Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Chris H. Cramer

Publications and source records attributed to Chris H. Cramer.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2024

Regional seismic velocity model for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains based on measured shear wave velocity, sediment thickness, and surface geology

The Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (CPs) are characterized by widespread accumulations of low-velocity sediments and sedimentary rock that overlay high-velocity bedrock. Geology and sediment thickness greatly influence seismic wave propagation, but current regional ground motion amplification and seismic hazard models include limited characterization of these site conditions. In this study, a new regional seismic velocity model for the CPs is created by integrating shear wave velocity (V S ) measurements, surface geology, and a sediment thickness model recently developed for the CPs. A reference rock V S of 3000 m/s has been assumed at the bottom of the sedimentary columns, which corresponds to the base of Cretaceous and Mesozoic sediments underlying the Atlantic CP and the Gulf CP, respectively. Measured V S profiles located throughout the CPs are sorted into five geologic groups of varying age, and median V S profiles are developed for each group by combining measured V S values within layer thicknesses defined by an assumed layering ratio. Statistical analyses are also conducted to test the appropriateness of the selected groups. A power law model with geology-informed coefficients is used to extend the median velocity models beyond the depths where measured data were available. The median V S profiles provide reasonable agreement with other generic models applicable for the region, but they also incorporate new information that enables more advanced characterizations of site response at regional scales and their effective incorporation into seismic hazard models and building codes. The proposed median velocity profiles can be assigned within a grid-based model of the CPs according to the spatial distribution of geologic units at the surface.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2023

Panel review of Ground Motion Characterization Model in 2023 NSHM

The 2023 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM; Petersen et al., 2023) has two major components – a seismic source characterization (SSC) model and a ground motion characterization (GMC) model. The US Geological Survey (USGS) established separate panels to review and provide input on these two models. Both panels are advisory, meaning that they provide input on technical issues for consideration by the USGS NSHM team, but they do not have decision making authority. Here, we report on the activities and recommendations of the Ground Motion Characterization Panel, made up of the authors of this review. Final modeling decisions are presented in separate USGS documents, including Petersen et al., (2023) and Moschetti et al., (2023). Where modeling decisions depart from our recommendations, the rationale is explained in those publications.

Report↗
USGS2016

St. Louis area earthquake hazards mapping project; seismic and liquefaction hazard maps

We present probabilistic and deterministic seismic and liquefaction hazard maps for the densely populated St. Louis metropolitan area that account for the expected effects of surficial geology on earthquake ground shaking. Hazard calculations were based on a map grid of 0.005°, or about every 500 m, and are thus higher in resolution than any earlier studies. To estimate ground motions at the surface of the model (e.g., site amplification), we used a new detailed near‐surface shear‐wave velocity model in a 1D equivalent‐linear response analysis. When compared with the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model, which uses a uniform firm‐rock‐site condition, the new probabilistic seismic‐hazard estimates document much more variability. Hazard levels for upland sites (consisting of bedrock and weathered bedrock overlain by loess‐covered till and drift deposits), show up to twice the ground‐motion values for peak ground acceleration (PGA), and similar ground‐motion values for 1.0 s spectral acceleration (SA). Probabilistic ground‐motion levels for lowland alluvial floodplain sites (generally the 20–40‐m‐thick modern Mississippi and Missouri River floodplain deposits overlying bedrock) exhibit up to twice the ground‐motion levels for PGA, and up to three times the ground‐motion levels for 1.0 s SA. Liquefaction probability curves were developed from available standard penetration test data assuming typical lowland and upland water table levels. A simplified liquefaction hazard map was created from the 5%‐in‐50‐year probabilistic ground‐shaking model. The liquefaction hazard ranges from low (<40% of area expected to liquefy) in the uplands to severe (>60% of area expected to liquefy) in the lowlands. Because many transportation routes, power and gas transmission lines, and population centers exist in or on the highly susceptible lowland alluvium, these areas in the St. Louis region are at significant potential risk from seismically induced liquefaction and associated ground deformation

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentuc↗
USGS2015

Ground motion-simulations of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes, central United States

