Figure 1.3-1 Map showing the study area and test sites for the CEUS-SSC Project
Figure 2.3-1 CEUS-SSC Project organization
Figure 2.3-2 Lines of communication among the participants of the CEUS-SSC Project
Figure 2.4-1 Essential activities associated with SSHAC Level or project (Coppersmith et al., 2010)
Figure 3.2-1 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 3.2-2 Histogram of ML magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 1600-1899 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.2-3 Histogram of ML magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 1900-1929 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.2-4 Histogram of ML magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 1930-1979 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.2-5 Histogram of ML magnitudes from the GSC SHEEF catalog for the time period 1980-2007 and the region east of longitude –105° and south of latitude 53°
Figure 3.2-6 Histogram of ML magnitudes from the revised catalog with GSC as the source for the time period 1928-1979
Figure 3.2-7 Map of the CEUS-SSC 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 3.3-1 Illustration of equivalence of the M* and γ2 corrections to remove bias in earthquake recurrence relationships estimated from magnitudes with uncertainty, M^
Figure 3.3-2 Approximate moment magnitudes from Atkinson (2004b) compared to values of given in Table B-2 in Appendix for earthquakes in common
Figure 3.3-3 Approximate moment magnitudes from Boatwright (1994) compared to values of given in Table B-2 in Appendix for earthquakes in common
Figure 3.3-4 Approximate moment magnitudes from Moulis (2002) compared to values of given in Table B-2 in Appendix for earthquakes in common
Figure 3.3-5 Difference between MN reported by the GSC and MN or mLg(f) reported by the Weston Observatory catalog as function of time
Figure 3.3-6 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with body-wave (mb, mbLg, MN) and magnitudes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog for the Midcontinent region. Color codes indicate the source of the body-wave magnitudes
Figure 3.3-7 mb-M data for the earthquakes shown on Figure 3.3-6. Red curve shows the preferred offset fit = mb– 0.28
Figure 3.3-8 Residuals from offset fit shown on Figure 3.3-7 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.3-9 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with body wave ((mb, mbLg, MN)) and magnitudes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog for the northeastern portion of the study region. Color codes indicate the source of the body-wave magnitudes
Figure 3.3-10 mb-M data for the earthquakes shown on Figure 3.3-9. Red curve shows the preferred offset fit M=mb – 0.42
Figure 3.3-11 Residuals from offset fit shown on Figure 3.3-10 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.3-12 Residuals for GSC data from offset fit shown on Figure 3.3-10 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.3-13 Residuals for WES data from offset fit shown on Figure 3.3-10 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.3-14 Residuals for data from sources other than GSC or WES from offset fit shown on Figure 3.3-10 plotted against earthquake year
Figure 3.3-15 Difference between body-wave magnitudes reported by LDO and those by other sources as function of year
Figure 3.3-16 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with reported GSC body-wave 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 3.3-17 M-mb as function of time for mb data from the GSC shown on Figure 3.316
Figure 3.3-18 Plot of magnitude differences mmbLg – m(3 Hz) for the OKO catalog
Figure 3.3-19 Final mb-M data set. Vertical dashed lines indicate the magnitude range used to develop the scaling relationship. Diagonal line indicates one-to-one correlation
Figure 3.3-20 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with instrumental ML magnitudes
Figure 3.3-21 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with instrumental ML magnitudes and M magnitudes
Figure 3.3-22 ML-M data from the CEUS-SSC Project catalog and robust regression fit to the data
Figure 3.3-23 Relationship between MN and ML for the GSC data
Figure 3.3-24 Data from the northeastern portion of the study region with ML and MC or MD magnitude from catalog sources other than the GSC
Figure 3.3-25 Data from the northeastern portion of the study region with ML and magnitudes from sources other than the GSC
Figure 3.3-26 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with MS > magnitudes
Figure 3.3-27 MS-M data from the CEUS-SSC Project catalog and quadratic polynomial fit to the data
Figure 3.3-28 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with MC > 2.5 magnitudes
Figure 3.3-29 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with MC > 2.5 and magnitudes
Figure 3.3-30 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with MD > magnitudes
Figure 3.3-31 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with both MD and magnitudes
Figure 3.3-32 MC-M data from the CEUS-SSC Project catalog and linear regression fit to the data
Figure 3.3-33 Spatial distribution of earthquakes with reported MC and MD magnitudes
Figure 3.3-34 Comparison of MC and MD magnitudes for the LDO and WES catalogs
Figure 3.3-35 Comparison of MC with MD for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the OKO catalog
Figure 3.3-36 Comparison of MC with MD for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the CERI catalog
Figure 3.3-37 Comparison of MC with MD for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in the SCSN catalog
Figure 3.3-38 Comparison of MC with MD for at least one of the two magnitude types reported in other catalogs for earthquakes in the Midcontinent portion of the study region
Figure 3.3-39 Relationship between and MC, MD, or ML for the Midcontinent portion of the study region
Figure 3.3-40 Comparison of MC and MD magnitudes with ML magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105°W and 100°W
Figure 3.3-41 Comparison of mb magnitudes with ML magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105°W and 100°W
Figure 3.3-42 Comparison of mb magnitudes with MC and MD magnitudes for the region between longitudes 105°W and 100°W
Figure 3.3-43 Spatial distribution of earthquake with ln (FA) in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog
Figure 3.3-44 Catalog ln (FA)–M data and fitted model
Figure 3.3-45 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog with reported values of I0
Figure 3.3-46 I0 and data for earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog. Curves show locally weighted least-squares fit (Loess) to the data and the relationship published by Johnston (1996b)
Figure 3.3-47 I0 and mb data from the NCEER91 catalog. Plotted are the relationships between I0 and mb developed by EPRI (1988) (EPRI-SOG) and Sibol et al. (1987)
Figure 3.3-48 Categorical model fits of I0 as function and for earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog
Figure 3.3-49 Results from proportional odds logistic model showing the probability of individual intensity classes as function
Figure 3.3-50 Comparison of I0 and mb data from the CEUS-SSC Project catalog for those earthquakes with reported values of (M set) and the full catalog (full set). Locally weighted least-squares 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 3.3-51 Linear fits to the data from Figure 3.3-50 for I0 > IV
Figure 3.3-52 Comparison of I0 and mb data from the project, with mb adjusted for the difference in mb to scaling
Figure 3.3-53 Linear fits to the data from Figure 3.3-52 for I0 > IV
Figure 3.3-54 Composite I0–M data set used for assessment of I0 scaling relationship
Figure 3.3-55 Linear and inverse sigmoid models fit to the project data for I0 > IV
Figure 3.4-1 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 3.4-2 Identification of secondary (dependent) earthquakes inside the cluster region through Poisson thinning (from EPRI, 1988, Vol. 1)
Figure 3.4-3 Comparison of dependent event time and distance windows with results for individual clusters in the project catalog
Figure 3.5-1 Earthquake catalog and catalog completeness regions used in EPRI-SOG (EPRI, 1988)
Figure 3.5-2 CEUS-SSC Project earthquake catalog and modified catalog completeness regions
Figure 3.5-3 Plot of year versus location for the CEUS-SSC Project earthquake catalog. Red lines indicate the boundaries of the catalog completeness time periods
Figure 3.5-4 (1 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5-4 (2 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5-4 (3 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5-4 (4 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5-4 (5 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5-4 (6 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 3.5-4 (7 of 7) “Stepp” plots of earthquake recurrence rate as function of time for the individual catalog completeness regions shown on Figure 3.5-2
