Elements of infrastructure and seismic hazard in the central United States; database

1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.S. Rhea
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Central United States

Advances in Earthquake Loss Estimation and Application to Memphis, Tennessee

1997 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 739-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masanobu Shinozuka ◽  
Stephanie E. Chang ◽  
Ronald T. Eguchi ◽  
Daniel P. Abrams ◽  
Howard H. M. Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Loss Estimation ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Earthquake Loss Estimation ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Central United States ◽  
Earthquake Loss ◽  
Shelby County

In recent years, a number of research efforts conducted through the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) have focused on assessing seismic hazard and vulnerability in the Central United States. These multi-year, coordinated multi-investigator research efforts culminated in two loss estimation demonstration projects for Memphis (Shelby County), Tennessee, that evaluate losses associated with buildings and lifelines, respectively. While conducted independently, these two loss estimation studies share similar approaches, such as the emphasis on using detailed local data. Furthermore, the significance of the projects derives not only from the advances made by individual investigators, but also from the innovations developed in synthesizing the various studies into a coordinated loss estimation effort. This paper discusses the NCEER buildings and lifelines loss estimation projects with emphasis on methodological advances and insights from the loss estimation results.

Implementation of Seismic Hazard Mitigation in the Central United States: The Policy - Setting Role of the States

1992 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B. Olshansky
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
State Level ◽  
Seismic Zonation ◽  
Existing Building ◽  
Seismic Hazard Mitigation ◽  
Future Needs ◽  
Central United States

Abstract This research examines the potential for state-level seismic hazard mitigation policies in the seven member states of the Central United States Earthquake Consortium. The federal government requires mitigation to be a significant component of emergency preparedness activities, but such activities are only beginning to be implemented in the Central U.S. This paper describes current activities by the seven states and identifies future needs. The research found that awareness and preparedness activities have increased markedly over the past few years, five of the states now have state seismic building code requirements, several states have active seismic advisory councils, and some states are using innovative funding methods to finance seismic zonation mapping. The greatest future needs are to continue these efforts as well as initiate programs for existing building hazards and non-structural hazards. Programs should emphasize critical facilities.

Where was the 31 October 1895 Charleston, Missouri, Earthquake?

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
pp. 1479-1497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey S. Martin ◽  
Susan E. Hough
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Macroseismic Data ◽  
Seismic Zone ◽  
Stress Regime ◽  
Southern Illinois ◽  
Current Stress ◽  
Magnitude Range ◽  
Central United States ◽  
Western Limb

AbstractWe revisit the magnitude and location of the 31 October 1895 Charleston, Missouri, earthquake, which is widely regarded to be the most recent Mw 6 or greater earthquake in the central United States. Although a study by Bakun et al. (2003) concluded that this earthquake was located in southern Illinois, more than 100 km north of the traditionally inferred location near Charleston, Missouri, our analysis of exhaustively compiled macroseismic data supports the traditionally inferred location, with a preferred magnitude of Mw≈5.8 and a preferred magnitude range of 5.4–6.1. Our preferred magnitude is derived from comparisons with intensity distributions from the 1925 Mw 6.2 Charlevoix, the 1944 Mw 5.8 Massena, and the 1968 Mw 5.3 southern Illinois earthquakes, macroseismic data of which we also revisited in this study. Based on the distribution of liquefaction, reports of damage, and early aftershocks, we also explore possible rupture scenarios for the 1895 earthquake. Our preferred scenario involves unilateral rupture to the northeast on a (reactivated) northeast‐striking fault (or faults) coinciding with structures associated with the western limb of the Reelfoot rift, with an epicenter south‐southeast of Charleston, Missouri. Our results support the conclusion that within the Reelfoot rift, elevated seismic hazard is not restricted to the New Madrid seismic zone as conventionally defined but continues into the Charleston region in southeastern Missouri, where faults associated with the western edge of the Reelfoot rift appear favorably oriented for failure in the current stress regime.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document