Figure 1.31 Map showing the study area and test sites for the CEUSSSC Project
Figure 2.31 CEUSSSC Project organization
Figure 2.32 Lines of communication among the participants of the CEUSSSC Project
Figure 2.41 Essential activities associated with SSHAC Level or project (Coppersmith et al., 2010)
Figure 3.21 Areal coverage of the primary earthquake catalog sources. Top: GSC catalog (Halchuk, 2009); bottom: USGS seismic hazard mapping catalog (Petersen et al., 2008). Red line denotes boundary of study region. Blue line denotes portion of each catalog used for development of project catalog
Figure 3.22 Histogram of M_{L} magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 16001899 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.23 Histogram of M_{L} magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 19001929 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.24 Histogram of M_{L} magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 19301979 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.25 Histogram of M_{L} magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 19802007 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.26 Histogram of ML magnitudes from the revised catalog with GSC as the source for the time period 19281979
Figure 3.27 Map of the CEUSSSC Project catalog showing earthquakes of uniform moment magnitude E[M] 2.9 and larger. Colored symbols denote earthquakes not contained in the USGS seismic hazard mapping catalog
Figure 3.31 Illustration of equivalence of the M* and γ^{2} corrections to remove bias in earthquake recurrence relationships estimated from magnitudes with uncertainty, M^
Figure 3.32 Approximate moment magnitudes from Atkinson (2004b) compared to values of given in Table B2 in Appendix for earthquakes in common
Figure 3.33 Approximate moment magnitudes from Boatwright (1994) compared to values of given in Table B2 in Appendix for earthquakes in common
Figure 3.34 Approximate moment magnitudes from Moulis (2002) compared to values of given in Table B2 in Appendix for earthquakes in common
Figure 3.35 Difference between MN reported by the GSC and MN or m_{Lg(f)} reported by the Weston Observatory catalog as function of time
Figure 3.36 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with bodywave (m_{b}, m_{bLg}, M_{N}) and magnitudes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog for the Midcontinent region. Color codes indicate the source of the bodywave magnitudes
Figure 3.37 m_{b}M data for the earthquakes shown on Figure 3.36. Red curve shows the preferred offset fit = m_{b}– 0.28
Figure 3.38 Residuals from offset fit shown on Figure 3.37 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.39 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with body wave ((m_{b}, m_{bLg}, M_{N})) and magnitudes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog for the northeastern portion of the study region. Color codes indicate the source of the bodywave magnitudes
Figure 3.310 m_{b}M data for the earthquakes shown on Figure 3.39. Red curve shows the preferred offset fit M=m_{b} – 0.42
Figure 3.311 Residuals from offset fit shown on Figure 3.310 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.312 Residuals for GSC data from offset fit shown on Figure 3.310 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.313 Residuals for WES data from offset fit shown on Figure 3.310 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.314 Residuals for data from sources other than GSC or WES from offset fit shown on Figure 3.310 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.315 Difference between bodywave magnitudes reported by LDO and those by other sources as function of year
Figure 3.316 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with reported GSC bodywave magnitudes. Red and blue symbols indicate earthquakes with both mb and magnitudes for mb > 3.5. Dashed line indicates the portion of the study region considered the “Northeast” for purposes of magnitude scaling
Figure 3.317 Mmb as function of time for mb data from the GSC shown on Figure 3.316
Figure 3.318 Plot of magnitude differences m_{mbLg} – m(3 Hz) for the OKO catalog
Figure 3.319 Final m_{b}M data set. Vertical dashed lines indicate the magnitude range used to develop the scaling relationship. Diagonal line indicates onetoone correlation
Figure 3.320 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with instrumental M_{L} magnitudes
Figure 3.321 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with instrumental M_{L} magnitudes and M magnitudes
Figure 3.322 M_{L}M data from the CEUSSSC Project catalog and robust regression fit to the data
Figure 3.323 Relationship between MN and ML for the GSC data
Figure 3.324 Data from the northeastern portion of the study region with M_{L} and M_{C} or M_{D} magnitude from catalog sources other than the GSC
Figure 3.325 Data from the northeastern portion of the study region with ML and magnitudes from sources other than the GSC
Figure 3.326 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with M_{S} > magnitudes
Figure 3.327 M_{S}M data from the CEUSSSC Project catalog and quadratic polynomial fit to the data
Figure 3.328 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with M_{C} > 2.5 magnitudes
Figure 3.329 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with M_{C} > 2.5 and magnitudes
Figure 3.330 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with M_{D} > magnitudes
Figure 3.331 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with both M_{D} and magnitudes
Figure 3.332 M_{C}M data from the CEUSSSC Project catalog and linear regression fit to the data
Figure 3.333 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with reported M_{C} and M_{D} magnitudes
Figure 3.334 Comparison of M_{C} and M_{D} magnitudes for the LDO and WES catalogs
Figure 3.335 Comparison of M_{C} with M_{D} for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the OKO catalog
Figure 3.336 Comparison of M_{C} with M_{D} for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the CERI catalog
Figure 3.337 Comparison of M_{C} with M_{D} for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the SCSN catalog
Figure 3.338 Comparison of M_{C} with M_{D} for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in other catalogs for earthquakes in the Midcontinent portion of the study region
Figure 3.339 Relationship between and M_{C}, M_{D}, or ML for the Midcontinent portion of the study region
Figure 3.340 Comparison of M_{C} and M_{D} magnitudes with ML magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105°W and 100°W
Figure 3.341 Comparison of mb magnitudes with ML magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105°W and 100°W
Figure 3.342 Comparison of mb magnitudes with M_{C} and M_{D} magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105°W and 100°W
Figure 3.343 Spatial distribution of earthquake with ln (FA) in the CEUSSSC Project catalog
Figure 3.344 Catalog ln (FA)–M data and fitted model
Figure 3.345 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with reported values of I_{0}
Figure 3.346 I_{0} and data for earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog. Curves show locally weighted leastsquares fit (Loess) to the data and the relationship published by Johnston (1996b)
Figure 3.347 I_{0} and mb data from the NCEER91 catalog. Plotted are the relationships between I_{0} and mb developed by EPRI (1988) (EPRISOG) and Sibol et al. (1987)
Figure 3.348 Categorical model fits of I_{0} as function and for earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog
Figure 3.349 Results from proportional odds logistic model showing the probability of individual intensity classes as function
Figure 3.350 Comparison of I_{0} and mb data from the CEUSSSC Project catalog for those earthquakes with reported values of (M set) and the full catalog (full set). Locally weighted leastsquares fits to the two data sets are shown along with the relationship use to develop the EPRI (1988) catalog and the Sibol et al. (1987)
relationship used in the NCEER91 catalog
Figure 3.351 Linear fits to the data from Figure 3.350 for I_{0} > IV
Figure 3.352 Comparison of I_{0} and mb data from the project, with mb adjusted for the difference in m_{b} to scaling
Figure 3.353 Linear fits to the data from Figure 3.352 for I_{0} > IV
Figure 3.354 Composite I_{0}–M data set used for assessment of I_{0} scaling relationship
Figure 3.355 Linear and inverse sigmoid models fit to the project data for I_{0} > IV
Figure 3.41 Illustration of process used to identify clusters of earthquakes (from EPRI, 1988, Vol. 1): (a) local and extended time and distance windows, (b) buffer window, and (c) contracted window
Figure 3.42 Identification of secondary (dependent) earthquakes inside the cluster region through Poisson thinning (from EPRI, 1988, Vol. 1)
Figure 3.43 Comparison of dependent event time and distance windows with results for individual clusters in the project catalog
Figure 3.51 Earthquake catalog and catalog completeness regions used in EPRISOG (EPRI, 1988)
Figure 3.52 CEUSSSC Project earthquake catalog and modified catalog completeness regions
Figure 3.53 Plot of year versus location for the CEUSSSC Project earthquake catalog. Red lines indicate the boundaries of the catalog completeness time periods
Figure 3.54 (1 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 3.54 (2 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 3.54 (3 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 3.54 (4 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 3.54 (5 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 3.54 (6 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 3.54 (7 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.52