We performed a suite of numerical simulations based on the 1811&ndash;1812 New Madrid seismic zone (NMSZ) earthquakes, which demonstrate the importance of 3D geologic structure and rupture directivity on the ground‐motion response throughout a broad region of the central United States (CUS) for these events. Our simulation set consists of 20 hypothetical earthquakes located along two faults associated with the current seismicity trends in the NMSZ. The hypothetical scenarios range in magnitude from M 7.0 to 7.7 and consider various epicenters, slip distributions, and rupture characterization approaches. The low‐frequency component of our simulations was computed deterministically up to a frequency of 1 Hz using a regional 3D seismic velocity model and was combined with higher‐frequency motions calculated for a 1D medium to generate broadband synthetics (0&ndash;40 Hz in some cases). For strike‐slip earthquakes located on the southwest&ndash;northeast‐striking NMSZ axial arm of seismicity, our simulations show 2&ndash;10 s period energy channeling along the trend of the Reelfoot rift and focusing strong shaking northeast toward Paducah, Kentucky, and Evansville, Indiana, and southwest toward Little Rock, Arkansas. These waveguide effects are further accentuated by rupture directivity such that an event with a western epicenter creates strong amplification toward the northeast, whereas an eastern epicenter creates strong amplification toward the southwest. These effects are not as prevalent for simulations on the reverse‐mechanism Reelfoot fault, and large peak ground velocities (>40&thinsp;&thinsp;cm/s) are typically confined to the near‐source region along the up‐dip projection of the fault. Nonetheless, these basin response and rupture directivity effects have a significant impact on the pattern and level of the estimated intensities, which leads to additional uncertainty not previously considered in magnitude estimates of the 1811&ndash;1812 sequence based only on historical reports. The region covered by our simulation domain encompasses a large portion of the CUS centered on the NMSZ, including several major metropolitan areas. Based on our simulations, more than eight million people living and working near the NMSZ would experience potentially damaging ground motion and modified Mercalli intensities ranging from VI to VIII if a repeat of the 1811&ndash;1812 earthquakes occurred today. Moreover, the duration of strong ground shaking in the greater Memphis metropolitan area could last from 30 to more than 60 s, depending on the magnitude and epicenter.

Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee↗
USGS2014

Why the New Madrid earthquakes are M 7–8 and the Charleston earthquake is ∼M 7

Estimates of magnitudes of large historical earthquakes are an essential input to and can seriously affect seismic‐hazard estimates. The earthquake‐intensity observations, modified Mercalli intensities (MMI), and assigned magnitudes M of the 1811&ndash;1812 New Madrid events have been reinterpreted several times in the last decade and have been a source of controversy in making seismic‐hazard estimates in the central United States. Observations support the concept that the larger the earthquake, the greater the maximum‐felt distance. For the same crustal attenuation and local soil conditions, magnitude should be the main influence on intensity values at large distances. We apply this concept by comparing the mean MMI at distances of 600&ndash;1200 km for each of the four largest New Madrid 1811&ndash;1812 earthquakes, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, the 1929 M 7.2 Grand Banks earthquake, and the 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake. We fit the intensity observations using the form MMI= A + C &times;dist&minus;0.8&times;log(dist) to better define intensity attenuation in eastern North America (ENA). The intensity attenuation in cratonic India differs from ENA and is corrected to ENA using both the above estimate and published intensity relations. We evaluate source, marine geophysical, Q , and stress‐drop information, as well as a 1929 Milne&ndash;Shaw record at Chicago to confirm that the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake occurred in ENA crust. Our direct comparison of mean intensities beyond 600 km suggests M 7.5, 7.3, 7.7, and 6.9 for the three New Madrid 1811&ndash;1812 mainshocks and the largest aftershock and M 7.0 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, with an estimated uncertainty of 0.3 units at the 95% confidence level (based on a Monte Carlo analysis). Our mean New Madrid and Charleston mainshock magnitudes are similar to those of Bakun and Hopper (2004) and are much higher than those of Hough and Page (2011) for New Madrid.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2014

Estimating earthquake magnitudes from reported intensities in the central and eastern United States

