HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cramer, C. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

An Assessment of the Impact of the 2003 EPRI Ground-Motion Prediction Models on the USGS National Seismic-Hazard Maps

¹ U.S. Geological Survey
3876 Central Avenue
Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3050

Ground-motion attenuation relations have an important impact on seismic hazard analyses. Ground-motion modeling is particularly sensitive to assumptions about wave-propagation attenuation (crustal Q and geometrical spreading), as well as source and site conditions. Studies of path attenuation from earthquakes in eastern North America (ENA) provide insights into the appropriateness of specific attenuation relations. An Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2003, 2004) study combines published ENA ground-motion attenuation relations into four model forms: single-corner, double-corner, hybrid-empirical, and finite-fault. When substituted in the U.S. Geological Survey 2002 national seismic hazard maps for the five ENA relations originally used in those hazard calculations, the EPRI (2003) relations predict similar ground motions and hazard at short periods (<0.5 sec) and significantly lower ground motions (20%–50%) at longer periods (>0.5 sec), relative to the 2002 national maps. A major reason for this difference is due to the crustal seismic-wave attenuation model assumed in a few of the ENA relations combined into the EPRI (2003, 2004) models. Although appropriate differences in geometrical spreading models among ENA relations can also be significant, a few ENA relations have 1-Hz Q-values (Q₀) that are below the EPRI (1993) consensus range for Q₀ when coupled with a geometrical spreading of R^–0.5. The EPRI (2003, 2004) single-corner relation is strongly influenced by the inclusion of ENA relations with assumed Q₀ below the EPRI (1993) range, which explains much of the discrepancy in predictions at longer periods.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. H. Cramer Quantifying the Uncertainty in Site Amplification Modeling and Its Effects on Site-Specific Seismic-Hazard Estimation in the Upper Mississippi Embayment and Adjacent Areas Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2006; 96(6): 2008 - 2020. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]