Figure 4.1.11 Example logic tree from the PEGASOS project (NAGRA, 2004) showing the assessment of alternative conceptual models on the logic tree. Each node of the logic tree represents an assessment that is uncertain. Alternative branches represent the alternative models or parameter values, and the weights associated with each branch reflect the TI Team’s relative degree of belief that each branch is the correct model or parameter value
Figure 4.1.12 Example logic tree from the PVHAU (SNL, 2008) project showing the treatment of alternative conceptual models in the logic tree
Figure 4.2.11 Master logic tree showing the Mmax zones and seismotectonic zones alternative conceptual models for assessing the spatial and temporal characteristics of future earthquake sources in the CEUS
Figure 4.2.21 Example of logic tree for RLME sources. Shown is the tree for the Marianna RLME source
Figure 4.2.22 Map showing RLME sources, some with alternative source geometries (discussed in Section 6.1)
Figure 4.2.31 Logic tree for the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 4.2.32 Subdivision used in the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree. Either the region is considered one zone for purposes of Mmax or the region is divided into two zones as shown: Mesozoicandyounger extension (MESE) zone and nonMesozoicandyounger zone (NMESE). In this figure the “narrow” MESE zone is shown
Figure 4.2.33 Subdivision used in the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree. Either the region is considered one zone for purposes of Mmax or the region is divided into two zones as shown: Mesozoicandyounger extension (MESE) zone and nonMesozoicandyounger zone (NMESE). In this figure the “wide” MESE zone is shown
Figure 4.2.41(a) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 4.2.41(b) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 4.2.42 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR), and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZN)
Figure 4.2.43 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RRRCG), and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZN)
Figure 4.2.44 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR), and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZW)
Figure 4.2.45 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RRRCG), and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZW)
Figure 5.2.11 Diagrammatic illustration of the Bayesian Mmax approach showing (a) the prior distribution, (b) the likelihood function, and (c) the posterior distribution. The posterior distribution is represented by discrete distribution (d) for implementation in hazard analysis
Figure 5.2.12 Diagrammatic illustration of the Bayesian Mmax approach showing (a) the prior distribution, (b) the likelihood function, and (c) the posterior distribution. The posterior distribution is represented by discrete distribution (d) for implementation in hazard analysis
Figure 5.2.13 Median values of m_{maxobs } as function of maximum magnitude, m^{u}, and sample size N, the number of earthquakes ≥M 4.5
Figure 5.2.14 Histograms of m_{maxobs } for extended and nonextended superdomain
Figure 5.2.15 Histograms of m_{maxobs }for Mesozoicandyounger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and nonextended (NMESE) superdomain
Figure 5.2.16 Histograms of m_{maxobs }for Mesozoicandyounger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and nonextended (NMESE) superdomains using age of most recent extension for the age classification
Figure 5.2.17 Histograms of m_{maxobs }for Mesozoicandyounger extended (MESE)superdomains and for older extended and nonextended (NMESE) superdomains using final sets indicated by asterisks in Tables 5.2.11 and 5.2.12
Figure 5.2.18 Histograms of m_{maxobs } for combined (COMB) superdomains using final sets indicated by asterisks in Table 5.2.13
Figure 5.2.19 Bias adjustments from m_{maxobs }to m^{u} for the three sets of superdomain analysis results presented in Table 5.2.14
Figure 5.2.110 Results of simulations of estimates of Mmax using the Bayesian approach for earthquake catalogs ranging in size from to 1,000 earthquakes. True Mmax is set at the mean of the prior distribution
Figure 5.2.111 Comparison of the Kijko (2004) estimates of m^{u} for given values of m_{maxobs} and N, the number of earthquakes of magnitude ≥ 4.5. Also shown is the median value of m_{maxobs }for given m^{u} obtained using Equation 5.2.12
Figure 5.2.112 Behavior of the cumulative probability function for m^{u} (Equation 5.2.19) for the KSB estimator and value of m_{maxobs } equal
Figure 5.2.113 Example Mmax distribution assessed for the Mesozoicandyounger extended Mmax zone for the case where the zone is “narrow” (MESEN). Distributions are shown for the Kijko approach and for the Bayesian approach using either the Mesozoicandyounger extended prior distribution or the composite prior distribution. The final composite Mmax distribution, which incorporates the relative weights, is shown by the red probability distribution
Figure 5.2.114 Example Mmax distribution assessed for the Northern Appalachian seismotectonic zone (NAP). Distributions are shown for the Kijko approach and for the Bayesian approach using either the Mesozoicandyounger extended prior distribution or the composite prior distribution. Note that the Kijko results are shown in this example for illustration, even though they have zero weight. The final composite Mmax distribution, which incorporates the relative weights, is shown by the red probability distribution
Figure 5.3.21 Likelihood function for rate per unit area in Poisson process, for multiple values of the earthquake count N: (a) arithmetic scale, and (b) logarithmic scale used to illustrate decreasing COV as increases
Figure 5.3.22 Likelihood function for bvalue of an exponential magnitude distribution, for multiple values of the earthquake count N. The value of b is normalized by the maximumlikelihood estimate, which is derived from Equation 5.3.25
Figure 5.3.23 Histogram of magnitudes in the earthquake catalog used in this section. The minimum magnitude shown (M 2.9) is the lowest magnitude used in these recurrence calculations
Figure 5.3.24 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln (rate) for Case magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest. See list of abbreviations for full sourcezone names
Figure 5.3.25 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.26 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln (rate) for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.27 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest
Figure 5.3.28 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln (rate) for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.29 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest
Figure 5.3.210 Mean map of rate and bvalue for ECCAM calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.211 Mean map of rate and bvalue for ECCGC calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.212 Mean map of rate and bvalue for ECCAM calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.213 Mean map of rate and bvalue for ECCGC calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.214 Mean map of rate and bvalue for ECCAM calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.215 Mean map of rate and bvalue for ECCGC calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.216 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Manchester site to the strength of the prior
Figure 5.3.217 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Topeka site to the strength of the prior
Figure 5.3.218 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Manchester site to the choice of magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.219 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Topeka site to the choice of magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.220 Sensitivity of seismic hazard from source NAP at Manchester site to the eight alternative recurrence maps for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.221 Sensitivity of seismic hazard from source MIDC–A at Topeka site to the eight alternative recurrence maps for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.222 Mean recurrenceparameter map for the study region under the highest weighted sourcezone configuration in the master logic tree. See Sections 6.3 and 7.5 for all mean map
Figure 5.3.223 Map of the uncertainty in the estimated recurrence parameters, expressed as the coefficient of variation of the rate (left) and the standard deviation of the bvalue (right) for the study region, under the highest weighted sourcezone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix for all maps of uncertainty
Figure 5.3.224 First of eight equally likely realizations of the recurrenceparameter map for the study region under the highest weighted sourcezone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix for maps of all realizations for all sourcezone configuration
Figure 5.3.225 Eighth of eight equally likely realizations of the recurrenceparameter map for the study region under the highest weighted sourcezone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix for maps of all realizations for all sourcezone configuration
Figure 5.3.226 Map of geographic areas considered in the exploration of model results
Figure 5.3.227 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 5.3.228 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.229 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.230 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.231 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.232 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.233 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.234 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.235 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.236 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.237 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.238 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.239 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.240 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.241 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.242 Recurrence parameters for the ECCAM, MIDC–A, and NAP seismotectonic source zones and Case magnitude weights computed using an objective adaptive kernel approach
