2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-1944-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Macroseismic intensity prediction equations for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source

Abstract: This paper focuses on the development of a macroseismic intensity prediction equation (MIPE), for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source, that is able to differentiate between the sites located in the fore-arc and back-arc regions of the Carpathians Mountains. The database consists of more than 9000 observed data points (pairs of sites and macroseismic intensities) for six strong earthquakes originating from Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source. Throughout this paper, the macroseismic intensities are e… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(44 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(3), in which the derivative terms refer to that of the IPE with respect to depth (∂IPE/∂D) and magnitude (∂IPE/∂M w ). As Atkinson and Wald (2007) do not provide a model for the standard deviation and only mention an average standard deviation of the residuals of 0.4 MMI units, which appears as small in comparison with those of other models (e.g., Allen et al 2012;Văcăreanu et al 2015), the model for the standard deviation of Allen et al (2012) was used instead. The latter yields values that vary between 0.8 and 1.2 MMI units for the range of depths of interest in this work.…”
Section: Prediction Of Modified Mercalli Intensitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(3), in which the derivative terms refer to that of the IPE with respect to depth (∂IPE/∂D) and magnitude (∂IPE/∂M w ). As Atkinson and Wald (2007) do not provide a model for the standard deviation and only mention an average standard deviation of the residuals of 0.4 MMI units, which appears as small in comparison with those of other models (e.g., Allen et al 2012;Văcăreanu et al 2015), the model for the standard deviation of Allen et al (2012) was used instead. The latter yields values that vary between 0.8 and 1.2 MMI units for the range of depths of interest in this work.…”
Section: Prediction Of Modified Mercalli Intensitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The impact of different attenuation patterns due to the complex tectonic configuration was previously seen on both human-felt and instrumental observations (e.g, Radulian et al, 2006;Ivan, 2007;Marmureanu et al, 2016b) and captured within the recent region-specific ground motion models (GMMs; e.g. Vacareanu et al, 2015;. The results at the cities beyond the Carpathian Mountains (e.g., Sibiu, Cluj-Napoca, Timisoara) exhibit hazard predictions that reflect the frequent crustal seismic activity as a significant attenuation behind the arc dampened VRI-related ground motion.…”
Section: Statistical Testing Procedures and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…To perform a comparison between the ESHM20 results and the collected MSK-64 IDP, the intensity values were translated to PGA using the latest conversion equations proposed by Ardeleanu et al, (2020) for the VRI source and Caprio et al, (2015) for global crustal as no local shallow models are available. The equation of Ardeleanu et al, (2020) was selected as it is the most recent intensity to PGA conversion equations proposed for VRI and its predictions agree with the ones from the previous studies, such as Vacareanu et al, (2015), Marmureanu et al, (2011). The distribution of the MSK to PGA conversions and their corresponding standard deviations within the range of 1-10 MSK-64 are presented in Figure S1, which can be found in the electronic Supplementary Materials.…”
Section: Available Data and Conversionmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, it has to be highlighted the fact that a significant number of ground motion prediction equations developed for the Vrancea intermediate depth seismic source employ azimuth-dependent coefficients [26][27][28][29][30]. On the other hand, the ground motion models of Vacareanu et al [31,32] had proposed different attenuation coefficients only for the backarc vs. forearc regions (both regions are defined with respect to the Carpathian Mountains). The same observation regarding the different attenuation coefficients only for the backarc vs. forearc regions instead of azimuth-dependent coefficients was made in the study of [33].…”
Section: Assessment Of the Azimuthal Dependency Of Ground Motion Amplmentioning
confidence: 99%