Site-specific seismic-hazard analysis that is completely probabilistic

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Volumn 93, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 1841-1846

  Cramer, Chris H ^a  

^a U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMPLIFICATION; ATTENUATION; EARTHQUAKES; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS; PROBABILITY;

GROUND MOTION;

SEISMOLOGY;

AMPLIFICATION; GROUND MOTION; PROBABILITY; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SITE EFFECT;

KENTUCKY; MEMPHIS; PADUCAH; TENNESSEE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0242338474     PISSN: 00371106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/0120020206     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Atkinson, G. M., and D. M. Boore (1995). Ground motion relations for eastern North America, Bull Seism. Soc. Am. 85, 17-30.
2. Bechtel Jacobs (2002). Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: re-evaluation of site-specific soil column effects on ground motion, Department of Energy, report BJC/PAD-356.
3. Bodin, P., and S. Horton (1999). Broadband microtremor observations of basin resonance in the Mississippi embayment, central U.S., Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 903-906.
4. Campbell, K. W. (2003). Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 93, 1012-1033.
5. Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 58, 1583-1606.
6. Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. V. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper (1996). National Seismic-Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 96-532 (http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/docmaps.html, last accessed 27 May 2003).
7. Frankel, A. D., M. D. Petersen, C. S. Mueller, K. M. Haller, R. L. Wheeler, E. V. Leyendecker, R. L. Wesson, S. C. Harmsen, C. H. Cramer, D. M. Perkins, and K. S. Rukstales (2002). Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 02-420 (http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/of02-420/ OFR02-420.pdf, last accessed 27 May 2003).
8. Harmsen, S., D. Perkins, and A. Frankel (1999). Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 89, 1-13.
9. Hough, S., J. G. Armbruster, L. Seeber, and J. F. Hough (1999). On the Modified Mercalli Intensities and Magnitudes of the 1811/1812 New Madrid, Central United States, Earthquakes, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 99-565, 46 pp.
10. Hough, S. E., S. Martin, R. Bilham, and G. M. Atkinson (2002). The 26 January 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India Earthquake: observed and predicted ground motions, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92, 2061-2079.
11. Lee, R. C. (2000). A methodology to integrate site response into probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Site Geotechnical Services, Savannah River Site, report of 3 February 2000.
12. McGuire, R. K., W. J. Silva, and C. Constantino (2001). Technical basis for revision of regulatory guidance on design ground motions: hazard- and risk-consistent ground motion spectra guidelines, NUREG/CR6728, prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Division of Engineering Technology.
13. Reiter, L. (1990). Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and Insights, Columbia University Press, New York.
14. Risk Engineering (1999). Updated probabilistic seismic hazard for the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant Paducah, Kentucky, Final report (revision 3), Risk Engineering Report, Boulder, Colorado.
15. Somerville, P., N. Collins, N. Abrahamson, R. Graves, and C. Saikia (2001). Ground motion attenuation relations for the central and eastern United States, Final report to the USGS, 30 June 2001, URS Group, Inc., Pasadena, California.
16. Toro, G., N. Abrahamson, and J. Schneider (1997). Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: best estimates and uncertainties, Seism. Res. Lett. 68, 41-57.
17. Toro, G. R., and W. J. Silva (2001). Senario earthquakes for Saint Louis, MO, and Memphis, TN, and seismic hazard maps for the central United States region including the effect of site conditions, Final technical report to the USGS, 10 January 2001, Risk Engineering, Inc., Boulder, Colorado.
18. Tuttle, M. P., E. S. Schweig, J. D. Sims, R. H. Laffery, L. W. Wolf, and M. L. Hayes (2002). The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92, 2080-2089.