The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Recent Updates to The MCER Ground Motion Maps in U.S. Building

Codes
Nicolas Lucoa,*
a
U.S. Geological Survey, 1711 Illinois Street, Golden, Colorado 80401, United States of America

Abstract
With the 2014 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) as a basis, the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) Provisions Update Committee has updated the Risk-targeted Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCER) ground motion maps for the 2015 NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program)
Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures. The updated maps have been adopted for the
2016 edition of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard titled Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures, and are in the process of being adopted for the 2018 International Building Code. In addition to
using the updated USGS NSHM, the BSSC PUC updated the slope of the generic fragility curve that is used in
calculating the MCER ground motions, and introduced a quantitative definition of active faults that are used to compute
deterministic ground motion caps. The BSSC PUC also considered but postponed updates to the scale factors used to
convert geometric mean ground motions from the USGS NSHM into maximum-direction spectral response accelerations.
For the next edition of the NEHRP Provisions and the ASCE standard, a BSSC committee referred to as Project ‘17 is
exploring other potential changes to the MCER ground motion maps.
Keywords: Ground motion maps for building codes; 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Mode; ASCE/SEI 7-16; Project ‘17.

1. INTRODUCTION

With the 2014 update of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the
conterminous U.S. [1] as a basis, the Risk-targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) ground motion maps in
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) standard titled ―Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures‖ have been updated for its 2016 edition, ASCE/SEI 7-16 [2]. The updated maps
are already published in the 2015 NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Recommended Seismic
Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures, FEMA P-1050 [3]. As of July of 2016, the update maps are under
public comment for adoption into the 2018 edition of the International Building Code.
The updated MCER ground motion maps were developed by the Design Mapping Issue Team of the Building Seismic
Safety Council (BSSC) Provisions Update Committee (PUC), with funding from the U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and in collaboration with the USGS. The issue team was chaired by the author of this
summary paper. In addition to three changes to the MCER maps, the issue team investigated two other updates related to
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-303-273-8683; Fax.: +1-303-273-8600.
E-mail address: nluco@usgs.gov
the maps. To update the maps for the next edition of the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7, the BSSC has gathered a
new joint committee—referred to as Project ‘17—of earthquake engineers partially funded by FEMA and earthquake
scientists from the USGS. This paper elaborates on all of these updates.

2. UPDATES TO MCER GROUND MOTION MAPS FOR ASCE/SEI 7-16

The updated MCER ground motion maps in ASCE/SEI 7-16 incorporate three changes: First, they are based on the
2014, instead of 2008 [4], update of the USGS NSHM. Second, they are calculated using a fragility curve slope specified
in the site-specific ground motion procedures of ASCE/SEI 7-10 [5]. Third, they incorporate a newly introduced
quantitative definition of active faults used to calculate deterministic ―caps‖ for the MCE R ground motions. All three
updates are described in the ensuing subsections. The aggregate effects of the three updates are demonstrated in Figure 1,
by plotting ratios of the MCER ground motions of ASCE/SEI 7-16 divided by those from ASCE/SEI 7-10. For analysis of
these ratios, please refer to [6].

Fig. 1. Example ratios of short-period (SS) and 1-second (S1) MCER ground motion values of ASCE/SEI 7-16 divided by those
from ASCE/SEI 7-10, for locations in 34 high-risk (i.e., high-hazard and/or high-population) cities listed in [6]. PacNW is the
Pacific Northwest of the U.S., IMW is the Intermountain West, and CEUS is the Central and Eastern U.S.

2.1. 2014 USGS National Seismic Hazard Model

As explained in the commentary of ASCE/SEI 7-10 and 7-16, as well as in [6], MCER ground motions are derived
from probabilistic hazard curves and deterministic ground motions output from the USGS NSHM. The probabilistic
hazard curves provide mean annual frequencies of exceeding specified ground motion levels; the deterministic ground
motions are defined below in Section 2.3. Whereas the MCER ground motion maps for the conterminous U.S. that are in
ASCE/SEI 7-10 are based on the 2008 USGS NSHM, those in ASCE/SEI 7-16 are based on the most recent 2014 update
of the USGS NSHM. The 2014 USGS NSHM is documented in a USGS Open-File Report [1] and a special issue of
Earthquake Spectra, the professional journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (see
http://earthquakespectra.org/toc/eqsa/31/S1). The 2014 USGS NSHM includes updates to its underlying models of
earthquake sources, such as Version 3 of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) [7], and
updates to its underlying models of ground motion attenuation, such as Version 2 of the Next Generation Attenuation
Relationship for the Western U.S. (NGA-West2) [8]. The primary effects of the updated probabilistic hazard curves on
the MCER ground motion maps are demonstrated in Figure 2, by plotting ratios of the uniform-hazard, 2%-in-50-years
ground motions from the 2014 USGS NSHM divided by those from the 2008 USGS NSHM. Secondary effects of the
updated probabilistic hazard curves, and effects of the updated deterministic ground motions from the USGS NSHM, are
demonstrated in the ensuing two subsections. For analysis of Figure 2, please refer to [6].

