1-20 OF 82 RESULTS FOR

NGA-W2 model

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
Save search
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Image
Comparison of empirical ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed from Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 (NGA‐W2) data with Yenier and Atkinson (2015b; hereafter, YA15) equivalent point‐source model GMPE for California and CENA (calibrated to NGA‐W2 and NGA‐East, respectively, as described in Yenier and Atkinson, 2015b). Assumed focal depth is 2.5 km for M 3.5, 5 km for M 6. The median stress values for these focal depths in the YA15 model are 2 bars (California), 19 bars (CENA) for M 3.5 and 58 bars (California), 70 bars (CENA) for M 6.0. NGA‐W2 models are evaluated assuming that the depth to the top of rupture is unknown. All models are applicable to the geomean horizontal component (or equivalent) for a reference B/C site condition.The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Comparison of empirical ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs) develope... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 February 2017
Figure 1. Comparison of empirical ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed from Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 (NGA‐W2) data with Yenier and Atkinson (2015b ; hereafter, YA15) equivalent point‐source model GMPE for California and CENA (calibrated to NGA‐W2 and NGA‐East
Image
Magnitude scaling of vertical strike-slip events for Rrup = 30 km and VS30 = 760 m/s of the (a) AS08, TR-AS08, and ASK14 models, (b) BA08, TR-BA08, and BSSA14 models, (c) CB08, TR-CB08, and CB14 models, (d) CY08, TR-CY08, and CY14 models, (e) ID08, TR-ID08, and ID14 models, and (f) average of NGA-W1, TR-NGA-W1, and NGA-W2 models.

Magnitude scaling of vertical strike-slip events for R rup = 30 km and... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 February 2016
, and (f) average of NGA-W1, TR-NGA-W1, and NGA-W2 models.
Journal Article

Conditional Ground‐Motion Models for Horizontal Peak Ground Displacement for Active Crustal Regions Available to Purchase

Chih‐Hsuan Sung, Norman A. Abrahamson, Jyun‐Yan Huang
Published: 27 April 2021
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2021) 111 (3): 1542–1562.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200299
... deformation as well as the vibratory ground motion. For the bandlimited PGD, we develop conditional ground‐motion models (CGMMs) using subsets of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 Project (NGA‐W2) database and the National Center for Research on Earthquake...
FIGURES | View All (22)
View PDF for article title, Conditional Ground‐Motion <span class="search-highlight">Models</span> for Horizontal Peak Ground Displacement for Active Crustal Regions
Purchase
Add to Citation Manager for Conditional Ground‐Motion <span class="search-highlight">Models</span> for Horizontal Peak Ground Displacement for Active Crustal Regions
Includes: Supplemental Content
Image
Comparison of the magnitude scaling for the PGD using different ground‐motion models (GMMs). (a) NGA‐W2 conditional PGD model with NGA‐W2 GMMs for PSA(T). (b) Taiwan conditional PGD model with both NGA‐W2 GMM and Taiwan GMMs for PSA(T). The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Comparison of the magnitude scaling for the PGD using different ground‐moti... Available to Purchase

Published: 27 April 2021
Figure 12. Comparison of the magnitude scaling for the PGD using different ground‐motion models (GMMs). (a) NGA‐W2 conditional PGD model with NGA‐W2 GMMs for PSA ( T ) . (b) Taiwan conditional PGD model with both NGA‐W2 GMM and Taiwan GMMs for PSA ( T ) . The color version
Journal Article

Turkey-Adjusted NGA-W1 Horizontal Ground Motion Prediction Models Available to Purchase

Zeynep Gülerce, M. EERI, Bahadır Kargoığlu, Norman A. Abrahamson, M. EERI
Published: 01 February 2016
Earthquake Spectra (2016) 32 (1): 75–100.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/022714EQS034M
..., and (f) average of NGA-W1, TR-NGA-W1, and NGA-W2 models. ...
FIGURES | View All (17)
View PDF for article title, Turkey-Adjusted <span class="search-highlight">NGA</span>-W1 Horizontal Ground Motion Prediction <span class="search-highlight">Models</span>
Purchase
Add to Citation Manager for Turkey-Adjusted <span class="search-highlight">NGA</span>-W1 Horizontal Ground Motion Prediction <span class="search-highlight">Models</span>
Journal Article

A rupture directivity adjustment model and its application in seismic hazard Available to Purchase

Jeff Bayless, Norman A Abrahamson, Paul G Somerville
Published: 01 February 2025
Earthquake Spectra (2025) 41 (1): 753–781.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241290632
... rotation angles and is modeled in the NGA-W2 GMMs (summarized in Gregor et al., 2014 ). The response spectral approach lends itself readily to inclusion into PSHA ( Rodriguez-Marek and Cofer, 2009 ). The Bea24 model is suitable for use in future PSHAs, including those performed as part of the US...
FIGURES | View All (11)
View PDF for article title, A rupture directivity adjustment <span class="search-highlight">model</span> and its application in seismic hazard
Purchase
Add to Citation Manager for A rupture directivity adjustment <span class="search-highlight">model</span> and its application in seismic hazard
Journal Article