Figure 4.1.1-1 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 4.1.1-2 Example logic tree from the PVHA-U (SNL, 2008) project showing the treatment of alternative conceptual models in the logic tree
Figure 4.2.1-1 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 4.2.2-1 Example of logic tree for RLME sources. Shown is the tree for the Marianna RLME source
Figure 4.2.2-2 Map showing RLME sources, some with alternative source geometries (discussed in Section 6.1)
Figure 4.2.3-1 Logic tree for the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 4.2.3-2 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: Mesozoic-and-younger extension (MESE) zone and non-Mesozoic-and-younger zone (NMESE). In this figure the “narrow” MESE zone is shown
Figure 4.2.3-3 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: Mesozoic-and-younger extension (MESE) zone and non-Mesozoic-and-younger zone (NMESE). In this figure the “wide” MESE zone is shown
Figure 4.2.4-1(a) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 4.2.4-1(b) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 4.2.4-2 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 (PEZ-N)
Figure 4.2.4-3 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG), and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZ-N)
Figure 4.2.4-4 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 (PEZ-W)
Figure 4.2.4-5 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 (PEZ-W)
Figure 5.2.1-1 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 5.2.1-2 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 5.2.1-3 Median values of mmax-obs as function of maximum magnitude, mu, and sample size N, the number of earthquakes ≥M 4.5
Figure 5.2.1-4 Histograms of mmax-obs for extended and non-extended superdomain
Figure 5.2.1-5 Histograms of mmax-obs for Mesozoic-and-younger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and non-extended (NMESE) superdomain
Figure 5.2.1-6 Histograms of mmax-obs for Mesozoic-and-younger extended (MESE) superdomains and for older extended and non-extended (NMESE) superdomains using age of most recent extension for the age classification
Figure 5.2.1-7 Histograms of mmax-obs for Mesozoic-and-younger extended (MESE)superdomains and for older extended and non-extended (NMESE) superdomains using final sets indicated by asterisks in Tables 5.2.1-1 and 5.2.1-2
Figure 5.2.1-8 Histograms of mmax-obs for combined (COMB) superdomains using final sets indicated by asterisks in Table 5.2.1-3
Figure 5.2.1-9 Bias adjustments from mmax-obs to mu for the three sets of superdomain analysis results presented in Table 5.2.1-4
Figure 5.2.1-10 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 5.2.1-11 Comparison of the Kijko (2004) estimates of mu for given values of mmax-obs and N, the number of earthquakes of magnitude ≥ 4.5. Also shown is the median value of mmax-obs for given mu obtained using Equation 5.2.1-2
Figure 5.2.1-12 Behavior of the cumulative probability function for mu (Equation 5.2.1-9) for the K-S-B estimator and value of mmax-obs equal
Figure 5.2.1-13 Example Mmax distribution assessed for the Mesozoic-and-younger extended Mmax zone for the case where the zone is “narrow” (MESE-N). Distributions are shown for the Kijko approach and for the Bayesian approach using either the Mesozoic-and-younger 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 5.2.1-14 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 Mesozoic-and-younger 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 5.3.2-1 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 5.3.2-2 Likelihood function for b-value of an exponential magnitude distribution, for multiple values of the earthquake count N. The value of b is normalized by the maximum-likelihood estimate, which is derived from Equation 5.3.2-5
Figure 5.3.2-3 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 5.3.2-4 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 source-zone names
Figure 5.3.2-5 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-6 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln (rate) for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-7 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest
Figure 5.3.2-8 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for ln (rate) for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-9 Objectively determined values of the penalty function for beta for Case magnitude weights. Source zones are sorted from smallest to largest
Figure 5.3.2-10 Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-AM calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-11 Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-GC calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-12 Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-AM calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-13 Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-GC calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-14 Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-AM calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-15 Mean map of rate and b-value for ECC-GC calculated using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-16 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Manchester site to the strength of the prior
Figure 5.3.2-17 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Topeka site to the strength of the prior
Figure 5.3.2-18 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Manchester site to the choice of magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-19 Sensitivity of seismic hazard at Topeka site to the choice of magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-20 Sensitivity of seismic hazard from source NAP at Manchester site to the eight alternative recurrence maps for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-21 Sensitivity of seismic hazard from source MID-C–A at Topeka site to the eight alternative recurrence maps for Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-22 Mean recurrence-parameter map for the study region under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Sections 6.3 and 7.5 for all mean map
Figure 5.3.2-23 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 b-value (right) for the study region, under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix for all maps of uncertainty
Figure 5.3.2-24 First of eight equally likely realizations of the recurrence-parameter map for the study region under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix for maps of all realizations for all source-zone configuration
Figure 5.3.2-25 Eighth of eight equally likely realizations of the recurrence-parameter map for the study region under the highest weighted source-zone configuration in the master logic tree. See Appendix for maps of all realizations for all source-zone configuration
Figure 5.3.2-26 Map of geographic areas considered in the exploration of model results
Figure 5.3.2-27 Comparison of model-predicted 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 5.3.2-28 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-29 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the USGS Eastern Tennessee area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-30 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-31 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-32 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the central New England area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-33 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-34 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-35 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Nemaha Ridge area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-36 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-37 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-38 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the Miami, FL, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-39 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-40 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-41 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for the St. Paul, MN, area using Case magnitude weights
Figure 5.3.2-42 Recurrence parameters for the ECC-AM, MID-C–A, and NAP seismotectonic source zones and Case magnitude weights computed using an objective adaptive kernel approach
Figure 5.3.3-1 Likelihood distribution for rate parameter derived using Equation 5.3.3-1 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 5.3.3-2 Uncertainty distributions for the age of Charleston RLMEs
Figure 5.4.4-1 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC Project catalog. Solid lines indicate the boundaries of the seismotectonic source zones (narrow interpretation)
Figure 5.4.4-2 Spatial distribution of earthquakes in the CEUS-SSC 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 5.4.4-3 Distribution of better-quality focal depths in Mmax source zones
Figure 5.4.4-4 (1 of 3) Distribution of better-quality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones
