A Short Note on Ground-Motion Recordings from the 18 June 2002, Darmstadt, Indiana Earthquake

Wang, Zhenming; Woolery, Edward W.; Schaefer, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.1785/gssrl.74.2.148

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this figure, we can see that the data from Street et al (2005) for the 18 June 2002 event generally seem to have higher ground-motion values than the rest of the CUS data for the associated MMI value. We then examine the Street et al (2005) ground-motion data to see if they have anomalously higher values than other data from the same event, including the data of Wang et al (2003). Figure 2 shows the result of this comparison of the PGA values because the PGV data are not available in Wang et al (2003).…”

Section: Difference In Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We then examine the Street et al (2005) ground-motion data to see if they have anomalously higher values than other data from the same event, including the data of Wang et al (2003). Figure 2 shows the result of this comparison of the PGA values because the PGV data are not available in Wang et al (2003). We conclude from Figure 2 that the Street et al (2005) ground-motion data are reasonable and are not the source of the difference seen in Figure 1.…”

Section: Difference In Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Felt Intensity versus Instrumental Ground Motion: A Difference between California and Eastern North America?

Dangkua¹,

Cramer²

2011

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the question of whether a single ground-motion intensity correlation equation (GMICE) is applicable to both eastern North America (ENA; intraplate) and California (interplate). We initially address this issue with the datasets from previous studies and separate them into central United States (CUS), California, and Canada datasets. We then add data from the 2008 M 5.2 Mt. Carmel, Illinois, and the 2005 M 4.7 Riviere du Loup earthquakes to the CUS and Canada datasets, respectively. For each dataset, the median of ground-motion values at each modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) level and their 95% confidence limits are calculated for peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA), and spectral acceleration (SA) at 0.3, 1.0, and 2.0 s. The California median value is relatively higher than the CUS and Canada for PGV and SA at 1.0 and 2.0 s. Based on the median values and the associated uncertainty, we combine all datasets for PGA and 0.3-s SA in order to determine a GMICE. The CUS and Canada datasets are combined separately from California for PGV, 1.0-s SA, and 2.0-s SA. ENA earthquakes have a different spectral shape than those in California, particularly at intermediate periods (∼1:0 s) where ENA spectral amplitudes are reduced, which may explain the difference we see at longer periods. Finally, a log-linear-fit of MMI to the median values of ground motion is used to determine GMICE.

show abstract

Section: Difference In Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Difference In Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Felt Intensity versus Instrumental Ground Motion: A Difference between California and Eastern North America?

Dangkua¹,

Cramer²

2011

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Strong motion simulation by the composite source modeling: A case study of 1679 M8.0 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, a composite source model has been used to calculate the realistic strong ground motions in Beijing area, caused by 1679 M S 8.0 earthquake in Sanhe-Pinggu. The results could provide us the useful physical parameters for the future seismic hazard analysis in this area. Considering the regional geological/geophysical background, we simulated the scenario earthquake with an associated ground motions in the area ranging from 39.3°N to 41.1°N in latitude and from 115.35°E to 117.55°E in longitude. Some of the key factors which could influence the characteristics of strong ground motion have been discussed, and the resultant peak ground acceleration (PGA) distribution and the peak ground velocity (PGV) distribution around Beijing area also have been made as well. A comparison of the simulated result with the results derived from the attenuation relation has been made, and a sufficient discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of composite source model also has been given in this study. The numerical results, such as the PGA, PGV, peak ground displacement (PGD), and the three-component time-histories developed for Beijing area, have a potential application in earthquake engineering field and building code design, especially for the evaluation of critical constructions, government decision making and the seismic hazard assessment by financial/insurance companies.

show abstract

A Short Note on Ground-Motion Recordings from the 18 June 2002, Darmstadt, Indiana Earthquake

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Felt Intensity versus Instrumental Ground Motion: A Difference between California and Eastern North America?

Felt Intensity versus Instrumental Ground Motion: A Difference between California and Eastern North America?

Strong motion simulation by the composite source modeling: A case study of 1679 M8.0 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About