1 / 15

Next-Level ShakeZoning for Earthquake Hazard Definition in the Intermountain West

Next-Level ShakeZoning for Earthquake Hazard Definition in the Intermountain West. John N. Louie , Will Savran , Brady Flinchum , Gabriel Plank, Graham Kent, Kenneth D. Smith Nevada Seismological Laboratory Satish K. Pullammanappallil, Aasha Pancha Optim Seismic Data Solutions

odeda
Télécharger la présentation

Next-Level ShakeZoning for Earthquake Hazard Definition in the Intermountain West

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Next-Level ShakeZoning for Earthquake Hazard Definitionin the Intermountain West John N. Louie, Will Savran, Brady Flinchum, Gabriel Plank, Graham Kent, Kenneth D. Smith Nevada Seismological Laboratory Satish K. Pullammanappallil, AashaPancha Optim Seismic Data Solutions Werner K. Hellmer Clark County Dept. of Development Services

  2. Next-Level ShakeZoning • Goal is to predict earthquake shaking • For hazard mapping, planning • Building-code development and enforcement • Emergency response • USGS ShakeMap • Based on statistical averages; sparse data • Most data came from California, Japan, Taiwan • Next-Level ShakeZoning for Nevada • Based on: Wave Physics • Geological & Geotechnical data from the IMW • Validating against Nevada earthquake records

  3. Clark County & Henderson Parcel Map 10,721 Measurements Urban Areas of County

  4. Clark County & Henderson Parcel Map Parcel Classification for IBC NEHRP C & D classes “C+” class for NEHRP B velocities with soft surface

  5. Build Parcel Map into ShakeZoning ShakeZoning Geotech Map Warmer colors: lower Vs30 (meter) Parcel Map on top of IBC default Vs30

  6. Adding Fault and Basin Geology Black Hills Fault in Google Earth with USGS Qfaults trace Langenheim Basin Map

  7. Adding Physics • Black Hills M6.5 event • Short trace but 4-m scarps noted • Viscoelastic finite-difference solution • 0.5-Hz frequency • 0.20-km grid spacing • A few hours on our small cluster • Mode conversion, rupture directivity, reverberation, trapping in basins

  8. Black Hills M6.5 Scenario Results • Max Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) >140 cm/sec • PGV over 60 cm/sec (yellow) bleeds into LVV through Railroad Pass • Large event for a short fault • Unlikely, but add to hazard probabilistically • Need to know how unlikely

  9. Surprising Effect of Parcel Map Over IBC Defaults 1-D Amplification Used in IBC, ShakeMap 3-D Amplification from ShakeZoning

  10. ShakeMap versus ShakeZoning Yellow is 60 cm/sec on both Geotech estimated from topography ShakeZoning shows trapping in basins Hazard map is difficult to predict

  11. Frenchman Mountain Fault M6.7 Scenario Possible Scarp in Neighborhood Event Inside the LVV Basin

  12. 2-Segment Frenchman Mtn. Fault M6.7

  13. Effect of Parcel Map Over IBC Defaults

  14. With Many Scenarios, Define Probabilistic Hazard • Recurrence Intervals: • Black Hills- 15 ka • Frenchman Mtn.- 45 ka • e.g., PGV at UNLV: • ~20 cm/s from BHF • ~15 cm/s from FMF • Combine rates per annum: • >15 cm/s at 0.0001 p.a. • >20 cm/s at 0.00007 p.a.

  15. With Many Scenarios, Define Probabilistic Hazard dePolo, 2008, NBMG Map 167 • Japan and New Zealand Lesson: Don’t Ignore Worst Case!

More Related