ) c3( R RRef ) R (A.a) Ref

3 With R R h (A.b) JB with M Ref = 4.5 and R Ref = 1km. The magnitude scaling term is calculated via: a) M M h F M ( M) eu 1 ess e3ns e4rs e5 ( M M h) e6 ( M M h) (A.c) b) M > M h F M( 1 3 4 7 h M) eu e SS e NS e RS e ( M M ) (A.d) where U, SS, NS, and RS stand for unspecified, strike-slip, normal-slip, and reverse-slip faults, having a value of One for the respective fault type. M h is the hinge magnitude for the shape of the magnitude scaling. The site amplification term is given by F S = F lin + F where F lin is the linear and F the non-linear part. The linear term can be written as V S30 F lin blin (A.e) V Ref b lin is a period dependent coefficient, and V Ref is a reference velocity here set to 760 m/s (Boore and Atkinson, 008). The value for the non-linear term depends on the value for the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at V=V Ref as well as on a few threshold levels for linear and non-linear amplification. a) pga4nl a 1 : pga low F b (A.f) 0.1 b) a 1 < pga4nl a : pga pga4nl pga4nl low F b c 0.1 d (A.g) a1 a1 c) a < pga4nl: pga4nl F b (A.h) 0.1 3

4 with a 1 = 0.03g, a = 0.09g, and pga low = 0.06g. pga4nl is a reference PGA value for an average layer velocity of 760 m/s. The coefficients c and d are calculated via: 3y bx c (A.i) x and y bx d (A.j) 3 x with x a, and a a 1 y b (A.k) pga low b, representing a non-linear slope, depends on both the shaking period and the average shear velocity of the uppermost 30 m below ground level: a) V S30 V 1 b = b 1 (A.l) b) V 1 <V S30 V b V S30 V Ref b1 b b (A.m) V 1 V c) V <V S30 V Ref V S30 VRef b b (A.n) V VRef d) V Ref V S30 b = 0 (A.o) with V 1 = 180 m/s and V = 360 m/s. Tables A. to A.4 summarize the coefficients resulting from the regression for the respective terms in equation A..

5 3 Gregor et al. (00) Gregor et al. (00) used a stochastic finite-fault calculation to develop a GMPE for megathrust earthquakes to avoid the uneven sampling of site and source geometries that come with empirical relationships. Empirical calculations also do not account for effects such as rupture propagation, directivity, and source-site geometry in a systematic way and uncertainties in source, path, and site parameters were included via parametric variations. The resulting PGA and the 5% damped peak spectral acceleration (PSA) for earthquake magnitudes of 8.0, 8.5, and 9.0 can be calculated using: c c M logr exp c c M 3 Y c (A.3) 1 cm 3 4 5 6 10 Here, Y is again the peak ground motion parameter, R is the closest distance to the rupture plane, M is the magnitude, and c 1 to c 6 are coefficients fit to rock and soil conditions given in Tables A.5 and A.6. The model holds for earthquakes of M w =8.0 and higher and accounts for rock- and soil conditions and is based on extrapolating relationships up to M w =9.0, the magnitude of the Cascadia megathrust earthquake in 1700. 4 References Atkinson GM (005) Ground motions for earthquakes in southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington: crustal, in-slab, and offshore events. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95(3), 107-1044 Boore DM, Atkinson GM (008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGC, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthquake Spectra, 4(1), 99-138 Gregor NJ, Silva NJ, Wong IG, Youngs RR (00) Ground-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Cascadia Subduction Zone Megathrust Earthquakes Based on a Stochastic Finite-Fault Model, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 9(5), 193 193

6 Table A.1: Regression coefficients for equation (A.1) taken from Atkinson (005) f(hz) a 1 a a 3 a 4 a 5 PGA.3557 0.5796-0.0338-1.45 0 0.1 1.417 0.9466-0.0587-1.0116 0 0..047 0.8884-0.0809-1.0109 0 0.3.116 0.868-0.0886-1.0179 0 0.5.5913 0.7957-0.1069-1.0341 0 1.0 3.183 0.6818-0.1158-1.095-0.000.0 3.55 0.5615-0.1031-1.0977-0.0013 3. 3.816 0.4907-0.0844-1.1309-0.00 5.0 4.0439 0.4356-0.066-1.171-0.008 10.0 4.373 0.397-0.0413-1.977-0.0035 0.0 4.687 0.4064-0.0378-1.4813-0.0018

7 Table A.: Regression coefficients for distance for equation (A.) taken from Boore and Atkinson (008) f(hz) c 1 c c 3 h PGA -0.66050 0.11970-0.01151 1.35 0.1-0.0984-0.13800-0.00191 3.04 0.13-0.3740-0.06568-0.00191 3.00 0. -0.50960-0.0391-0.00191.93 0.5-0.68540 0.03758-0.00191.89 0.33-0.78440 0.078-0.00191.83 0.5-0.8850 0.0943-0.0017.73 0.67-0.83030 0.09793-0.0055.66 1.0-0.81830 0.1070-0.00334.54 1.33-0.74080 0.07518-0.00409.46.0-0.69140 0.06080-0.00540.3.5-0.64430 0.04394-0.0066.4 3.33-0.55430 0.01955-0.00750.14 4.0-0.5760 0.0977-0.00837.07 5.0-0.58300 0.0473-0.0095 1.98 6.67-0.69610 0.09884-0.01113 1.86 10-0.70810 0.11170-0.01151 1.68 13.33-0.7050 0.1370-0.01151 1.55 0-0.71700 0.13170-0.01151 1.35 33.3-0.69010 0.1830-0.01151 1.35 50-0.66600 0.180-0.01151 1.35 100-0.660 0.1000-0.01151 1.35