Figure 5.3.31 Likelihood distribution for rate parameter derived using Equation 5.3.31 for N=2 and T= 2,000 years. Top: normalized probability density function for λ. Bottom: resulting cumulative distribution function. Dashed lines show the cumulative probability levels for the Miller and Rice (1983) discrete approximation of continuous probability distribution
Figure 5.3.32 Uncertainty distributions for the age of Charleston RLMEs
Figure 5.4.41 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog. Solid lines indicate the boundaries of the seismotectonic source zones (narrow interpretation)
Figure 5.4.42 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUSSSC Project catalog with good quality depth determinations used for assessing crustal thickness. Solid lines indicate the boundaries of the seismotectonic source zones (narrow interpretation)
Figure 5.4.43 Distribution of betterquality focal depths in Mmax source zones
Figure 5.4.44 (1 of 3) Distribution of betterquality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones
Figure 5.4.44 (2 of 3) Distribution of betterquality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones
Figure 5.4.44 (3 of 3) Distribution of betterquality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones
Figure 6.11 Map showing the RLME sources characterized in the CEUSSSC model. Detailed alternatives to the source geometries are shown on figures associated with each RLME discussion
Figure 6.12a Map showing the RLME sources and seismicity from the CEUSSSC earthquake catalog. Some of the RLMEs occur in regions of elevated seismicity, but others do not
Figure 6.12b Closeup of the Wabash Valley and New Madrid/Reelfoot Rift RLME sources and seismicity from the CEUSSSC earthquake catalog. Some of the RLMEs occur in regions of elevated seismicity, but others do not
Figure 6.1.11 Logic tree for the Charlevoix RLME source
Figure 6.1.12 Seismicity and tectonic features of the Charlevoix RLM
Figure 6.1.13 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the Charlevoix RLME
Figure 6.1.21a Logic tree for the Charleston RLME source
Figure 6.1.21b Logic tree for the Charleston RLME source
Figure 6.1.22 Charleston RLME source zones with (a) total magnetic anomaly and (b) residual isostatic gravity data
Figure 6.1.23 Postulated faults and tectonic features in the Charleston region
Figure 6.1.24 Postulated faults and tectonic features in the local Charleston area
Figure 6.1.25a Postulated faults and tectonic features in the Charleston region with Charleston RLME source zone
Figure 6.1.25b Postulated faults and tectonic features in the local Charleston area with Charleston RLME source zone
Figure 6.1.26 Schematic diagram showing contemporary, maximum, and minimum constraining age sample locations
Figure 6.1.27 Charleston spacetime diagram of earthquakes interpreted from paleoliquefaction, contemporaryagesonly scenario
Figure 6.1.28 Charleston spacetime diagram of earthquakes interpreted from paleoliquefaction, allages scenario
Figure 6.1.29 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake A, contemporaryagesonly scenario
Figure 6.1.210 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake B, contemporaryagesonly scenario
Figure 6.1.211 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake C, contemporaryagesonly scenario
Figure 6.1.212 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake D, contemporaryagesonly scenario
Figure 6.1.213 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake E, contemporaryagesonly scenario
Figure 6.1.214 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake A, allages scenario
Figure 6.1.215 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake B, allages scenario
Figure 6.1.216 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake C, allages scenario
Figure 6.1.217 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake D, allages scenario
Figure 6.1.218 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake E, allages scenario
Figure 6.1.219 Uncertainty distributions for the age of Charleston RLMEs
Figure 6.1.31 Logic tree for the Cheraw fault RLME source
Figure 6.1.32 Map (c) and hillshade relief images (a, b, and d) showing location of mapped Cheraw fault, possible northeast extension, and paleoseismic locality
Figure 6.1.33 Cheraw RLME source relative to (a) total magnetic anomaly and (b) residual isostatic gravity data
Figure 6.1.41 Meers fault location
Figure 6.1.42 Logic tree for the Meers fault source
Figure 6.1.51 Logic tree for the NMFS RLME source
Figure 6.1.52 Map showing seismicity and major subsurface structural features in the New Madrid region
Figure 6.1.53 Map showing geomorphic and nearsurface tectonic features in the New Madrid region and locations of NMFS RLME fault source
Figure 6.1.54 Rupture segments (a) and models (b) for the New Madrid faults from Johnston and Schweig (1996) and (c) the NMFS RLME fault source
Figure 6.1.55 Map of NMSZ showing estimated ages and measured sizes of liquefaction features
Figure 6.1.56 Earthquake chronology for NMSZ from dating and correlation of liquefaction features at sites (listed at top) along NS transect across region
Figure 6.1.57 Probability distributions for the age of the AD 900 and AD 1450 NMFS RLMEs
Figure 6.1.58 Liquefaction fields for the 18111812, AD 1450, and AD 900 earthquakes as interpreted from spatial distribution and stratigraphy of sand blows
Figure 6.1.61a Logic tree for the Reelfoot Rift–Eastern Rift Margin South RLME source. Two options for the southern extent of the ERMS are considered: ERMSCC includes the Crittenden County fault zone, and ERMSRP includes the postulated zone of deformation based on fault picks identified in highresolution seismic profile along the Mississippi River
Figure 6.1.61b Logic tree for the Reelfoot Rift–Eastern Rift Margin North RLME source
Figure 6.1.62 Map showing structural features and paleoseismic investigation sites along the eastern margin of the Reelfoot rift. The inset map shows the locations of inferred basement faults that border and cross the Reelfoot rift (Csontos et al., 2008) and the inferred Joiner Ridge–MeemanShelby fault (JRMSF; Odum et al., 2010)
Figure 6.1.63 Maps showing surficial geology and locations of subsurface investigations at (a) MeemanShelby Forest State Park locality and (b) Union City site (MSF and UC on Figure 6.1.62). Modified from Cox et al. (2006) and Odum et al. (2010)
Figure 6.1.64 Figure showing the timing of events along the eastern Reelfoot rift margin. Modified from Cox (2009)
Figure 6.1.71 Logic tree for the Reelfoot rift–Marianna RLME source
Figure 6.1.72 Map showing tectonic features and locations of paleoliquefaction sites in the vicinity of Marianna, Arkansas
Figure 6.1.73 Map showing liquefaction features near Daytona Beach lineament southwest of Marianna, Arkansas
Figure 6.1.81 Logic tree for the Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure 6.1.82 Map showing tectonic features, seismicity, and paleoseismic localities along the Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure 6.1.83 Location of the Commerce geophysical lineament and Commerce Fault zone RLME source relative to the (a) regional magnetic anomaly map and (b) regional gravity anomaly map
Figure 6.1.84 Spacetime diagram showing constraints on the location and timing of late Pleistocene and Holocene paleoearthquakes that may be associated with the Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure 6.1.91 Logic tree for the Wabash Valley RLME source
Figure 6.1.92 Map showing seismicity, subsurface structural features, paleoearthquake energy centers, and postulated neotectonic deformation in the Wabash Valley region of southern Illinois and southern Indian
Figure 6.1.93 Wabash Valley RLME source relative to (a) magnetic anomaly, and (b) residual isostatic gravity data
Figure 6.21 Map showing the two Mmax zones for the “narrow” interpretation of the Mesozoicandyounger extended zone
Figure 6.22 Map showing the two Mmax zones for the “wide” interpretation of the Mesozoicandyounger extended zone
Figure 6.3.11 Distributions for maxobs for the Mmax distributed seismicity source zone
Figure 6.3.21 Mmax distributions for the study region treated as single Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.22 Mmax distributions for the MESEN Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.23 Mmax distributions for the MESEW Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.24 Mmax distributions for the NMESEN Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.25 Mmax distributions for the NMESEW Mmax zone