A new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is derived for the central and eastern United States and is used to estimate the magnitudes of the 1811&ndash;1812 New Madrid, Missouri, and 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes. This work improves upon previous derivations of intensity prediction equations by including additional intensity data, correcting magnitudes in the intensity datasets to moment magnitude, and accounting for the spatial and temporal population distributions. The new relation leads to moment magnitude estimates for the New Madrid earthquakes that are toward the lower range of previous studies. Depending on the intensity dataset to which the new macroseismic intensity prediction equation is applied, mean estimates for the 16 December 1811, 23 January 1812, and 7 February 1812 mainshocks, and 16 December 1811 dawn aftershock range from 6.9 to 7.1, 6.8 to 7.1, 7.3 to 7.6, and 6.3 to 6.5, respectively. One‐sigma uncertainties on any given estimate could be as high as 0.3&ndash;0.4 magnitude units. We also estimate a magnitude of 6.9&plusmn;0.3 for the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. We find a greater range of magnitude estimates when also accounting for multiple macroseismic intensity prediction equations. The inability to accurately and precisely ascertain magnitude from intensities increases the uncertainty of the central United States earthquake hazard by nearly a factor of two. Relative to the 2008 national seismic hazard maps, our range of possible 1811&ndash;1812 New Madrid earthquake magnitudes increases the coefficient of variation of seismic hazard estimates for Memphis, Tennessee, by 35%&ndash;42% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 2% probability in 50 years and by 27%&ndash;35% for ground motions expected to be exceeded with a 10% probability in 50 years.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2011

Liquefaction hazard for the region of Evansville, Indiana

We calculated liquefaction potential index for a grid of sites in the Evansville, Indiana area for two scenario earthquakes-a magnitude 7.7 in the New Madrid seismic zone and a M6.8 in the Wabash Valley seismic zone. For the latter event, peak ground accelerations range from 0.13 gravity to 0.81 gravity, sufficiently high to be of concern for liquefaction. Recently acquired cone-penetrometer test data at 58 sites were used to estimate the factor of safety against liquefaction and liquefaction potential index at each site. To extend the estimation of liquefaction hazard to a grid of sites in the area, the soil columns at these grid sites were divided into three categories, and for each category a sufficient number of cone-penetrometer test sites were available to characterize statistically each group's cone-penetrometer test tip resistance and sleeve friction. At each grid site, Monte Carlo sampling was used to generate values for these two parameters at 2-meter intervals for depths down to 20 meters or bedrock. The groundwater table at each grid site was likewise sampled from a mean value and group-dependent standard deviation. For each grid site, 25,000 realizations of the soil profile were generated and a probability distribution of liquefaction potential index values was obtained. Maps of liquefaction hazard for each scenario earthquake present (1) Mean liquefaction potential index at each site, and (2) Probabilities that liquefaction potential index values exceed 5 (threshold for expression of surface liquefaction) and 12 (threshold for lateral spreading). Values for the liquefaction potential index are high in the River alluvium group, where the soil profiles are predominantly sand, while values in the Lacustrine terrace group are lower, owing to the predominance of clay. Liquefaction potential index values in the Outwash terrace group are less consistent because the soil profiles contain highly variable sequences of silty sand, clayey sand, and sandy clay, justifying the use of the Monte Carlo procedure to capture the consequences of this complexity.

Evansville, Indiana↗
USGS2011

Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment including site effects for Evansville, Indiana, and the surrounding region

We provide a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the Evansville, Indiana region incorporating information from new surficial geologic mapping efforts on the part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Kentucky and Indiana State Geological Surveys, as well as information on the thickness and properties of near surface soils and their associated uncertainties. The subsurface information has been compiled to determine bedrock elevation and reference depth-dependent shear-wave velocity models for the different soil types. The probabilistic seismic hazard calculation applied here follows the method used for the 2008 U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps, with modifications to incorporate estimates of local site conditions and their uncertainties, in a completely probabilistic manner. The resulting analysis shows strong local variations of acceleration with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, particularly for 0.2-second (s) period spectral acceleration (SA), that are clearly correlated with variations in the thickness of unconsolidated soils above bedrock. These values are much greater than the USGS national seismic hazard map values, which assume B/C site conditions. When compared to the national maps with an assumed uniform site D class amplification factor applied, the high-resolution seismic hazard maps have higher amplitudes for peak ground acceleration and 0.2-s SA for most of the map region. However, deamplification relative to the D class national seismic hazard maps appears to play an important role within the limits of the ancient bedrock valley underlying Evansville where soils are thickest. For 1.0-s SA, the new high-resolution seismic hazard maps show levels consistent with D class site response within the limits of this ancient bedrock valley, but levels consistent with B/C site conditions outside.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Earthquake scenario ground motions for the urban area of Evansville, Indiana

