seismic hazard mapping

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

seismic hazard mapping

© All Rights Reserved

- Gordon-Michael Scallion a Summary of His Most Important Predictions
- zonation manual 99.pdf
- A Brief Account of the Catfish as a Cultural Symbol in Japan
- Course Notes Earthquake Engineering
- 5376
- SEISMIC VULNERABILITY EVALUATION OF URBAN STRUCTURES IN METRO MANILA_2004
- thesis-vmp-phd.pdf
- PTS_18.00.01 HSE Management System HSEMS.pdf
- zoe mildon lecturer cv
- Clup Resource Book_v04
- qra.pdf
- Msy Chapter 6 - Hirarc
- At 2013 Seismic Soil - Foundation - Structure Interaction Observed in Geotechnical Centrifuge Experiments
- SAEP-366
- DGNB CORE14
- Transkripsi Tsunami Jepun -Translasi
- location risk assessment
- Expert Evaluation of West Valley Fault
- Risk Assessment Form
- Survey About Earthquakes

You are on page 1of 19

then use computer programs to predict. To decide

how much to believe a hazard map, we need to

know what the mapmakers assumed, and what the

effects of those choices were.

- how large?

Assume that an earthquake of a certain size will strike in a

certain time and cause shaking within a certain area.

areas more likely to have earthquakes, and have stronger

shaking close to the epicenter. Hazard at a given location is

described by the maximum shaking due to earthquakes that is

predicted to happen in a given period of time.

Two methods of predicting hazard

DHSA - deterministic seismic hazard assessment - chose

the biggest earthquake to worry about, decide where & how

big it will be, and how much shaking it will cause.

PSHA - probabilistic seismic hazard assessment - estimate

combined hazard from many different earthquakes. Use the

probabilities and uncertainties of factors like the

location and times of earthquakes and how much shaking

will result from an earthquake of a given magnitude.

DSHA makes society spend lots of money preparing for an event

that is very unlikely to happen during a structure's life.

PSHA defines hazard via a mathematical event rather than real

one, so results depend in complex ways on the probabilities and

uncertainties assumed. ”Simplicity is deeply veiled by user-

hostile notation, antonymous jargon, and proprietary

software"(Hanks and Cornell, 1994.

As probabilistic models cover longer time windows they become

about the same as deterministic ones, but emphasize extreme

cases even more

“Estimates of some

specific PSHA

studies are very

surprising,

particularly at small

exceedance rates.

High standard

deviations in ground

motion prediction

equations are a

leading candidate to

explain the surprising

hazard predictions.”

Anderson, 2010

SHORT

RECORD OF

SEISMICITY &

HAZARD

ESTIMATE

Africa-Eurasia

convergence NUVEL-1

rate varies Argus et al., 1989

smoothly

Predicted hazard from historic

seismicity is highly variable

Likely overestimated near

recent earthquakes,

underestimated elsewhere

More uniform hazard seems

more plausible - or opposite if

time dependence considered

GSHAP

Map changes after major

earthquakes

SHORT

RECORD OF

SEISMICITY &

HAZARD

ESTIMATE

Africa-Eurasia

convergence NUVEL-1

rate varies Argus et al., 1989

smoothly

Predicted hazard from historic

seismicity is highly variable

Likely overestimated near

recent earthquakes,

underestimated elsewhere 2003

more plausible - or opposite if 2004

time dependence considered

GSHAP

Map changes after major

earthquakes

Long record needed to see real hazard

“Our glacial

loading model

suggests that

earthquakes

may occur 1985

anywhere

along the rifted

margin which

has been

glaciated.”

Stein et al., 2005

1979

HIGH MODELED NMSZ HAZARD RESULTS FROM

HIGH-END ASSUMPTIONS

Systematic

past ones in location & timing space-time variability

acceleration predicted at Arbitrary choice on

10% probability in 50 yr policy grounds; no

to 2% in 50 yr (1/ 500 yr to 1/2500 yr) cost/benefit analysis

Measurement

- Large magnitude of 1811-12 Uncertainty in

and thus future large interpreting intensity

earthquakes data

- High ground motion in large Lack of data; chose

events high model

Algermissen et al., 1982

Hazard redefined

from maximum

acceleration

predicted at

10% probability

in 50 yr

(1/ 500 yr )

to much higher

2% in 50 yr

(1/2500 yr)

New Madrid hazard

higher than

California

results largely from

redefining hazard as 500 yr

largest shaking

expected every

2500 yr: 2500 yr Searer & Freeman, 2002

Not so for 500 yr

500 yr 2500 yr

PREDICTED

HAZARD

DEPENDS ON

ASSUMED

MAXIMUM

MAGNITUDE OF

LARGEST

EVENTS AND

ASSUMED

GROUND

MOTION MODEL

Frankel/Toro:

St Louis 1.8

Memphis 1.3 Newman et

al., 2001

EFFECTS OF

ASSUMED

GROUND

MOTION MODEL

Effect as large as one

magnitude unit

Frankel model,

developed for maps,

predicts significantly

greater shaking for M >7

Frankel M 7 similar to

other models’ M 8

averaged in 1996 maps;