Figure 6.4.11 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.12 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.13 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.14 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.15 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.16 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.17 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended, wide geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.18 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended, wide geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.19 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended, wide geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.21 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for study region using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.22 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for study region using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.23 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for study region using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.24 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MESEN using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.25 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MESEN using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.26 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MESEN using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.27 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MESEW using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.28 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MESEW using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.29 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MESEW using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.210 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NMESEN using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.211 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NMESEN using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.212 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NMESEN using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.213 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NMESEW using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.214 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NMESEW using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.215 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NMESEW using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 7.11 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is not part of the Reelfoot rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is narrow (PEZN)
Figure 7.12 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is part of the Reelfoot rift (RR_RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is narrow (PEZN)
Figure 7.13 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is not part of the Reelfoot rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZW)
Figure 7.14 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek graben is part of the Reelfoot rift (RR_RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended Crust is wide (PEZW)
Figure 7.15 Example of comparing seismotectonic zones with magnetic map developed as part of the CEUSSSC Project
Figure 7.16 Example of comparing seismotectonic zones with isostatic gravity map developed as part of the CEUSSSC Project 788
Figure 7.17 Map of seismicity based on the earthquake catalog developed for the CEUSSSC Project
Figure 7.18 Map showing example comparison of seismotectonic zones with seismicity. Note the nonuniform spatial distribution of seismicity within the zones. Spatial smoothing of a and bvalues accounts for these spatial variations
Figure 7.31 Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 7.3.11 Significant earthquakes and paleoseismology of the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.12 Tectonic features of the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.13 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.21 Significant earthquakes and paleoseismic study area in the region of the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.22 Igneous rocks attributed to the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.23 Relocated hypocentral depths and crustal depth of the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.24 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.31 Seismicity of the NAP seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.32 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the NAP seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.41 Seismicity and tectonic features of the PEZ seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.42 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the PEZ seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.51 Map showing seismicity, subsurface Paleozoic and basement structures,and postulated energy centers for prehistoric earthquakes
Figure 7.3.52 Map showing alternative boundaries for Precambrian (protoIllinois basin) rift basin
Figure 7.3.53 Maps showing the IBEB source zone boundaries, seismicity, and prehistoric earthquake centers relative to (a) regional magnetic anomalies and (b) regional gravity anomalies
Figure 7.3.61 Map of seismicity and geomorphic features and faults showing evidence for Quaternary neotectonic deformation and reactivation. Inset map shows basement structures associated with the Reelfoot rift
Figure 7.3.62 Maps showing geophysical anomalies in the Reelfoot rift region
Figure 7.3.71 Mesozoic basins within the ECCAM zone
Figure 7.3.72 Seismicity within the ECCAM and AHEX zone
Figure 7.3.73 Magnetic and gravity data for ECCAM and AHEX zone
Figure 7.3.74 Estimated locations of the 1755 6.1 Cape Ann earthquake
Figure 7.3.81 Correlation of interpreted transitional crust with the East Coast magnetic anomaly
Figure 7.3.91 The ECCGC seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.101 The GHEX seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.111 The OKA seismotectonic zone and regional gravity and magnetic data
Figure 7.3.121 Simplified tectonic map showing the distribution of principal basement faults, rifts, and sutures in the Midcontinent
Figure 7.3.122 Maps showing major basement structural features relative to (a) regional magnetic anomalies and (b) regional gravity anomalies
Figure 7.3.123 Seismic zones and maximum observed earthquakes in the MidC zone
Figure 7.3.124 Alternative MidC source zone configurations
Figure 7.4.11 (1 of 3) Distributions for m_{maxobs } for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones
Figure 7.4.11 (2 of 3) Distributions for m_{maxobs } for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones
Figure 7.4.11 (3 of 3) Distributions for m_{maxobs } for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones
Figure 7.4.21 Mmax distributions for the AHEX seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.22 Mmax distributions for the ECC_AM seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.23 Mmax distributions for the ECC_GC seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.24 Mmax distributions for the GHEX seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.25 Mmax distributions for the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.26 Mmax distributions for the IBEB seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.27 Mmax distributions for the MidCA seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.28 Mmax distributions for the MidCB seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.29 Mmax distributions for the MidCC seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.210 Mmax distributions for the MidCD seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.211 Mmax distributions for the NAP seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.212 Mmax distributions for the OKA seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.213 Mmax distributions for the PEZ_N seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.214 Mmax distributions for the PEZ_W seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.215 Mmax distributions for the RR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.216 Mmax distributions for the RR_RCG seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.217 Mmax distributions for the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.5.11 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.12 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.13 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.14 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.15 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.16 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.17 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weight
Figure 7.5.18 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weight
Figure 7.5.19 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weight
Figure 7.5.110 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.111 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.112 Mean map of rate and bvalue for the study region under the sourcezone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.21 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity
Figure 7.5.22 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity
Figure 7.5.23 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity
Figure 7.5.24 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 7.5.25 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.26 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.27 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.28 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.29 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24.
Figure 7.5.210 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24.
Figure 7.5.211 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2
Figure 7.5.212 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.213 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.214 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.215 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.216 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.217 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.218 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.219 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidCA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24.
Figure 7.5.220 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidCA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.221 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidCA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.222 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–B using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.223 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidCB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24.