8 Table A.3: Regression coefficients for magnitude for equation (A.) taken from Boore and Atkinson (008) f (Hz) e 1 e e 3 e 4 e 5 e 6 e 7 M h PGA -0.53804-0.50350-0.7547-0.50970 0.8805-0.10164 0.00000 6.75 0.1 -.15446 -.16137 -.5333 -.14635 0.40387-0.4849 0.00000 8.50 0.13-1.43145-1.3163-1.810-1.5917 0.5407-0.37578 0.00000 8.50 0. -1.8408-1.170-1.50904-1.41093 0.1471-0.39006 0.00000 8.50 0.5 -.4656 -.15906 -.588 -.38168 1.4961-0.35874 0.79508 6.75 0.33-1.8979-1.74690 -.584-1.91814 0.77966-0.45384 0.67466 6.75 0.5-1.65-1.15514-1.57697-1.7669 0.77989-0.9657 0.9888 6.75 0.67-0.8671-0.79593-1.090-0.88085 0.70689-0.5950 0.1908 6.75 1.0-0.46896-0.43443-0.78465-0.39330 0.67880-0.1857 0.05393 6.75 1.33-0.1338-0.19496-0.49176-0.10813 0.75179-0.14053 0.1030 6.75.0 0.18957 0.19878 0.00967 0.6337 0.76837-0.09054 0.00000 6.75.5 0.390 0.4060 0.1398 0.46080 0.78610-0.07843 0.06 6.75 3.33 0.4385 0.44516 0.5356 0.51990 0.6447-0.15694 0.10601 6.75 4.0 0.51884 0.53496 0.33880 0.57747 0.60880-0.13843 0.08607 6.75 5.0 0.57180 0.5953 0.40860 0.6147 0.579-0.1964 0.0010 6.75 6.67 0.4618 0.48661 0.30185 0.4938 0.17990-0.14539 0.00000 6.75 10 0.0109 0.310 0.03058 0.193 0.04697-0.15948 0.00000 6.75 13.33 0.00767 0.0491-0.0578 0.0706 0.01170-0.17051 0.00000 6.75 0-0.8476-0.50-0.4846-0.609 0.06369-0.1575 0.00000 6.75 33.3-0.4585-0.41831-0.667-0.49 0.17976-0.1858 0.00000 6.75 50-0.519-0.48508-0.73906-0.48895 0.5144-0.11006 0.00000 6.75 100-0.5883-0.4949-0.74551-0.49966 0.8897-0.10019 0.00000 6.75

9 Table A.4: Regression coefficients for site effects for equation (A.) taken from Boore and Atkinson (008) f (Hz) b lin b 1 b PGA -0.360-0.640-0.14 0.1-0.650-0.15 0.00 0.13-0.69-0.47 0.00 0. -0.750-0.91 0.00 0. -0.750-0.310 0.00 0.33-0.740-0.340 0.00 0.5-0.730-0.380 0.00 0.67-0.70-0.400 0.00 1.0-0.700-0.440 0.00 1.33-0.690-0.470 0.00.0-0.600-0.500-0.06.5-0.500-0.510-0.10 3.33-0.440-0.50-0.14 4.0-0.390-0.50-0.16 5.0-0.310-0.50-0.19 6.67-0.80-0.530-0.18 10-0.50-0.600-0.13 13.33-0.30-0.640-0.11 0-0.90-0.640-0.11 33.33-0.330-0.60-0.11 50-0.340-0.630-0.1 100-0.360-0.640-0.14

10 Table A.5: Regression coefficients for rock sites taken from Gregor et al. (00) f(hz) c 1 c c 3 c 4 c 5 c 6 PGA 1.0686-1.771-5.0631 0.4153 4. 0.0017 0.01 0.993-1.7658-5.0404 0.413 4. 0.06 0.05 19.347-1.519-4.9731 0.3960 4. -0.0155 0.1 30.005 -.349-6.386 0.5009 4.7-0.0019 0. 39.345-3.087-7.600 0.597 5.1 0.0060 0.33 34.787 -.899-6.7855 0.5616 4.9 0.056 0.4 33.383 -.776-6.9595 0.5863 4.9-0.0039 0.5 9.159 -.44-6.114 0.516 4.7 0.0161 1.0 6.58-0.406-3.1991 0.589 3. -0.05.0 8.657-0.851 -.7398 0.339.8 0.0370.5 6.637-0.651 -.314 0.1879.8 0.0364 5.0 8.013-0.943 -.4087 0.154.3 0.0647

11 Table A.6: Regression coefficients for soil sites taken from Gregor et al. (00) f(hz) c 1 c c 3 c 4 c 5 c 6 PGA 3.861.74-4.88 0.4399 4.7 0.036 0.01 5.451.40 5.1071 0.465 4.8 0.037 0.05 3.94.161 4.8855 0.433 4.8 0.06 0.1 9.969.75 5.8054 0.5098 5. 0.0 0. 75.81 6.839 1.068 1.0753 6.3 0.009 0.33 71.7967-6.499 11.6056 1.0415 6. 0.010 0.4 67.37 6.1755 11.1567 1.0167 6.1 0.0035 0.5 56.0088 5.1176-9.5083 0.863 5.9 0.0164 0.77 6.3013.448-5.3818 0.4957 4.8 0.059 1 17.33 1.5506-4.387 0.393 4. 0.0133 17.914 1.7505-3.815 0.3574 4.1 0.0583 5 7.4856-0.836 -.067 0.1179-0. 0.081