Fig. 2. Example ratios of short-period (SSUH) and 1-second (S1UH) uniform-hazard, 2%-in-50-years ground motion values from
the 2014 USGS NSHM (the basis of the MCER map in ASCE/SEI 7-16) divided by those from the 2008 USGS NSHM (the
basis for the maps in ASCE/SEI 7-10). These examples are for the subset of locations from Figure 1 where the updated MCER
ground motion maps are probabilistic. The locations where they are deterministic are examined in Figure 4.

2.2. Fragility-curve slope from site-specific ground motion procedures of ASCE/SEI 7-10

As explained in the site-specific ground motion procedures (Chapter 21) of ASCE/SEI 7-10 and ASCE/SEI 7-16, as
well as in [9], probabilistic MCER ground motions are determined via iterative integration of a hazard curve with fragility
curves. Each fragility curve provides a conditional probability of collapse for each in a range of spectral acceleration
levels that could occur. The fragility curve is taken as a lognormal cumulative distribution function (CDF), parameterized
by (1) the spectral response acceleration level at which the conditional probability of collapse is 10% and (2) the
logarithmic standard deviation for the CDF, denoted , which dictates the general slope of the fragility curve. The MCER
ground motion maps in ASCE/SEI 7-10 were developed using a  of 0.8, for consistency with the 2009 NEHRP
Provisions [10], where the MCER maps were introduced. However, in the site-specific ground motion procedures of
ASCE/SEI 7-10,  is set equal to 0.6, based on [11]. For consistency with the site-specific procedures, the value of  used
in developing the MCER ground motion maps of ASCE/SEI 7-16 has been updated from 0.8 to 0.6. The effects of this
update to the fragility-curve slope on the MCER maps are demonstrated in Figure 3, by plotting ratios of risk coefficients
implicit in the MCER ground motions of ASCE/SEI 7-16 divided by those from ASCE/SEI 7-10. The risk coefficients are
each defined as the ratio of the probabilistic MCER ground motion at a location normalized by the corresponding
uniform-hazard, 2%-in-50-years value. Accordingly, the ratios of risk coefficients in Figure 3 isolate the changes in the
probabilistic MCER ground motions attributable to the update in . Secondarily to the  update, the effects in Figure 3
also reflect changes in the shapes of the probabilistic seismic hazard curves from the 2008 to 2004 USGS NSHMs. For
analysis of Figure 3, please refer to [6].

Fig. 3. Example ratios of the short-period (CRS) and 1-second (CR1) risk coefficients implicit in the MCER ground motion maps
of ASCE/SEI 7-16 divided by those of ASCE/SEI 7-10, for the subset of locations from Figure 1 where the updated MCE R
maps are probabilistic. These ratios quantify the change in the MCER maps due to, primarily, the update of the fragility
curves slope.