Figure 5.4.4-4 (2 of 3) Distribution of better-quality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones
Figure 5.4.4-4 (3 of 3) Distribution of better-quality focal depths in seismotectonic source zones
Figure 6.1-1 Map showing the RLME sources characterized in the CEUS-SSC model. Detailed alternatives to the source geometries are shown on figures associated with each RLME discussion
Figure 6.1-2a Map showing the RLME sources and seismicity from the CEUS-SSC earthquake catalog. Some of the RLMEs occur in regions of elevated seismicity, but others do not
Figure 6.1-2b Close-up of the Wabash Valley and New Madrid/Reelfoot Rift RLME sources and seismicity from the CEUS-SSC earthquake catalog. Some of the RLMEs occur in regions of elevated seismicity, but others do not
Figure 6.1.1-1 Logic tree for the Charlevoix RLME source
Figure 6.1.1-2 Seismicity and tectonic features of the Charlevoix RLM
Figure 6.1.1-3 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the Charlevoix RLME
Figure 6.1.2-1a Logic tree for the Charleston RLME source
Figure 6.1.2-1b Logic tree for the Charleston RLME source
Figure 6.1.2-2 Charleston RLME source zones with (a) total magnetic anomaly and (b) residual isostatic gravity data
Figure 6.1.2-3 Postulated faults and tectonic features in the Charleston region
Figure 6.1.2-4 Postulated faults and tectonic features in the local Charleston area
Figure 6.1.2-5a Postulated faults and tectonic features in the Charleston region with Charleston RLME source zone
Figure 6.1.2-5b Postulated faults and tectonic features in the local Charleston area with Charleston RLME source zone
Figure 6.1.2-6 Schematic diagram showing contemporary, maximum, and minimum constraining age sample locations
Figure 6.1.2-7 Charleston space-time diagram of earthquakes interpreted from paleoliquefaction, contemporary-ages-only scenario
Figure 6.1.2-8 Charleston space-time diagram of earthquakes interpreted from paleoliquefaction, all-ages scenario
Figure 6.1.2-9 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake A, contemporary-ages-only scenario
Figure 6.1.2-10 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake B, contemporary-ages-only scenario
Figure 6.1.2-11 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake C, contemporary-ages-only scenario
Figure 6.1.2-12 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake D, contemporary-ages-only scenario
Figure 6.1.2-13 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake E, contemporary-ages-only scenario
Figure 6.1.2-14 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake A, all-ages scenario
Figure 6.1.2-15 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake B, all-ages scenario
Figure 6.1.2-16 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake C, all-ages scenario
Figure 6.1.2-17 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake D, all-ages scenario
Figure 6.1.2-18 Distribution of liquefaction from earthquake E, all-ages scenario
Figure 6.1.2-19 Uncertainty distributions for the age of Charleston RLMEs
Figure 6.1.3-1 Logic tree for the Cheraw fault RLME source
Figure 6.1.3-2 Map (c) and hillshade relief images (a, b, and d) showing location of mapped Cheraw fault, possible northeast extension, and paleoseismic locality
Figure 6.1.3-3 Cheraw RLME source relative to (a) total magnetic anomaly and (b) residual isostatic gravity data
Figure 6.1.4-1 Meers fault location
Figure 6.1.4-2 Logic tree for the Meers fault source
Figure 6.1.5-1 Logic tree for the NMFS RLME source
Figure 6.1.5-2 Map showing seismicity and major subsurface structural features in the New Madrid region
Figure 6.1.5-3 Map showing geomorphic and near-surface tectonic features in the New Madrid region and locations of NMFS RLME fault source
Figure 6.1.5-4 Rupture segments (a) and models (b) for the New Madrid faults from Johnston and Schweig (1996) and (c) the NMFS RLME fault source
Figure 6.1.5-5 Map of NMSZ showing estimated ages and measured sizes of liquefaction features
Figure 6.1.5-6 Earthquake chronology for NMSZ from dating and correlation of liquefaction features at sites (listed at top) along N-S transect across region
Figure 6.1.5-7 Probability distributions for the age of the AD 900 and AD 1450 NMFS RLMEs
Figure 6.1.5-8 Liquefaction fields for the 1811-1812, AD 1450, and AD 900 earthquakes as interpreted from spatial distribution and stratigraphy of sand blows
Figure 6.1.6-1a Logic tree for the Reelfoot Rift–Eastern Rift Margin South RLME source. Two options for the southern extent of the ERM-S are considered: ERM-SCC includes the Crittenden County fault zone, and ERM-SRP includes the postulated zone of deformation based on fault picks identified in high-resolution seismic profile along the Mississippi River
Figure 6.1.6-1b Logic tree for the Reelfoot Rift–Eastern Rift Margin North RLME source
Figure 6.1.6-2 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–Meeman-Shelby fault (JR-MSF; Odum et al., 2010)
Figure 6.1.6-3 Maps showing surficial geology and locations of subsurface investigations at (a) Meeman-Shelby Forest State Park locality and (b) Union City site (MSF and UC on Figure 6.1.6-2). Modified from Cox et al. (2006) and Odum et al. (2010)
Figure 6.1.6-4 Figure showing the timing of events along the eastern Reelfoot rift margin. Modified from Cox (2009)
Figure 6.1.7-1 Logic tree for the Reelfoot rift–Marianna RLME source
Figure 6.1.7-2 Map showing tectonic features and locations of paleoliquefaction sites in the vicinity of Marianna, Arkansas
Figure 6.1.7-3 Map showing liquefaction features near Daytona Beach lineament southwest of Marianna, Arkansas
Figure 6.1.8-1 Logic tree for the Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure 6.1.8-2 Map showing tectonic features, seismicity, and paleoseismic localities along the Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure 6.1.8-3 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 6.1.8-4 Space-time 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 6.1.9-1 Logic tree for the Wabash Valley RLME source
Figure 6.1.9-2 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 6.1.9-3 Wabash Valley RLME source relative to (a) magnetic anomaly, and (b) residual isostatic gravity data
Figure 6.2-1 Map showing the two Mmax zones for the “narrow” interpretation of the Mesozoic-and-younger extended zone
Figure 6.2-2 Map showing the two Mmax zones for the “wide” interpretation of the Mesozoic-and-younger extended zone
Figure 6.3.1-1 Distributions for max-obs for the Mmax distributed seismicity source zone
Figure 6.3.2-1 Mmax distributions for the study region treated as single Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.2-2 Mmax distributions for the MESE-N Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.2-3 Mmax distributions for the MESE-W Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.2-4 Mmax distributions for the NMESE-N Mmax zone
Figure 6.3.2-5 Mmax distributions for the NMESE-W Mmax zone
Figure 6.4.1-1 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-2 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-3 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-4 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-5 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-6 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, narrow geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-7 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, wide geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-8 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, wide geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.1-9 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended, wide geometry for MESE; Case magnitude weights
Figure 6.4.2-1 Comparison of model-predicted 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 6.4.2-2 Comparison of model-predicted 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 6.4.2-3 Comparison of model-predicted 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 6.4.2-4 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-N using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-5 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-N using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-6 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-N using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-7 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-W using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-8 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-W using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-9 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MESE-W using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-10 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-N using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-11 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-N using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-12 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-N using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-13 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-W using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-14 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-W using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 6.4.2-15 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NMESE-W using Case magnitude weights. The error bars represent the 16%–84% uncertainty associated with the data, computed using the Weichert (1980) procedure
