Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/142488
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDu, Wenqien_US
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Duruoen_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Gangen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-23T01:28:12Z-
dc.date.available2020-06-23T01:28:12Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationDu, W., Huang, D., & Wang, G. (2018). Quantification of model uncertainty and variability in Newmark displacement analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 109, 286-298. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.037en_US
dc.identifier.issn0267-7261en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10356/142488-
dc.description.abstractNewmark displacement model has been extensively used to evaluate earthquake-induced displacement in earth systems. In this paper, model uncertainty and variability associated with the Newmark displacement analysis are systematically studied. Fourteen Newmark displacement models using scalar or vector intensity measures (IMs) as predictors are compared in this study. In general, model uncertainty for the vector-IM models is found smaller than that of the scalar-IM models, and remains consistent over different earthquake magnitude, distance and site conditions. Yet, the model uncertainty of these Newmark displacement models is still much larger than that of the ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for IMs, indicating further development of the models is much needed. Considering the variabilities contributed from both GMPEs and Newmark displacement models, the total variability of the predicted Newmark displacements is rather consistent among the scalar- and vector-IM displacement models, due to extra sources of variability introduced by incorporating additional IMs. Finally, a logic tree scheme is implemented in the fully probabilistic Newmark displacement analysis to account for the model uncertainty and variability. Sensitivity analysis shows that specific weights would not significantly influence the displacement hazard curves as the results may be dominated by outlier models. Instead, selecting appropriate GMPEs and Newmark displacement models is more important in using the logic-tree framework.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofSoil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineeringen_US
dc.rights© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.subjectScience::Geologyen_US
dc.titleQuantification of model uncertainty and variability in Newmark displacement analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.contributor.researchInstitute of Catastrophe Risk Management (ICRM)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.037-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85044585187-
dc.identifier.volume109en_US
dc.identifier.spage286en_US
dc.identifier.epage298en_US
dc.subject.keywordsNewmark Displacementen_US
dc.subject.keywordsModel Uncertaintyen_US
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
Appears in Collections:ICRM Journal Articles

SCOPUSTM   
Citations 10

42
Updated on Feb 5, 2025

Web of ScienceTM
Citations 10

31
Updated on Oct 25, 2023

Page view(s)

387
Updated on Feb 10, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Plumx

Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.