Atkinson & Boore not

used

Newman et al., 2001

ASSUMED HAZARD

DEPENDS ON

EARTHQUAKE

PROBABILITY

ASSUMPTION

Constant since last

event: time

independent

Small after last

event, then grows:

time dependent

Time dependent

lower until ~2/3 mean

recurrence

Results depend on

model & parameters

Hebden & Stein, 2008

RELATIVE PREDICTED HAZARD DEPENDS

ON POSITION IN EARTHQUAKE CYCLE

Time dependent

lower until ~2/3

mean

recurrence

Charleston &

New Madrid

early in their

cycles so time

dependent

predicts lower

hazard

2% in 50 yr (1/2500 yr) NEW MADRID

Time dependent

Mw 7.7 (NMSZ)

model for eastern

Mw 7.3 (Charleston)

US predicts lower

New Madrid &

Charleston hazard

lowering Mmax and

thus ground

motion model

Including GPS

makes effect much

greater

Hebden & Stein, 2008

Assume from GPS data no M7 on the way

Some hazard remains from earthquakes up to M ~ 6.7

Hazard ~ 1/10 that of USGS prediction

assumes M 7 coming no M 7 coming

Hard to assess possible hazard of M7 on other faults

No evidence, but can’t exclude until we understand mechanics

CHARLESTON

2% in 50 yr (1/2500 yr)

Hebden & Stein, 2008

- Gordon-Michael Scallion a Summary of His Most Important PredictionsUploaded byhalojumper63
- zonation manual 99.pdfUploaded byRoyerArias
- A Brief Account of the Catfish as a Cultural Symbol in JapanUploaded byardeegee
- Course Notes Earthquake EngineeringUploaded byCassandra Hunter
- 5376Uploaded bySAIKAT GANGULY
- SEISMIC VULNERABILITY EVALUATION OF URBAN STRUCTURES IN METRO MANILA_2004Uploaded byJose Ti
- thesis-vmp-phd.pdfUploaded byWaqas Anjum
- PTS_18.00.01 HSE Management System HSEMS.pdfUploaded bymin thant
- zoe mildon lecturer cvUploaded byapi-447783468
- Clup Resource Book_v04Uploaded byalvz
- qra.pdfUploaded byHedi Ben Mohamed
- Msy Chapter 6 - HirarcUploaded byshah0205
- At 2013 Seismic Soil - Foundation - Structure Interaction Observed in Geotechnical Centrifuge ExperimentsUploaded byHenrique Lima
- SAEP-366Uploaded byAnonymous 4IpmN7On
- DGNB CORE14Uploaded byCarolina Maciel
- Transkripsi Tsunami Jepun -TranslasiUploaded bySiti Chan
- location risk assessmentUploaded byapi-330952033
- Expert Evaluation of West Valley FaultUploaded byAlbert J. Lesaca
- Risk Assessment FormUploaded byJulio Alves
- Survey About EarthquakesUploaded bySanguis Sulphureus
- rahman2015.pdfUploaded bynil julfikar
- 2830Uploaded bysancloud
- Local Site Effect Evaluation Using Microtremor Measurements at North Side of Pandan MountainUploaded byaditya
- Article 3 HighlightUploaded byhassan sardar
- loc risk assessment sheet 11Uploaded byapi-329256939
- 2008 Spudich & Chiou_paper+AnexosUploaded bydavidict
- Alexander 1991Uploaded byjoseduarte
- Computerhardwareservicing Practiceoccupationalhealthandsafetyprocedure Copy 180320052412Uploaded byJohn Ray Velasco
- is8a-unit4Uploaded byDimitar Ostrev
- Akshaya ReviewUploaded byChetan Patil

- MotorUploaded bySahul Hameed
- N.rosenblum Parcial.p.1a178Uploaded byGabriela Gabriela
- eikonal.pdfUploaded bynewgate05
- 11.Ufo Led High Bay (h Series)v1Uploaded byAlejandra Vm
- Crystal DefectUploaded byVikash Prasad
- Using Carbon Dioxide as a Tracer GasUploaded byAgrim Khatry
- Samsung ER650MnlUploaded byJulie Huynh
- Torsionally Stressed CylinderUploaded byChary
- Cwg Structural TankUploaded byVladimir Brujic
- BCE REPORT PDF.pdfUploaded bypratik thakare
- 2.4 Dc Characteristics of OpampUploaded byMichael Campbell
- LIT SampleUploaded bymindbendia
- Technical Information BerendsenUploaded byidontlikeebooks
- New Features in CMG 2012 SoftwareUploaded byanon_123975877
- Angular Acceleration and Centripetal ForceUploaded byNihal Agnivanshi
- Tips and Tricks Using EnergyPlusUploaded byLucio100
- A Low Cost Anthropomorphic Prosthetic Hand Using DC Micro Metal GearUploaded byAlexis Cieza Bailon
- Magnetic Properties of Zn-Ti Substituted BaFe12O19Uploaded byGRD Journals
- Notes_6(Time-varying Field).pdfUploaded byAnonymous BthO13vmB7
- unit 8 bookletUploaded byapi-308639563
- 3 Ecosystem Model ComparisonUploaded byNirob Mahmud
- 100 BOARD QUESTIONS IN CRIMINALISTICS 2012.docxUploaded byChe Elle
- Structural Design Calculation SampleUploaded byihpeter
- Concept of YajñaUploaded byArun Kumar Upadhyay
- Ground Ladders[1]Uploaded byShane Stocking
- Complex ProblemsUploaded byHarry King Corral Avenido
- BK16110167_Experiment 7_KM20701-1718-I-Formal Report.docxUploaded byRemmey Kira
- Curriculum Module Chemical BondingUploaded byup_4_anything
- KA1M0565RUploaded byricardinhobhmg
- Other Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering AnalysesUploaded byPerrito Metalero