Figure 7.1-1 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 7.1-2 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 (PEZ-N)
Figure 7.1-3 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 (PEZ-W)
Figure 7.1-4 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 7.1-5 Example of comparing seismotectonic zones with magnetic map developed as part of the CEUS-SSC Project
Figure 7.1-6 Example of comparing seismotectonic zones with isostatic gravity map developed as part of the CEUS-SSC Project 7-88
Figure 7.1-7 Map of seismicity based on the earthquake catalog developed for the CEUSSSC Project
Figure 7.1-8 Map showing example comparison of seismotectonic zones with seismicity. Note the non-uniform spatial distribution of seismicity within the zones. Spatial smoothing of a- and b-values accounts for these spatial variations
Figure 7.3-1 Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure 7.3.1-1 Significant earthquakes and paleoseismology of the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.1-2 Tectonic features of the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.1-3 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.2-1 Significant earthquakes and paleoseismic study area in the region of the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.2-2 Igneous rocks attributed to the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.2-3 Relocated hypocentral depths and crustal depth of the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.2-4 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.3-1 Seismicity of the NAP seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.3-2 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the NAP seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.4-1 Seismicity and tectonic features of the PEZ seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.4-2 Magnetic and gravity anomaly maps of the PEZ seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.5-1 Map showing seismicity, subsurface Paleozoic and basement structures,and postulated energy centers for prehistoric earthquakes
Figure 7.3.5-2 Map showing alternative boundaries for Precambrian (proto-Illinois basin) rift basin
Figure 7.3.5-3 Maps showing the IBEB source zone boundaries, seismicity, and prehistoric earthquake centers relative to (a) regional magnetic anomalies and (b) regional gravity anomalies
Figure 7.3.6-1 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 7.3.6-2 Maps showing geophysical anomalies in the Reelfoot rift region
Figure 7.3.7-1 Mesozoic basins within the ECC-AM zone
Figure 7.3.7-2 Seismicity within the ECC-AM and AHEX zone
Figure 7.3.7-3 Magnetic and gravity data for ECC-AM and AHEX zone
Figure 7.3.7-4 Estimated locations of the 1755 6.1 Cape Ann earthquake
Figure 7.3.8-1 Correlation of interpreted transitional crust with the East Coast magnetic anomaly
Figure 7.3.9-1 The ECC-GC seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.10-1 The GHEX seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.3.11-1 The OKA seismotectonic zone and regional gravity and magnetic data
Figure 7.3.12-1 Simplified tectonic map showing the distribution of principal basement faults, rifts, and sutures in the Midcontinent
Figure 7.3.12-2 Maps showing major basement structural features relative to (a) regional magnetic anomalies and (b) regional gravity anomalies
Figure 7.3.12-3 Seismic zones and maximum observed earthquakes in the MidC zone
Figure 7.3.12-4 Alternative MidC source zone configurations
Figure 7.4.1-1 (1 of 3) Distributions for mmax-obs for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones
Figure 7.4.1-1 (2 of 3) Distributions for mmax-obs for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones
Figure 7.4.1-1 (3 of 3) Distributions for mmax-obs for the seismotectonic distributed seismicity source zones
Figure 7.4.2-1 Mmax distributions for the AHEX seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-2 Mmax distributions for the ECC_AM seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-3 Mmax distributions for the ECC_GC seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-4 Mmax distributions for the GHEX seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-5 Mmax distributions for the GMH seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-6 Mmax distributions for the IBEB seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-7 Mmax distributions for the MidC-A seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-8 Mmax distributions for the MidC-B seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-9 Mmax distributions for the MidC-C seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-10 Mmax distributions for the MidC-D seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-11 Mmax distributions for the NAP seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-12 Mmax distributions for the OKA seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-13 Mmax distributions for the PEZ_N seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-14 Mmax distributions for the PEZ_W seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-15 Mmax distributions for the RR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-16 Mmax distributions for the RR_RCG seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.4.2-17 Mmax distributions for the SLR seismotectonic zone
Figure 7.5.1-1 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-2 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-3 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-4 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-5 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-6 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with narrow interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-7 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weight
Figure 7.5.1-8 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weight
Figure 7.5.1-9 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Midcontinent; Case magnitude weight
Figure 7.5.1-10 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-11 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.1-12 Mean map of rate and b-value for the study region under the source-zone configuration with wide interpretation of PEZ, Rough Creek graben associated with Reelfoot rift; Case magnitude weights
Figure 7.5.2-1 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity
Figure 7.5.2-2 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity
Figure 7.5.2-3 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for AHEX using Case magnitude weights. No earthquake counts are shown because this source zone contains no seismicity
Figure 7.5.2-4 Comparison of model-predicted 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 7.5.2-5 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-6 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_AM using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-7 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-8 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-9 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for ECC_GC using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4.
Figure 7.5.2-10 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4.
Figure 7.5.2-11 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-
Figure 7.5.2-12 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GHEX using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-13 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-14 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-15 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for GMH using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-16 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-17 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-18 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for IBEB using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-19 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-A using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4.
Figure 7.5.2-20 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-A using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-21 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-A using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-22 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–B using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-23 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC-B using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4.
