Comment to DOI:10.1029/2003EO190002
[Comment on “Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?”] from A.D. Frankel
Version of Record online: 3 JUN 2011
©2003. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 84, Issue 29, pages 271–273, 22 July 2003
How to Cite
2003), [Comment on “Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?”] from A.D. Frankel, Eos Trans. AGU, 84(29), 271–273, doi:10.1029/2003EO290005.(
- Issue online: 3 JUN 2011
- Version of Record online: 3 JUN 2011
- Evaluation of models for earthquake source spectra in eastern North America, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 88, 917–934, 1998. , and ,
- Differences in attenuation among the stable continental regions, Geophysical Res. Lett., 2923212110.1029/2002GL015457, 2002. , and ,
- , Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, 1997 edition, Part 1 (Provisions) and Part II (Commentary), FEMA 302/303, Washington, D. C., 1998.
- Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 58, 158–1606, 1968. ,
- The 2001 Gujurat, India earthquake and eastern North America ground-motion attenuation and magnitude-area relations: Impact on seismic hazard, Seismol. Res. Lett., 73, 238, 2002. , and ,
- , FEMA, HAZUS 99 Estimated Annualized Losses for the United States, FEMA 366, Washington,D. C.,2000.
- Implications of felt area-magnitude relations for earthquake scaling and the average frequency of perceptible ground motion, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84, 462–465, 1994. ,
- National seismic-hazard maps: Documentation June 1996Open File Rep, 96-532, 110U. S. Geol. Surv., Reston,Va., 1996. , et al.,
- USGS national seismic hazard maps, Earthquake Spectra, 16, 1–19, 2000. , et al.,
- Documentation for the 2002 update of the national seismic hazard mapsOpen File Rep, 02-240U. S. Geol. Surv., Reston, Va., 2002. , et al.,
- On the Modified Mercalli intensities and magnitudes of the 1811–12 New Madrid earthquakes, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 23,839–23,864, 2000. , , , and ,
- The 26 January 2001 M 7.6 Bhuj, India, earthquake: Observed and predicted ground motions, Bull. Seismol Soc. Am., 92, 2061–2079, 2002. , , , and ,
- , International Code Council (ICC), International Building Code, Building Officials and Code Administrators International, IncInternational Conference of Building Officials, and Southern Building Code Congress International, IncBirmingham, Ala., 2000.
- Seismic moment assessment of stable continental earthquake, III, 1811–1812 New Madrid, 1886 Charleston, and 1755 Lisbon, Geophys. J. Int., 126, 314–344, 1996. ,
- A mechanical model for intraplate earthquakes, application to the New Madrid seismic zone, Science, 289, 2329–2332, 2000. , and ,
- The Mississippi Valley earthquakes of 1811 and 1812: Intensities, ground motions, and magnitudes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 63, 227–248, 1973. ,
- Should Memphis build for California's earthquakes?, Eos, Trans. AGU, 84177, 184–185, 2003. , , and ,
- Model of strong ground motions from earthquakes in central and eastern North America: Best estimates and uncertainties, Seismol. Res. Lett., 68, 41–57, 1997. , , and ,
- The earthquake potential of the New Madrid seismic zone, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92, 2080–2089, 2002. , , , , , and ,
- , Earthquake hazard in the heart of the homelandFact Sheet FS-131-02U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,Va., 2002.
- Research, methodology, and applications of probabilistic seismic-hazard mapping of the central and eastern United States - Minutes of a workshop on 13–14 June, 2000, at Saint Louis UniversityOpen File Rep, 00-0390U. S. Geol. Surv., 2000. , and ,
- , Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002–2031Open File Rep, 03-214U. S. Geol. Surv., 2003.