EPRI/SOG Mmax –Six earth-science teams, diverse methods largest observed eq (+ increment) catalog statistics – extreme occurrences seismogenic feature:

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Seismic analysis and design of

Advertisements

The Geography of North America

2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II1 UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications Hazard comparison metrics Inversion testing –Convergence and eqn. set weighting.

CyberShake Project and ShakeMaps. CyberShake Project CyberShake is a SCEC research project that is a physics-based high performance computational approach.

Application of GIS for Seismic Observation in Papua New Guinea

Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.

Keck Telescope Seismic Upgrade Design Support - Progress Report Frank Kan Andrew Sarawit 4 May 2011 (Revised 5 May 2011)

American Samoa Seismic Hazard Maps Mark D. Petersen, Stephen C. Harmsen, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Charles S. Mueller, Daniel E. McNamara, Nicolas Luco, and.

Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis Earliest approach taken to seismic hazard analysis Originated in nuclear power industry applications Still used for.

1 High Performance Computing at SCEC Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California.

Yan Y. Kagan Dept. Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA , EARTHQUAKE.

Seismic/Eruption Teaching Modules Lawrence W. Braile Sheryl J. Braile Teaching About Earthquakes.

Earthquake Hazard Assessment in the Pacific Northwest: Site Response Thomas L. Pratt U. S. Geological Survey School of Oceanography University of Washington.

Yan Y. Kagan Dept. Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA , Full.

The use of risk in design: ATC 58 performance assessment procedure Craig D. Comartin.

Time-dependent seismic hazard maps for the New Madrid seismic zone and Charleston, South Carolina areas James Hebden Seth Stein Department of Earth and.

Database of Ground Motions For NGA East A Presentation by Chris Cramer at the Stakeholder NGA East Workshop NIST Gaithersburg, MD March 7, 2008.

SCEC: An NSF + USGS Research Center ShakeAlert CISN Testing Center (CTC) Development Philip Maechling Information Technology Architect Southern California.

AMERICA’S 5 REGIONS. The United States is a massive country Areas of the United States have common links: culture, language, religion, and environment.

Seismic Upgrade Risk versus Benefit Shawn Callahan Mike Pollard 5/31/11.

Turkey Earthquake Risk Model Financing the Risks of Natural Disasters World Bank Washington, DC, June 2-3, 2003 Dennis E. Kuzak Senior Vice President,

Outline: Lecture 4 Risk Assessment I.The concepts of risk and hazard II.Shaking hazard of Afghanistan III.Seismic zone maps IV.Construction practice What.

Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Earthquake Hazard Session 1 Mr. James Daniell Risk Analysis

PEER EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Allin Cornell Stanford University SCEC WORKSHOP Oakland, CA.

Michael Hodges, Chris Kohlenberger, Nolan Mattox, and Christian Vanderwall Seismic Hazard Map Plugin Improvement of ShakeMap Plugin Custom Color Maps Team.

Exploring Planet Earth Blind Thrust Fault Earthquake Rupture Animation (Northridge, 1994) Brad Aagaard, USGS

IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.

Major Ongoing Ground Motion Research Programs at PEER Yousef Bozorgnia, Ph.D., P.E. PEER, University of California, Berkeley.

The “EPRI” Bayesian M max Approach for Stable Continental Regions (SCR) (Johnston et al. 1994) Robert Youngs AMEC Geomatrix USGS Workshop on Maximum Magnitude.

Invited Workshop on Strong-Motion Record Processing Convened by The Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) Pacific.

Earthquake Science (Seismology). Seismometers and seismic networks Seismometers and seismic networks Earthquake aftershocks Earthquake aftershocks Earthquake.

Research opportunities using IRIS and other seismic data resources John Taber, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Michael Wysession, Washington.

The United States 4 Key Regions Of the Country. The 48 connected states are called the CONTINENTAL states.

FEMA/ EARTH SCIENCE ASPECTS OF HAZUS Ivan Wong Seismic Hazards Group URS Corporation Oakland, CA.

Estimation of Future Earthquake Annualized Losses in California B. Rowshandel, M. Reichle, C. Wills, T. Cao, M. Petersen, and J. Davis California Geological.

Earthquake hazard isn’t a physical thing we measure. It's something mapmakers define and then use computer programs to predict. To decide how much to believe.

OPENQUAKE Mission and Vision It is GEM’s mission to engage a global community in the design, development and deployment of state-of-the-art models and.

Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.

GNS Science Natural Hazards Research Platform Progress in understanding the Canterbury Earthquakes Kelvin Berryman Manager, Natural Hazards Research Platform.

Sources and scenarios for tsunami hazard assessment in the Mediterranean A very preliminary view.

Translating the 2009 Provisions into ASCE 7-10: Ground Motions Maps

GLOBAL EARTHQUAKE FORECASTS Yan Y. Kagan and David D. Jackson Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California Los Angeles Abstract We.

Crisis2007. Map data Enter GIS files,.shp (ArcGIS) format Not necessary. Only usefull to see where the sources are.

GROUND MOTION SIMULATIONS AT RAPID RESPONSE SITES IN ISTANBUL, TURKEY Mathilde Bøttger Sørensen 1, Nelson Pulido 2, Anibal Ojeda 3, Kuvvet Atakan 1, Mustafa.

GIS APPLICATIONS IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING: NORTHWEST TURKEY

Process for 2007 Maps CA Oct 2006 PacNW Mar 2006 InterMtn West June 2006 CEUS May 2006 National User-Needs Workshop DEC 2006 CA Draft maps (Project 07)

Ground-Motion Attenuation Relationships for Cascadia Subduction Zone Megathrust Earthquakes Based on a Stochastic Finite-Fault Model Nick Gregor 1, Walter.

Fault Segmentation: User Perspective Norm Abrahamson PG&E March 16, 2006.

