Testing non-linear amplification factors of 1 ground-motion models

Abstract

[1]  G. Weatherill,et al.  An open-source site database of strong-motion stations in Japan: K-NET and KiK-net (v1.0.0) , 2021 .

[2]  A. Rodriguez-Marek,et al.  An updated database for ground motion parameters for KiK-net records , 2020 .

[3]  R. Rotondi,et al.  Ground motion models for the new seismic hazard model of Italy (MPS19): selection for active shallow crustal regions and subduction zones , 2020, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[4]  S. Drouet,et al.  A probabilistic seismic hazard map for the metropolitan France , 2020, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[5]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Significance of site natural period effects for linear site amplification in central and eastern North America: Empirical and simulation-based models , 2020 .

[6]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  An Empirical Model for the Interfrequency Correlation of Epsilon for Fourier Amplitude Spectra , 2019, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[7]  J. Bamber,et al.  Subglacial roughness of the Greenland Ice Sheet: relationship with contemporary ice velocity and geology , 2019, The Cryosphere.

[8]  Marco Pilz,et al.  Does the One-Dimensional Assumption Hold for Site Response Analysis? A Study of Seismic Site Responses and Implication for Ground Motion Assessment Using KiK-Net Strong-Motion Data , 2019, Earthquake Spectra.

[9]  W. Silva,et al.  Site Amplification Functions for Central and Eastern North America – Part II: Modular Simulation-Based Models , 2019, Earthquake Spectra.

[10]  F. Cotton,et al.  Impact of Magnitude Selection on Aleatory Variability Associated with Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations: Part II—Analysis of the Between‐Event Distribution in Central Italy , 2019, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[11]  J. Kaklamanos,et al.  Challenges in Predicting Seismic Site Response with 1D Analyses: Conclusions from 114 KiK‐net Vertical Seismometer Arrays , 2018, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[12]  M. Sandıkkaya.  On linear site amplification behavior of crustal and subduction interface earthquakes in Japan: (1) regional effects, (2) best proxy selection , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[13]  Debi Kilb,et al.  Decomposing Leftovers: Event, Path, and Site Residuals for a Small‐Magnitude Anza Region GMPE , 2018, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[14]  M. Sandıkkaya,et al.  A Site Amplification Model for Crustal Earthquakes , 2018, Geosciences.

[15]  Dino Bindi,et al.  A new approach to site classification: Mixed-effects Ground Motion Prediction Equation with spectral clustering of site amplification functions , 2018, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.

[16]  J. D. Zechar,et al.  The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability: Achievements and Priorities , 2018, Seismological Research Letters.

[17]  J. D. Zechar,et al.  Prospective CSEP Evaluation of 1‐Day, 3‐Month, and 5‐Yr Earthquake Forecasts for Italy , 2018, Seismological Research Letters.

[18]  Dino Bindi,et al.  Impact of Magnitude Selection on Aleatory Variability Associated with Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations: Part I—Local, Energy, and Moment Magnitude Calibration and Stress‐Drop Variability in Central Italy , 2018 .

[19]  P. Bard,et al.  Are the Standard VS-Kappa Host-to-Target Adjustments the Only Way to Get Consistent Hard-Rock Ground Motion Prediction? , 2018, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[20]  Dino Bindi,et al.  The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of Germany—version 2016, considering the range of epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variability , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[21]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  Scenario dependence of linear site effect factors for short-period response spectral ordinates , 2017 .

[22]  F. Cotton,et al.  VS30, slope, H800 and f0: performance of various site-condition proxies in reducing ground-motion aleatory variability and predicting nonlinear site response , 2017, Earth, Planets and Space.

[23]  Domniki Asimaki,et al.  From Stiffness to Strength: Formulation and Validation of a Hybrid Hyperbolic Nonlinear Soil Model for Site‐Response Analyses , 2017 .

[24]  D. Schorlemmer,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Hierarchical Ground‐Motion Models: Score Uncertainty and Model Weighting , 2017 .

[25]  F. Cotton,et al.  Site-Condition Proxies, Ground Motion Variability, and Data-Driven GMPEs: Insights from the NGA-West2 and RESORCE Data Sets , 2016 .

[26]  L. Bonilla,et al.  PGA-PGV/Vs considered as a stress–strain proxy for predicting nonlinear soil response , 2016 .

[27]  Christine A. Goulet,et al.  A Flatfile for the KiK-net Database Processed Using an Automated Protocol , 2016 .

[28]  Frank Scherbaum,et al.  On the Relationship between Fourier and Response Spectra: Implications for the Adjustment of Empirical Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) , 2016 .

[29]  Danijel Schorlemmer,et al.  Validating Intensity Prediction Equations for Italy by Observations , 2015 .

[30]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Repeatable Site and Path Effects on the Ground‐Motion Sigma Based on Empirical Data from Southern California and Simulated Waveforms from the CyberShake Platform , 2015 .

[31]  Ying-bin Zhang,et al.  Nonlinear Site Models Derived from 1D Analyses for Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations Using Site Class as the Site Parameter , 2015 .

[32]  Ellen M. Rathje,et al.  Evaluation of one-dimensional site response techniques using borehole arrays , 2015 .

[33]  Robert R. Youngs,et al.  Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra , 2014 .

[34]  Norman A. Abrahamson,et al.  Summary of the ASK14 Ground Motion Relation for Active Crustal Regions , 2014 .

[35]  W. Silva,et al.  NGA-West2 Database , 2014 .

[36]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes , 2014 .

[37]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Semi-Empirical Nonlinear Site Amplification from NGA-West2 Data and Simulations , 2014 .

[38]  Peter J. Stafford,et al.  Crossed and Nested Mixed-Effects Approaches for Enhanced Model Development and Removal of the Ergodic Assumption in Empirical Ground-Motion Models , 2014 .

[39]  J. D. Zechar,et al.  Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models I: First-Order Results , 2013 .

[40]  Sinan Akkar,et al.  A Nonlinear Site‐Amplification Model for the Next Pan‐European Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations , 2013 .

[41]  Naoshi Hirata,et al.  CSEP Testing Center and the first results of the earthquake forecast testing experiment in Japan , 2012, Earth, Planets and Space.

[42]  Aurore Laurendeau,et al.  Nonlinear site response evidence of K-NET and KiK-net records from the 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake , 2011 .

[43]  Julian J. Bommer,et al.  The Variability of Ground-Motion Prediction Models and Its Components , 2010 .

[44]  Frank Scherbaum,et al.  Information-Theoretic Selection of Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Applicability Study Using Californian Data , 2009 .

[45]  Daniel Lavallée,et al.  Hysteretic and Dilatant Behavior of Cohesionless Soils and Their Effects on Nonlinear Site Response: Field Data Observations and Modeling , 2005 .

[46]  Hiroyuki Fujiwara,et al.  Recent Progress of Seismic Observation Networks in Japan , 2004 .

[47]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Amplification Factors for Spectral Acceleration in Tectonically Active Regions , 2003 .

[48]  W. Cleveland.  Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots , 1979 .

[49]  Hiroyuki Fujiwara,et al.  STRONG-MOTION SEISMOGRAPH NETWORK OPERATED BY NIED: K-NET AND KiK-net , 2004 .

[50]  Eduardo Kausel,et al.  Seismic simulation of inelastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping , 2002 .

[51]  A. Jefferson Offutt,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation , 1994 .