The Wabash Valley seismic zone and the New Madrid seismic zone are the closest large earthquake source zones to Evansville, Indiana. The New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812, over 180 kilometers (km) from Evansville, produced ground motions with a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VII near Evansville, the highest intensity observed in Indiana. Liquefaction evidence has been documented less than 40 km away from Evansville resulting from two large earthquakes in the past 12,000 years in the Wabash Valley. Two earthquake scenarios are described in this paper that demonstrate the expected ground motions for a 33&times;42-km region around Evansville based on a repeat earthquake from each of these source regions. We perform a one-dimensional analysis for a grid of sites that takes into account the amplification or deamplification of ground motion in the unconsolidated soil layer using a new three-dimensional model of seismic velocity and bedrock depth. There are significant differences in the calculated amplification from that expected for National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program site class D conditions, with deamplification at many locations within the ancient bedrock valley underlying Evansville. Ground motions relative to the acceleration of gravity (g) in the Evansville area from a simulation of a magnitude (M) 7.7 New Madrid earthquake range from 0.15 to 0.25 g for peak ground acceleration, 0.14 to 0.7 g for 0.2-second (s) spectral acceleration, and 0.05 to 0.25 g for 1.0-s spectral acceleration. Ground motions from a M6.8 Wabash Valley earthquake centered 40 km northwest of the city produce ground motions that decrease with distance from 1.5 to 0.3 g for 0.2-s spectral acceleration when they reach the main part of Evansville, but then increase in amplitude from 0.3 to 0.6 g south of the city and the Ohio River. The densest urbanization in Evansville and Henderson, Ky., is within the area of preferential amplification at 1.0-s period for both scenarios, but the area experiences relatively less amplification than surrounding areas at 0.2 s, consistent with expected resonance periods based on the soil profiles.

Indiana↗
USGS2005

Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States

This publication consists of six map sheets (titles and text included in this document, below), geospatial datasets, and metadata. The geospatial datasets consist of ArcInfo export files for the seismic-hazard point and polygon data shown on the sheets. Probabilistic seismic-hazard maps were prepared for the conterminous United States portraying peak horizontal acceleration and horizontal spectral response acceleration for 0.2- and 1.0-second periods with probabilities of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years and 2 percent in 50 years. All of the maps were prepared by combining the hazard derived from spatially smoothed historic seismicity with the hazard from fault-specific sources. The acceleration values contoured are the random horizontal component. The reference site condition is firm rock, defined as having an average shear-wave velocity of 760 m/sec in the top 30 meters corresponding to the boundary between NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program) site classes B and C. This data set represents the results of calculations of hazard curves for a grid of points with a spacing of 0.05 degrees in latitude and longitude. The points were contoured to produce the final representation of the seismic hazard.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2000

Preliminary estimate of the amplification of possible earthquake ground motion at a site in Charleston County, South Carolina

We estimate site amplification at the location of a proposed bridge near Charleston, South Carolina. Model calculations indicate that amplification at periods of 1 s and longer is likely to be strongly influenced by the effects of a large contrast in shear-wave velocity at a depth of approximately 1 km (3,000 ft). On-site borehole data, regional geological and geophysical information, and data from a geologically similar setting near Memphis, Tennessee allowed us to estimate profiles of shear-wave velocity, shear-wave attenuation, and density from ground level down to metamorphic and igneous rocks that are approximately 3 km (9,500 ft) beneath the site. We modeled amplifications that would be produced at the surface and at the top and bottom of the Cooper Marl. Amplification estimates that are based only on the shallow shear-wave structure, for example in the upper 100 m (300 ft), can severely underestimate long-period amplification at the site. Additional modeling could help determine whether new data should be collected, to resolve remaining uncertainties about likely amplification.

Open-File Report↗