Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations for Central and Eastern North America

Graizer, Vladimir

doi:10.1785/0120150374

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The adjusted seed GMMs were developed by independent modelers using a consistent set of data and simulations with their own interpretation of the best science. Two of the seed GMMs were updated following the 2015 PEER report to account for new information and enhanced modeling techniques: Graizer (2016) and an alternative Graizer (2017), and Shahjouei and Pezeshk (2016). Based on expert recommendations, we reduced the number of seed GMMs from 19 models to 14 models, which we refer to as the Updated Seed GMMs.…”

Section: Update Of Gmms In the Ceusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During 2017–2018, the National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States was updated as follows: (1) an updated seismicity catalog was incorporated, which includes new earthquakes that occurred from 2013 to 2017; (2) in the central and eastern United States (CEUS), new ground motion models were updated that incorporate updated median estimates, modified assessments of the associated epistemic uncertainties and aleatory variabilities, and new soil amplification factors; (3) in the western United States (WUS), amplified shaking estimates of long-period ground motions at sites overlying deep sedimentary basins in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Salt Lake City areas were incorporated; and (4) in the conterminous United States, seismic hazard is calculated for 22 periods (from 0.01 to 10 s) and 8 uniform VS30 maps (ranging from 1500 to 150 m/s). We also include a description of updated computer codes and modeling details. Results show increased ground shaking in many (but not all) locations across the CEUS (up to ~30%), as well as near the four urban areas overlying deep sedimentary basins in the WUS (up to ~50%). Due to population growth and these increased hazard estimates, more people live or work in areas of high or moderate seismic hazard than ever before, leading to higher risk of undesirable consequences from forecasted future ground shaking.

show abstract

Section: Update Of Gmms In the Ceusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One model uses a conceptually similar referenced empirical approach in which a GMM for active tectonic regions is adjusted through residuals analysis using NGA-East data (Hassani and Atkinson 2015). Three of the models are based on direct regression of NGA-East data to develop GMMs (Al Noman and Cramer 2015, Graizer 2015, Hollenback et al 2015a). Yenier and Atkinson (2015) also uses direct regression to calibrate the regionally adjustable parameters of the generic point-source model.…”

Section: Nga-east Gmmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yenier and Atkinson (2015) also uses direct regression to calibrate the regionally adjustable parameters of the generic point-source model. Because of the limited parameter space covered by the data, additional information used during model building included intensity data (Al Noman and Cramer 2015) or simulations (Graizer 2015, Hollenback et al 2015a). Finally, one GMM consists of an inventory of finite-fault simulation results (Frankel 2015).…”

Section: Nga-east Gmmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Empirical Linear Seismic Site Amplification in Central and Eastern North America

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present empirical linear site amplification models conditioned on time-averaged shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m ( VS30) for central and eastern North America. The models are derived from ground motion data and site condition information from the NGA-East project and are intended for use with reference rock ground motion models. Site amplification is found to scale with VS30 for intermediate to stiff site conditions ( VS30 > 300 m/s) in a weaker manner than for active tectonic regions such as the western United States. For stiff sites ( >800 m/s), we find differences in site amplification for previously glaciated and nonglaciated regions, with nonglaciated sites having lower amplification. The models were developed using a combination of least-squares, mixed effects, and Bayesian techniques; the latter show that accounting for predictor uncertainty does not appreciably affect the median model but decreases model dispersion. Our VS30-scaling models are modular and additive to simulation-based models for the nonlinear components of site response. A limitation of the present models is that they do not account for site-specific resonance effects.

show abstract

“…We note that at the time of writing very few of outcomes of the NGA East project themselves have been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. The exceptions to this are the GMMs of Yenier and Atkinson (2015) and Graizer (2016) and the site amplification models of Stewart et al (2020) and Hashash et al (2020). This situation might be considered as basis for exclusion of such models, were we to apply strictly the pre-selection criteria of Cotton et al (2006).…”

Section: Deriving a Gmm From The Nga East Suitementioning

confidence: 99%

A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalisation, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach

Weatherill

Cotton

2020

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regions of low seismicity present a particular challenge for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis when identifying suitable ground motion models (GMMs) and quantifying their epistemic uncertainty. The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model adopts a scaled backbone approach to characterise this uncertainty for shallow seismicity in Europe, incorporating region-to-region source and attenuation variability based on European strong motion data. This approach, however, may not be suited to stable cratonic region of northeastern Europe (encompassing Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries), where exploration of various global geophysical datasets reveals that its crustal properties are distinctly different from the rest of Europe, and are instead more closely represented by those of the Central and Eastern United States. Building upon the suite of models developed by the recent NGA East project, we construct a new scaled backbone ground motion model and calibrate its corresponding epistemic uncertainties. The resulting logic tree is shown to provide comparable hazard outcomes to the epistemic uncertainty modelling strategy adopted for the Eastern United States, despite the different approaches taken. Comparison with previous GMM selections for northeastern Europe, however, highlights key differences in short period accelerations resulting from new assumptions regarding the characteristics of the reference rock and its influence on site amplification.

show abstract

Ground‐Motion Prediction Equations for Central and Eastern North America

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

The 2018 update of the US National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications

Empirical Linear Seismic Site Amplification in Central and Eastern North America

A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalisation, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About