Filippos Filippitzis
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Filippos Filippitzis has a total of 14 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Charikleia D. Stoura
1 shared publicationCostas Papadimitriou
1 shared publication- Elias G. Dimitrakopoulos
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
1 shared publication - Ho Man Siu1 shared publication
James L. Beck
Division of Engineering and Applied Science California Institute of Technology Pasadena California USA
1 shared publicationJulian J Bunn
The Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 28 August 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Engineering Structures
- Vol. 319
Utilizing on-board sensing of passing train vehicles for virtual sensing of bridges
- 28 August 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Engineering Structures
- Vol. 319
Utilizing on-board sensing of passing train vehicles for virtual sensing of bridges
- 19 October 2021
- Published by Wiley in Structural Control and Health Monitoring
- Vol. 29 (2) , e2870
Sparse Bayesian learning for damage identification using nonlinear models: Application to weld fractures of steel‐frame buildings
- 19 October 2021
- Published by Wiley in Structural Control and Health Monitoring
- Vol. 29 (2) , e2870
Sparse Bayesian learning for damage identification using nonlinear models: Application to weld fractures of steel‐frame buildings
- 28 April 2021
- Published by Wiley in Earthquake Spectra
- Vol. 37 (4) , 2493-2522
Ground motions in urban Los Angeles from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence
We study ground‐motion response in urban Los Angeles during the two largest events (M7.1 and M6.4) of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence using recordings from multiple regional seismic networks as well as a subset of 350 stations from the much denser Community Seismic Network. In the first part of our study, we examine the observed response spectral (pseudo) accelerations for a selection of periods of engineering significance (1, 3, 6, and 8 s). Significant ground‐motion amplification is present and reproducible between the two events. For the longer periods, coherent spectral acceleration patterns are visible throughout the Los Angeles Basin, while for the shorter periods, the motions are less spatially coherent. However, coherence is still observable at smaller length scales due to the high spatial density of the measurements. Examining possible correlations of the computed response spectral accelerations with basement depth and Vs30, we find the correlations to be stronger for the longer periods. In the second part of the study, we test the performance of two state‐of‐the‐art methods for estimating ground motions for the largest event of the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, namely three‐dimensional (3D) finite‐difference simulations and ground motion prediction equations. For the simulations, we are interested in the performance of the two Southern California Earthquake Center 3D community velocity models (CVM‐S and CVM‐H). For the ground motion prediction equations, we consider four of the 2014 Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 Project equations. For some cases, the methods match the observations reasonably well; however, neither approach is able to reproduce the specific locations of the maximum response spectral accelerations or match the details of the observed amplification patterns.
- 28 April 2021
- Published by Wiley in Earthquake Spectra
- Vol. 37 (4) , 2493-2522
Ground motions in urban Los Angeles from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence
We study ground‐motion response in urban Los Angeles during the two largest events (M7.1 and M6.4) of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence using recordings from multiple regional seismic networks as well as a subset of 350 stations from the much denser Community Seismic Network. In the first part of our study, we examine the observed response spectral (pseudo) accelerations for a selection of periods of engineering significance (1, 3, 6, and 8 s). Significant ground‐motion amplification is present and reproducible between the two events. For the longer periods, coherent spectral acceleration patterns are visible throughout the Los Angeles Basin, while for the shorter periods, the motions are less spatially coherent. However, coherence is still observable at smaller length scales due to the high spatial density of the measurements. Examining possible correlations of the computed response spectral accelerations with basement depth and Vs30, we find the correlations to be stronger for the longer periods. In the second part of the study, we test the performance of two state‐of‐the‐art methods for estimating ground motions for the largest event of the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, namely three‐dimensional (3D) finite‐difference simulations and ground motion prediction equations. For the simulations, we are interested in the performance of the two Southern California Earthquake Center 3D community velocity models (CVM‐S and CVM‐H). For the ground motion prediction equations, we consider four of the 2014 Next Generation Attenuation‐West2 Project equations. For some cases, the methods match the observations reasonably well; however, neither approach is able to reproduce the specific locations of the maximum response spectral accelerations or match the details of the observed amplification patterns.