Figure 7.5.224 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–B using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.225 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–C using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.226 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–C using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.227 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–C using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.228 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–D using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.229 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–D using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.230 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for MidC–D using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.231 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.232 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.233 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.234 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.235 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.236 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.237 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.238 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.239 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for RR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for RR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for RR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.24Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.250 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 7.5.251 Comparison of modelpredicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.24
Figure 8.11 Map showing the study area and seven test sites for the CEUSSSC Project
Figure 8.12 Mean VS profile for shallow soil site
Figure 8.13 Mean VS profile for deep soil site
Figure 8.14 Mean amplification factors for shallow soil site
Figure 8.15 Mean amplification factors for deep soil site
Figure 8.21a Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.21b Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.21c Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.21d Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21e Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21f Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21g Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.21h Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.21i Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.21j Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.21k Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.21l Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.21m Central Illinois 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21n Central Illinois Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21o Central Illinois PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21p Central Illinois 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21q Central Illinois Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21r Central Illinois PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.21s Central Illinois 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.21t Central Illinois Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.21u Central Illinois PGA hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.21v Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.21w Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.21x Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source IBE
Figure 8.21y Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source IBE
Figure 8.21z Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.21aa Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.21bb Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case A
Figure 8.21cc Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case B
Figure 8.21dd Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case E
Figure 8.21ee Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case A
Figure 8.21ff Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case B
Figure 8.21gg Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case E
Figure 8.22a Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.22b Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.22c Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.22d Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22e Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22f Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22g Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.22h Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.22i Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.22j Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.22k Chattanooga is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.22l Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.22m Chattanooga 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22n Chattanooga Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22o Chattanooga PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22p Chattanooga 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22q Chattanooga Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22r Chattanooga PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.22s Chattanooga 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.22t Chattanooga Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.22u Chattanooga PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.22v Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.22w Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.22x Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source PEZN
Figure 8.22y Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source PEZ
Figure 8.22z Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.22aa Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.22bb Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZN, Case A
Figure 8.22cc Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZN, Case B
Figure 8.22dd Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZN, Case E
Figure 8.22ee Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZN, Case A
Figure 8.22ff Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZN, Case B
Figure 8.22gg Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZN, Case E
Figure 8.23a Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.23b Houston Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.23c Houston PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.23d Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23e Houston Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23f Houston PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23g Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.23h Houston Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.23i Houston PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.23j Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.23k Houston is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.23l Houston PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.23m Houston 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23n Houston Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23o Houston PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23p Houston 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23q Houston Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23r Houston PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.23s Houston 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.23t Houston Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.23u Houston PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.23v Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.23w Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.23x Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source GHEX
Figure 8.23y Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source GHEX
Figure 8.23z Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.23aa Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.23bb Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case A
Figure 8.23cc Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case B
Figure 8.23dd Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case E
Figure 8.23ee Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case A
Figure 8.23ff Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case B
Figure 8.23gg Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case E
Figure 8.24a Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.24b Jackson Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.24c Jackson PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.24d Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24e Jackson Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24f Jackson PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24g Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.24h Jackson Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.24i Jackson PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.24j Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source model
Figure 8.24k Jackson is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source model
Figure 8.24l Jackson PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source model
Figure 8.24m Jackson 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24n Jackson Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24o Jackson PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24p Jackson 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24q Jackson Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24r Jackson PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.24s Jackson 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.24t Jackson Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.24u Jackson PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.24v Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.24w Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.24x Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECCGC
Figure 8.24y Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECCGC
Figure 8.24z Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.24aa Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.24bb Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCGC, Case A
Figure 8.24cc Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCGC, Case B
Figure 8.24dd Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCGC, E
Figure 8.24ee Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCGC, Case A
Figure 8.24ff Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC GC, Case B
Figure 8.24gg Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCGC, Case E
Figure 8.25a Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.25b Manchester Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.25c Manchester PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.25d Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25e Manchester Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25f Manchester PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25g Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.25h Manchester Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.25i Manchester PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.25j Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.25k Manchester is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.25l Manchester PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.25m Manchester 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25n Manchester Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25o Manchester PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25p Manchester 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25q Manchester Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25r Manchester PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.25s Manchester 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.25t Manchester Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.25u Manchester PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.25v Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.25w Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.25x Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source NA
Figure 8.25y Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source NA
Figure 8.25z Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.25aa Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.25bb Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case A
Figure 8.25cc Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case B
Figure 8.25dd Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case E
Figure 8.25ee Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case A
Figure 8.25ff Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case B
Figure 8.25gg Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case E
Figure 8.26a Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.26b Savannah Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.26c Savannah PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.26d Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26e Savannah Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26f Savannah PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26g Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.26h Savannah Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.26i Savannah PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.26j Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.26k Savannah is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.26l Savannah PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.26m Savannah 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26n Savannah Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26o Savannah PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26p Savannah 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26q Savannah Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26r Savannah PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.26s Savannah 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.26t Savannah Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.26u Savannah PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.26v Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.26w Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.26x Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECCA
Figure 8.26y Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECCA
Figure 8.26z Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.26aa Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.26bb Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCAM, Case A
Figure 8.26cc Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCAM, Case B
Figure 8.26dd Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCAM, Case E
Figure 8.26ee Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCAM, Case A
Figure 8.26ff Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCAM, Case B
Figure 8.26gg Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECCAM, Case E
Figure 8.27a Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.27b Topeka Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.27c Topeka PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.27d Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27e Topeka Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27f Topeka PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27g Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.27h Topeka Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.27i Topeka PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.27j Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.27k Topeka is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.27l Topeka PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.27m Topeka 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27n Topeka Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27o Topeka PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27p Topeka 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27q Topeka Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27r Topeka PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.27s Topeka 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.27t Topeka Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.27u Topeka PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.27v Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.27w Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.27x Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source MidCA
Figure 8.27y Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source MidCA
Figure 8.27z Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.27aa Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.27bb Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidCA, Case A
Figure 8.27cc Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidCA, Case B
Figure 8.27dd Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidCA, Case E
Figure 8.27ee Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidCA, Case A
Figure 8.27ff Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidCA, Case B
Figure 8.27gg Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidCA, Case E
Figure 9.31 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Savannah for the Charleston regional source
Figure 9.32 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Savannah for the Charleston regional source
Figure 9.33 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.34 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.35 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.36 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.37 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.38 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.39 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.310 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.311 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Commerce area source
Figure 9.312 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Commerce area source
Figure 9.313 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERMN area source
Figure 9.314 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERMN area source
Figure 9.315 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERMS area source
Figure 9.316 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERMS area source
Figure 9.317 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Marianna area source
Figure 9.318 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Marianna area source