2.3. Quantitative definition of active faults

As explained in the commentary of ASCE/SEI 7-10 and 7-16, as well as in [6], the MCER maps include deterministic
ground motion caps on the probabilistic values described in the preceding two subsections. The deterministic caps are
each defined as the largest 84th-percentile ground motion for ―characteristic earthquakes on all known active faults within
the site region,‖ but not lower than 1.5g and 0.6g for the short-period (0.2 s) and 1.0 s maps, respectively. The updates
from ASCE/SEI 7-10 to ASCE/SEI 7-16 that are related to the deterministic caps can be broken down into (1) the
aforementioned updates to the underlying models of earthquake sources and ground motion propagation from the 2008 to
2014 USGS NSHMs, and (2) introduction in ASCE/SEI 7-16 of a quantitative definition of ―active faults‖ that is based
on recency of activity and slip rate, developed by the BSSC Design Mapping Issue Team. The active faults are defined as
those that have evidence of slip during Holocene time (the past 12,000 years, approximately), plus those with geologic
slip rates great than 0.1 mm/year (during Quaternary time, approximately the past 2.6 million years). Over a 12,000-year
time period, this slip rate can result in a magnitude 7 earthquake, which on average corresponds to 1.2 meters of slip
[12]. Furthermore, 0.1 mm/year is the slip rate assigned in UCERF3 to fault sections that, with the information available,
could only be categorized as having a slip rate less than 0.2 mm/year. The introduction in UCERF3 of nearly 100 fault
sections with slip rates this low and lower motivated the BSSC Design Mapping Issue Team to introduce the quantitative
definition of active faults. The effects of this newly introduced definition, and of the changes from the 2008 to 2014
USGS NSHM, are demonstrated in Figure 4, by plotting ratios of the deterministic ground motions of ASCE/SEI 7-16
divided by those of ASCE/SEI 7-10. For analysis of Figure 4, please refer to [6].

Fig. 4. Example ratios of short-period (SSD) and 1-second (S1D) deterministic ground motion values of ASCE/SEI 7-16 divided
by those from ASCE/SEI 7-10, for the subset of locations from Figure 1 where the updated MCE R maps are deterministic.
The locations where they are probabilistic were examined in Figures 2 and 3.

3. POSTPONED UPDATES

In addition to the ASCE/SEI 7-16 updates described in the preceding section, the BSSC PUC Design Mapping Issue
Team also investigated the following two MCER-related changes: (1) addition of MCER spectral response accelerations
for periods other than 0.2 s and 1.0 s, based directly on the USGS NSHM for the other periods rather than the
interpolation and extrapolation currently specified in ASCE/SEI 7; and (2) an update of the scale factors used to convert
the geometric-mean spectral response accelerations from the USGS NSHM to the maximum-response values used for the
MCER ground motion maps. For reasons explained below, these two changes were postponed.

3.1. Additional spectral periods

Ever since the 1996 USGS NSHM, hazard curves for spectral periods other than 0.2 and 1.0 s have been output for the
conterminous United States. From the 1996 and 2002 USGS NSHMs, hazard curves for seven spectral periods have been
disseminated (via the USGS NSHM website): 0 s, 0.1 s, 0.2 s, 0.3 s, 0.5 s, 1.0 s, and 2.0 s. From the 2008 USGS NSHM,
hazard curves for an additional four periods are disseminated for the western United States (west of -115° longitude):
0.75 s, 3.0 s, 4.0 s, and 5.0 s—see Figure 5. Hazard curves for all of these periods will also be output from the 2014
USGS NSHM. Hence, the BSSC PUC Design Mapping Issue Team explored using these additional hazard curves to
derive corresponding MCER spectral response accelerations. The challenges encountered include: (1) the short time that
was available between finalization of the 2014 USGS NSHM and deadlines for proposals to make changes for the 2015
NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7-16; (2) the need to compute corresponding deterministic spectral response
accelerations in addition to the probabilistic hazard curves; (3) the consequent need for site coefficients at the additional
periods, and corresponding consideration of sedimentary basin effects on long-period spectral response accelerations; (4)
the need to consider implications of the additions elsewhere in the provisions, e.g., where the assumption of a plateau at
the short periods of the interpolated and extrapolated response spectrum is relied upon; and (5) the desire for case studies
that demonstrate impacts of the changes on designs of buildings and other structures. For these reasons, the addition of
other spectral periods was postponed. As described below in Section 4.3, Project ‘17 is further exploring this addition.

Fig. 5. An example of the USGS probabilistic ground motions (here in the form of a uniform-hazard response spectrum)
provided for spectral periods other than 0.2 and 1.0 s.

