1299

Seismic hazard estimates for sites in the stable

Canadian craton
Gail M. Atkinson and Scott N. Martens

Abstract: We address the challenging and economically important problem of seismic hazard estimation at low probabilities
for stable cratonic regions such as central Canada which are characterized by very low seismicity rates. At low probabilities,
large uncertainties in the seismicity rates result in calculated seismic hazards that are not negligible for practical purposes
and may have significant implications for design and retrofit of critical structures such as hydroelectric and tailings dams.
We examine the statistics of earthquake magnitude recurrence in such regions and their implications for hazard estimates
at low probabilities. Recommendations for low-probability ground motions are provided that are related to the design
life of the facilities.
Key words: seismic hazard, earthquake, uniform hazard spectrum, stable interior craton, central Canada, dam.

Rsum : Nous traitons ici de lestimation du risque de sisme de faibles probabilits pour les rgions cratoniques
stables, telles que le centre du Canada, qui sont caractrises par des taux de sismicit trs faibles, un problme
dimportance conomique et posant un grand dfi. de faibles probabilits, les grandes incertitudes dans les taux de
sismicit engendrent des risques de sismes non ngligeables toutes fins pratiques et qui peuvent avoir un impact important
sur la conception et la rhabilitation de structures importantes telles que les barrages hydrolectriques et les digues des
parcs rsidus. Nous examinons les statistiques de la rcurrence de la magnitude dans de telles rgions ainsi que leurs
implications dans lestimation des risques de faibles probabilits. Les recommandations pour les mouvements de sol
faible probabilit sont fournies; celles-ci sont connexes la dure de vie thorique des installations.

Mots-cls : risque sismique, sisme, gamme uniforme de risques, craton intrieur stable, Canada central, barrage, digue.
[Traduit par la Rdaction] Atkinson and Martens 1311

Introduction earthquakes in low-seismicity regions can act to produce

Reliable estimation of seismic hazards is a challenging
problem in regions of low seismicity such as the stable
Canadian craton (i.e., the Prairie provinces from western
Ontario to western Alberta). This issue is important because
critical structures such as hydroelectric and tailings dams
must be designed to withstand ground motions with proba-
bilities as low as 1/10 000 per annum (pa). At low probabilities,
ground motions in stable craton regions are not insignificant
because moderate to large earthquakes have a probability
that is low but not negligible. There are significant economic
implications in designing for these motions, and thus their
accurate estimation is of concern. Paradoxically, the rarity of
Received 15 January 2007. Revision accepted 24 April 2007.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca
on 30 October 2007.
G.M. Atkinson.1,2 Department of Earth Sciences, Biology and
Geological Sciences Building, The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B7, Canada.
S.N. Martens. Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., 114 6815 8th Street
NE, Calgary, AB T2E 7H7, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received
by the Editor until 29 February 2008.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: gmatkinson@aol.com).
2
Present address: Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton
University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada.
relatively large expected ground motions at very low proba-
bilities; the reason for this is that uncertainty is an important
component of hazard estimates, and the low seismicity rates
imply statistically large uncertainties.
Motivation for this study
The estimation of low-probability ground motions in stable
regions of Canada has been an issue of recent debate because
of the introduction of a stable craton model and associated
floor values of ground motion in the 2005 National Building
Code of Canada (NBCC) (NRCC 2005) seismic hazard
maps, which are based on the Geological Survey of Canada
(GSC) fourth-generation seismic hazard model (Adams and
Halchuk 2003). For the first time, the national seismic hazard
maps include an estimate of expected ground motions for
regions in Canada where seismicity levels are too low to
allow their reliable estimation based on regional historical
seismicity. This represents about half the Canadian landmass
and includes several major cities, such as Winnipeg and
Edmonton. In previous versions of the maps, hazards to
these low-seismicity regions were assumed to come only
from distant external sources. International examples sug-
gest, however, that large (M6+) earthquakes can happen any-
where, albeit with low probability (Johnston et al. 1994). To
address this problem, the latest national seismic hazard maps
(Adams and Halchuk 2003) include a minimum floor model
for seismic hazard. The floor model characterizes the hazard
from a large background zone of seismicity, for which the