Figure 9.319 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.320 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Houston for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.321 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.322 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Houston for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.323 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.324 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.325 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the OKA area source
Figure 9.326 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.327 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the OKA area source
Figure 9.328 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.329 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.330 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.331 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.332 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.333 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the NMFS fault sources
Figure 9.334 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the NMFS fault sources
Figure 9.335 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.336 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.337 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Central Illinois for the wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.338 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Central Illinois for the wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.339 Hz sensitivity to fault ruptures vs. point source for the Central Illinois site from the Mid C–A background source
Figure 9.340 10 Hz sensitivity to fault ruptures vs. point source for the Central Illinois site from the Mid C–A background source
Figure 9.41 COV_{MH} from EPRI (1989) team sources vs. ground motion amplitude for seven test sites: PGA (top), 10 Hz SA (middle), and Hz SA (bottom)
Figure 9.42 COV_{MH} from EPRI (1989) team sources vs. seismic hazard (i.e., annual frequency of exceedance) for seven test sites: PGA (top), 10 Hz SA (middle), and 9Hz SA (bottom)
Figure 9.43 COV_{MH} from seismic source experts (PEGASOS project) vs. amplitude (top) and annual frequency (bottom)
Figure 9.44 COVK and COV_{MH} from Charleston alternatives for PGA, plotted vs. PGA amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV_{MH} is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table 9.42 for other labels for curves
Figure 9.45 COVK and COV_{MH} from Charleston alternatives for 10 Hz, plotted vs. 10 Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV_{MH} is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table 9.42 for other labels for curves
Figure 9.46 COVK and COV_{MH} from Charleston alternatives for Hz, plotted vs. Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV_{MH} is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table 9.42 for other labels for curves
Figure 9.47 COVK and COV_{MH} of total hazard from New Madrid for Hz, plotted vs. Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COV_{MH} is the total COV; see the text for other labels for curves
Figure 9.48 PGA hazard curves for Manchester test site
Figure 9.49 COV_{MH} of PGA hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equation vs. PG
Figure 9.410 COV of PGA hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.411 COV of 10 Hz hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.412 COV of Hz hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.413 Hz spectral acceleration hazard curves for Manchester test site
Figure 9.414 COV_{MH} of PGA hazard at Chattanooga from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.415 COV_{MH} of 10 Hz hazard at Chattanooga from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.416 COV_{MH} of Hz hazard at Chattanooga site from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.417 PGA hazard curves for Savannah test site
Figure 9.418 COV_{MH} of PGA hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.419 COV_{MH} of 10 Hz hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.420 COV_{MH} of Hz hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.421 PGA hazard curves for Columbia site
Figure 9.422 COV_{MH} of PGA hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.423 COV_{MH} of 10 Hz hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.424 COV_{MH} of Hz hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.425 COV_{MH} of PGA hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard
Figure 9.426 COV_{MH} of 10 Hz hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard
Figure 9.427 COV_{MH} of Hz hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard
Figure 9.428 COV_{MH} for PGA and Hz SA vs. ground motion amplitude resulting from alternative ground motion experts, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.429 COV_{MH} for PGA and Hz SA vs. mean hazard from alternative ground motion experts, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.430 COV_{HAZ} from ground motion equations vs. mean hazard for Chattanooga
Figure 9.431 COV_{MH} from ground motion equations vs. mean hazard for Central Illinois
Figure 9.432 COV_{MH} from soil experts vs. PGA and Hz SA, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.433 COV_{MH} from soil experts vs. mean hazard for PGA and Hz SA, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.434 COV_{MH} resulting from site response models vs. mean hazard for four sites, Hz (top) and 10 Hz (bottom)
Figure 111 Geologic time scale (Walker and Geissman, 2009)
Figure A1 GEBCO elevation data for the CEUS study area (BODC, 2009)
Figure A2 CEUSSSC independent earthquake catalog
Figure A3 Bedrock geology and extended crust after Kanter (1994)
Figure A4 Crustal provinces after Rohs and Van Schmus (2007)
Figure A5 Geologic map of North America
Figure A6 Locations of geologic cross sections in the CEUS
Figure A7 Precambrian crustal boundary after Van Schmus et al. (1996)
Figure A8a Precambrian geology and features after Reed (1993)
Figure A8b Explanation of Precambrian geology and features after Reed (1993)
Figure A9 Precambrian provinces after Van Schmus et al. (2007)
Figure A10 Precambrian units after Whitmeyer and Karlstrom (2007)
Figure A11 Surficial materials in the conterminous United States after Soller et al. (2009)
Figure A12 Basement and sediment thickness in the USGS Crustal Database for North America. Symbol size represents overlying sediment thickness (km); symbol color represents basement thickness (km)
Figure A13 Top of basement Pwave seismic velocity in the USGS Crustal Database for North America
Figure A14 Sediment thickness for North America and neighboring region
Figure A15 Physiographic divisions of the conterminous United States after Fenneman and Johnson (1946)
Figure A16 CEUSSSC freeair gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A17 CEUSSSC freeair gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A18 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with freeair gravity anomaly in marine areas. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A19 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with freeair gravity anomaly in marine areas. Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A20 CEUSSSC residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A21 CEUSSSC residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A22 CEUSSSC regional isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A23 CEUSSSC first vertical derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A24 CEUSSSC first vertical derivative of Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with freeair anomaly in marine areas
Figure A25 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid low pass filtered at 240 km
Figure A26 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 240 km. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A27 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 240 km. Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A28 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 120 km. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A29 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 120 km. Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A30 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid upward continued to 40 km
Figure A31 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly upward continued to 40 km. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A32 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly upward continued to 40 km. Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A33 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid upward continued to 100 km
Figure A34 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly anomaly upward continued to 100 km. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A35 CEUSSSC complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine freeair) gravity anomaly upward continued to 100 km. Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A36 CEUSSSC horizontal derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A37 CEUSSSC horizontal derivative of first vertical derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A38 Corrected heat flow values from the SMU Geothermal Laboratory Regional Heat Flow Database (2008)
Figure A39 CEUSSSC total intensity magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat et al., 2009). Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A40 CEUSSSC total intensity magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat et al., 2009). Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A41 CEUSSSC differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009). Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A42 CEUSSSC differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009). Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30degree inclination applied
Figure A43 CEUSSSC tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (degrees) (Ravat, 2009)
Figure A44 CEUSSSC horizontal derivative of tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (radians) (Ravat, 2009
Figure A45 CEUSSSC tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009)
Figure A46 CEUSSSC amplitude of analytic signal magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009)
Figure A47 CEUSSSC paleoliquefaction database
Figure A48 CEUSSSC compilation of seismic reflection and seismic refraction line
Figure A49 USGS National Seismic hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A50 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A51 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 5%probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008 SHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A53 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A54 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A55 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A56 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A57 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A58 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A59 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A60 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A61 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A62 Deformation of the North American Plate interior using GPS station data (Calais et al., 2006)
Figure A63 Stress measurement update for the CEUS (Hurd, 2010)
Figure A64 CEUSSSC Project study area boundary
Figure A65 USGS Quaternary fault and fold database (USGS, 2006)
Figure A66 Quaternary features compilation for the CEUS (Crone and Wheeler, 2000; Wheeler, 2005; USGS, 2010)
Figure A67 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Benson (1992)
Figure A68 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Dennis et al. (2004)
Figure A69 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Schlische (1993)
Figure A70 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Withjack et al. (1998)
Figure A71 RLME zones for the CEUS
Figure A72 Mesozoic and nonMesozoic zones for the CEUS, wide interpretation
Figure A73 Mesozoic and nonMesozoic zones for the CEUS, narrow interpretation
Figure A74 CEUS seismotectonic zones model
Figure A75 CEUS seismotectonic zones model
Figure A76 CEUS seismotectonic zones mode
Figure A77 CEUS seismotectonic zones mode
Figure E1 Map of CEUS showing locations of regional data sets included in the CEUSSSC Project paleoliquefaction database, including New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region; Marianna, Arkansas, area; St. Louis region; Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region; ArkansasLouisianaMississippi region; Charleston seismic zone; Atlantic Coastal region and the Central Virginia seismic zone; Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region; and Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region
Figure E2 Diagram illustrating size parameters of liquefaction features, including sand blow thickness, width, and length; dike width; and sill thickness, as well as some of the diagnostic characteristics of these features
Figure E3 Diagram illustrating sampling strategy for dating of liquefaction features as well as age data, such as 14C maximum and 14C minimum, used to calculate preferred age estimates and related uncertainties of liquefaction features
Figure E4 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquakeinduced liquefaction features by M. Tuttle, R. Van Arsdale, and J. Vaughn and collaborators (see explanation); information contributed for this report. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E5 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E6 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E7 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained are excluded. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E8 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured thickness of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E9 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured thickness of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E10 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E11 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E12 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region illustrating preferred age estimates and measured thickness of sand blows as well as preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes for sites where sand blows do not occur. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E13 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing seismicity and locations of paleoliquefaction features relative to mapped traces of Eastern Reelfoot rift margin fault, White River fault zone, Big Creek fault zone, Marianna escarpment, and Daytona Beach lineament. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E14 (A) Trench log and (B) groundpenetrating radar profile, showing vertical sections of sand blows and sand dikes at Daytona Beach SE2 site along the Daytona Beach lineament southwest of Marianna, Arkansas. Vertical scale of GPR profile is exaggerated (modified from AlShukri et al., 2009)
Figure E15 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing locations of liquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E16 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. To date, no liquefaction features thought to have formed during 18111812 earthquakes have been found in area. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E17 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained are excluded. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E18 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing measured thickness of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E19 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing preferred age estimates and measured thickness of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E20 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E21 GIS map of Marianna, Arkansas, area showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E22 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing seismicity and portions of rivers searched for earthquakeinduced liquefaction features by Tuttle and collaborators; information contributed for this report. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E23 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing locations of liquefaction features, including several softsediment deformation structures, for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E24 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E25 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained, including several that are prehistoric in age, are not shown. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E26 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured thickness of sand blows at similar scale as used in Figure E8 of sand blows in New Madrid seismic zone. Note that few sand blows have been found in St. Louis region. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E27 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing preferred age estimates and measured thickness of sand blows. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E28 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figure E10 for sand dikes in New Madrid seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E29 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figures E42 and E48 for sand dikes in the Newburyport and Charlevoix regions, respectively. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E30 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E31 GIS map of Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquakeinduced liquefaction features (digitized from McNulty and Obermeier, 1999). Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E32 GIS map of Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figures E10 and E11 for sand dikes in New Madrid seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E33 GIS map of Wabash Valley region of Indiana and Illinois showing preferred age estimates and paleoearthquake interpretation. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E34 GIS map of ArkansasLouisianaMississippi (ALM) region showing paleoliquefaction study locations. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E35 GIS map of Charleston, South Carolina, region showing locations of paleoliquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon dates. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E36 GIS map of Charleston, South Carolina, region showing locations of historical and prehistoric liquefaction features. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E37 Map of Atlantic coast region showing areas searched for paleoliquefaction features by Gelinas et al. (1998) and Amick, Gelinas, et al. (1990). Rectangles indicate 7.5minute quadrangles in which sites were investigated for presence of paleoliquefaction features. The number of sites investigated is shown within that quadrangle, if known. Orange and yellow indicate quadrangles in which paleoliquefaction features were recognized.
