"How can seismic hazard in the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?" by Arthur Frankel

Seismological Research Letters

Volumn 76, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 364-367

  Stein, Seth ^a   Frankel, Arthur ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DENVER FEDERAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21344455059     PISSN: 08950695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/gssrl.76.3.364     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. FEMA (2001). HAZUS 99 Estimated Annualized Losses for the United States, publication 366.
2. Frankel, Arthur (2004). How can seismic hazard in the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?, Seismological Research Letters 75, 575-586.
3. Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper (1996). National Seismic Hazard Maps Documentation, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-532, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4. Kagan, Y. Y., and D. D. Jackson (1991). Seismic gap hypothesis: Ten years after, Journal of Geophysical Research 96, 21,419-21,431.
5. Newman, A., S. Stein, J. Weber, J. Engeln, A. Mao, and T. Dixon (1999). Slow deformation and lower seismic hazard at the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Science 284, 619-621.
6. Newman, A., S. Stein, J. Schneider, and A. Mendez (2001). Uncertainties in seismic hazard maps for the New Madrid seismic zone, Seismological Research Letters 72, 653-667.
7. Parsons, T., S. Toda, R. S. Stein, A. Barka, and J. H. Dieterich (2000). Heightened odds of large earthquakes near Istanbul: An interation-based probability calculation, Science 288, 661-665.
8. Stein, S., A. Newman, and J. Tomasello (2003). Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84, 177, 184-185.
9. Wang, Z. and L. Ormsbee (2005). Hazard analyses: Comparison between probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and flood frequency analysis, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 86, 51-52.
10. Algermissen, S. T. and D. M. Perkins (1976). A Probabilistic Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous United States, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 76-416, 45 pp.
11. Building Seismic Safety Council (1998). 1997 Edition NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, FEMA 302/303, Washington, DC.
12. Frankel, Arthur (2004). How can seismic hazard in the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?, Seismological Research Letters 75, 575-586.
13. Hamburger, R. O. and C. A. Kircher (2000). Recent developments in seismic design methodologies and codes, Earthquake Spectra 16, vii-xiii.
14. International Code Council, Inc. (2000). International Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc., International Conference of Building Officials, and Southern Building Code Congress, Inc., Birmingham, AL.
15. Leyendecker, E. V., R. J. Hunt, A. D. Frankel, and K. S. Rukstales (2000). Development of maximum considered earthquake ground motion maps, Earthquake Spectra 16. 21-40.
16. Petersen, M. D. and C. H. Cramer (1997). Assessing earthquake ground shaking hazard in California, California Geology 50, 107-115.
17. Somerville, P., C. Saikia, D. Wald, and R. Graves (1996). Implications of the Northridge earthquake for strong ground motions from thrust faults, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86, S115-S125.
18. Stein, S., J. Tomasello, and A. Newman (2003a). Should Memphis build for California earthquakes?, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84, 177, 184-185.
19. Stein, S., J. Tomasello, and A. Newman (2003b). Reply, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 84, 273.