1-20 OF 236 RESULTS FOR

nonergodic models

Results shown limited to content with bounding coordinates.
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
Journal Article
Published: 08 February 2022
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2022) 112 (3): 1607–1629.
... from Boore et al. (2014) as the background model, which depend on V S 30 and depth to the 1 km/s V S isosurface. This is different from past approaches to nonergodic models, in which spatially varying coefficients are regressed. We validate the model using stations in the Community Seismic Network (CSN...
FIGURES | View All (13)
Journal Article
Published: 16 February 2024
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2024) 114 (3): 1717–1738.
... flatfile together with various reference ergodic ground‐motion models (GMMs). For the nonergodic path effects, our nonergodic GMM has two path effects terms: a cell‐specific linear‐distance scaling, denoted as δ P 2 P Q , that mimics the effects of a 3D Q structure, and a source‐ and site‐specific term...
FIGURES | View All (13)
Journal Article
Published: 02 July 2019
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2019) 109 (4): 1235–1249.
.... These differences are not modeled in typical ground‐motion models (GMMs) that are based on the ergodic assumption. By including systematic source, path, and site effects in fully nonergodic GMMs, it is possible to reduce the value of the aleatory variability by about 30%–40%; however, to use this reduced aleatory...
FIGURES | View All (11)
Journal Article
Published: 07 June 2023
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2023) 113 (5): 2144–2163.
...Chih‐Hsuan Sung; Norman Abrahamson; Maxime Lacour ABSTRACT A new approach is developed to incorporate the anisotropic path effects in ground motions due to the 3D velocity structure into nonergodic ground‐motion models (GMMs) using the varying coefficient model (VCM) in a two‐step process...
FIGURES | View All (14)
Journal Article
Published: 18 July 2024
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2024)
...Chenying Liu; Jorge Macedo; Zeynep Gulerce; Norman Abrahamson; Albert Kottke; Burak Akbas; Fatih M. Onder; A. Arda Ozacar ABSTRACT The development of ground‐motion models (GMMs) is transitioning from ergodic to nonergodic approaches, which account for spatially varying and systematic source, site...
FIGURES | View All (16)
Journal Article
Published: 18 August 2023
Seismological Research Letters (2023) 94 (6): 2687–2697.
... framework. The results highlight the benefit of accounting for directivity effects in nonergodic PSHA, in which models that account for additional processes controlling ground motions are paired with reductions in the modeled ground‐motion variability. * Corresponding author: gparker@usgs.gov 12...
FIGURES | View All (4)
Journal Article
Published: 07 February 2023
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2023) 113 (3): 1324–1343.
... parameters of magnitude, rupture length, and location. The nonergodic site response models for the greater LA area were developed using ground motions from 414 M 3–7.3 earthquakes in southern California. We test nonergodic ground‐motion forecasts for five earthquakes in the LA area: the 1994 M 6.7 Northridge...
FIGURES | View All (15)
Journal Article
Published: 01 November 2022
Earthquake Spectra (2022) 38 (4): 2611–2637.
... deviations of Models 3A-600 to 3H-600. Standard deviations for all other models are available in CBKG21. There are several observations that can be gleaned from Table 4 : (1) the total standard deviation increases from fully ergodic Submodel A ( σ ) to partially nonergodic Submodels B–D ( σ...
FIGURES | View All (10)
Journal Article
Published: 07 February 2017
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2017) 107 (2): 934–948.
... is vital for the new generation of GMPEs. One way to reduce the total standard deviation is to utilize the partially nonergodic approach ( Anderson and Brune, 1999 ; Rodriguez‐Marek et al. , 2014 ; Kotha et al. , 2016 ) in which the site‐to‐site variability is removed from the total variability...
FIGURES | View All (15)
Journal Article
Published: 25 January 2024
Seismological Research Letters (2024) 95 (2A): 651–663.
