The United States Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps have historically been produced for a reference site condition of VS30 = 760 m/s. For other site conditions, site factors are used, which heretofore have been developed using ground motion data and simulations for shallow earthquakes in active tectonic regions. Research results from the Next Generation Attenuation–East (NGA-East) project, as well as previous and contemporaneous related research, demonstrate different levels of site amplification in central and eastern North America (CENA) as compared to active regions. We provide recommendations for modeling of ergodic site amplification in CENA based primarily on research results from the literature. The recommended model has three additive terms in natural logarithmic units. Two describe linear site amplification: an empirically constrained VS30-scaling term relative to a 760 m/s reference and a simulation-based term to adjust site amplification from the 760 m/s reference to the CENA reference of VS = 3000 m/s. The third term is a nonlinear model that is described in a companion document. All median model components are accompanied by epistemic uncertainty models.
AboyeSAAndrusRDRavichandranN, et al. (2015) Seismic site factors and design response spectra based on conditions in Charleston, South Carolina. Earthquake Spectra31: 723–744.
2.
Al NomanMNCramerCH (2015) Empirical ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. PEER report no. 2015/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
3.
AtkinsonGBooreDM (2006) Earthquake ground-motion prediction equations for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96: 2181–2205.
4.
BaturayMBStewartJP (2003) Uncertainty and bias in ground-motion estimates from ground response analyses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America93: 2025–2042.
5.
BeresnevIAAtkinsonGM (1997) Shear-wave velocity survey of seismographic sites in eastern Canada: Calibration of empirical regression method of estimating site response. Seismological Research Letters68: 981–987.
6.
BommerJJScherbaumFBungumH, et al. (2005) On the use of logic trees for ground-motion prediction equations in seismic hazard analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America95(2): 377–389.
7.
BooreDM (2003) Simulation of ground motion using the stochastic method. Pure and Applied Geophysics160: 635–675.
8.
BooreDM (2013) The uses and limitations of the square-root impedance method for computing site amplification. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America103: 2356–2368.
9.
BooreDM (2015) Adjusting ground-motion intensity measures to a reference site for which VS 30=3000 m/s. PEER report no. 2015/06. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
10.
BooreDMCampbellKW (2017) Adjusting central and eastern North America ground-motion intensity measures between sites with different reference-rock site conditions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 132–148.
11.
BooreDMJoynerWB (1997) Site amplifications for generic rock sites. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America87: 327–341.
12.
BooreDMThompsonEM (2015) Revisions to some parameters used in stochastic-method simulations of ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America105: 1029–1041.
13.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2018) Project 17 Committee (Chair Ronald O. Hamburger). Washington, DC: National Institute of Building Sciences, BSSC.
14.
CampbellKW (2009) Estimates of shear-wave Q and κ0 for unconsolidated and semiconsolidated sediments in eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 99, 2365–2392.
15.
DarraghRBAbrahamsonNASilvaWJ, et al. (2015) Development of hard rock ground-motion models for region 2 of central and eastern North America. PEER report no. 2015/04201504. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
16.
DobryRBorcherdtRDCrouseCB, et al. (2000) New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthquake Spectra16: 41–67.
17.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1993) Guidelines for determining design basis ground motions. Report no. EPRI TR-102293. Palo Alto, CA: Electrical Power Research Institute.
18.
FrankelADMuellerCSBarnhardT, et al. (1996) National seismic hazard maps: Documentation. USGS open-file report no. 96-532. Reston, VA: USGS.
19.
GouletCABozorgniaYAbrahamsonNA, et al. (2018) Central and eastern North America ground—motion characterization—NGA-East final report. PEER report 2018/08. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
20.
GouletCABozorgniaYKuehnN, et al. (2017) NGA-East ground-motion models for the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps. PEER report no. 2017/03. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
21.
GouletCAKishidaTAnchetaTD, et al. (2014) PEER NGA-East database. PEER report no. 2014/17201417. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
22.
GraizerV (2015) Ground-motion prediction equations for the central and eastern United States. PEER report no. 2015/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
23.
HarmonJAHashashYMAStewartJP, et al. (2019a) Site amplification functions for central and eastern North America—Part I: Simulation dataset development. Earthquake Spectra35: 787–814.
24.
HarmonJAHashashYMAStewartJP, et al. (2019b) Site amplification functions for central and eastern North America—Part II: Modular simulation-based models. Earthquake Spectra35: 815–847.
25.
HashashYMAParkD (2001) Non-linear, one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment. Engineering Geology62: 185–206.
26.
HashashYMAHarmonJAIlhanO, et al. (2017) Recommendations for ergodic nonlinear site amplification in central and eastern North America. PEER report 2017/05. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
27.