Seismic Hazard Analysis for Guam & the Northern Mariana Islands Chuck Mueller U.S. Geological Survey Golden, Colorado, USA.

Earthquakes Hazards in North America A. Both plate boundary and within plate earthquakes Most of these are at ancient (former) plate boundaries now buried.

Questions of the Day 2/28/2017 What is the difference between the epicenter of an earthquake and the focus of an earthquake?

ShakeAlert CISN Testing Center (CTC) Development

Yelena Kropivnitskaya, Kristy F. Tiampo,

September 11, 2017 U.S. History Agenda: DO NOW: City Matching

British Seismology Meeting 5th – 7th April 2017, Reading, UK

Kris Vasudevan and David W. Eaton Department of Geoscience

Knowledge exists to be imparted. (R.W. Emerson)

NGA-East Tentative Plan

Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center

Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015

Unit 3 Lesson 5: Regional Cities

Foreshock（Mj6.5) Main shock（Mj7.3) 28 hrs later

Foreshock（Mj6.5) Main shock（Mj7.3) 28 hrs later

September 10, 2018 U.S. History Agenda: DO NOW: City Matching

What major features make up the U. S. ’s Northeast and South Regions

VII. Earthquake Mitigation

Dr. Praveen K. Malhotra, P.E.

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

Presentation transcript:

EPRI/SOG Mmax –Six earth-science teams, diverse methods largest observed eq (+ increment) catalog statistics – extreme occurrences seismogenic feature: size, crustal setting, etc. extrapolate frequency-magnitude curve (e.g., the 1,000-year eq) global analogs saturation of m b scale others … –Broad distributions reflect diverse methods & large uncertainties –Approximate center: mid-m b -5 (quiet sites), mid-m b -6 (active sites) USGS Mmax –CEUS global analogs: stable continental regions (AJ), Bhuj Craton: M 7.0 Extended Margin: M 7.5 Mmax distribution for 2008 Figure A2-1

Figure A2-2

EPRI/SOG and USGS Mmax distributions for South Texas Project site’s host source zones (original EPRI/SOG, not updated for 2006 Gulf of Mexico earthquakes) EPRI/SOG USGS (margin) Figure A2-3 Mmax (m b )

EPRI/SOG and USGS Mmax distributions for North Anna site’s host source zones USGS (margin) EPRI/SOG Figure A2-4 Mmax (m b )

Develop alternative Mmax models that span those used in EPRI/SOG (and current PSHA practice) Test Mmax models using USGS hazard model and computer codes –seismicity-based sources only (because they control the mid- to high-frequency hazard at many sites & Mmax is uncertain and controversial) –hold all parameters fixed except Mmax Compare hazard results with current USGS model as ratio hazard maps and lists for selected sites –numerator: alternative Mmax / denominator: standard USGS Mmax –probabilistic ground motions for PGA, 5 Hz, 1 Hz –2% probability of exceedance in 50 years Analysis Figure A2-5

Alternative Mmax Models M5.0c5.5m –M 5.0 in craton, M 5.5 in margin –m b equivalent: 5.47c, 5.90m (AB95) or 5.27c, 5.67m (J96) M6.0c6.5m –M 6.0 craton, M 6.5 margin –m b equivalent: 6.29c, 6.66m (AB95) or 6.04c, 6.40m (J96) M7.0c7.5m –M 7.0 craton, M 7.5 margin –m b equivalent: 7.00c, 7.32m (AB95) or 6.74c, 7.07m (J96) Figure A2-6

North Anna m max (m b ) M6.0c6.5mM5.0c5.5mM7.0c7.5m South Texas m max (m b ) M6.0c6.5mM5.0c5.5mM7.0c7.5m Figure A2-7 Mmax (m b )

Hazard map (PGA, 2% prob of exc in 50 yrs): seismicity sources only, standard USGS Mmax Ratio hazard map (PGA, 2% prob of exc in 50 yrs): seismicity sources only / all sources Warm colors show where seismicity-based sources control hazard. Figure A2-8 (Prob of exc, px: probability of exceedance)

Alternate Mmax model: M5.0c5.5m Ratio hazard maps (2% prob of exc in 50 yrs) M5.0c5.5m (sso) / standard USGS Mmax model (sso) 0.2-sec SA 1.0-sec SA Figure A2-9 (Prob of exc, px: probability of exceedance)

Alternate Mmax model: M6.0c6.5m Ratio hazard maps (2% prob of exc in 50 yrs) M6.0c6.5m (sso) / standard USGS Mmax model (sso) 0.2-sec SA 1.0-sec SA Figure A2-10 (Prob of exc, px: probability of exceedance)

Alternate Mmax model: M7.0c7.5m Ratio hazard maps (2% prob of exc in 50 yrs) M7.0c7.5m (sso) / standard USGS Mmax model (sso) 0.2-sec SA 1.0-sec SA Figure A2-11 (Prob of exc, px: probability of exceedance)

M5.0c5.5mM6.0c6.5mM7.0c7.5m 0.2 sec1.0 sec0.2 sec1.0 sec0.2 sec1.0 sec Boston New York City Washington D.C Pittsburgh Charleston Atlanta Cincinnati Chicago Memphis Baton Rouge St. Louis Minneapolis Wichita Austin Rapid City Denver Ratios of probabilistic ground motions (2% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs): Alternate Mmax (seismicity sources only) / USGS (seismicity sources only) Figure A2-12

Alternate Mmax model: M5.0c5.5m Ratio hazard maps (2% prob of exc in 50 yrs) Use M5.0c5.5m for numerator seismicity sources, but add the faults to both the numerator and denominator models 0.2-sec SA 1.0-sec SA Figure A2-13 (Prob of exc, px: probability of exceedance)