Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byKhalid Batman Modified over 3 years ago

1
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

2
Figure A2-2

3
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) 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 EPRI/SOG USGS (margin) Figure A2-3 Mmax (m b )

4
EPRI/SOG and USGS Mmax distributions for North Anna site’s host source zones USGS (margin) 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 EPRI/SOG Figure A2-4 Mmax (m b )

5
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

6
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

7
4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 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 )

8
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)

9
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)

10
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)

11
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)

12
M5.0c5.5mM6.0c6.5mM7.0c7.5m 0.2 sec1.0 sec0.2 sec1.0 sec0.2 sec1.0 sec Boston0.550.290.790.601.011.02 New York City.57.32.83.641.011.02 Washington D.C..51.26.77.581.011.02 Pittsburgh.45.21.74.531.011.02 Charleston.59.34.83.671.011.02 Atlanta.49.24.74.561.021.03 Cincinnati.38.18.70.511.011.02 Chicago.37.18.75.521.011.02 Memphis.52.25.78.581.011.02 Baton Rouge.57.31.82.611.011.02 St. Louis.38.19.72.531.011.02 Minneapolis.38.16.74.491.001.01 Wichita.37.18.72.511.01 Austin.49.26.78.581.011.02 Rapid City.37.19.72.511.001.01 Denver.41.25.73.541.001.01 Ratios of probabilistic ground motions (2% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs): Alternate Mmax (seismicity sources only) / USGS (seismicity sources only) Figure A2-12

13
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)

Similar presentations

OK

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

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

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on latest advancement in technology Ppt on review of related literature introduction Ppt on product specification definition Ppt on motivation in management Ppt on neural networks Ppt on earthquakes and volcanoes Ppt on electron spin resonance spectroscopy ppt Store window display ppt online Ppt on machine translation japanese Ppt on history of basketball