Figure 7.5.2-24 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–B using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-25 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–C using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-26 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–C using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-27 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–C using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-28 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–D using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-29 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–D using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-30 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for MidC–D using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-31 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-32 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-33 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for NAP using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-34 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-35 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-36 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for OKA using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-37 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-38 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-39 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_N using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for PEZ_W using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for RR_RCG using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-4Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-50 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 7.5.2-51 Comparison of model-predicted earthquake counts for SLR using Case magnitude weights. Error bars as in Figure 7.5.2-4
Figure 8.1-1 Map showing the study area and seven test sites for the CEUS-SSC Project
Figure 8.1-2 Mean VS profile for shallow soil site
Figure 8.1-3 Mean VS profile for deep soil site
Figure 8.1-4 Mean amplification factors for shallow soil site
Figure 8.1-5 Mean amplification factors for deep soil site
Figure 8.2-1a Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-1b Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-1c Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-1d Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1e Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1f Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1g Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-1h Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-1i Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-1j Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-1k Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-1l Central Illinois PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-1m Central Illinois 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1n Central Illinois Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1o Central Illinois PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1p Central Illinois 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1q Central Illinois Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1r Central Illinois PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-1s Central Illinois 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.2-1t Central Illinois Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-1u Central Illinois PGA hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.2-1v Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-1w Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-1x Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source IBE
Figure 8.2-1y Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source IBE
Figure 8.2-1z Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.2-1aa Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.2-1bb Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case A
Figure 8.2-1cc Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case B
Figure 8.2-1dd Central Illinois 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case E
Figure 8.2-1ee Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case A
Figure 8.2-1ff Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case B
Figure 8.2-1gg Central Illinois Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source IBEB, Case E
Figure 8.2-2a Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-2b Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-2c Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-2d Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2e Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2f Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2g Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-2h Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-2i Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-2j Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-2k Chattanooga is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-2l Chattanooga PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-2m Chattanooga 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2n Chattanooga Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2o Chattanooga PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2p Chattanooga 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2q Chattanooga Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2r Chattanooga PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-2s Chattanooga 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.2-2t Chattanooga Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-2u Chattanooga PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-2v Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-2w Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-2x Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source PEZ-N
Figure 8.2-2y Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source PEZ-
Figure 8.2-2z Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.2-2aa Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.2-2bb Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case A
Figure 8.2-2cc Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case B
Figure 8.2-2dd Chattanooga 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case E
Figure 8.2-2ee Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case A
Figure 8.2-2ff Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case B
Figure 8.2-2gg Chattanooga Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source PEZ-N, Case E
Figure 8.2-3a Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-3b Houston Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-3c Houston PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-3d Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3e Houston Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3f Houston PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3g Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-3h Houston Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-3i Houston PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-3j Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-3k Houston is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-3l Houston PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-3m Houston 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3n Houston Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3o Houston PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3p Houston 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3q Houston Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3r Houston PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-3s Houston 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-3t Houston Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-3u Houston PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-3v Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.2-3w Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.2-3x Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source GHEX
Figure 8.2-3y Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source GHEX
Figure 8.2-3z Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-3aa Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-3bb Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case A
Figure 8.2-3cc Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case B
Figure 8.2-3dd Houston 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case E
Figure 8.2-3ee Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case A
Figure 8.2-3ff Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case B
Figure 8.2-3gg Houston Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source GHEX, Case E
Figure 8.2-4a Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-4b Jackson Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-4c Jackson PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-4d Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4e Jackson Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4f Jackson PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4g Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-4h Jackson Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-4i Jackson PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-4j Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source model
Figure 8.2-4k Jackson is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source model
Figure 8.2-4l Jackson PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source model
Figure 8.2-4m Jackson 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4n Jackson Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4o Jackson PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4p Jackson 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4q Jackson Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4r Jackson PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-4s Jackson 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.2-4t Jackson Hz hazard: comparison of three site condition
Figure 8.2-4u Jackson PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-4v Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.2-4w Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.2-4x Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-GC
Figure 8.2-4y Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-GC
Figure 8.2-4z Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-4aa Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-4bb Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case A
Figure 8.2-4cc Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case B
Figure 8.2-4dd Jackson 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, E
Figure 8.2-4ee Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case A
Figure 8.2-4ff Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC GC, Case B
Figure 8.2-4gg Jackson Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-GC, Case E
Figure 8.2-5a Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-5b Manchester Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-5c Manchester PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-5d Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5e Manchester Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5f Manchester PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5g Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-5h Manchester Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-5i Manchester PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-5j Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-5k Manchester is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-5l Manchester PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-5m Manchester 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5n Manchester Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5o Manchester PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5p Manchester 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5q Manchester Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5r Manchester PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-5s Manchester 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-5t Manchester Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-5u Manchester PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-5v Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-5w Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-5x Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source NA
Figure 8.2-5y Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source NA
Figure 8.2-5z Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.2-5aa Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing option
Figure 8.2-5bb Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case A
Figure 8.2-5cc Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case B
Figure 8.2-5dd Manchester 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case E
Figure 8.2-5ee Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case A
Figure 8.2-5ff Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case B
Figure 8.2-5gg Manchester Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source NAP, Case E
