2002
DOI: 10.1142/s1363246902000607
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seismic Hazard in Greece Based on Different Strong Ground Motion Parameters

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the M w 5.5 case the depth to the top of rupture is 5.3 km, while for the M w 7.5 case the depth is 0.2 km. The model of Kawashima and Aizawa (1989) has magnitudes converted from M JMA to M w using the relationship of Fukushima (1996), while the models of Papazachos et al (1992) and Koutrakis et al (2002) have M S values converted to M w using the conversion of Ambraseys and Free (1997).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the M w 5.5 case the depth to the top of rupture is 5.3 km, while for the M w 7.5 case the depth is 0.2 km. The model of Kawashima and Aizawa (1989) has magnitudes converted from M JMA to M w using the relationship of Fukushima (1996), while the models of Papazachos et al (1992) and Koutrakis et al (2002) have M S values converted to M w using the conversion of Ambraseys and Free (1997).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although not immediately apparent in these plots on logarithmic axes, the differences between the D BA 0:10g and D UA 0:10g durations at 100 km is a small fraction of a second for all magnitudes. Figure 9 compares predictions of bracketed duration from the new equations with three previously published models, one derived from Japanese data (Kawashima and Aizawa, 1989) and two derived from Greek strong-motion data (Papazachos et al, 1992;Koutrakis et al, 2002). These comparisons are hampered by the use of different parameter definitions in the models; adjustments are made for magnitude scales as explained in the figure caption.…”
Section: New Predictive Equations and Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Greece, the number of reported predictive ground motion equations has rapidly increasing due to the improvement and expansion of the strong motion networks in recent years (Danciu and Tselentis, 2007;Koutrakis, 2000;Koutrakis et al, 2002Koutrakis et al, , 1999Margaris et al, , 1990Papoulia and Stavrakakis, 1990;Skarlatoudis et al, 2003;Papazachos, 1992, 1994).…”
Section: Ground Motion Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first effort was performed by Galanopoulos and Delibasis (1972), who studied the maximum expected macroseismic intensity distribution in order to estimate the seismic hazard in Greece, while Shebalin et al (1976) published a similar study for the Balkan peninsula. Several other studies were performed for the broader Aegean area (Algermissen et al, 1976;Makropoulos and Burton, 1985;Drakopoulos and Stavrakakis, 1988;Papoulia and Stavrakakis, 1990;Koutrakis et al, 2002;Tsapanos et al, 2003;Vamvakaris et al, 2008;Tselentis and Danciu, 2010;Vamvakaris, 2010, among others). Papaioannou (1984), studied IMM and PGA using the mean value method (Wiechert and Milne, 1979) and the asymptotic distribution of extreme values (Gumbel, 1958).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%