Modeling Site Response in the Paducah, Kentucky Area

Abstract

Site conditions at 37 locations in Paducah, Kentucky, and the surrounding area were modeled using seismic refraction and reflection data to determine site response to a suite of Canadian strong-motion records and a hypothetical central United States earthquake. The seismic data, integrated with local borehole information, indicated that depths to bedrock range from less than 300 to more than 500 ft. The site-response analysis shows that the study area can be subdivided into three zones and the highest spectral amplifications are associated with thick alluvial and lake-bed deposits. The magnitude of spectral ratios ranges from less than five to more than 20 times, and dynamic site periods range from 0.7 to 1.5 sec. Although this study relates directly to the Paducah area, the methods and types of data collected are applicable for other Upper Mississippi Embayment communities for land-use planning and the design of critical structures.

Near-surface Vs Profiling in the New Madrid Seismic Zone Using Surface-wave Methods

“…The low, near-surface shear-wave velocities (Romero and Rix, 2001) amplify ground motions, and the large seismic velocity contrast between the unconsolidated sediments and Paleozoic basement (Chen et al, 1996;Dorman and Smalley, 1994) creates resonances within the embayment. There have been several studies aimed at predicting strong ground motions within the embayment (Boore and Joyner, 1991;EPRI, 1993;Harris et al, 1994;Hashash and Park, 2001;Romero, 2001;Toro and Silva, 2001;Toro et al, 1992). These and similar studies rely on accurate measurements and estimates of the near-surface shear-wave velocity profile, which is a critical parameter for site-response analyses.…”

Near-surface S-wave and P-wave seismic velocities of primary geological formations on the Piedmont and Atlantic Coastal Plain of South Carolina, USA

“…lengths resulted in a maximum survey depth range of about 30 to 80 m. Similar studies to characterize near-surface materials using surface seismic methods have been conducted by Campbell and Duke (1976), Harris et al (1994) and Williams et al (1994Williams et al ( , 1998Williams et al ( , 1999.…”

A technical note on seismic microzonation in the central United States

“…These communities could suffer additional damage due to site effects if large earthquakes, similar to the 1811-1812 New Madrid events (Nuttli 1973), occur. Efforts to characterize these effects by local geology, topography, hydrology, and other factors have been carried out in the central United States by federal, state, and local government agencies and private organizations (Harris et al 1994;Street et al 1997Street et al , 2001Bauer et al 2001;Broughton et al 2001;Rix and Romero-Hudock 2001;Cramer et al 2004Cramer et al , 2006. Different types and scales of hazard maps have been produced based on different methodologies and site-specific data.…”

“…Different methodologies have been applied to characterize and map amplification, liquefaction, and landslide hazards at different scales in the central United States (Harris et al 1994;Street et al 1997Street et al , 2001Bauer et al 2001;Broughton et al 2001;Rix and Romero-Hudock 2001;Cramer et al 2004Cramer et al , 2006. The purpose of this paper is to review the methodologies and limitations of these seismic microzonations carried out in the central United States.…”