This electronic supplement provides an in-depth description of the metrics that are used in our GOF algorithm, as well as comparison of how the results compare to other proposed GOF measures. In particular, we compare our method to the GOF measure proposed by Anderson (2004) in detail. Figure S1 shows a comparison of broadband synthetics (BBS) to data at selected sites for the Chino Hills event. Figure S2 shows a comparison of IE ratios and corresponding GOF values at station SMS for the Chino Hills simulation. Table S1 shows a comparison of average 8-metric GOF values to those from Anderson's method applied to the three sets of synthetics analyzed in the study by Bielak et al. (2010). Table S2 gives (lon,lat) for the 33 selected stations used in the study. Finally, our GOF code is provided as a gzip'ed tar ball.
Download/View: Description of Metrics included in our GOF measure [PDF; 328 KB]
Download/View: Comparison of our method to that by Anderson (2004) [PDF; 201 KB].
Table S1. Comparison of average 8-metric GOF values to those from Anderson's method at the 10 stations for three-component synthetics from the verification study by Bielak et al. (2010). The table lists the mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum for (a) our GOF, (b) Anderson's GOF for the unfiltered seismograms, (c) Anderson's GOF using all frequency bands, (d) the normalized residuals between our GOF measure and that by Anderson using all metrics.
Table S2. (lon,lat) for the 33 stations used to compute GOF values for BBS from the Chino Hills event.
Figure S1. (left column) N-S, (center column) E-W, and (right column) vertical component broadband velocity seismograms of recorded (black) versus synthetic (red) waveforms at 33 selected sites (see Figure 2 and Table 3 of the journal article) for the 2008 Chino Hills earthquake. The first 50 s of the waveforms are compared. PGVs are listed for each seismogram and the corresponding GOF values for each component are listed in the left margin (000 - top, 090 - center, vertical - bottom). The comparisons are separated into stations located mostly (a) north, (b) south, (c) west, and (d) east of the epicenter.
Figure S2. (left) GOF values for the IE ratios and (right) the corresponding IE ratios computed at station SMS for the Chino Hills event at periods of 0.3 s, 1 s, and 4 s. GOF values are shown for EW (dash-dot lines), NS (dashed lines), and (solid lines) the mean of the two horizontal components. IE ratios are shown for (red) synthetics and (blue) data, for EW (solid lines) and NS (dashed lines) components.
Download: GOF software version 1.2 [Gzip'ed tar ball of the GOF code; 60 KB]. The code is written in Fortran 77 and MATLAB, and a readme file is provided.
[ Back ]