3.2. Maximum-response scale factors from PEER NGA-West2 Directionality Working Group

Whereas ground motions from the USGS NSHM represent the geometric mean (or a similar metric) of two horizontal
ground motion components, MCER ground motions in ASCE/SEI 7-10 and 7-16 represent the maximum spectral
response acceleration in the horizontal plane. The conversion is done via maximum-response scale factors specified in
the site-specific ground motion procedures (Chapter 21) of the ASCE/SEI 7 standards. These scale factors—namely, 1.1
and 1.3 for 0.2-s and 1.0-s spectral response accelerations, respectively—are based on [13]. As published in [14], the
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) NGA-West2 Directionality Working Group have developed
improved scale factors. The updated factors at 0.2 and 1.0 s are approximately 1.2 and 1.25, respectively. Briefly stated,
the improvements included in the updated factors are: (1) consistency with the new RotD50 parameterization of spectral
response acceleration [15] developed for the NGA-West2 ground motion models; (2) additional strong ground motion
data from recent earthquakes in New Zealand, Japan, and China [16]; (3) insensitivity to the inclusion or exclusion of the
overwhelmingly large number of strong ground motion data from the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, which generated 0.2-s
spectral response accelerations that, on average, are relatively small compared to other similar earthquakes; (4) a basis in
ratios of maximum-response data divided by geometric-mean data, as opposed to maximum-response data divided by
geometric-mean predictions from ground motion models; and (5) demonstrated independence with respect to earthquake
magnitude, source-to-site distance, and near-fault directivity parameters.
Despite the listed improvements, the updated maximum-response scale factors based on [14] have not been used for
the maps of ASCE/SEI 7-16. The ASCE/SEI 7-10 scale factors are maintained because, as illustrated below in Figure 6,
the updated factors would decrease spectral response accelerations at periods of 1.0 s and longer (e.g., by approximately
15% at 5 s), exacerbating a previously observed un-conservatism at longer periods for softer soils [6, 17]. At periods of
0.2 s and shorter, much of the BSSC PUC was of the opinion that, as a whole, U.S. design provisions are adequately
conservative, whereas the updated factors would increase spectral response accelerations (by approximately 10%). Even
so, the updated factors have been included in Part 3 of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions [18], which consists of resource
papers that might be incorporated into future editions. For site-specific ground motion hazard analysis, Chapter 21 of
ASCE/SEI 7-16 already allows for ―other scale factors [that can be shown to] more closely represent the maximum
response,‖ such as those from [14].

2
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (3rd Printing)
1.9 Shahi & Baker, 2013 & 2014
Proposed for 2015 NEHRP Provisions
Maximum-Response Scale Factor

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.5
Proposed  ASCE/SEI 7-10
1.4 Proposed  Shahi & Baker
1.3

1.2
Ratio

1.1

0.9

0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Period (s)
Fig. 6. A comparison of the updated maximum-response scale factors in Part 3 of the 2015 NEHRP Provisions with those used
for the MCER ground motion maps in ASCE/SEI 7-16 and those published in [14].

4. PROJECT ’17 UPDATES UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ASCE/SEI 7-22

Before being accepted for ASCE/SEI 7-16, the updated MCER ground motion maps described above in Section 2 were
initially rejected, due primarily to dissatisfaction with the map changing every six years with each edition of ASCE/SEI 7.
The dissatisfaction, also within the BSSC PUC who developed the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, prompted Project ‘17, a
new committee gathered by BSSC (with funding from FEMA and the USGS) to update the maps for the next edition of
the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7. Circa 1997 and 2007, respectively, Project ‘97 established the procedure for
basing the ground motion maps in building codes directly on the USGS NSHM [19] and Project ‘07 reassessed the
original procedure and introduced the current ―risk-targeted‖ maps. Now (circa 2017), Project ‘17 is addressing the
dissatisfaction with changes to the MCER ground motion values, in addition to three other potential changes described in
the subsections below.

4.1. Balancing changes to MCER ground motion values with their uncertainty

Figure 7 provides an example of the changes to the MCER ground motion maps between editions of the ASCE/SEI 7
that have led to the dissatisfaction explained in the introduction to this section. Recognizing that there is uncertainty in
the MCER ground motion values, such as that illustrated in Figure 8, Project ‘17 is exploring ways to stabilize the values,
and/or the seismic design categories that are currently (in ASCE/SEI 7-16) determined with them, for ASCE/SEI 7-22 and
future editions. Furthermore, Project ‘17 aims to reduce the precision of the ground motion thresholds that define the
seismic design categories (currently up to three significant figures) and, correspondingly, of the ground motions reported
by the USGS Seismic Design Maps web tool (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php).