... by applying additional R rup distance and V S 30 residuals corrections, creating an updated GK nonergodic model tuned for Türkiye called the GK_T model. After varying anelastic attenuation of SAs Q SA , it was concluded that the average for the ACRs value of Q SA = 120 produces the best results. Comparisons...
FIGURES | View All (10)
Journal Article
Published: 05 January 2021
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2021) 111 (2): 898–915.
..., the variability is similar to that of ergodic GMMs. Variability is reduced for individual pairs of sources and sites that repeatedly sample a single path, which is expected for a nonergodic model. This results in increased exceedance probabilities for certain characteristic ground motions for a source–site pair...
FIGURES | View All (17)
Image
Principle of <span class="search-highlight">nonergodic</span> probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). (a) T...
Published: 02 July 2019
Figure 1. Principle of nonergodic probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). (a) The density of an ergodic model is compared with the density of three nonergodic models, which have a smaller standard deviation, but different medians. (b) The hazard curves are shown for a simplified scenario
Journal Article
Published: 01 August 2022
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2022) 112 (5): 2542–2561.
...Jorge Macedo; Chenying Liu ABSTRACT In this study, we develop a new nonergodic ground motion model (GMM) for Chile, which better captures the trade‐off between the aleatory variability and epistemic uncertainty on ground motion estimates compared with existing GMMs. The GMM is developed for peak...
FIGURES | View All (14)
Image
(a) The probability density of an ergodic <span class="search-highlight">model</span> is compared with the probab...
Published: 23 June 2022
Figure 2. (a) The probability density of an ergodic model is compared with the probability densities of three nonergodic models with smaller standard deviations but different medians and (b) the nonergodic models lead to steeper and shifted hazard curves as compared to the ergodic one (adapted
Image
CSN station performance for our proposed <span class="search-highlight">nonergodic</span> <span class="search-highlight">model</span> (PB21) and the er...
Published: 08 February 2022
Figure 11. CSN station performance for our proposed nonergodic model (PB21) and the ergodic Seyhan and Stewart (2014 ; referred to as SS14) model. (a) The average model residuals for each intensity measure. (b) The standard deviation of residuals. Legend in panel (b) applies to both the panels
Journal Article
Published: 11 January 2023
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2023) 113 (1): 186–203.
... to large distances while keeping the extrapolation capabilities. The proposed GMM considers the added attenuation for ray paths crossing the volcanic arc. Analysis of the variance components allows approximating plausible reductions of the standard deviation in future nonergodic models. For Colombia...
FIGURES | View All (16)
Image
(a) Estimated value of aleatory variability for the cell‐specific nonergodi...
Published: 05 March 2019
Figure 5. (a) Estimated value of aleatory variability for the cell‐specific nonergodic model (points) and an ergodic model using a constant anelastic attenuation coefficient across California (diamonds). (b) Ratio of aleatory variability between nonergodic and ergodic models.The color version
Journal Article
Published: 15 July 2022
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2022) 112 (5): 2520–2541.
...Chih‐Hsuan Sung; Norman Abrahamson ABSTRACT The Abrahamson and Gulerce (2020) ground‐motion model (GMM), called AG20, is modified to include the nonergodic effects from the suite of 3D numerical simulations of long‐period ground motions from M 9 megathrust earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction...
FIGURES | View All (20)
Journal Article
Published: 05 May 2020
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2020) 110 (3): 1289–1304.
..., if partially nonergodic models are implemented, as done in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, the negative impact of local‐site amplifications can be mitigated. We explore the influence of site effects for onsite EEW predictive models calibrated between the peak displacement ( P d ) and integral squared...
FIGURES | View All (11)
Journal Article
Published: 09 June 2020
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (2020) 110 (4): 1530–1548.
... ground‐motion datasets and make clear that nonergodic models are a way to reduce bias and uncertainty in ground‐motion estimation for applications like the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model and the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning System. © Seismological Society of America...
FIGURES | View All (13)