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34: 12991311 (2007) doi:10.1139/L07-057 2007 NRC Canada
1300
rate of activity (magnituderecurrence relation), on a per
area basis, is based on that observed globally for stable
craton regions such as central Canada (Fenton et al. 2006).
The advantage of this approach is that it allows substitution
of space for time to obtain more robust statistics on earth-
quake occurrence rates in regions of very low seismicity.
The disadvantage is that not all of the included regions may
be truly comparable to the target region from a tectonic
point of view; our understanding of the geologic controls on
damaging earthquakes in stable cratons is poor, and so the
grouping together of various of these regions is speculative.
Thus, the assessment of the hazard is uncertain and may be
inaccurate.
The national seismic hazard maps provide ground motions
for a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years, or
1/2500 pa. The documents supporting the maps state that
the model is not intended for application to structures not
covered by the NBCC, and that more detailed investigations
are appropriate for specific projects or for lower probabilities.
Thus it is clear that the NBCC maps are not intended for
application to critical structures, in the Prairie provinces or
elsewhere. However, because the GSC hazard maps are
publicly available and provide ground motions for all regions
in Canada, they are often used as a starting point to estimate
earthquake ground motions for analysis of structures not
covered by the NBCC. Thus, they are often used in the analysis
of dams in central Canada, if it is considered that site-
specific studies are not warranted. A probability of
1/10 000 pa is typically used to represent the maximum
design earthquake for analysis of dams having a very high
consequence rating, and for some dams with a high conse-
quence rating. As a first-level screening tool, it has been
common practice to extrapolate the GSC estimates to a prob-
ability of 1/10 000 pa (note that this extrapolation is not rec-
ommended by the GSC or the authors of this study.) The
ground motions implied by this extrapolation could be suffi-
cient to trigger liquefaction in loose sands and may lead to
low calculated factors of safety against slope instability
using pseudostatic analyses. A consequence is that detailed
seismic analyses may be required for many structures that
were previously below the screening level for such analy-
ses, resulting in an expense and level of effort that may not
be justified given the low historical seismicity levels.
Purpose and scope of this study
In this study, we address the question of what ground
motions should be expected at low probabilities for sites in
the central Canadian craton (CC craton), which we define as
the low-seismicity region within central Canada as shown in
Fig. 1. This area is more restrictive than the stable North
American craton (NA craton) region defined by Fenton et
al. (2006) (Fig. 1). We follow a methodology similar to that
used by Adams and Halchuk (2003) in the NBCC maps but
look at the Canadian craton rates in more detail and extend
the calculations to lower probabilities.
A careful look at the constraints on seismicity rates in the
craton is warranted. The GSC stable craton model used a
number of arbitrary assumptions that, although reasonable
for the NBCC application, should be revisited prior to appli-
cation to low-probability estimates for critical structures. In
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007
particular, the assumption that the applied seismicity rate
should be based on a global weighted average for all stable
cratons (including other regions of the world that are both
more and less active than central Canada) may not be the
best model to use for critical structures in central Canada.
This study presents an analysis of uncertainty in seismicity
rates and their implications for seismic hazard in central
Canada.
The scope of the study is as follows. First, the region that
can be characterized as the CC craton is defined as a subset
of the larger NA craton. Then, the seismicity rates and their
uncertainty within this region are characterized by a careful
examination of magnituderecurrence rates and their uncer-
tainty. Lastly, earthquake ground motions for annual proba-
bilities of 1/1000 to 1/10 000 for hard-rock site conditions
are calculated. Parameter uncertainty is addressed in the analysis
using a logic-tree approach.
Analysis methodology
The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis performed for
this study follows the CornellMcGuire method (McGuire
1993). This well-known methodology is the same as that
used in the 2005 NBCC (NRCC 2005) national seismic
hazard maps. It is comprised of the following steps: (i) define
the spatial distribution of earthquakes using source zones,
and in this application we use a single regional area source
zone that is assumed to be spatially homogeneous in its
potential for future activity; (ii) describe the frequency of
occurrence of earthquakes within each source zone using a
magnituderecurrence relationship; (iii) define the amplitude
of ground motions as a function of magnitude and distance;
and (iv) calculate the frequency of exceeding a specified
level of ground motion at a site by integrating the hazard
contributions from all source zones over all magnitudes and
distances. Selection of the source zone and associated
magnituderecurrence relation is critical to the assessment
of seismic hazard in central Canada, where earthquakes from
which to compile statistics are sparse.
Uncertainties in the input parameters, especially the
magnituderecurrence rates, are also critical to the evaluation.
There are two types of uncertainty. Aleatory uncertainty, or
randomness in process, is due to the physical variability
inherent in future events, such as the scatter in ground motion
values about a median ground motion prediction equation.
Aleatory uncertainty is incorporated directly into the proba-
bilistic calculations by integrating over the statistical distri-
bution in the ground motion relations and by considering
randomness in location. Epistemic uncertainty is a result of
incomplete knowledge about the physical processes that
control the random events. For example, we are uncertain as
to whether the selected ground motion prediction equation is
a true representation of the median motions. Epistemic
uncertainty is incorporated in the analysis via the use of a
logic tree. In a logic tree, model uncertainties are treated by
considering a range of possible choices for input parameters
such as the ground motion prediction equations or the source-
zone models. The relative likelihood of each of the choices
is weighted subjectively. Each calculated probability of exceed-
ance of a specified ground motion is multiplied by the branch
2007 NRC Canada
Atkinson and Martens
Fig. 1. Historical seismicity (to end of 2004), showing all Canadian events of M 2.5. Events in the USA are shown only where
included in the Geological Survey of Canada earthquake catalogue. Boundaries of the stable Canadian craton as defined by Fenton et
al. (2006) are shown, along with boundaries of the central Canadian (CC) craton as defined in this study.
probability. The sum of the weighted branch probabilities
produces the mean-hazard probability curve, which is inter-
polated to provide the mean-hazard ground motion for each
probability level. The probabilities calculated from the branches
are ordered to calculate the median-hazard ground motion
amplitude and various percentiles. Thus, for any probability
level we obtain a mean-hazard ground motion amplitude,
along with the median-hazard value and other confidence
limits. This allows us to make statements such as I am 85%
confident that the annual frequency of exceedence of 20%g
peak ground acceleration is less than 102 (McGuire 2004).
In this study, the key input parameters are included in the
logic tree, and results are calculated at the mean and 16th,
50th, and 84th percentile confidence levels. The mean-hazard
ground motion values are generally preferred for site-specific
studies (when not otherwise directed by regulatory guid-
ance), as the mean is the expected value and takes account
of the influence of the lower probability branches of the
logic tree. The hazard calculations are made using the soft-
ware package EZ-FRISK (Risk Engineering Inc. 2005),
which performs the integrations over source zones, magni-
tudes, and distances, to obtain the probability of exceeding
any specified ground motion value for each combination of
input parameters. The EZ-FRISK code is run for each
combination of input parameters to generate the multiple
branches of the logic tree; Visual Basic software was used to
automate processing of the EZ-FRISK output and to cal-
culate the mean and fractile probabilities from the multiple
output results, following the logic tree weights.
1301
Magnituderecurrence statistics for cratonic
regions
Definition of source zones
Seismicity in Canada generally occurs on buried faults,
whose locations and activity rates are not well known. Earth-
quake activity is therefore grouped into seismic source zones,
which are regions that are assumed to have a spatially uniform
probability of future earthquakes. These source zones are
defined based on historical seismicity patterns and regional
geology and encompass a group of unknown subsurface
structures. Within the central region of Canada, seismicity
levels are very low, and thus the source zones must be
defined in a broad way. We approached the problem by
defining a large cratonic region within Canada and the
northern US and examining observed seismicity rates and
their variability within the region. The assessment incorpo-
rates the most recent seismicity information (to 2005) and
thus updates previous work for the 2005 NBCC (which used
seismicity to 1991).
The definition of a stable craton region within North
America, which might be considered as a broad analogue for
the seismicity levels that could be expected to occur in
central Canada, was the starting point of our analysis. It
allowed us to substitute space for time in establishing better
rate estimates in regions where the seismicity levels are too
low for reliable statistics to have been established in our
100 year recording history. Unlike Adams and Halchuk (2003)
and Fenton et al. (2006), we did not consider other cratonic
2007 NRC Canada
1302
regions around the globe in our assessment, as there may be
a variety of tectonic factors, such as the most recent time of
glaciation or other tectonic activity, which could differ from
the North American setting. Restricting our focus to North
America reduced the associated tectonic variability. Never-