Ground-motions site and event specificity: Insights from assessing a suite of simulated ground motions in the San Francisco Bay Area Available to Purchase

Floriana Petrone, EERI, Arsam Taslimi, EERI, Majid Mohammadi Nia, David McCallen, EERI, Arben Pitarka
Published: 01 November 2024
Earthquake Spectra (2024) 40 (4): 2712–2736.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930241265132
..., California USA, and inform the selection of rupture simulation parameters leading to strong motions. To this aim, comparisons are conducted with NGA-W2 and directivity ground-motion models and a selected population of records. An archetypal steel moment-resisting frame is utilized to assess infrastructure...
FIGURES | View All (14)
View PDF for article title, Ground-motions site and event specificity: Insights from assessing a suite of simulated ground motions in the San Francisco Bay Area
Purchase
Add to Citation Manager for Ground-motions site and event specificity: Insights from assessing a suite of simulated ground motions in the San Francisco Bay Area
Image

Median model coefficients. Coefficient Model 1 (Simulations) ... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 February 2025
Table 1. Median model coefficients. Coefficient Model 1 (Simulations) Model 2 (NGA-W2) A max 0.54 0.34 k 1.58 1.58 σ g 0.38 0.26
Image
95% confidence limits for the (a) bias terms c and variability of the (b) between‐event term τ, and (c) within‐event term ϕ. Bias and variability terms are plotted for the three ground‐motion prediction equation (GMPE) suites for ground motions from M≥4 events recorded within 300 km. Terms were calculated for the three GMPE suites: Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 (NGA‐W2), the GMPEs used in the central and eastern United States for the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model (CEUS14) and the adjusted seed models of NGA‐East (NGA‐EAS), amplified to VS30=760  m/s by Boore and Campbell (2017) using κ0=0.01   or 0.03 s. Gray lines in (b,c) depict NGA‐W2 variability models for τ and ϕ. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

95% confidence limits for the (a) bias terms c and variability of the... Available to Purchase

Published: 31 October 2018
events recorded within 300 km. Terms were calculated for the three GMPE suites: Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 (NGA‐W2), the GMPEs used in the central and eastern United States for the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model (CEUS14) and the adjusted seed models of NGA‐East ( NGA ‐ E
Image
Comparison of simulated ground motions and the NGA-W2 ground-motion models for selected IMs. (a) and (b) PSA versus spectral periods and (c) and (d) PGV versus distance for the two separate components, fault normal and fault parallel.

Comparison of simulated ground motions and the NGA-W2 ground-motion models ... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 May 2025
Figure 3. Comparison of simulated ground motions and the NGA-W2 ground-motion models for selected IMs. (a) and (b) PSA versus spectral periods and (c) and (d) PGV versus distance for the two separate components, fault normal and fault parallel.
Image
Magnitude dependence of the between‐event residual of (a) the NGA‐W2 conditional ground‐motion model (CGMM) and for (b) the Taiwan CGMM.

Magnitude dependence of the between‐event residual of (a) the NGA‐W2 condit... Available to Purchase

Published: 27 April 2021
Figure 8. Magnitude dependence of the between‐event residual of (a) the NGA‐W2 conditional ground‐motion model (CGMM) and for (b) the Taiwan CGMM.
Image
(a) Distance dependence and (b) PSA dependence of the within‐event residuals of the NGA‐W2 conditional PGD model. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

(a) Distance dependence and (b) PSA dependence of the within‐event residual... Available to Purchase

Published: 27 April 2021
Figure 10. (a) Distance dependence and (b) PSA dependence of the within‐event residuals of the NGA‐W2 conditional PGD model. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
Image
Residuals of PGD values from Global Positioning System (GPS) data relative to the PGDtot model based on the NGA‐W2 conditional model combined with the ASK14 GMM. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Residuals of PGD values from Global Positioning System (GPS) data relative ... Available to Purchase

Published: 27 April 2021
Figure 22. Residuals of PGD values from Global Positioning System (GPS) data relative to the PGD tot model based on the NGA‐W2 conditional model combined with the ASK14 GMM. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
Image
Median predictions of the NGA-W1, NGA-W2, and TR-adjusted NGA_W1 models for the following scenarios: (a) M5, D10 km, VS30 = 760 m/s; (b) M5, D10 km, VS30 = 270 m/s; (c) M7, D10 km, VS30 = 760 m/s; (d) M7, D10 km, VS30 = 270 m/s; (e) M7, D150 km, VS30 = 760 m/s; and (f) M7, D150 km, VS30 = 270 m/s.

