Quantifying the uncertainty in site amplification modeling and its effects on site-specific seismic-hazard estimation in the upper Mississippi embayment and adjacent areas

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

Volumn 96, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 2008-2020

  Cramer, Chris H ^a  

^a U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKES; ESTIMATION; HAZARDS; MAPPING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILITY;

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION; SEISMIC-HAZARD-MAPPING;

SEISMOLOGY;

AMPLIFICATION; ESTIMATION METHOD; GROUND MOTION; MAPPING; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC ZONE; SITE EFFECT;

MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33846091501     PISSN: 00371106     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1785/0120060037     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Atkinson, G. M., and I. A. Beresnev (2002). Ground motions at Memphis and St. Louis from M 7.5-8.0 earthquakes in the New Madrid seismic zone, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92, 1015-1024.
2. Bonilla, L. F. (2001). NOAH: User's Manual, Institute for Crustal Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, 38 pp.
3. Bonilla, L. F., R. J. Archeleta, and D. Lavellee (2004). Hysteretic and dilatant behavior of cohesionless soils and their effects on nonlinear site response: field data observations and modeling, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 95, 2373-2395.
4. Boore, D. B. (1996). SMSIM-FORTRAN program for simulating ground motions from earthquakes, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 96-80-A.
5. Borcherdt, R. D. (1987). Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design (methodology and justification), Earthquake Spectra 10, 617-653.
6. Chapman, M. C., J. R Martin, G. Olgun, and B. Regmi (2004). Site response mapping in Charleston, South Carolina and vicinity (abstract), Seism. Res. Lett. 75, 441.
7. Cramer, C. H. (2002). Incorporating site geology into seismic hazard maps for the Mississippi embayment using a fully probabilistic method (abstract), Seism. Res. Lett. 73, 242.
8. Cramer, C. H. (2003). Site-specific seismic hazard analysis that is completely probabilistic, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 93, 1841-1846.
9. Cramer, C. H. (2005). Erratum: site-specific seismic hazard analysis that is completely probabilistic, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 95, 2026.
10. Cramer, C. H. (2006). An assessment of the impact of the 2003 EPRI ground-motion prediction models on the USGS national seismic-hazard maps, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 96, 1159-1169.
11. Cramer, C. H., J. S. Gomberg, E. S. Schweig, B. A. Waldron, and K. Tucker (2004). Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, seismic hazard maps, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 04-1294, 41 pp.
12. Cramer, C. H., J. S. Gomberg, E. S. Schweig, B. A. Waldron, and K. Tucker (2006). First USGS urban seismic hazard maps show effects of soils, Seism. Res. Lett. 77, 23-29.
13. Darragh, R. B., and A. F. Shakal (1991). The site response of two rock soil station pairs to strong and weak motion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 81, 1885-1899.
14. Dart, R. L., and H. S. Swolfs (1998). Contour mapping of relic structures in the Precambrian Basement of the Reelfoot Rift, North American Midcontinent, Tectonics 17, 235-249.
15. Department of Energy (DOE) (2002). Seismic Investigation Report for Siting of a Potential On-Site CERCLA Waste Disposal Facility at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky, Department of Energy, report DOE/OR/07-2038&D1.
16. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993). Guidelines for Determining Design Basis Ground Motions, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, TR-102293.
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1998). NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures: Part 1. Provisions, 1997 Ed., Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., FEMA 302/February 1998, p. 35.
18. Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Bernard, 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 Rept. 96-532.
19. Frankel, A. D., D. L. Carver, and R. A. Williams (2002a). Nonlinear and linear site-response and basin effects in Seattle for the M 6.8 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92, 2090-2109.
20. 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 (2002b). Documentation for the 2002 update of the national seismic hazard maps, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rept. 02-420.
21. Gomberg, J., B. Waldron, E. Schweig, H. Hwang, A. Webbers, R. Van Arsdale, K. Tucker, R. Williams, R. Street, P. Mayne, W. Stephenson, J. Odum, C. Cramer, R. Updike, S. Hutson, and M. Bradley (2003). Lithology and shear velocity in Memphis, Tennessee, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 93, 986-997.
22. Hartzell, S., L. F. Bonilla, and R. A. Williams (2004). Prediction of non-linear soil effects, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 94, 1609-1629.
23. Hashash, Y. M. A, and D. Park (2001). Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment, Eng. Geol. 62, 185-206.
24. Hashash, Y. M. A., and D. Park (2002). Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propogation in non-linear site response analysis, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 22, 611-624.
25. Herrmann, R. B., A. Akinci, and R. Ortega (1999). Will new hazard maps lower or raise the hazard?, Saint Louis University, Department of Earth Sciences, Internal Report.
26. Idriss, I. M., and J. I. Sun (1992). User's Manual for SHAKE91, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California.
27. Kausel, E., and D. Assimaki (2002). Seismic simulation of inelastic soils via frequency-dependent moduli and damping, J. Eng. Mech. 128, 34-47.
28. Mueller, C. (2000). Site Response in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plains and Mississippi Embayment, U.S. Geological Survey, Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
29. Park, D., and Y. M. A. Hashash (2005). Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi embayment. II. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects, Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 25, 145-156.
30. Romero, S., and G. J. Rix (2001). Regional variations in near surface shear wave velocity in the Greater Memphis area, Eng. Geol. 62, 137-158.
31. Silva, W., N. Gregor, and R. Darragh (2002). Development of regional hard rock attenuation relations for central and eastern North America, Pacific Engineering and Analysis, El Cerrito, California.
32. Soller, D. R., and P. H. Packard (1998). Digital representation of a map showing the thickness and character of quaternary sediments in the glaciated United States east of the Rocky Mountains, U.S. Geol. Surv. Digital Data Series DDS#38.
33. Toro, G. R., and W. J. Silva (2001). Scenario earthquakes for Saint Louis, MO, and Memphis, TN, and seismic hazard maps for the central United States region including the effect of site conditions, Risk Engineering, Inc., Boulder, Colorado, USGS Grant: Final Technical Report.
34. Tuttle, M. P., E. S. Schwig, J. D. Sims, R. H. Lafferty, L. W. Wolf, and M. L. Haynes (2002). The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 92, 2080-2089.
35. Van Arsdale, R. B., and R. K. Ten Brink (2000). Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic geology of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 90, 345-356.
36. Vucetic, M., and R. Dobry (1991). Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response, J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 117, 89-107.