Figure 8.2-6a Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-6b Savannah Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-6c Savannah PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-6d Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6e Savannah Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6f Savannah PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6g Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-6h Savannah Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-6i Savannah PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-6j Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-6k Savannah is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-6l Savannah PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-6m Savannah 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6n Savannah Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6o Savannah PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6p Savannah 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6q Savannah Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6r Savannah PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-6s Savannah 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-6t Savannah Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-6u Savannah PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-6v Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-6w Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zone
Figure 8.2-6x Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-A
Figure 8.2-6y Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source ECC-A
Figure 8.2-6z Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-6aa Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-6bb Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case A
Figure 8.2-6cc Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case B
Figure 8.2-6dd Savannah 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case E
Figure 8.2-6ee Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case A
Figure 8.2-6ff Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case B
Figure 8.2-6gg Savannah Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source ECC-AM, Case E
Figure 8.2-7a Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-7b Topeka Hz rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-7c Topeka PGA rock hazard: mean and fractile total hazard
Figure 8.2-7d Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7e Topeka Hz rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7f Topeka PGA rock hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7g Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-7h Topeka Hz rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-7i Topeka PGA rock hazard: contribution by background source
Figure 8.2-7j Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-7k Topeka is Hz rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-7l Topeka PGA rock hazard: comparison of three source models
Figure 8.2-7m Topeka 10 Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7n Topeka Hz shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7o Topeka PGA shallow soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7p Topeka 10 Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7q Topeka Hz deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7r Topeka PGA deep soil hazard: total and contribution by RLME and background
Figure 8.2-7s Topeka 10 Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-7t Topeka Hz hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-7u Topeka PGA hazard: comparison of three site conditions
Figure 8.2-7v Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.2-7w Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to seismotectonic vs. Mmax zones
Figure 8.2-7x Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source MidC-A
Figure 8.2-7y Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to Mmax for source MidC-A
Figure 8.2-7z Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-7aa Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to smoothing options
Figure 8.2-7bb Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case A
Figure 8.2-7cc Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case B
Figure 8.2-7dd Topeka 10 Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case E
Figure 8.2-7ee Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case A
Figure 8.2-7ff Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case B
Figure 8.2-7gg Topeka Hz rock hazard: sensitivity to eight realizations for source MidC-A, Case E
Figure 9.3-1 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Savannah for the Charleston regional source
Figure 9.3-2 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Savannah for the Charleston regional source
Figure 9.3-3 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.3-4 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.3-5 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.3-6 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Manchester for the Charlevoix area source
Figure 9.3-7 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.3-8 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.3-9 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.3-10 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Topeka for the Cheraw fault source
Figure 9.3-11 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Commerce area source
Figure 9.3-12 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Commerce area source
Figure 9.3-13 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-N area source
Figure 9.3-14 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-N area source
Figure 9.3-15 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-S area source
Figure 9.3-16 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the ERM-S area source
Figure 9.3-17 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Marianna area source
Figure 9.3-18 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the Marianna area source
Figure 9.3-19 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.3-20 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Houston for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.3-21 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Topeka for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.3-22 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Houston for the Meers fault and OKA area sources
Figure 9.3-23 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.3-24 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.3-25 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the OKA area source
Figure 9.3-26 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.3-27 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the OKA area source
Figure 9.3-28 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the OKA area source
Figure 9.3-29 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.3-30 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.3-31 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Topeka for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.3-32 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Houston for the Meers fault source
Figure 9.3-33 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the NMFS fault sources
Figure 9.3-34 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Jackson for the NMFS fault sources
Figure 9.3-35 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.3-36 10 Hz sensitivity to seismogenic thickness at Central Illinois for the Wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.3-37 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Central Illinois for the wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.3-38 10 Hz sensitivity to rupture orientation (dip) at Central Illinois for the wabash Valley area source
Figure 9.3-39 Hz sensitivity to fault ruptures vs. point source for the Central Illinois site from the Mid C–A background source
Figure 9.3-40 10 Hz sensitivity to fault ruptures vs. point source for the Central Illinois site from the Mid C–A background source
Figure 9.4-1 COVMH from EPRI (1989) team sources vs. ground motion amplitude for seven test sites: PGA (top), 10 Hz SA (middle), and Hz SA (bottom)
Figure 9.4-2 COVMH 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 9-Hz SA (bottom)
Figure 9.4-3 COVMH from seismic source experts (PEGASOS project) vs. amplitude (top) and annual frequency (bottom)
Figure 9.4-4 COVK and COVMH from Charleston alternatives for PGA, plotted vs. PGA amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COVMH is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table 9.4-2 for other labels for curves
Figure 9.4-5 COVK and COVMH from Charleston alternatives for 10 Hz, plotted vs. 10 Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COVMH is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table 9.4-2 for other labels for curves
Figure 9.4-6 COVK and COVMH from Charleston alternatives for Hz, plotted vs. Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COVMH is the total COV of mean hazard; see Table 9.4-2 for other labels for curves
Figure 9.4-7 COVK and COVMH of total hazard from New Madrid for Hz, plotted vs. Hz amplitude (top) and hazard (bottom). COVMH is the total COV; see the text for other labels for curves
Figure 9.4-8 PGA hazard curves for Manchester test site
Figure 9.4-9 COVMH of PGA hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equation vs. PG
Figure 9.4-10 COV of PGA hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-11 COV of 10 Hz hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-12 COV of Hz hazard at Manchester site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-13 Hz spectral acceleration hazard curves for Manchester test site
Figure 9.4-14 COVMH of PGA hazard at Chattanooga from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-15 COVMH of 10 Hz hazard at Chattanooga from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-16 COVMH of Hz hazard at Chattanooga site from ground motion equation vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-17 PGA hazard curves for Savannah test site
Figure 9.4-18 COVMH of PGA hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-19 COVMH of 10 Hz hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-20 COVMH of Hz hazard at Savannah site from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-21 PGA hazard curves for Columbia site
Figure 9.4-22 COVMH of PGA hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-23 COVMH of 10 Hz hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-24 COVMH of Hz hazard at Columbia from ground motion equations vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-25 COVMH of PGA hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-26 COVMH of 10 Hz hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-27 COVMH of Hz hazard at Chattanooga (New Madrid only) vs. hazard
Figure 9.4-28 COVMH for PGA and Hz SA vs. ground motion amplitude resulting from alternative ground motion experts, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.4-29 COVMH for PGA and Hz SA vs. mean hazard from alternative ground motion experts, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.4-30 COVHAZ from ground motion equations vs. mean hazard for Chattanooga
Figure 9.4-31 COVMH from ground motion equations vs. mean hazard for Central Illinois
Figure 9.4-32 COVMH from soil experts vs. PGA and Hz SA, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.4-33 COVMH from soil experts vs. mean hazard for PGA and Hz SA, PEGASOS project
Figure 9.4-34 COVMH resulting from site response models vs. mean hazard for four sites, Hz (top) and 10 Hz (bottom)
Figure 11-1 Geologic time scale (Walker and Geissman, 2009)
Figure A-1 GEBCO elevation data for the CEUS study area (BODC, 2009)
Figure A-2 CEUS-SSC independent earthquake catalog
Figure A-3 Bedrock geology and extended crust after Kanter (1994)
Figure A-4 Crustal provinces after Rohs and Van Schmus (2007)
Figure A-5 Geologic map of North America
Figure A-6 Locations of geologic cross sections in the CEUS
Figure A-7 Precambrian crustal boundary after Van Schmus et al. (1996)
Figure A-8a Precambrian geology and features after Reed (1993)
Figure A-8b Explanation of Precambrian geology and features after Reed (1993)
Figure A-9 Precambrian provinces after Van Schmus et al. (2007)
Figure A-10 Precambrian units after Whitmeyer and Karlstrom (2007)
Figure A-11 Surficial materials in the conterminous United States after Soller et al. (2009)
Figure A-12 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 A-13 Top of basement P-wave seismic velocity in the USGS Crustal Database for North America
Figure A-14 Sediment thickness for North America and neighboring region
Figure A-15 Physiographic divisions of the conterminous United States after Fenneman and Johnson (1946)
Figure A-16 CEUS-SSC free-air gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-17 CEUS-SSC free-air gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-18 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with free-air gravity anomaly in marine areas. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-19 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with free-air gravity anomaly in marine areas. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-20 CEUS-SSC residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid. Shaded relief with 315degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-21 CEUS-SSC residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid Shaded relief with 180degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-22 CEUS-SSC regional isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A-23 CEUS-SSC first vertical derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A-24 CEUS-SSC first vertical derivative of Bouguer gravity anomaly grid with free-air anomaly in marine areas
