Comparisons of the NGA Ground-Motion Relations

By N. Abrahamson, G. Atkinson, D. Boore, Y. Bozorgnia, K. Campbell, B. Chiou, I. Idriss, W. Silva, R. Youngs. 2008

325 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Civil and Structural Engineering, Geophysics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6ac5367afb7442fc7c594670379674d72f42a2ab

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Civil and Structural Engineering

1. D. Boore
2. N. Abrahamson
3. B. Chiou
4. S. Akkar
5. E. Thompson
6. Brendon Bradley
7. C. D. Alessandro
8. N. Kuehn

In Geophysics

1. D. Boore
2. N. Abrahamson
3. B. Chiou
4. S. Akkar
5. E. Thompson
6. Brendon Bradley
7. N. Gregor
8. C. D. Alessandro

Citations in the corpus

• A Local Ground-Motion Predictive Model for Turkey, and Its Comparison with Other Regional and Global Ground-Motion Models (2010, methodology): “We used the median depth to top-ofrupture values recommended in Abrahamson et al. (2008) for AS08, CB08, and CY08.”
• The Uses and Limitations of the Square‐Root‐Impedance Method for Computing Site Amplification (2013, methodology): “Note that Joyner et al. (1981) estimated site amplifications using the SRI method, but in a later paper, Joyner and Fumal (1984, 1985) used the QWL computations to obtain average velocities for sites that had recorded strong motions and used these velocities to characterize each site in the developm”
• Regional Correlations of VS30 and Velocities Averaged Over Depths Less Than and Greater Than 30 Meters (2011, background): “…the principal ones being its use as an explanatory variable for site effects in a number of recent ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs; e.g., Abrahamson et al., 2008) and as the basis for specifying site classes in building codes [Dobry et al., 2000; Building Seismic Safety Council, 2003;…”
• BC Hydro Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Subduction Earthquakes (2016, result): “The ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for subduction zone earthquakes available at the time showed a large range in the median ground motion values and, in some cases, had very large aleatory variability (BC Hydro 2012, Douglas 2010) when compared to recently developed crustal ground motion”
• A Generalization of the Double-Corner-Frequency Source Spectral Model and Its Use in the SCEC BBP Validation Exercise (2014, methodology): “(unpublished report, 2014; see Data and Resources), the solid black line in each graph shows the average median prediction from four Next Generation Attenuation-West 1 (NGA-West 1) GMPEs, summarized in Abrahamson et al. (2008). The dashed lines were obtained by considering the upper and lower bound ”
• Simultaneous quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in GMPEs using Gaussian process regression (2014, background): “For example, the NGA project (Power et al. 2008) but also this issue show that different teams of modelers come up with different models, even if they start from the same underlying data base (Abrahamson et al. 2008; Douglas et al. 2013).”
• Repeatable Source, Site, and Path Effects on the Standard Deviation for Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Models (2011, background): “In general, τE and σ may be dependent on earthquake magnitude, distance, and/or ground-motion amplitude (e.g., Youngs et al., 1995; Abrahamson et al., 2008).”
• Correlation of Significant Duration with Amplitude and Cumulative Intensity Measures and Its Use in Ground Motion Selection (2011, methodology): “As ηi and εi are assumed to be independent in the GMPEs used in this study [Abrahamson et al., 2008; Abrahamson and Youngs, 1992], then it is possible to estimate the correlations between the inter- and intra-event residuals of the different IMs using the Pearson-product-moment correlation estimator”