Median predictions of the NGA-W1, NGA-W2, and TR-adjusted NGA_W1 models for... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 February 2016
Figure 14. Median predictions of the NGA-W1, NGA-W2, and TR-adjusted NGA_W1 models for the following scenarios: (a) M5, D10 km, V S 30 = 760 m/s; (b) M5, D10 km, V S 30 = 270 m/s; (c) M7, D10 km, V S 30 = 760 m/s; (d) M7, D10 km, V S 30 = 270 m/s; (e) M7, D150 km, V S 30 = 760
Image
(a) Small‐ and large‐magnitude scaling models for ASK14. (b) The magnitude dependence of the adjustment. The line indicates the fit using the NGA‐W2 scaling. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

(a) Small‐ and large‐magnitude scaling models for ASK14. (b) The magnitude ... Available to Purchase

Published: 27 April 2021
Figure 16. (a) Small‐ and large‐magnitude scaling models for ASK14. (b) The magnitude dependence of the adjustment. The line indicates the fit using the NGA‐W2 scaling. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.
Journal Article

Are Ground‐Motion Models Derived from Natural Events Applicable to the Estimation of Expected Motions for Induced Earthquakes? Available to Purchase

Gail M. Atkinson, Karen Assatourians
Published: 01 February 2017
Seismological Research Letters (2017) 88 (2A): 430–441.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220160153
...Figure 1. Comparison of empirical ground‐motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed from Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 (NGA‐W2) data with Yenier and Atkinson (2015b ; hereafter, YA15) equivalent point‐source model GMPE for California and CENA (calibrated to NGA‐W2 and NGA‐East...
FIGURES | View All (8)
View PDF for article title, Are Ground‐Motion <span class="search-highlight">Models</span> Derived from Natural Events Applicable to the Estimation of Expected Motions for Induced Earthquakes?
Purchase
Add to Citation Manager for Are Ground‐Motion <span class="search-highlight">Models</span> Derived from Natural Events Applicable to the Estimation of Expected Motions for Induced Earthquakes?
Image
Comparison of the total standard deviation of scenario‐based PGD models. (a) NGA‐W2 PGD model. (b) Taiwan PGD models with the magnitude‐independent standard deviation from the Phung, Loh, Chao, et al. (2020; referred to as PLCCH20) traditional model for PGD. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Comparison of the total standard deviation of scenario‐based PGD models. (a... Available to Purchase

Published: 27 April 2021
Figure 14. Comparison of the total standard deviation of scenario‐based PGD models. (a) NGA‐W2 PGD model. (b) Taiwan PGD models with the magnitude‐independent standard deviation from the Phung, Loh, Chao, et al. (2020 ; referred to as PLCCH20) traditional model for PGD. The color version
Image
Between‐event terms δB≡δBe, as a function of magnitude for (a) 0.2‐ and (b) 2.0‐s periods. Terms were calculated for the three GMPE suites: NGA‐W2, the GMPEs used in the CEUS14, and the adjusted seed models of NGA‐EAS. Error bars depict the magnitude bins used in computing mean between‐event terms (0.25) and the 95% confidence limits. NGA‐EAS results using κ0=0.01  and 0.03 s fall on top of each other. The color version of this figure is available only in the electronic edition.

Between‐event terms δ B ≡ δ B e , as a function of magnitude fo... Available to Purchase

Published: 31 October 2018
Figure 4. Between‐event terms δ B ≡ δ B e , as a function of magnitude for (a) 0.2‐ and (b) 2.0‐s periods. Terms were calculated for the three GMPE suites: NGA‐W2, the GMPEs used in the CEUS14, and the adjusted seed models of NGA ‐ E AS . Error bars depict the magnitude bins
Image

Period dependence of e 1 for Model 1 and Model 2. ... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 February 2025
0.200 Model 2 (NGA-W2) e 1 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.007 0.024 0.041 0.064 0.076 0.091 0.110 0.124 0.145 0.157
Image
Realization 2: PGV vs distance from four NGA-W2 GMMs (median ± 1 standard deviation) and simulations for the full domain and for each subdomain. The colors gray, cyan, and pink indicate that the simulated PGVs are within, above, and below the empirical models’ envelope, respectively. The black dots represent the median of PGVs at sites equidistant from the fault.

Realization 2: PGV vs distance from four NGA-W2 GMMs (median ± 1 standard d... Available to Purchase

Published: 01 November 2024
Figure 6. Realization 2: PGV vs distance from four NGA-W2 GMMs (median ± 1 standard deviation) and simulations for the full domain and for each subdomain. The colors gray, cyan, and pink indicate that the simulated PGVs are within, above, and below the empirical models’ envelope, respectively