HashashYMAIlhanOHarmonJA, et al. (2020) Nonlinear site amplification model for ergodic seismic hazard analysis in central and eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 69–86.
28.
HashashYMAKottkeARStewartJP, et al. (2014) Reference rock site condition for central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104: 684–701.
29.
HashashYMATsaiCCPhillipsC, et al. (2008) Soil-column depth-dependent seismic site coefficients and hazard maps for the upper Mississippi Embayment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America98: 2004–2021.
30.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2016a) Applicability of the site fundamental frequency as a VS30 proxy for central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106: 653–664.
31.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2016b) Site-effects model for central and eastern North America based on peak frequency. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America106: 2197–2213.
32.
HassaniBAtkinsonGM (2018) Site-effects model for central and eastern North America based on peak frequency and average shear wave velocity. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 338–350.
33.
HollenbackJKuehnNGouletCA, et al. (2015) PEER NGA-East median ground-motion models. PEER report no. 2015/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California.
34.
HwangHHMHuoJ-R (1994) Generation of hazard-consistent fragility curves for seismic loss estimation studies. Technical report NCEER-94-O015. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo.
35.
HwangHHMLinHHuoJ-R (1997) Site coefficients for design of buildings in eastern United States. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering16: 29–40.
36.
KaklamanosJBradleyB (2018) Challenges in predicting seismic site response with 1D analyses: Conclusions from 114 KiK-net vertical seismometer arrays. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America108: 2816–2838.
37.
KwokAOStewartJP (2006) Evaluation of the effectiveness of theoretical 1D amplification factors for earthquake ground-motion prediction. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America96: 1422–1436.
38.
LinHHwangHHuoJ-R (1996) A study on site coefficients for new site categories specified in the NEHRP Provisions. Technical report, Center for Earthquake Research and Information, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
39.
McGuireRK (2004) Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis (EERI Monograph MNO-10). Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, p. 187.
40.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2015a) NGA-East: Median ground-motion models for central and eastern North America. PEER report no. 2015/04. Berkeley, CA: PEER, University of California.
41.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2015b) NGA-East: Adjustments to median ground-motion models for central and eastern North America. PEER report 2015/08. Berkeley, CA: PEER.
42.
ParkDHashashYMA (2005a) Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi Embayment. I. Estimation of dynamic properties. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering25: 133–144.
43.
ParkDHashashYMA (2005b) Evaluation of seismic site factors in the Mississippi Embayment. II. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis with nonlinear site effects. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering25: 145–156.
44.
ParkerGAHarmonJAStewartJP, et al. (2017) Proxy-based VS30 estimation in central and eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 117–131.
45.
ParkerGAStewartJPHashashYMA, et al. (2019) Empirical linear seismic site amplification in central and eastern North America. Earthquake Spectra35: 849–881.
46.
PetersenMDMoschettiMPPowersPM, et al. (2015) The 2014 United States national seismic hazard model. Earthquake Spectra31: S1–S30.
47.
PetersenMDShumwayAMPowersPM, et al. (2020) 2018 Update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model, changes, and implications. Earthquake Spectra.
48.
RomeroSMRixGJ (2001) Ground motion amplification of soils in the upper Mississippi Embayment, National Science Foundation Mid America Earthquake Center. Report no. GIT-CEE/GEO-01-1. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/8940 (accessed November 2019).
49.
SeyhanEStewartJP (2014) Semi-empirical nonlinear site amplification from NGA-West2 data and simulations. Earthquake Spectra30: 1241–1256.
50.
SilvaWJAbrahamsonNAToroG, et al. (1997) Description and validation of the stochastic ground motion model. Contract No.770573, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc. Upton, NY.
51.
StaffordPJRodriguez-MarekAEdwardB, et al. (2017) Scenario dependence of linear site effect factors for short period response spectral ordinates. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America107: 2859–2872.
52.
StewartJPAfshariKGouletCA (2017a) Non-ergodic site response in seismic hazard analysis. Earthquake Spectra33: 1385–1414.
53.
StewartJPParkerGAHarmonJP, et al. (2017b) Expert panel recommendations for ergodic site amplification in central and eastern North America. PEER report 2017/04. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Engineering Research Institute.
54.
StewartJPParkerGAAl AtikL, et al. (2019) Site-to-Site Standard Deviation Model for Central and Eastern North America. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sc5g220 (accessed November 2019).
55.
ThompsonEMBaiseLGTanakaY, et al. (2012) A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering41: 32–43.
56.
XuBRathjeEMHashashYMA, et al. (2020) κ0 for soil sites: Observations from Kik-net sites and their use in constraining small-strain damping profiles for site response analysis. Earthquake Spectra36(1): 111–137.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
