Comment on "Survey of Historical Buildings Predating the 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquakes and Magnitude Estimation on Structural Fragility" by Vladimir G. Kochkin and Jay H. Crandell

Street, R.; Hoffman, David J.; Kiefer, John D.

doi:10.1785/gssrl.75.6.744

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the soil classification map based solely on geology by Bauer et al (2001) was used in a site-specific evaluation of ground motion amplification (Kochkin and Crandell 2004). This may not be appropriate (Street et al 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States

Wang

2008

J Earth Syst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microzonation is an effort to evaluate and map potential hazards found in an area, urban area in particular, that could be induced by strong ground shaking during an earthquake. These hazards include: ground motion amplification, liquefaction, and slope failure. The microzonation maps, depicting ground-motion amplification, liquefaction, and landslide potentials, can be produced if the ground motion on bedrock (input) and the site conditions are known. These maps, in combination with ground-motion hazard maps (on bedrock), can be used to develop a variety of hazard mitigation strategies such as seismic risk assessment, emergency response and preparedness, and land-use planning. However, these maps have certain limitations that result from the nature of regional mapping, data limitations, generalization, and computer modeling. These microzonations show that when strong ground shaking occurs, damage is more likely to occur, or be more severe, in the higher hazard areas. The zones shown on the hazard maps should not serve as a substitute for site-specific evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States

Wang

2008

J Earth Syst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We noted that the effect of various site responses on estimating magnitude based on MMIs has historically been ignored or oversimplified (e.g., uniform thickness of alluvium over infinitely large areas) by previous studies (Hough et al, 2000;Kochkin and Crandell, 2004;Street et al, 2004). Historic records suggest that most settlements of the early 1800s were situated along the major watercourses on lowland alluvium, where seismic site response would significantly elevate MMIs.…”

Section: New Madrid Earthquakesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…However, it is not true of all sites. For example, the site conditions in the urbanized boroughs of present-day St. Louis, Missouri, are not on Holocene alluvium, but on much stiffer residual soils blanketing the uplands (Street et al, 2004). Street et al (2004) pointed out that the magnitude of the 1811-1812 events would be underestimated by overestimating the site responses.…”

Section: New Madrid Earthquakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the site conditions in the urbanized boroughs of present-day St. Louis, Missouri, are not on Holocene alluvium, but on much stiffer residual soils blanketing the uplands (Street et al, 2004). Street et al (2004) pointed out that the magnitude of the 1811-1812 events would be underestimated by overestimating the site responses. In an attempt to understand the likely severity of the 1811-1812 events, site response should be estimated by properly accounting for local variances in depth, stiffness, and shear-wave velocities of the unconsolidated materials mantling each site.…”

Section: New Madrid Earthquakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seismic‐Hazard Map of Southeast Missouri and Likely Magnitude of the February 1812 New Madrid Earthquake

Chung

Rogers

2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The New Madrid seismic zone lies beneath the upper Mississippi Embayment, straddling the border between southeastern Missouri and northwestern Tennessee. In late 1811 and early 1812, it produced five earthquakes of magnitudes > 6:5, violently shaking the central and eastern United States (CEUS). Its magnitude and recurrence are of concern to today's central United States regions. By considering the effects of local geology, deterministic scenario maps (M w 7.3 and 7.7) were produced for ground motions intended to simulate the 7 February 1812 event (NM3), which was the largest felt. These maps include spatial estimates of peak ground acceleration and of 0.2 s and 1.0 s spectral acceleration (SA). Compared with the isoseismic map of modified Mercalli intensities (MMIs) in southeast Missouri, the MMIs converted from 0.2 s SA suggest that M w 7.7 is a plausible scenario for NM3. To better constrain its magnitude, other CEUS sites shaken during NM3 were also examined. Local site conditions were studied and evaluated before calculating the threshold magnitude for the reported MMIs. These results indicate that the magnitude of NM3 was at least M w 7.6, which validates our estimated size of M w 7.7 for southeastern Missouri.

show abstract

Comment on "Survey of Historical Buildings Predating the 1811-1812 New Madrid Earthquakes and Magnitude Estimation on Structural Fragility" by Vladimir G. Kochkin and Jay H. Crandell

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States

A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States

Seismic‐Hazard Map of Southeast Missouri and Likely Magnitude of the February 1812 New Madrid Earthquake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About