2014
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggu404
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New predictive equations and site amplification estimates for the next-generation Swiss ShakeMaps

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

3
63
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
3
63
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We note that the predictions of Douglas et al [55] (top right) predicted a wider extent of shaking out to~50 km compared to that indicated by the mainshock data. The EGF method (bottom right) and Cauzzi et al model [56] (top left) predicted similar patterns of PGV, although in the near-field, the EGF method predicted a less regular ground-motion field with a somewhat more focussed region of the highest intensity, which was closer to the distribution of the mainshock data (bottom left). While the model of Cauzzi et al [56] appeared to have similar predictive power to the EGF approach, we note that this model is a locally derived GMPE-and many regions will not have such a model available.…”
Section: Simulation Of the M = 32 Mainshockmentioning
confidence: 74%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…We note that the predictions of Douglas et al [55] (top right) predicted a wider extent of shaking out to~50 km compared to that indicated by the mainshock data. The EGF method (bottom right) and Cauzzi et al model [56] (top left) predicted similar patterns of PGV, although in the near-field, the EGF method predicted a less regular ground-motion field with a somewhat more focussed region of the highest intensity, which was closer to the distribution of the mainshock data (bottom left). While the model of Cauzzi et al [56] appeared to have similar predictive power to the EGF approach, we note that this model is a locally derived GMPE-and many regions will not have such a model available.…”
Section: Simulation Of the M = 32 Mainshockmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Using the various predictions (GMPE and EGF) and the available records, we present PGV maps in Figure 5. We note that the predictions of Douglas et al [55] (top right) predicted a wider extent of shaking out to ~50 [55] and Cauzzi et al [56]. Note: PGV values are only plotted where both observation and prediction were available (i.e., where EGF events were available).…”
Section: Simulation Of the M = 32 Mainshockmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 3 more Smart Citations