theless, any large zone that covers much of central North
America will include regions of varying levels of activity,
some of which might be explainable by local geologic factors.
However, following the logic of Johnston et al. (1994), we
excluded regions with major geologic influences in the last
500 million years (Ma) or so, such as areas rifted during
early opening of the Iapetus Ocean.
Our initial definition of the stable NA craton was adopted
directly from the NA craton model of Fenton et al. (2006); it
includes the North American continent minus its actively
deforming regions. Their intent was to remove (i) all regions
of non-Precambrian crust; (ii) all passive margins, together
with a zone of approximately 200 km inland from passive
margin coasts; and (iii) a 200 km zone around regions of
Phanerozoic (last 500 Ma) deformation. The idea was to
capture the range of stable craton behaviour observed in
Canada and the northern US. This region is not expected to
be homogeneous in its seismicity levels, but merely repre-
sentative of the range of seismicity observed in typical NA
craton environments. This was the broadest definition of po-
tential analogue craton that we considered. The Fenton et al.
definition of the stable NA craton is shown in Fig. 2 along
with our discretization of the region as a grid of points (NA
craton).
It has been pointed out that the Fenton et al. (2006) craton
(Fig. 2) actually includes parts of some Phanerozoic rifts
(R.L. Wheeler, personal communication, 2006). These are
the western part of the Oklahoma Aulocogen; parts of the
Rome Trough of central and eastern Kentucky, West Virginia,
and southwestern Pennsylvania; and a few normal faults that
define the northwestern limit of the Iapetan passive margin
(Wheeler 1995). The main rifting in these areas preceded
500 Ma, but it extended from Late Proterozoic to Early
Cambrian, with later reactivation in some places (R.L.
Wheeler, personal communication, 2006). For this reason, it
could be argued that the Fenton et al. definition of the stable
craton should be revised to exclude these more recently
active areas. For example, Johnston et al. (1994) chose to
distinguish Precambrian rifts, which are not more seis-
mically active than the surrounding unrifted craton, from
Phanerozoic rifts, which are more active; they depict the
Oklahoma Aulocogen and Rome Trough as Phanerozoic
structures. Similarly, the band of seismicity that is observed
along the BoothiaUngava arch (northeast band within the
Fenton et al. craton, as seen in Fig. 1) could also be
excluded on tectonic grounds. The Boothia uplift was
geologically active from the Paleozoic to the Cretaceous
(Okulitch et al. 1986) and was more recently reactivated in
a CretaceousTertiary rifting episode (Kerr 1977, 1980). For
this reason, Adams and Basham (1989) treat the Boothia
Ungava seismicity as being a tectonic zone that is distinct
from the craton seismicity environment. It is controlled by
younger deformation features.
To consider a more homogeneous tectonic environment,
which excludes the previously noted younger tectonic features
that lie within the boundaries of the Fenton et al. (2006)
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007
craton, we defined an alternative CC craton, as shown in
Fig. 1; note that the CC craton is a subset of the NA craton.
The CC craton is more representative of stable craton tectonics
in central Canada than is the NA craton because it is more
specifically restricted to cratonic regions that have not been
reactivated in about the last 500 Ma. The CC craton tectonic
environment is believed to be most representative of typical
seismicity levels for stable cratonic regions in central Canada.
It has been postulated that there may be a linkage between
the low rates of observed seismicity in the Canadian region
of the NA craton and the stresses imposed by glaciation in
that region. However, Adams and Bell (1991) note that, al-
though deglaciation severely stressed the North American
plate about 10 000 years ago, the stresses associated with
deglaciation do not currently dominate the stress field and
have little residual effect on the stress field. It is therefore
not likely that the patterns of glacial cover over North America
strongly affect the current observed patterns of seismicity.
Magnituderecurrence statistics
We considered the uncertainty in magnituderecurrence
parameters using these two alternative craton definitions (NA
craton and CC craton). For general applications in central
Canada, the CC craton model is considered most appropriate.
The broader NA craton model might be more appropriate for
long-term facilities such as nuclear waste storage, as it takes
a longer geologic view of features that might be reactivated
and provides more stable statistics for larger events.
The earthquake catalogue used for this study, as plotted in
Fig. 1, was a compiled catalogue that included all events
from the GSC database for areas north of 40N (www.seismo.
nrcan.gc.ca) and data from US sources (Incorporated Research
Institution for Seismology (IRIS) and US Geological Survey
National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC); www.ncedc.
org) for south of 40N, up to 2005. All event magnitudes
were converted to moment magnitude (M) using the formu-
lae of Johnston (1996a, 1996b, 1996c) for events listed as
local magnitude (ML), body wave (mb), or surface wave
(MS). The empirical conversion of Atkinson (1993) was used
for events with magnitude listed as Nuttli magnitude (MN).
The catalogue is not complete in the regions outside of the
defined NA craton area of study.
The earthquake activity of the craton can be characterized
using a magnituderecurrence relationship of the Gutenberg
Richter form
[1] log[N(M)] = a bM
where N(M) is the cumulative annual rate of exceedance of
magnitude M, a is the rate parameter, and b describes the
relative likelihood of large and small earthquakes. Typical b
values range from 0.8 to 1.0 in most regions throughout the
world. Magnituderecurrence parameters a and b can be
computed from the earthquake catalogue by compiling statistics
on the rate of occurrence of each earthquake magnitude.
To calculate magnituderecurrence statistics within a
defined craton region, we first determined the completeness
windows of the catalogue (in magnitude and time) across the
study area. This need arises from the uneven instrumentation
capabilities to detect earthquakes, in both space and time.
The completeness intervals vary across the large geographic
region considered, as the instrumental coverage is generally
2007 NRC Canada
Atkinson and Martens
Fig. 2. Fenton et al. (2006) definition of the North American (NA) craton (lines), and grid of points used in this study to represent the
NA craton.
better in the south, and reported historical events begin
earlier in the east. Also, the completeness varies among the
available catalogues. We evaluated completeness separately
for six areas based on the catalogue data. We judged this
based on the year for which the number of events per decade
ceased to grow with time, and considering that the number
of events should increase by about a factor of 10 as the mag-
nitude level decreases by 1 unit (based on the Gutenberg
Richter relation). The completeness intervals adopted for the
recurrence statistics are shown in Table 1, where NY3 indi-
cates, for example, the first year at which the reporting of
events of M 3 appears to become complete within that
region. The completeness intervals are a matter of judgment;
the procedure used does not guarantee complete reporting
over all parts of each region over all time intervals used. It
does, however, ensure a stable average rate of recurrence for
each magnitude range, within each region, that does not
change with time over the period considered.
A moving-average grid algorithm was used to calculate
seismicity rates and their uncertainty at various magnitude
levels throughout each defined craton region. The rates
observed across the craton were used to define statistics at
each magnitude level, such as mean and standard deviation,
on a per annum, per unit area basis. These statistics can be
used to define uncertainty ranges for magnituderecurrence
relations for central Canada. The NA craton was discretized
as a grid of points as shown in Fig. 2. The grid points were
defined just inside the areal definition of the NA craton pro-
posed by Fenton et al. (2006) (solid line) so as to avoid edge
effects. Levels of seismicity within this region are highly
variable, but generally low. We determined the occurrence
rates for M3, M3.5, M4, M5, and M6 events within a given
radius of each grid point, using the catalogue data within the
1303
completeness intervals of Table 1. The possible effect of
zero-rate grid points was accounted for by considering a
minimum seismicity observation of 0.5 events of M3 in the
time window of record for each grid point (and correspond-
ingly smaller values for higher magnitudes, assuming a
regional b value of 1). This assigned minimum rate is the
largest that would be consistent with the observed seismicity
(i.e., if the true average rate in the time interval of observa-
tion is <0.5, then we would not expect to have detected any
such events, as 0.5 rounds to 0 whole earthquakes). It turned
out that this was not a significant factor, as the average rates
are very similar if no minimum counts are assigned. We also
examined the influence of the selected radius for the grid-
search algorithm by considering values from 50 to 250 km.
Note that these radii may overlap as we move from one grid
cell to the next, depending on the selected radius. This was
also not a significant factor, as discussed later in the paper.
Lastly, we also considered the effect of the selected grid
geometry. In our calculations, we use a simple grid that is 1
in latitude by 2 in longitude (about 100 km by 100 km);
however, this means that the northern grid points are more
closely spaced than the southern grid points. We tested
whether this biases the results by using an area-weighted
average rate over the grid points, instead of a simple average.
We confirmed that an area-weighted average would not
significantly change the calculated rates. In summary, average
rates over the grid are robust, and not sensitive to the details
of choices made in how the grid is defined, or to whether
particular points are included.
For each grid point, we counted the number of exceed-
ances of each magnitude level, normalized to a per century
basis, using events within a specified radius that pass the
completeness criteria. This provides an estimate of the rates
2007 NRC Canada
1304 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Table 1. Earthquake catalogue, showing the magnitude completeness intervals.

