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

Seismological Research Letters

Volumn 76, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 466-471

  Wang, Zhenming ^a   Shi, Baoping ^a   Kiefer, John D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24044549348     PISSN: 08950695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/gssrl.76.4.466     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Abrahamson, N. A. and W. J. Silva (1997). Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes, Seismological Research Letters 68, 94-127.
2. Atkinson, G. M. and D. M. Boore (1995). Ground motion relations for eastern North America, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 85, 17-30.
3. BSSC (Building Seismic Safety Council) (1998). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings (1997 edition), FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 337 pp.
4. Boore, D. M., W. B. Joyner, and T. E. Fumal (1997). Equations for estimating horizontal response spectra and peak acceleration from western North American earthquakes: A summary of recent work, Seismological Research Letters 68, 128-153.
5. Campbell, K.W. (1981). Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 71, 2,039-2,070.
6. 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, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 1,012-1,033.
7. Campbell, K. W. and Y. Bozorgnia (2003). Updated near-source ground motion (attenuation) relations for the horizontal and vertical components of peak ground acceleration and acceleration response spectra, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 93, 314-331.
8. Cornell, C. A. (1968). Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 58, 1,583-1,606.
9. Cramer, C. H. (2001). The New Madrid seismic zone: Capturing variability in seismic hazard analyses, Seismological Research Letters 72, 664-672.
10. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) (2003). CEUS Ground Motion Project, Model Development and Results, report #1008910, Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.
11. Frankel, A. (2004). How can seismic hazard around the New Madrid seismic zone be similar to that in California?, Seismological Research Letters 75, 575-586.
12. Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper (1996). National Seismic Hazard Maps: Documentation June 1996, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 96-532, 110 pp.
13. 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. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-420, 33 pp.
14. Gupta, R. S. (1989). Hydrology and Hydraulic System, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
15. Harmsen, S., D. Perkins, and A. Frankel (1999). Deaggregation of probabilistic ground motions in the central and eastern United States, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89, 1-13.
16. ICC (International Code Council) (2000). International Building Code, International Code Council, Inc.
17. Joyner, W. B. and D. M. Boore (1982). Prediction of Earthquake Response Spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-977.
18. Newman, A., J. Schneider, S. Stein, and A. Mendez (2001). Uncertainties in seismic hazard maps for the New Madrid seismic zone and implications for seismic hazard communication, Seismological Research Letters 72, 647-663.
19. SSHAC (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee) (1997). Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6372, 81 pp.
20. Sachs, P. (1978). Wind Forces in Engineering, 2nd Edition, Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, Inc.
21. Sadigh, K., C. Y. Chang, J. Egan, F. Makdisi, and R. Youngs (1997). Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data, Seismological Research Letters 68, 180-189.
22. 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 U.S. Geological Survey.
23. Stein, S. (2004). No free lunch, Seismological Research Letters 75, 555-556.
24. Stein, S. and M. Wysession (2003). An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
25. Toro, G. R., N. A. Abrahamson, and J. F. Schneider (1997). Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: Best estimates and uncertainties, Seismological Research Letters 68, 41-57.
26. Tuttle, M. P., E. S. Schweig, J. D. Sims, R. H. Lafferty, L. W. Wolf, and M. L. Haynes (2002). The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92, 2,080-2,089.