Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brackman, T. B. Articles by Withers, M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Implementing ShakeMap for the New Madrid Seismic Zone

Mitch Withers

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

	INTRODUCTION

 
Immediately after a damaging earthquake, emergency managers rapidly seek answers to many important questions: Where is the worst and/or least damage? What equipment and personnel must be mobilized and to what extent? ShakeMap was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program to assist in answering these questions by producing near-real-time maps of ground motion and shaking intensity following significant earthquakes (Wald et al. 2004). To produce maps, ShakeMap mimics a dense array of seismometers by using an attenuation relationship to model peak ground motions at virtual or "phantom" stations between existing seismic stations. The modeled data are corrected for site amplification (Borcherdt 1994) and used to produce an instrumental intensity map, a hybrid Modified Mercalli map based on instrumental recording (Wald et al. 1999a). ShakeMap software, implemented predominantly in the Western United States (Northern and Southern California; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington), requires a degree of regional customization to ensure accuracy of the maps. We report here on the Eastern United States software customization required for implementation of ShakeMap in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ) and verification of the resulting maps.

The New Madrid region has a relatively high seismic hazard, yet very little data exist for large earthquakes. To estimate peak ground motions for magnitudes greater than 6.0, we qualitatively compared scenario ShakeMaps using different attenuation relationships and intensity regressions to a magnitude 7.4 scenario produced by the USGS Memphis hazard mapping group (Chris Cramer, personal communication 2005; see also http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/usgs/products/regional.html). For smaller events (M < 6) we used the 10 February 2005 magnitude 4.1 earthquake near Blytheville, Arkansas, as an example. The study location is in the Upper Mississippi Embayment of the Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) and is centered on the NMSZ (figure . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Center for Integrative Natural Science and Mathematics
Founders Hall 519
Northern Kentucky University
Nunn Drive
Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099
brackmant1@nku.edu
(T.B.B.)

Center for Earthquake Research and Information
University of Memphis
3980 Central Ave.
Memphis, Tennessee 38152
withers@ceri.memphis.edu
(M.W.)