Range of coordinates
Region NY3 NY3.5 NY4 NY5 NY6 Lat. (N) Long. (W)
Southwest 1990 1990 1900 1860 1800 3550 90105
Southeast 1990 1930 1870 1820 1800 3550 7590
Central west 1970 1960 1960 1900 1900 5060 90120
Central east 1980 1960 1940 1900 1900 5060 6090
Northwest 1980 1970 1960 1900 1900 6075 90125
Northeast 1970 1970 1960 1900 1900 6075 6590
Note: For example, NY3 indicates the first year at which the reporting of events of M 3 appears to
become complete within that region.

for that grid point, which we normalized to an area of Fig. 3. Cumulative recurrence statistics for the stable North
106 km2 (by dividing by the area enclosed by the given American (NA) craton (Fig. 2) and the central Canadian (CC)
radius, then multiplying by 106 km2). By repeating these craton (Fig. 1). Symbols show mean rates, and one-sided error
calculations for every grid point within the defined craton bars show standard deviation. Lines show least-squares relation
region, we obtained mean recurrence rates and their standard for NA craton (determined slope of 1.01 0.07; minimum rates
deviations (indicating variability of rates across the grid). assumed) and fitted relation for CC craton using assigned slope
The recurrence statistics for the entire NA craton are shown of 1.0. A radius R of 150 km about each grid point was used.
in Fig. 3 using a representative radius value of 150 km. The
plotted seismicity rates are the mean rates (N(M)) across
all grid points, per 100 years, per 106 km2. The line is a
least-squares fit to the data, which follow a well-behaved
GutenbergRichter magnituderecurrence relation:
[2] log N(M) = 5.35 1.0M

The calculated slope (= 1.01 0.07) is very close to the

typical b value of 1 that is commonly expected in low-
seismicity regions. Figure 3 also shows the rates that were
obtained by considering just the CC craton, as defined by
Fig. 1. These rates are lower than the average for the NA
craton by about a factor of three. Note that the M6 rate for
the CC craton is not reliable because of the limited statistics;
it is best estimated by considering the NA craton rate and
dividing by a factor of three. Thus the magnituderecurrence
relation for the CC craton (per 100 years, per 106 km2) is
[3] log N(M) = 4.88 1.0M