Fig. 7. An example of the changes in MCER ground motion values across editions of ASCE/SEI 7, for a location in Santa
Barbara, California (150 km northwest of Los Angeles), a spectral period of 0.2 s, and the default site class.
 Fig. 8. An illustration of the uncertainty in the MCER ground motion values (with a light blue histogram), as quantified via
the UCERF3 logic tree, for a location in Santa Barbara, California, a spectral period of 0.2 s, and a B-C boundary site class.
This figure was downloaded from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/data/UCERF3_SupplementalFiles/UCERF3.3/Hazard/
HazardCurves/Sites/sites/SANTA_BARBARA/RTGM_5Hz.pdf

4.2. Targeted risk of building collapse

As explained in the site-specific ground motion procedures (Chapter 21) of ASCE/SEI 7-10 and ASCE/SEI 7-16, as
well as in [9], probabilistic MCER ground motions are expected to result in building designs with uniform risk of
collapse, namely a theoretical 1% probability of collapse in 50 years that is based on nonlinear response history analysis
simulations. However, due to the deterministic ground motion caps described above in Section 2.3, the collapse risk in
high-hazard areas near very active faults (e.g., the San Andreas Fault in California) is higher by factors of up to 9.5 [20].
Even the 1% probability of collapse in 50 years is widely thought to overestimate the collapse risk of real buildings, as
are the theoretical fragility curves described above in Section 2.2. Project ‘17 is exploring all of these issues.

120° 110° 100° 90° 80° 70°

45°

40°

35°

30°

0.93% - 1.10%
1.10% - 2.00%
25° 2.00% - 3.00%
3.00% - 5.00%
5.00% - 9.45%

Fig. 9. Theoretical (based on nonlinear response history analysis simulations) probabilities of collapse in 50 years for
buildings designed against the 0.2 s MCER ground motions in ASCE/SEI 7-16, for a site class at the B-C-boundary.
4.3. Additional spectral periods and site classes

As mentioned above in Section 3.1, ever since its 1996 NSHM, the USGS has provided hazard curves for spectral
periods other than 0.2 and 1.0 s. Furthermore, as of its 2008 NSHM, the USGS has provided hazard curves for site
classes other than the boundary of B and C (corresponding to an average shear wave velocity at small shear strains in the
upper 30 meters of subsurface below a site, VS30, of 760 m/s). Figure 10 provides an example of uniform-hazard response
spectra from these additional hazard curves. Project ‘17 is exploring how to make use of the additional hazard curves in
developing MCER ground motion values for ASCE/SEI 7-22. The challenges listed above in Section 3.1 are all being
tackled.

Fig. 10. An example of the USGS probabilistic ground motions (here in the form of a uniform-hazard response spectrum)
provided for spectral periods other than 0.2 and 1.0 s and site classes other than the B-C boundary.

4.4. Deterministic ground motion capping

As mentioned above in Section 2.3, the incorporation of UCERF3 (Version 3 of the Uniform California Earthquake
Rupture Forecast)—and thereby nearly 100 fault sections with low slip rates—into the 2014 NSHM has led to the
introduction of a quantitative definition of active faults for the ground motion maps in ASCE/SEI 7-16. UCERF3 also
ushered in hundreds of thousands of potential earthquakes in California, whereas only hundreds of characteristic
earthquakes on named fault sections were included in the 2008 NSHM. ASCE/SEI 7-16 has continued to use the
characteristic earthquakes of the 2008 NSHM for computation of the deterministic ground motions that underlie the
MCER ground motion maps. For ASCE/SEI 7-22, however, Project ‘17 has planned to explore how to consider all of the
potential earthquakes of UCERF3 in computing the deterministic ground motions, e.g., via probabilistic hazard
disaggregation. As a change in the targeted risk of building collapse (described above in Section 4.2) could allay the need
for deterministic ground motion caps, exploration of this Project ‘17 issue is currently (as of July 2016) on hold.
5. SUMMARY