Figure E38 Map of Central Virginia seismic zone region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquakeinduced liquefaction features by Obermeier and McNulty (1998)
Figure E39 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing seismicity and portions of rivers searched for earthquakeinduced liquefaction features (Gelinas et al., 1998; Tuttle, 2007, 2009). Solid black line crossing map represents Massachusetts–New Hampshire border. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983.
Figure E40 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features for which there are and are not radiocarbon dates. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E41 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features that are thought to be historical or prehistoric in age or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E42 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E43 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E44 Map of Charlevoix seismic zone and adjacent St. Lawrence Lowlands showing mapped faults and portions of rivers along which reconnaissance and searches for earthquakeinduced liquefaction features were performed. Charlevoix seismic zone is defined by concentration of earthquakes and locations of historical earthquakes northeast of Quebec City. Devonian impact structure in vicinity of Charlevoix seismic zone is outlined by black dashed line. Taconic thrust faults are indicated by solid black lines with sawteeth on upper plate; Iapetan rift faults are shown by solid black lines with hachure marks on downthrown side (modified from Tuttle and Atkinson, 2010)
Figure E45 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features, including several softsediment deformation structures, for which there are and are not radiocarbon data. Note the location of 1988 5.9 Saguenay earthquake northwest of the Charlevoix seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E46 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features that are modern, historical, or prehistoric in age, or whose ages are poorly constrained. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E47 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates of liquefaction features; features whose ages are poorly constrained are excluded. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E48 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E49 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing preferred age estimates and measured widths of sand dikes. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 198
Figure E50 Photograph of moderatesized sand blow (12 long, wide, and 14 cm thick) that formed about 40 km from epicenter of 2001 7.7 Bhuj, India, earthquake (from Tuttle, Hengesh, et al., 2002), combined with schematic vertical section illustrating structural and stratigraphic relations of sand blow, sand dike, and source layer (modified from Sims and Garvin, 1995)
Figure E51 Tree trunks buried and killed by sand blows, vented during 18111812 New Madrid earthquakes (from Fuller, 1912)
Figure E52 Large sandblow crater that formed during 2002 7.7 Bhuj, India, earthquake. Backpack for scale. Photograph: M. Tuttle (2001)
Figure E53 Sandblow crater that formed during 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. Photograph: J.K. Hillers (from USGS Photograph Library)
Figure E54 Photograph of sand blow and related sand dikes exposed in trench wall and floor in New Madrid seismic zone. Buried soil horizon is displaced downward approximately across two dikes. Clasts of soil horizon occur within dikes and overlying sand blow. Degree of soil development above and within sand blow suggests that it is at least several hundred years old and formed prior to 18111812 New Madrid earthquakes. Organic sample (location marked by red flag) from crater fill will provide close minimum age constraint for formation of sand blow. For scale,each colored intervals on shovel handle represents 10 cm. Photograph: M. Tuttle
Figure E55 Sand dikes, ranging up to 35 cm wide, originate in pebbly sand layer and intrude overlying diamicton, These features were exposed in cutbank along Cahokia Creek about 25 km northeast of downtown St. Louis (from Tuttle, 2000)
Figure E56 Photograph of small diapirs of medium sand intruding base of overlying deposit of interbedded clayey silt and very fine sand, and clasts of clayey silt in underlying medium sand, observed along Ouelle River in Charlevoix seismic zone. Sand diapirs and clasts probably formed during basal erosion and foundering of clayey silt due to liquefaction of the underlying sandy deposit. Red portion of shovel handle represents 10 cm (modified from Tuttle and Atkinson, 2010)
Figures E57 (A) Load cast formed in laminated sediments of Van Norman Lake during 1952 Kern County, California, earthquake. Photograph: J. Sims (from Sims, 1975). (B) Load cast, pseudonodules, and related folds formed in laminated sediment exposed along Malbaie River in Charlevoix seismic zone. Sand dikes crosscutting these same laminated sediments occur at nearby site. For scale, each painted interval of the shovel handle represents 10 cm (modified from Tuttle and Atkinson, 2010)
Figure E58 Log of sand blow and uppermost portions of related sand dikes exposed in trench wall at Dodd site in New Madrid seismic zone. Sand dikes were also observed in opposite wall and trench floor. Sand blow buries preevent horizon, and subsequent horizon has developed in top of sand blow. Radiocarbon dating of samples collected above and below sand blow brackets its age between 490 and 660 yr BP. Artifact assemblage indicates that sand blow formed during late Mississippian (300–550 yr BP or AD 1400–1670) (modified from Tuttle, Collier, et al., 1999)
Figures E59 (A) Photograph of earthquakeinduced liquefaction features found in association with cultural horizon and pit exposed in trench wall near Blytheville, Arkansas, in New Madrid seismic zone. Photograph: M. Tuttle. (B) Trench log of features shown in (A). Sand dike formed in thick Native American occupation horizon containing artifacts of early Mississippian cultural period (950–1,150 yr BP). Cultural pit dug into top of sand dike contains artifacts and charcoal used to constrain minimum age of liquefaction features (modified from Tuttle and Schweig, 1995)
Figure E60 In situ tree trunks such as this one buried and killed by sand blow in New Madrid seismic zone offer opportunity to date paleoearthquakes to the year and season of occurrence. Photograph: M. Tuttle
Figure E61 Portion of dendrocalibration curve illustrating conversion of radiocarbon age to calibrated date in calendar years. In example, 2sigma radiocarbon age of 2,280– 2,520 BP is converted to calibrated date of 770–380 BC (from Tuttle, 1999)
Figure E62 Empirical relation developed between horizon thickness of sand blows and years of soil development in New Madrid region. Horizontal bars reflect uncertainties in age estimates of liquefaction features; diamonds mark midpoints of possible age ranges (from Tuttle et al., 2000)
Figure E63 Diagram illustrating earthquake chronology for New Madrid seismic zone for past 5,500 years based on dating and correlation of liquefaction features at sites (listed at top) across region from north to south. Vertical bars represent age estimates of individual sand blows, and horizontal bars represent event times of 138 yr BP (AD 18111812); 500 yr BP ± 150 yr; 1,050 yr BP ± 100 yr; and 4,300 yr BP ± 200 yr (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002; Tuttle et al., 2005)
Figure E64 Diagram illustrating earthquake chronology for New Madrid seismic zone for past 2,000 years, similar to upper portion of diagram shown Figure E63. As in Figure E63, vertical bars represent age estimates individual sand blows, and horizontal bars represent event times. Analysis performed during CEUSSSC Project derived two possible uncertainty ranges for timing of paleoearthquakes, illustrated by the darker and lighter portions the colored horizontal bars, respectively: 503 yr BP yr or 465 yr BP yr, and 1,110 yr BP 40 yr or 1055 95 yr (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, al., 2002)
Figure E65 Maps showing spatial distributions and size of sand blows and sand dikes attributed to 500 and 1,050 yr BP events Locations and sizes of liquefaction features that formed during AD 1811181 (138 yr BP) New Madrid earthquake sequence shown for comparison (modified fro Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002)
Figure E66 Liquefaction fields for 138 yr BP (AD 18111812); 500 yr BP (AD 1450); and 1,050 yr BP (AD 900) events as interpreted from spatial distribution and stratigraphy of sand blows (modified from Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002). Ellipses define areas where similarage sand blows have been mapped. Overlapping ellipses indicate areas where sand blows are composed of multiple units that formed during sequence of earthquakes. Dashed ellipse outlines area where historical sand blows are composed of four depositional units. Magnitudes of earthquakes in 500 yr BP and 1,050 yr BP are inferred from comparison with 1811 1812 liquefaction fields. Magnitude estimates of December (D), January (J), and February (F) main shocks and large aftershocks taken from several sources; rupture scenario from Johnston and Schweig (1996; modified from Tuttle, Schweig,et al., 2002)
Figure E67 Empirical relation between earthquake magnitude and epicentral distance to farthest known sand blows induced by instrumentally recorded earthquakes (modified from Castilla and Audemard, 2007)
Figure E68 Distances to farthest known liquefaction features indicate that 500 and 1,050 yr BP New Madrid events were at least of 6.7 and 6.9, respectively, when plotted on Ambraseys (1988) relation between earthquake magnitude and epicentral distance to farthest surface expression of liquefaction. Similarity in size distribution of historical and prehistoric sand blows, however, suggests that paleoearthquakes were comparable in magnitude to 18111812 events or ~7.6 (modified from Tuttle, 2001)
Figure H11 Region covered by the CEUSSSC model
Figure H21 Master logic tree for the CEUSSSC model
Figure H31 Logic tree for the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure H32 Mesozoic extended (MESEW) and nonextended (NMESEW) Mmax zones for the “wide” interpretation
Figure H33 Mesozoic extended (MESEN) and nonextended (NMESEN) Mmax zones for the “narrow” interpretation
Figure H41(a) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure H41(b) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure H42 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZN)
Figure H43 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RRRCG) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZN)
Figure H44 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is not part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is wide (PEZW)
Figure H45 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Grabenis part of the Reelfoot Rift (RRRCG) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is wide(PEZW)
Figure H51 Logic tree for the RLME source branch of the master logic tree
Figure H52 Location of RLME sources in the CEUSSSC model
Figure H5.11 Logic tree for Charlevoix RLME source
Figure H5.12 Charlevoix RLME source geometries
Figure H5.21(a) Logic tree for Charleston RLME source
Figure H5.21(b) Logic tree for Charleston RLME source
Figure H5.22 Charleston RLME alternative source geometries
Figure H5.31 Logic tree for Cheraw RLME source
Figure H5.32 Cheraw RLME source geometries
Figure H5.41 Logic tree for Meers RLME source
Figure H5.42 Meers RLME source geometries
Figure H5.51 Logic tree for NMFS RLME source
Figure H5.52 New Madrid South (NMS) fault alternative RMLE source geometries:Blytheville ArchBootheel Lineament (BABL) and Blytheville ArchBlytheville fault zone (BABFZ)
Figure H5.53 New Madrid North (NMN) fault alternative RMLE source geometries: New Madrid North (NMN_S) and New Madrid North plus extension (NMN_L)