This is also a well-behaved GutenbergRichter relation-

ship; in this case, the slope has been fixed at the value of 1
based on the better constrained result of eq. [2]. The rate
parameter in the magnituderecurrence relations is a source
of considerable uncertainty in the hazard calculations. Based
on the data plotted in Fig. 1, the rate parameter varies by
about a factor of 3, with the greatest uncertainty being in the
CC craton model, which is less constrained than the NA
craton model.
The sensitivity of the results of Fig. 3 to details of the
grid-calculation algorithm was tested, considering sensitivity
to the radius used for the grid recurrence calculations and
sensitivity to the minimum rate assumptions. Figure 3 shows
the results for a grid radius of 150 km (representing a mod-
erate overlap of radii) and assuming minimum recurrence
rates for empty intervals. In Fig. 4, the results for grid radii
of 50, 100, 150, 200, and 250 km are compared for the NA
craton. It is seen that the radius selected is not a significant
factor in the computed rates (especially in light of their
uncertainties), and that the radius value of 150 km provides
results that are typical. We adopted the 150 km radius values
because they provide intermediate values for the seismicity
rates. Neither the rates nor the slopes of the magnitude
recurrence relation are sensitive to the choice; thus the com-
puted hazard would not differ significantly if a different
value of radius was adopted for the averaging. The small
deviations in rates obtained when considering different aver-
aging scales may reflect weak clustering properties of seis-
micity within the NA craton.
In computing the recurrence rates for each grid point, a
minimum rate of occurrence of events just below the thresh-
old for detection was assumed as an interpretation of the
empty intervals. Thus if the observed rate of events of M 3
for a particular grid point in the period of observation was 0,
we assigned a fixed rate of 0.5 for M 3 (since an observa-
tion of 0 would be expected to correspond to any rate <1).
Based on the GutenbergRichter relation, the corresponding
assumed rates for M 4, M 5, and M 6 are 0.05, 0.005,

2007 NRC Canada

Atkinson and Martens
Fig. 4. Sensitivity of cumulative recurrence statistics for the
North American craton to the radius about each grid point used
in the calculations and to the assumption of minimum recurrence
rates for empty calculation areas. Symbols show mean rates, and
one-sided error bar shows standard deviation (R = 100 km case).
Line shows adopted regression result from Fig. 3 (R = 150 km
case; imposed minimum rates).
and 0.0005, respectively. To test the effect of this assump-
tion, in Fig. 4, the plotted points are based on an analysis
that does not include an assumed minimum rate (e.g., assigned
rate = 0 if no events observed within the grid radius),
whereas the plotted line does assume the minimum rates. It
is evident that the computed rates in this case are very similar
to those found previously. We conclude that the results
presented in Fig. 3 are robust with respect to details of the
approach taken.
Floor models used for national hazard map calculations
The GSC fourth-generation seismic hazard model includes
the floor, or F model, for the central, stable region of
Canada where there have been too few earthquakes recorded
to define reliable source zones and activity rates. This model
is based on earthquake activity rates for three separate
regions, namely central Canada, the portion of North America
that is geologically similar to central Canada, and global
regions that are geologically similar to central Canada. The
activity rates from these regions were combined using
weightings of 0.2, 0.4, and 0.4, respectively, in the deriva-
tion of the GSC national seismic hazard maps. The magnitude
recurrence parameters for this study are compared with the
Fenton et al. (2006) data for various stable continental cratons
worldwide and the three components of the GSC fourth-
generation floor model in Fig. 5. All relations have been
converted to moment magnitude or equivalent (such as MS)
for the comparison, using the conversions recommended by
the authors of each study. The b values determined in all
cases are between about 0.8 and 1.0, which are typical
1305
Fig. 5. Comparison of North American (NA) craton and central
Canadian (CC) craton recurrence models of this study with those
of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and Fenton et al. (2006).
All relations converted to moment magnitude. F, floor model.
global values. Our NA craton model rates are very similar to
the corresponding NA craton rates given by Fenton et al.
and the GSC model. Our CC craton rates are considerably
higher than those of the central Canada model of the GSC,
as the GSC central Canada model excluded all areas within
their defined source zones, such as the area enclosing the
activity near James Bay.
The US Geological Survey also uses a background seis-
micity floor for American cratonic regions in its seismic
hazard computations, although it is implemented somewhat
differently. Without going into the details, as their model is
complex and more applicable to the USA than to central
Canada, it is interesting to note that the corresponding rates
(per 106 km2 per year) they apply are 0.15 for M4, 0.017 for
M5, and 0.0031 for M6 (with b value of 0.95) (C.S. Mueller,
personal communication, 2006). These rates are very similar
to those for our NA craton model. However, they apply this
model, with a 20% weight, only in areas where the historical
seismicity rate is lower than the background rate. Because of
this implementation approach, and other differences in hazard
models, the US Geological Survey seismic hazard model, for
quiet sites in northern Montana near the CanadaUSA border,
generally produces ground motion estimates that are slightly
lower than those reported in this study (C.S. Mueller,
personal communication, 2006).
Seismic hazard analysis parameters and
weights
The input parameters typically required to calculate the
earthquake ground motions using the CornellMcGuire
method include the source-zone geometry, the magnitude
recurrence parameters, focal depth, and ground motion rela-
tions giving amplitude as a function of magnitude and
2007 NRC Canada
1306
distance. This section describes the adopted input parame-
ters. Alternatives for each significant parameter were consid-
ered, with the results being probabilistically combined using
a logic-tree format. Figure 6 shows the input logic tree.
Weights for craton source models and recurrence
parameters
Two alternative source-zone definitions for the craton, and
their associated magnituderecurrence relations, were defined
in the previous section. These alternative models can be
weighted to represent epistemic uncertainty in future earth-
quake recurrence patterns in central Canada. The selected
weights may in part depend on the intended application. The
NA craton parameters would in general be conservative for
central Canada because there are regions in the NA craton,
such as the BoothiaUngava region, that are more active
than is typical for the craton due to more recent geological
deformation. It is unlikely that central Canada would experi-
ence such seismicity rates over the next 100 years or so
because the tectonic environment is different, being charac-
terized by less recent deformation. However, the NA craton
model might be appropriate for facilities with very long
design lives, such as a nuclear waste repository. The CC
craton rate is likely appropriate for facilities in central
Canada with design lives of the order of 100 years or less,
as it considers the overall seismicity levels across a broad
region that is tectonically similar and exhibits similar seis-
micity rates. The NA craton and CC craton models can be
combined in a logic tree to allow hazards to be estimated for
a range of design lives.
In evaluating the weights that should be given to alterna-
tive source models, a relevant question concerns the stability
of current seismicity rates over time. In general, studies
undertaken in regions with very long historical seismicity
records, such as China, indicate that the best indication of
activity levels in the next 50100 years is obtained by
assuming the rates from the last 50100 years will be repeated
(as opposed to using, say, an average rate for the last
1000 years) (McGuire and Barnhard 1981); the reason for
this is that, even in regions such as China that show time-
varying behaviour of seismicity rates, the rate of change in
rates with time is slow. An analogy can be made with the
weather: in the absence of any other information, our best
forecast for tomorrows temperature is that it will be the
same as today.
A weight of 0.1 for the NA craton model and 0.9 for the
CC craton model is suggested for facilities with a relatively
short design life in the range of 50100 years which pose no
significant hazard following decommissioning. Over this time
period, it is most likely that the future patterns of seismicity
will be similar to the patterns of seismicity in the recent
past. For facilities with a longer design life, such as tailings
impoundments that are not operational but do present an
ongoing stability hazard and must be stable in perpetuity,
more weighting should be given to the NA craton model.
This model may be a better estimate of the patterns of seis-
micity that may occur over long periods of time (thousands
of years or more). Three different weighting schemes are
suggested in Table 2 that correspond to a range of design
lives. Results for these three different weightings between
the CC craton and NA craton are presented in the next section.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007
Fig. 6. Logic tree for consideration of uncertainties in seismic
hazard analysis. Weightings are given in parentheses. CC, central
Canadian; NA, North American.
Table 2. Suggested model weightings for varying design lives.
CC craton NA craton
weighting (%) weighting (%) Suggested design life
90 10 Tens to hundreds of years
70 30 Hundreds to thousands of years
50 50 Thousands to tens of thousands
of years
Note: CC, central Canadian; NA, North American.
Within the CC craton model, uncertainty in the recurrence
rates is considered using a source-activity rate parameter
that is a factor of 3 higher and lower than the best estimate,
with a weighting of 0.1 for the high rate and 0.2 for the low
rate (Fig. 6); a lower weight was accorded the higher esti-
mate, as it is deemed unlikely that the CC craton rates would
be as high as the overall rates calculated for the NA craton
(which coincide with the high CC craton estimate). The best
estimate rate was given a weighting of 0.7. A single rate
parameter was used for the NA model, as this model is given
a lower or equal weighting in the logic tree, and the statistics
are better constrained for the NA craton model.
Ground motion prediction equations and weights
Ground motion relations describe the amplitude of a ground
motion parameter, such as acceleration or velocity, as a func-
tion of earthquake magnitude, distance from the source, and
spectral period. The Atkinson and Boore (1995) ground
motion relations were used in this study for consistency with
the fourth-generation seismic hazard model of the GSC for
eastern and central Canada. (Note that an updated version of
these relations has been derived by Atkinson and Boore (2006)
but was not yet available at the time this study was per-
formed.) The Atkinson and Boore (1995) relationship was
derived for hard-rock sites (National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) site class A). An important
aspect of the uncertainty in the hazard calculations is the
statistical scatter about the median attenuation relationship,
which is characterized by the standard deviation of the natural
2007 NRC Canada
Atkinson and Martens 1307

