2016
DOI: 10.1785/0120150034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Interface Earthquakes in Japan Using Site Class and Simple Geometric Attenuation Functions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
39
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
6
39
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the values are considered separately to distinguish the difference between them. According to the event-term analysis results, the magnitude scaling for subduction interface and intraslab sources are marginally different, which is similar to a previous finding (Zhao et al, 2016a, 2016b). However, due to the limited magnitude range of subduction interface events in Taiwan, we still assume the same magnitude scaling for subduction interface and intraslab sources, as in some other previous studies (Abrahamson et al, 2016; Lin and Lee, 2008), to derive a stable analysis result for subduction interface sources.…”
Section: Proposed Ground-motion Modelsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, the values are considered separately to distinguish the difference between them. According to the event-term analysis results, the magnitude scaling for subduction interface and intraslab sources are marginally different, which is similar to a previous finding (Zhao et al, 2016a, 2016b). However, due to the limited magnitude range of subduction interface events in Taiwan, we still assume the same magnitude scaling for subduction interface and intraslab sources, as in some other previous studies (Abrahamson et al, 2016; Lin and Lee, 2008), to derive a stable analysis result for subduction interface sources.…”
Section: Proposed Ground-motion Modelsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…This situation is similar to that encountered in other studies that have attempted to develop ground-motion models for other regions worldwide. For example, ground-motion records with Mw > 7.1 for crustal sources in Europe and the Middle East are insufficient (Akkar et al, 2014); no ground-motion records with Mw > 7.3 for crustal sources are available in California (Abrahamson et al, 2014); and ground-motion records with Mw > 7.1 for crustal sources and Mw > 7.5 for subduction sources in Japan are insufficient (Zhao et al, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). Model coefficients that control magnitude scaling and distance scaling for scenarios with no or insufficient data cannot be derived or well constrained from regression analysis when developing the ground-motion model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18, which shows the ratio of the PGA hazard of the Britain/Bougainville coastal region calculated using the Zhao et al (2016a) GMM relative to the Atkinson and Boore (2003) GMM. It can be seen that the Zhao et al (2016a) GMM results in significantly higher hazard across the region with factors up to 75%. This comparison shows the variability among the selected GMMs and the vital need to develop a database of recorded ground-motions in PNG.…”
Section: Hazard Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, PGV is not always included as the output variable of the newest subduction-zone GMPEs. 38,39 Therefore, we use the GMPEs from Ghofrani and Atkinson, 34 which includes the ground motion records from the 2011 Tohoku event together with adjustment factors for the CSZ to account for its deeper soil profile compared with Japan. In comparison with other crustal GMPEs from the NGA-West2, the GMPE by Boore et al 35 requires less input information (e.g., unknown options for fault type and hanging wall effect).…”
Section: Ground Motion Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although other global subduction‐zone GMPEs are available (e.g., other studies 36,37 ), they do not include the ground motion from the 2011 Tohoku sequences, and thus the equations need to be extrapolated beyond the range of the underlying ground motion data. On the other hand, PGV is not always included as the output variable of the newest subduction‐zone GMPEs 38,39 . Therefore, we use the GMPEs from Ghofrani and Atkinson, 34 which includes the ground motion records from the 2011 Tohoku event together with adjustment factors for the CSZ to account for its deeper soil profile compared with Japan.…”
Section: Spatiotemporal Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment In Victoriamentioning
confidence: 99%