Figure H5.54 Reelfoot Thrust (RFT) fault alternative RMLE source geometries:Reelfoot thrust (RFT_S) and Reelfoot thrust plus extensions (RFT_L)
Figure H5.61 Logic tree for ERMS RLME source
Figure H5.62 Logic tree for ERMN RLME source
Figure H5.63 ERMS RLME source geometries
Figure H5.64 ERMN RLME source geometry
Figure H5.71 Logic tree for Marianna RLME source
Figure H5.72 Marianna RLME source geometry
Figure H5.81 Logic tree for Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure H5.82 Commerce RLME source geometry
Figure H5.91 Logic tree for Wabash Valley RLME source
Figure H5.92 Wabash Valley RLME source geometry
s
Figure J1 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J2 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J3 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J4 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J5 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J6 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J7 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J8 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J9 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J10 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J11 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J12 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
J13 Figure J13 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J14 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J15 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J16 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J17 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J18 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J19 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J20 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J21 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J22 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J23 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J24 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J25 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J26 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J27 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J28 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J29 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J30 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J31 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J32 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J33 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J34 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J35 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation,with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J36 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J37 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J38 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J39 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J40 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J41 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J42 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J43 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J44 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J45 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J46 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J47 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J48 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J49 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J50 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J51 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J52 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J53 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J54 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J55 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J56 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J57 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J58 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J59 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J60 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J61 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J62 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J63 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J64 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J65 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J66 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J67 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J68 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J69 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J70 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J71 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J72 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J73 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J74 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J75 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J76 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J77 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J78 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J79 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J80 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J81 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and nonextended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J82 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J83 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J84 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J85 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J86 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J87 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J88 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J89 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J90 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J91 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J92 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J93 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J94 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J95 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J96 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J97 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J98 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J99 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J100 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J101 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J102 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J103 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J104 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J105 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J106 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J107 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J108 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J109 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J110 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J111 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J112 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J113 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J114 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J115 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J116 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J117 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J118 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J119 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J120 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J121 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J122 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J123 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J124 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J125 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J126 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J127 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J128 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J129 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J130 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J131 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J132 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J133 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J134 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J135 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J136 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J137 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J138 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J139 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J140 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J141 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J142 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J143 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J144 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J145 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J146 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J147 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J148 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J149 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J150 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J151 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J152 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J153 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J154 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J155 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J156 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J157 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J158 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J159 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J160 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J161 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J162 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J163 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J164 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J165 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J166 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J167 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J168 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J169 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J170 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J171 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J172 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J173 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J174 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J175 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J176 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J177 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J178 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J179 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J180 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J181 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J182 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J183 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J184 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J185 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J186 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J187 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J188 Map of the rate and bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J189 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the bvalue for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure K1 Comparison of relationships between number of reporting stations and moment magnitude presented in Johnston et al. (1994) and Johnston (1996b)
Figure K2 Comparison of relationships between isoseismal areas and moment magnitude presented in Johnston et al. (1994) and Johnston (1996b)