Fig. 7. Uniform hazard spectrum for central Canada for a weighting of 90% central Canadian craton model and 10% North American
craton model (short design life): (a) mean, median, and 16th and 84th percentile values (horizontal component, hard rock) for 2% in
50 years (1/2500 pa); (b) corresponding results for 1/10 000 pa. PGA, peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity.

logarithm of the residuals (slnk, where k is the ground motion
parameter), often referred to as sigma. This aspect of uncer-
tainty is incorporated directly in the hazard calculations by
integrating over the variability about the median ground
motion relations. Larger sigma values lead to larger calcu-
lated ground motions, particularly at low probability levels.
For this study, the sigma values recommended by Atkinson
and Boore were used. These period-dependent factors ranged
from 0.55 to 0.62 natural logarithm units.
Epistemic uncertainty in the Atkinson and Boore (1995)
attenuation relation was characterized by Atkinson (1995),
who provided recommended equation coefficients and weight-
ings for upper bound, median, and lower bound relations
based on Atkinson and Boore. The more accurate tabular
format of the Atkinson and Boore attenuation relations was
used, rather than the quadratic approximation to these data
used by Adams and Halchuk (2003) in the GSC hazard map
calculations. To implement the upper and lower bound rela-
tions, the ground motion values were factored up or down
based on the upper and lower equation coefficients listed in
Atkinson. This study used weights of 0.28 for the lower
bound, 0.44 for the median, and 0.28 for the upper bound
relations, respectively, for all periods (simplified from Atkinson
1995).
Other input parameters and weights
The source models, recurrence parameters, and ground
motion relations are the most important parameters for the
seismic hazard analysis for sites in central Canada. Other
parameters have only a minor influence on the results. Focal
depths of 5, 10, and 20 km were considered in the logic tree,
with weightings of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.25, respectively. These
depths and weightings are consistent with the GSC fourth-
generation model, and with the histograms of Wheeler and
Johnston (1992), who compiled depths of moderate to large
earthquakes in eastern North America.
The minimum magnitude cutoff selected for inclusion in
the hazard calculations was M4.75. Deaggregation analyses
of the hazard indicate that, numerically, some additional hazard
does accrue from smaller magnitude events very close to the
site. It is empirically well accepted that below some threshold
magnitude, earthquakes do not generally cause damage to
engineered structures, even if they produce high acceleration
amplitudes, as the ground motion will have a very short
duration and little effect due to its lack of energy at interme-
diate to long periods. The usual accepted solution is to accrue
hazard only from earthquakes having a magnitude above
which some damage could potentially occur. This threshold
magnitude is typically taken to be in the range of M4.5 to

2007 NRC Canada

1308 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Fig. 8. Uniform hazard spectrum for central Canada for a weighting of 70% central Canadian craton model and 30% North American
craton model (long design life): (a) mean, median, and 16th and 84th percentile values (horizontal component, hard rock) for 2% in
50 years (1/2500 pa); (b) corresponding results for 1/10 000 pa. PGA, peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity.