Figure A-25 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid low pass filtered at 240 km
Figure A-26 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 240 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-27 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 240 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-28 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 120 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-29 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid high pass filtered at 120 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-30 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid upward continued to 40 km
Figure A-31 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly upward continued to 40 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-32 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly upward continued to 40 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-33 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid upward continued to 100 km
Figure A-34 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly anomaly upward continued to 100 km. Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-35 CEUS-SSC complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly grid minus the complete Bouguer (with marine free-air) gravity anomaly upward continued to 100 km. Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-36 CEUS-SSC horizontal derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A-37 CEUS-SSC horizontal derivative of first vertical derivative of residual isostatic gravity anomaly grid
Figure A-38 Corrected heat flow values from the SMU Geothermal Laboratory Regional Heat Flow Database (2008)
Figure A-39 CEUS-SSC total intensity magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat et al., 2009). Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-40 CEUS-SSC total intensity magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat et al., 2009). Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-41 CEUS-SSC differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009). Shaded relief with 315-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-42 CEUS-SSC differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009). Shaded relief with 180-degree azimuth and 30-degree inclination applied
Figure A-43 CEUS-SSC tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (degrees) (Ravat, 2009)
Figure A-44 CEUS-SSC horizontal derivative of tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (radians) (Ravat, 2009
Figure A-45 CEUS-SSC tilt derivative of differentially reduced to pole magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009)
Figure A-46 CEUS-SSC amplitude of analytic signal magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat, 2009)
Figure A-47 CEUS-SSC paleoliquefaction database
Figure A-48 CEUS-SSC compilation of seismic reflection and seismic refraction line
Figure A-49 USGS National Seismic hazard Maps (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A-50 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-51 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 A-53 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-54 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-55 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-56 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-57 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-58 USGS NSHM ground motion hazard at spectral acceleration of hz with10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008
Figure A-59 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A-60 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A-61 USGS NSHM peak ground acceleration with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (Petersen et al., 2008)
Figure A-62 Deformation of the North American Plate interior using GPS station data (Calais et al., 2006)
Figure A-63 Stress measurement update for the CEUS (Hurd, 2010)
Figure A-64 CEUS-SSC Project study area boundary
Figure A-65 USGS Quaternary fault and fold database (USGS, 2006)
Figure A-66 Quaternary features compilation for the CEUS (Crone and Wheeler, 2000; Wheeler, 2005; USGS, 2010)
Figure A-67 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Benson (1992)
Figure A-68 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Dennis et al. (2004)
Figure A-69 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Schlische (1993)
Figure A-70 CEUS Mesozoic rift basins after Withjack et al. (1998)
Figure A-71 RLME zones for the CEUS
Figure A-72 Mesozoic and non-Mesozoic zones for the CEUS, wide interpretation
Figure A-73 Mesozoic and non-Mesozoic zones for the CEUS, narrow interpretation
Figure A-74 CEUS seismotectonic zones model
Figure A-75 CEUS seismotectonic zones model
Figure A-76 CEUS seismotectonic zones mode
Figure A-77 CEUS seismotectonic zones mode
Figure E-1 Map of CEUS showing locations of regional data sets included in the CEUS-SSC Project paleoliquefaction database, including New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region; Marianna, Arkansas, area; St. Louis region; Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region; Arkansas-Louisiana-Mississippi 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 E-2 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 E-3 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 E-4 GIS map of New Madrid seismic zone and surrounding region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced 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 E-5 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 E-6 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 E-7 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 E-8 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 E-9 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 E-10 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 E-11 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 E-12 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 E-13 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 E-14 (A) Trench log and (B) ground-penetrating 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 Al-Shukri et al., 2009)
Figure E-15 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 E-16 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 1811-1812 earthquakes have been found in area. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E-17 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 E-18 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 E-19 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 E-20 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 E-21 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 E-22 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing seismicity and portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced 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 E-23 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing locations of liquefaction features, including several soft-sediment 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 E-24 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 E-25 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 E-26 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured thickness of sand blows at similar scale as used in Figure E-8 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 E-27 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 E-28 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figure E-10 for sand dikes in New Madrid seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E-29 GIS map of St. Louis, Missouri, region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figures E-42 and E-48 for sand dikes in the Newburyport and Charlevoix regions, respectively. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E-30 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 E-31 GIS map of Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features (digitized from McNulty and Obermeier, 1999). Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E-32 GIS map of Wabash Valley seismic zone and surrounding region showing measured widths of sand dikes at similar scale as that used in Figures E-10 and E11 for sand dikes in New Madrid seismic zone. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E-33 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 E-34 GIS map of Arkansas-Louisiana-Mississippi (ALM) region showing paleoliquefaction study locations. Map projection is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, North America Datum 1983
Figure E-35 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 E-36 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 E-37 Map of Atlantic coast region showing areas searched for paleoliquefaction features by Gelinas et al. (1998) and Amick, Gelinas, et al. (1990). Rectangles indicate 7.5-minute 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 E-38 Map of Central Virginia seismic zone region showing portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced liquefaction features by Obermeier and McNulty (1998)
Figure E-39 GIS map of Newburyport, Massachusetts, and surrounding region showing seismicity and portions of rivers searched for earthquake-induced 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 E-40 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 E-41 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 E-42 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 E-43 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 E-44 Map of Charlevoix seismic zone and adjacent St. Lawrence Lowlands showing mapped faults and portions of rivers along which reconnaissance and searches for earthquake-induced 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 E-45 GIS map of Charlevoix seismic zone and surrounding region showing locations of liquefaction features, including several soft-sediment 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 E-46 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 E-47 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 E-48 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 E-49 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 E-50 Photograph of moderate-sized 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 E-51 Tree trunks buried and killed by sand blows, vented during 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes (from Fuller, 1912)
Figure E-52 Large sand-blow crater that formed during 2002 7.7 Bhuj, India, earthquake. Backpack for scale. Photograph: M. Tuttle (2001)
Figure E-53 Sand-blow crater that formed during 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake. Photograph: J.K. Hillers (from USGS Photograph Library)
Figure E-54 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 1811-1812 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 E-55 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 E-56 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 E-57 (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 E-58 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 pre-event 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 E-59 (A) Photograph of earthquake-induced 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 E-60 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 E-61 Portion of dendrocalibration curve illustrating conversion of radiocarbon age to calibrated date in calendar years. In example, 2-sigma radiocarbon age of 2,280– 2,520 BP is converted to calibrated date of 770–380 BC (from Tuttle, 1999)
Figure E-62 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 E-63 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 1811-1812); 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 E-64 Diagram illustrating earthquake chronology for New Madrid seismic zone for past 2,000 years, similar to upper portion of diagram shown Figure E-63. As in Figure E-63, vertical bars represent age estimates individual sand blows, and horizontal bars represent event times. Analysis performed during CEUS-SSC 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 E-65 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 1811-181 (138 yr BP) New Madrid earthquake sequence shown for comparison (modified fro Tuttle, Schweig, et al., 2002)
Figure E-66 Liquefaction fields for 138 yr BP (AD 1811-1812); 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 similar-age 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 E-67 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 E-68 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 1811-1812 events or ~7.6 (modified from Tuttle, 2001)
Figure H-1-1 Region covered by the CEUS-SSC model
Figure H-2-1 Master logic tree for the CEUS-SSC model
Figure H-3-1 Logic tree for the Mmax zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure H-3-2 Mesozoic extended (MESE-W) and non-extended (NMESE-W) Mmax zones for the “wide” interpretation
Figure H-3-3 Mesozoic extended (MESE-N) and non-extended (NMESE-N) Mmax zones for the “narrow” interpretation
Figure H-4-1(a) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure H-4-1(b) Logic tree for the seismotectonic zones branch of the master logic tree
Figure H-4-2 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 (PEZ-N)
Figure H-4-3 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Graben is part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is narrow (PEZ-N)
