Combining Dynamic Rupture Simulations with Ground‐Motion Data to Characterize Seismic Hazard from Mw 3 to 5.8 Earthquakes in Oklahoma and Kansas

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 652-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel A. Bydlon ◽  
Kyle B. Withers ◽  
Eric M. Dunham
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Dynamic Rupture ◽  
Motion Data

On the Comparison of Seismic Ground Motion Simulated by Physics-Based Dynamic Rupture and Predicted by Empirical Attenuation Equations

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 2595-2616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danhua Xin ◽  
Zhenguo Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Large Earthquake ◽  
Rock Properties ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Dynamic Rupture ◽  
Hazard And Risk ◽  
Hazard And Risk Assessment

ABSTRACT The improvement of ground-motion prediction accuracy is crucial for seismic hazard and risk assessment and engineering practices. Empirically regressed ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) are widely used for such purposes in decades. However, the inherent drawbacks of GMPEs, such as the ergodic assumption, lack of near-source observation, and insufficiency to deal with the spatial correlation issue, have motivated geophysicists to find better alternatives. Recent studies on well-recorded earthquakes have illustrated that physics-based simulation (PBS) methods can provide predictions that are comparable to or ever superior to GMPE predictions. The increasing interests in applying PBSs also pose the need to statistically compare these simulations against GMPE predictions or actual observations. We notice the limitations in previous studies focusing on the predictive capability check of PBS. This article is to illustrate how more reasonable check of PBS should be conducted. We consider GMPE works in generally judging the reasonability of PBS, but PBS has the advantage in characterizing the heterogeneity of ground motion of a moderate-to-large earthquake, especially when considering the complexities in fault geometry, regional stress fields, rock properties, surface of the Earth, and site effects. We would rather recommend that, in the future, different GMPEs are only used to preliminarily judge the reasonability of PBS scenarios; then the ground motions simulated by those reasonable PBS scenarios (not limited to one) are further used for the following seismic hazard and risk assessment.

Physics-based constraints for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Húsavík–Flatey fault zone, Northern Iceland

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Li ◽  
Alice-Agnes Gabriel ◽  
Sara A. Wirp ◽  
Thomas Chartier ◽  
Thomas Ulrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Fault Zone ◽  
Hazard Assessment ◽  
Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Strike Slip ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard ◽  
Dynamic Rupture ◽  
Complex Fault

<p>Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) is widely used to generate national seismic hazard maps, design building codes for earthquake resilient structures, determine earthquake insurance rates, and in general for the management of seismic risk. However, standard PSHA is generally based on empirical, time-independent assumptions that are simplified and not based on earthquake physics. Physics-based numerical models such as dynamic rupture simulations account for the non-linear coupling of source, path and site effects, which can be significant in their respective contributions depending on the generally complex geological environment (e.g., Wollherr et al., 2019), and could potentially complement standard PSHA. In this study we demonstrate the benefits of such an approach by modeling various rupture scenarios in the complex Húsavík–Flatey fault zone (HFFZ), Northern Iceland. The HFFZ consists of multiple right-lateral strike slip segments distributed across ~100 km. The moment accumulated on the HFF since the last major earthquake in 1872 can result in an earthquake of magnitude 6.8 to 7 (Metzger and Jonsson, 2014) posing a high risk to Húsavík’s community, flourishing tourism and heavy industry.</p><p>We perform high-resolution 3D dynamic rupture simulations using the open-source software SeisSol (www.seissol.org), which can efficiently model spontaneous earthquake rupture across complex fault networks and seismic wave propagation with high order accuracy in space and time. Our models incorporate regional topography, bathymetry, 3D subsurface structure and varying models of the complex fault network while accounting for off-fault damage.</p><p>Synthetic ground motions suggest highly heterogenous radiation patterns and intense localization of shaking in the vicinity of geometric complexities, such as fault bends or rupture transition between segments. In our models, the hypocenter location does not affect the plausible moment magnitude of large events. However, changes in rupture directivity affect the spatial distribution of ground motion significantly.  We run hundreds of dynamic rupture scenarios to generate a physics-based dynamic earthquake catalog of mechanically plausible events. Based on this, we identify a possible maximum magnitude earthquake and generate model-based ground motion prediction equations to complement standard empirical ground motion models. In addition, we use the open-source python code SHERIFs (Chartier et al., 2019) to estimate the likelihood of each rupture event, which is mainly constrained by the fault slip rate estimated and fault-to-fault (f2f) rupture scenarios that are determined by the dynamic simulations. Finally, combining the fault seismic rates and the f2f probabilities with dynamic rupture scenarios and the OpenQuake framework allows us to perform physics-based PSHA for the HFFZ, the largest strike-slip fault in Iceland.</p>

scholarly journals Seismic hazard analysis for Sutami Dam using probabilistic method

2019 ◽  
Vol 276 ◽  
pp. 05012
Author(s):  
Yusep Muslih Purwana ◽  
Raden Harya D.H.I ◽  
Bambang Setiawan ◽  
Ni’am Aulawi
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Return Period ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Probabilistic Method ◽  
Northridge Earthquake ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Motion Data ◽  
San Fernando ◽  
Over 40 Years