For the conterminous U.S., the MCER ground motion maps in the 2015 NEHRP Provisions, which have been adopted
for ASCE/SEI 7-16 and are in the process of adoption for the 2018 International Building Code, have been updated with
respect to those in the previous editions of these building code documents. The updates include (1) use of the 2014 rather
than 2008 USGS NSHM (National Seismic Hazard Model); (2) use of the fragility-curve slope specified in the site-
specific ground motion procedures of ASCE/SEI 7-10 rather than the 2009 NEHRP Provisions; and (3) introduction of a
quantitative definition of active faults for deterministic ground motion capping, since nearly 100 fault sections with low
slip rates were introduced in the 2014 USGS NSHM (via UCERF3, Version 3 of the Uniform California Earthquake
Rupture Forecast). As illustrated in this paper and elaborated on in [6], these updates resulted in less than ±20% change
to the MCER ground motion values across the vast majority of the conterminous U.S. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with
the maps changing every six years with each edition of the building code documents resulted in the updated maps
initially being rejected for ASCE/SEI 7-16. They were accepted only after the reasons for the changes were further
explained, particularly at geographic locations where the values changed by more than ±20%. For the next editions of the
NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7, Project ‘17 is tackling the issue of balancing changes to the MCE R ground motion
values (and their precision) with their uncertainty. In addition, Project ‘17 is exploring changes to the targeted risk of
building collapse (currently a theoretical 1% probability of collapse in 50 years), addition of MCE R ground motions for
other spectral periods (besides 0.2 and 1.0 s) and site classes (besides the B-C boundary), and redefinition (or removal) of
deterministic ground motion caps.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper summarizes the work of numerous U.S. building code committees, including the Building Seismic Safety
Council (BSSC) 2015 Provisions Update Committee (PUC), its Design Mapping Issue Team, and the BSSC Project ‘17
Committee. For lists of the members of the PUC and the Design Mapping Issue Team, please see the appendix of [3]; for
the Project ‗17 committee members, please see http://www.nibs.org/page/bssc_P17C.

REFERENCES

[1] Petersen, M.D., Moschetti, M.P. et al., ―Documentation for the 2014 Update of the United States National Seismic
Hazard Maps,‖ U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1091, 2015, Golden, Colorado.
[2] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), ―Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures,‖ ASCE/SEI 7-16, 2016 (In press), Reston, Virginia.
[3] Building Seismic Safety Council Provisions Update Committee, ―NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Volume 1: Part 1 Provisions, Part 2 Commentary,‖ FEMA P-
1050-1, 2015, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[4] Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D. et al., ―Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic
Hazard Maps,‖ U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128, 2015, Golden, Colorado.
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), ―Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures,‖ ASCE/SEI 7-10, 2010, Reston, Virginia.
[6] Luco, N., Bachman, R.E. et al., ―Updates to Building-Code Maps for the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic
Provisions,‖ Earthquake Spectra, 31(S1), 2015, S245-S271.
[7] Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P. et al., ―Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) – The Time-
Independent Model,‖ U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1165, 2013, Golden, Colorado.
[8] Bozorgnia, Y., Abrahamson, N.A. et al., ―NGA-West2 research project,‖ Earthquake Spectra, 30, 2014, 973-987.
[9] Luco, N., Ellingwood, B.R. et al., ―Risk-targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United
States,‖ Proceedings of the Structural Engineers Association of California 76th Annual Convention, 2007, Lake
Tahoe, California.
[10] Building Seismic Safety Council Provisions Update Committee, ―NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures,‖ FEMA P-750, 2009, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
[11] Applied Technology Council (ATC), ―Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors,‖ FEMA P-695,
2009, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[12] Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J., ―New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width,
rupture area, and surface displacement,‖ Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 1994, 974–1002.
[13] Huang, Y.-N., Whittaker, A.S. et al., ―Maximum spectral demands in the near-fault region,‖ Earthquake Spectra, 24,
2008, 319–341.
[14] Shahi, S.K., Baker, J.W., ―NGA-West2 models for ground-motion directivity,‖ PEER Report 2013/10, 2013, Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California.
[15] Boore, D.M., ―Orientation-independent, nongeometric-mean measuress of seismic intensity from two horizontal
components of motion,‖ Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 100, 2010, 1830–1835.
[16] Ancheta, T.D., Darragh, R.B. et al., ―NGA-West2 database,‖ Earthquake Spectra, 30, 2014, 989–1005.
[17] Kircher, C.A., ―Investigation of an Identified Shortcoming in the Seismic Design Procedures of ASCE 7-10 and
Development of Recommended Improvements for ASCE 7-16,‖ Project Report for the Building Seismic Safety
Council, National Institute of Building Sciences, 2015, Kircher & Associates, Consulting Engineers, Palo Alto,
California.
[18] Building Seismic Safety Council Provisions Update Committee, ―NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Volume 2: Part 3 Resource Papers,‖ FEMA P-1050-2, 2015,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
[19] Leyendecker, E.V., Hunt, R.J. et al., ―Development of Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion Maps,‖
Earthquake Spectra, 16(1), 2000, 21–40.
[9] Luco, N., Liu, T.J. et al., ―A risk-targeted alternative to deterministic capping of maximum considered earthquake
ground motion maps,‖ Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2017 (In review),
Santiago, Chile.