Figure H-4-4 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 H-4-5 Seismotectonic zones shown in the case where the Rough Creek Grabenis part of the Reelfoot Rift (RR-RCG) and the Paleozoic Extended zone is wide(PEZ-W)
Figure H-5-1 Logic tree for the RLME source branch of the master logic tree
Figure H-5-2 Location of RLME sources in the CEUS-SSC model
Figure H-5.1-1 Logic tree for Charlevoix RLME source
Figure H-5.1-2 Charlevoix RLME source geometries
Figure H-5.2-1(a) Logic tree for Charleston RLME source
Figure H-5.2-1(b) Logic tree for Charleston RLME source
Figure H-5.2-2 Charleston RLME alternative source geometries
Figure H-5.3-1 Logic tree for Cheraw RLME source
Figure H-5.3-2 Cheraw RLME source geometries
Figure H-5.4-1 Logic tree for Meers RLME source
Figure H-5.4-2 Meers RLME source geometries
Figure H-5.5-1 Logic tree for NMFS RLME source
Figure H-5.5-2 New Madrid South (NMS) fault alternative RMLE source geometries:Blytheville Arch-Bootheel Lineament (BA-BL) and Blytheville Arch-Blytheville fault zone (BA-BFZ)
Figure H-5.5-3 New Madrid North (NMN) fault alternative RMLE source geometries: New Madrid North (NMN_S) and New Madrid North plus extension (NMN_L)
Figure H-5.5-4 Reelfoot Thrust (RFT) fault alternative RMLE source geometries:Reelfoot thrust (RFT_S) and Reelfoot thrust plus extensions (RFT_L)
Figure H-5.6-1 Logic tree for ERM-S RLME source
Figure H-5.6-2 Logic tree for ERM-N RLME source
Figure H-5.6-3 ERM-S RLME source geometries
Figure H-5.6-4 ERM-N RLME source geometry
Figure H-5.7-1 Logic tree for Marianna RLME source
Figure H-5.7-2 Marianna RLME source geometry
Figure H-5.8-1 Logic tree for Commerce Fault zone RLME source
Figure H-5.8-2 Commerce RLME source geometry
Figure H-5.9-1 Logic tree for Wabash Valley RLME source
Figure H-5.9-2 Wabash Valley RLME source geometry
s
Figure J-1 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-2 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-3 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-4 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-5 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-6 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-7 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-8 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-9 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-10 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-11 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-12 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
J-13 Figure J-13 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-14 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-15 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-16 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-17 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-18 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-19 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-20 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-21 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-22 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-23 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-24 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-25 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-26 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-27 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with no separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-28 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-29 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-30 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-31 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-32 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-33 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-34 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-35 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation,with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-36 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-37 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-38 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-39 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-40 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-41 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-42 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-43 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-44 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-45 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-46 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-47 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-48 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-49 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-50 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-51 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-52 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-53 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-54 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-55 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-56 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-57 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-58 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-59 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-60 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-61 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-62 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-63 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-64 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-65 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-66 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-67 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-68 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-69 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-70 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-71 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-72 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-73 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-74 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-75 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-76 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-77 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-78 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-79 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-80 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-81 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the Mmax zonation, with separation of Mesozoic extended and non-extended; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-82 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-83 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-84 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-85 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-86 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-87 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-88 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-89 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-90 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-91 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-92 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-93 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-94 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-95 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-96 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-97 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-98 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-99 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-100 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-101 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-102 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-103 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-104 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-105 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-106 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-107 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-108 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-109 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-110 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-111 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-112 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-113 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-114 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-115 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-116 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-117 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-118 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-119 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-120 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-121 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-122 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-123 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-124 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-125 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-126 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-127 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-128 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-129 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-130 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-131 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-132 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-133 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-134 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-135 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with narrow interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-136 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-137 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-138 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-139 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-140 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-141 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-142 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-143 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-144 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-145 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-146 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-147 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-148 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-149 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-150 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-151 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-152 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-153 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-154 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-155 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-156 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-157 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-158 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-159 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-160 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-161 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-162 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-163 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-164 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-165 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-166 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-167 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-168 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-169 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-170 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-171 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-172 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-173 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-174 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-175 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-176 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-177 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-178 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-179 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-180 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure J-181 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 1
Figure J-182 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 2
Figure J-183 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 3
Figure J-184 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 4
Figure J-185 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 5
Figure J-186 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 6
Figure J-187 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 7
Figure J-188 Map of the rate and b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights: Realization 8
Figure J-189 Map of the coefficient of variation of the rate and the standard deviation of the b-value for the study region under the seismotectonic zonation, with wide interpretation of PEZ; Case magnitude weights
Figure K-1 Comparison of relationships between number of reporting stations and moment magnitude presented in Johnston et al. (1994) and Johnston (1996b)
Figure K-2 Comparison of relationships between isoseismal areas and moment magnitude presented in Johnston et al. (1994) and Johnston (1996b)
|