B. Shi | Search USGS

USGS2008

The role of local soil-induced amplification in the 27 July 1980 northeastern Kentucky earthquake

Amplification of earthquake ground motions by near-surface soil deposits was believed to have occurred in Maysville, Kentucky, U.S.A. during the northeast Kentucky (Sharpsburg) earthquake (mb,Lg 5.3) of July 27, 1980. The city of Maysville, founded on approximately 30 m of Late Quaternary Ohio River flood plain alluvium, was 52 km from the epicenter, but experienced equivalent or higher Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) VII, compared with the epicentral area of the earthquake (i.e., MMI VI-VII). In this study, dynamic soil properties were obtained at 10 sites in Maysville using seismic P-wave and S-wave (SH-mode) refraction and reflection methods. Synthetically generated composite time histories and limited geotechnical information, along with the measured dynamic properties, were used to perform one-dimensional linear-equivalent amplification analyses. The results indicated the soils generated ground-motion amplification factors between 3.0 and 6.0 and at a frequency range between 2.0 and 5.0 Hz (0.2 to 0.5 s). The building damage in Maysville from the Sharpsburg earthquake was predominantly found in one- to three-story masonry structures. The estimated fundamental period for one- to three-story masonry buildings is approximately 0.11 to 0.26 s (3.8 to 9 Hz). These correlations suggest the elevated ground motion intensity in Maysville can be accounted for by near-surface soil-amplification effects and resonance of the ground motion by the buildings (i.e., double resonance).

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience↗

USGS2005

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

A recent paper in the September/October 2004 issue of Seismological Research Letters, “How Can Seismic Hazard around the New Madrid Seismic Zone Be Similar to That in California?”, by Arthur Frankel, concludes “I have demonstrated how probabilistic seismic hazard for New Madrid can be greater than that at San Francisco at low probabilities for PGA and similar at low probabilities for 5 Hz S.A. By low probabilities, I mean annual probabilities less than the reciprocal of the return time of the New Madrid characteristic source, that is, 1/500. This is a consequence of the higher ground motions, for PGA and 5 Hz S.A. (and other high-frequency measures), expected for large New Madrid characteristic earthquakes compared to San Andreas earthquakes with similar magnitudes.” His conclusion is confusing and not necessarily true. The fundamental differences in assessing seismic hazard between San Francisco and the New Madrid seismic zone are the uncertainties, especially the uncertainties associated with the ground-motion attenuation relationship. The larger ground-motion uncertainties in both the median and its standard deviation derive a higher hazard in the New Madrid area. The larger standard deviation, in particular, derives a higher hazard at low annual probabilities of exceedance. Moreover, Frankel also equated the hazard (annual probability of exceedance) defined in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) with the average recurrence rate defined in engineering risk analysis. There is a fundamental difference in defining risk between PSHA and the engineering risk analysis. The risks—10%, 5%, and 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years—defined in PSHA are not interchangeable with those defined in engineering risk analysis. Hence, though Frankel's stated intention was to improve understanding of PSHA among nonpractitioners, the paper may cause more confusion and problems for users of the U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps.

Seismological Research Letters↗