M5.0. For this study, M4.75 was selected for consistency
with the fourth-generation GSC model.
The best estimate of the maximum magnitude is based on
Johnston et al. (1994) and Fenton et al. (2006); these studies
concluded that M7.0 is the approximate maximum magnitude
that occurs in unrifted stable continental cratons throughout
the world. This maximum magnitude is consistent with the
GSC floor model. Upper and lower bounds of M7.2 and
M6.8, respectively, were included in the logic tree, following
Fenton et al. The best estimate, lower bound, and upper
bound were given weightings of 0.6, 0.3, and 0.1, respec-
tively, in the logic tree. The lower estimate receives a higher
weighting than the upper, based on the observation that the
largest stable craton event worldwide during the period of
historic record had M6.8 (Johnston et al. 1994).
Seismic hazard results
The seismic hazard calculations were performed at the
centre of an arbitrary octagonal source with an area of 1
106 km2 (approximate radius of 570 km). The earthquake
activity rates within the area source are assumed to be uni-
form, as defined by the magnituderecurrence relations. This
area source is sufficiently large that the hazard at the centre
of the source is not affected by the location of the source
boundaries.
Calculated ground motions are presented for three combi-
nations of weighting between the CC craton model and the
NA craton model, as listed in Table 2. Ground motions are
presented for the random horizontal component, for site class
A (hard rock) conditions. The uniform hazard spectra for the
mean, median, 16th percentile, and 84th percentile results
are presented in Fig. 7 for the 90% CC craton and 10% NA
craton weighting. Corresponding spectra for the 70% CC
craton and 30% NA craton weighting and the 50% CC craton
and 50% NA craton weighting are shown in Figs. 8 and 9,
respectively. Mean and median uniform hazard spectra, peak
ground velocity (PGV), and peak ground acceleration (PGA)
are presented in Tables 35 for each of the three weighting
combinations of the CC craton and NA craton models. It
should be noted that the case giving 90% weight to the CC
craton model produces mean ground motion predictions that
are not much higher than would be obtained by giving 100%
weight to the CC model. Specifically, the 10% weight
accorded to the more active NA craton model acts to increase
predicted mean ground motions by about 10% (relative to
predictions made giving no weight to the NA craton model)
while having little effect on median motions.

2007 NRC Canada

Atkinson and Martens 1309

Fig. 9. Uniform hazard spectrum for central Canada for a weighting of 50% central Canadian craton model and 50% North American
craton model (very long design life): (a) mean, median, and 16th and 84th percentile values (horizontal component, hard rock) for 2%
in 50 years (1/2500 pa); (b) corresponding results for 1/10 000 pa. PGA, peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity.

Comparison with Geological Survey of Canada fourth-
generation model
Table 6 compares the mean results of this study with the
median ground motions for the floor model in the GSC
fourth-generation model, at a probability of 2% in 50 years.
We use our mean values for the comparison, as these are the
recommended values; we compare these with the GSC median
because that is what is adopted in the national seismic
hazard maps. To make the comparisons, the GSC values,
which are given for site class C (firm ground) by Adams and
Halchuk (2003), are converted to the site class A (hard rock)
equivalent used in this study. The conversion is made by
dividing the GSC firm-ground values by the reference ground
condition factors that they used to convert their original cal-
culations for site class A to the C values that they provide in
the national hazard maps (see Adams and Halchuk 2003 for
details). The most directly relevant comparison is to the case
that gives 50% weight to the NA craton model (with 50% to
the CC craton model). Note that the GSC model accords
40% weight to the NA craton model, 20% weight to a CC
craton model (similar but not identical to our CC model),
and 40% to a global model.
Compared with our results (for 50% CC craton weight),
the GSC 2% in 50 year ground motion values are about 50%
higher at short periods, although they are similar at longer
periods. In our view, the GSC model is conservative for
application to regions of central Canada that do not include
any of the geologically younger features included in the
Fenton et al. (2006) definition of NA craton. This is a signif-
icant reason why we might expect the results for the GSC
floor model to be higher than ours. Another important rea-
son for the difference is that the GSC model used a simple
quadratic approximation of the Atkinson and Boore (1995)
ground motion prediction equations which is known to over-
estimate expected ground motions for low-seismicity sites.
For such sites, the more accurate tabular form is recom-
mended by Atkinson and Boore and was used in this study.
A sensitivity calculation reveals that use of the quadratic
approximation would increase the computed values that we
obtained by about 50% at short periods while having little
effect on long-period values. We therefore conclude that
much of the difference in results between this study and the
GSC values can be attributed to the adoption of the less
accurate quadratic approximation of the AB95 relations in
the GSC calculations. It is worth noting that our results,
although lower than the corresponding GSC results, are con-
servative relative to the US Geological Survey results for
quiet cratonic sites near the CanadaUSA border. This pro-

2007 NRC Canada

1310 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 34, 2007

Table 3. Peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA), and uniform hazard spectra for 90% central Canadian craton
model and 10% North American craton model.
Return Confidence PGV PGA Sa(0.05) Sa(0.1) Sa(0.2) Sa(0. 5) Sa(1) Sa(2)
period level (m/s) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g)
1/1 000 Mean 0.004 0.9 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.1 0.4 0.2
1/1 000 Median 0.002 0.8 1.9 1.9 1.6 0.6 0.2 <0.1
1/2 500 Mean 0.009 2.0 4.6 4.3 3.6 1.9 0.8 0.3
1/2 500 Median 0.005 1.7 4.0 3.7 2.8 1.2 0.4 0.1
1/10 000 Mean 0.020 5.1 12.4 10.3 8.1 4.2 1.9 0.7
1/10 000 Median 0.012 4.5 11.0 8.8 6.1 2.4 0.9 0.3
Note: SA, spectral acceleration.