One of the largest structures in Malang is Sutami dam. It was built in 1964 to 1973 and began to be operated in 1977. Considering the age of the dam which is over 40 years and the high risk of earthquake in this area, it is necessary to analyze its seismic hazard using an updated data. The probablilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) was employed to obtain peak ground acceleration (PGA). The deagregation was conducted to obtain the most influencing magnitudes (M) and and distance (R) values affecting the dam. The result indicates that the area of the dam has the PGA of 0.261 for 500 years return period, 0.41 for 2500 years return period and 0.586 for 10,000 years return period of eartquakes. The magnitude of 5.93-6.17 for the distance of 22-44 km are considered as the most influencing earthquake for the dam. Due to the lack of ground motion data for Sutami dam, the ground motion from other earthquake might be utilised such as Morgan Hill earthquake 1984, Whittier Narrow earthquake 1987, Chalfant Valley earthquake 1986, Georgia USSR earthquake 1991, Northridge earthquake 1994, or San Fernando earthquake 1971.

Insights into seismic hazard from big data analysis of ground motion simulations

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy F. Tiampo ◽  
Javad Kazemian ◽  
Hadi Ghofrani ◽  
Yelena Kropivnitskaya ◽  
Gero Michel
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Big Data Analysis ◽  
Ground Motion Simulations

A subset of CyberShake ground-motion time series for response-history analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302098197
Author(s):  
Jack W Baker ◽  
Sanaz Rezaeian ◽  
Christine A Goulet ◽  
Nicolas Luco ◽  
Ganyu Teng
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Motion Time ◽  
History Analysis ◽  
Response History Analysis ◽  
Simulated Ground Motions

This manuscript describes a subset of CyberShake numerically simulated ground motions that were selected and vetted for use in engineering response-history analyses. Ground motions were selected that have seismological properties and response spectra representative of conditions in the Los Angeles area, based on disaggregation of seismic hazard. Ground motions were selected from millions of available time series and were reviewed to confirm their suitability for response-history analysis. The processes used to select the time series, the characteristics of the resulting data, and the provided documentation are described in this article. The resulting data and documentation are available electronically.

scholarly journals A ground motion logic tree for seismic hazard analysis in the stable cratonic region of Europe: regionalisation, model selection and development of a scaled backbone approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 6119-6148
Author(s):  
Graeme Weatherill ◽  
Fabrice Cotton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Epistemic Uncertainty ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Seismic Hazard Analysis ◽  
Eastern United States ◽  
Logic Tree ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Northeastern Europe

Abstract Regions of low seismicity present a particular challenge for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis when identifying suitable ground motion models (GMMs) and quantifying their epistemic uncertainty. The 2020 European Seismic Hazard Model adopts a scaled backbone approach to characterise this uncertainty for shallow seismicity in Europe, incorporating region-to-region source and attenuation variability based on European strong motion data. This approach, however, may not be suited to stable cratonic region of northeastern Europe (encompassing Finland, Sweden and the Baltic countries), where exploration of various global geophysical datasets reveals that its crustal properties are distinctly different from the rest of Europe, and are instead more closely represented by those of the Central and Eastern United States. Building upon the suite of models developed by the recent NGA East project, we construct a new scaled backbone ground motion model and calibrate its corresponding epistemic uncertainties. The resulting logic tree is shown to provide comparable hazard outcomes to the epistemic uncertainty modelling strategy adopted for the Eastern United States, despite the different approaches taken. Comparison with previous GMM selections for northeastern Europe, however, highlights key differences in short period accelerations resulting from new assumptions regarding the characteristics of the reference rock and its influence on site amplification.

scholarly journals Ground Response and Historical Buildings in Avellino (Campania, Southern Italy): Clues from a Retrospective View Concerning the 1980 Irpinia-Basilicata Earthquake

Geosciences ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 503
Author(s):  
Lucia Nardone ◽  
Fabrizio Terenzio Gizzi ◽  
Rosalba Maresca
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Southern Italy ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Historical Buildings ◽  
Borehole Data ◽  
Ground Response ◽  
Maximum Acceleration ◽  
Observed Damage ◽  
Hazard Disaggregation

Cultural heritage represents our legacy with the past and our identity. However, to assure heritage can be passed on to future generations, it is required to put into the field knowledge as well as preventive and safeguard actions, especially for heritage located in seismic hazard-prone areas. With this in mind, the article deals with the analysis of ground response in the Avellino town (Campania, Southern Italy) and its correlation with the effects caused by the 23rd November 1980 Irpinia earthquake on the historical buildings. The aim is to get some clues about the earthquake damage cause-effect relationship. To estimate the ground motion response for Avellino, where strong-motion recordings are not available, we made use of the seismic hazard disaggregation. Then, we made extensive use of borehole data to build the lithological model so being able to assess the seismic ground response. Overall, results indicate that the complex subsoil layers influence the ground motion, particularly in the lowest period (0.1–0.5 s). The comparison with the observed damage of the selected historical buildings and the maximum acceleration expected indicates that the damage distribution cannot be explained by the surface geology effects alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document