Table 4. Peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA), and uniform hazard spectra for 70% central Canadian craton
model and 30% North American craton model.
Return Confidence PGV PGA Sa(0.05) Sa(0.1) Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1) Sa(2)
period level (m/s) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g)
1/1 000 Mean 0.005 1.2 2.6 2.7 2.4 1.3 0.5 0.2
1/1 000 Median 0.003 0.8 1.9 2.0 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.1
1/2 500 Mean 0.010 2.3 5.6 5.2 4.3 2.2 1.0 0.3
1/2 500 Median 0.005 1.7 4.1 3.8 2.8 1.2 0.4 0.2
1/10 000 Mean 0.022 6.0 14.8 12.0 9.3 4.8 2.1 0.8
1/10 000 Median 0.012 4.6 11.2 9.2 6.3 2.5 0.9 0.3

Table 5. Peak ground velocity (PGV), peak ground acceleration (PGA), and uniform hazard spectra for 50% central Canadian craton
model and 50% North American craton model.
Return Confidence PGV PGA Sa(0.05) Sa(0.1) Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1) Sa(2)
period level (m/s) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g)
1/1 000 Mean 0.006 1.4 3.1 3.1 2.7 1.4 0.6 0.2
1/1 000 Median 0.004 0.8 2.0 2.0 1.6 0.8 0.3 0.1
1/2 500 Mean 0.012 2.7 6.5 5.9 4.8 2.5 1.1 0.4
1/2 500 Median 0.007 1.8 4.2 3.8 2.9 1.5 0.6 0.2
1/10 000 Mean 0.025 6.9 16.9 13.5 10.4 5.3 2.3 0.9
1/10 000 Median 0.016 4.7 11.5 9.4 6.5 3.4 1.3 0.3

Table 6. Comparison of mean results from this study with those from the Geological Survey
of Canada (GSC) floor model (median) for a 2% in 50 year probability for hard rock (site
class A).
PGA Sa(0.1) Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1) Sa(2)
Case (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g) (% g)
GSC median 4.2 6.3 6.2 2.4 0.9 0.2
Mean this study (50% CC, 50% NA) 2.7 5.9 4.8 2.5 1.1 0.4
70% CC, 30% NA 2.3 5.2 4.3 2.2 1.0 0.3
90% CC, 10% NA 2.0 4.3 3.6 1.9 0.8 0.3
Note: CC, central Canadian craton; NA, North American craton.

2007 NRC Canada

Atkinson and Martens
vides an additional check that our results are in reasonable
agreement with other international standards.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the helpful and constructive comments
from the external reviewers on the project, Dr. Russell L.
Wheeler and Dr. Charles S. Mueller, both of the US Geolog-
ical Survey. The comments received from members of the
Fort McMurray Seismic Hazard Working Group and from
Dr. John Adams of the Geological Survey of Canada were
also appreciated. The review comments from two anony-
mous referees resulted in significant improvements in the
manuscript. This study was funded by Albian Sands Energy,
Canadian Natural Resources, Suncor Energy, and Syncrude
Canada, who made up the industry representatives of the
Fort McMurray Seismic Hazard Working Group. The interest
and support of all members of the working group were
appreciated.
References
Adams, J., and Basham, P. 1989. Seismicity and seismotectonics of
eastern Canada. Geoscience Canada, 16: 316.
Adams, J., and Bell, J.S. 1991. Crustal stresses in Canada. In
Neotectonics of North America. The geology of North America.
Edited by D.B. Slemmons, E.R. Engdahl, M.D. Zoback, and
D.D. Blackwell. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo.
Decade Map Vol. 1, pp. 367386.
Adams, J., and Halchuk, S. 2003. Fourth generation seismic hazard
maps of Canada: values for over 650 Canadian localities in-
tended for the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. Geolog-
ical Survey of Canada, Open File 4459.
Atkinson, G. 1993. Source spectra for earthquakes in eastern North
America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 83:
17781798.
Atkinson, G. 1995. Ground motion relations for use in eastern
hazard analyses. In Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Montral, Que., 57 June 1995.
Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering, Montral, Que.
pp. 10011008.
Atkinson, G., and Boore, D. 1995. New ground motion relations
for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 85: 1730.
1311
Atkinson, G., and Boore, D. 2006. Ground motion prediction equa-
tions for earthquakes in eastern North America. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, 96: 21812205.
Fenton, C., Adams, J., and Halchuk, S. 2006. Seismic hazards
assessment for radioactive disposal sites in regions of low seis-
micity. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 24: 579592.
Johnston, A.C. 1996a. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes
in stable continental regions I. Instrumental seismicity. Geo-
physical Journal International, 124(2): 381414.
Johnston, A.C. 1996b. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes
in stable continental regions II. Historical seismicity. Geo-
physical Journal International, 125(3): 639678.
Johnston, A.C. 1996c. Seismic moment assessment of earthquakes
in stable continental regions III. New Madrid 18111812,
Charleston 1886 and Lisbon 1755. Geophysical Journal Interna-
tional, 126(2): 314344.
Johnston, A., Coppersmith, K., Kanter, L., and Cornell, C.A. 1994.
The earthquakes of stable continental regions. Vol. 1. Report
TR-102261-V1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
Calif.
Kerr, J.W. 1977. Cornwallis Fold Belt and the mechanism of base-
ment uplift. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 14: 13741401.
Kerr, J. 1980. Structural framework of Lancaster Aulocogen, Arctic
Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 319.
McGuire, R.K. 1993. Computations of seismic hazard. Annali di
Geofisica, 36(34): 181200.
McGuire, R. 2004. Seismic hazard and risk analysis. EERI Mono-
graph MNO-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI),
Oakland, Calif.
McGuire, R., and Barnhard, T. 1981. Effects of temporal variations
in seismicity on seismic hazard. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, 71: 321334.
NRCC. 2005. National building code of Canada. National Research
Council of Canada (NRCC), Ottawa, Ont.
Okulitch, A.V., Packard, J.J., and Zolani, A.I. 1986. Evolution of
the Boothia Uplift, Arctic Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences, 23: 350358.
Risk Engineering, Inc. 2005. EZ-FRISK software, version 7.0.
Risk Engineering, Inc., Boulder, Colo.
Wheeler, R. 1995. Earthquakes and the cratonward limit of Iapetan
faulting in eastern North America. Geology, 23: 105108.
Wheeler, R., and Johnston, A. 1992. Geologic implications of earth-
quake source parameters in central and eastern North America.
Seismological Research Letters, 63: 491514.
2007 NRC Canada