Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byDerrick Thompson Modified over 2 years ago

1
CCM 2 for Oceanographers October 24, 2013 John Peralta

2
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013

3
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013

4
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013 (a) Determine the likelihood of a 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 Richter Scale or greater earthquake that will likely generate a tsunami (called “tsunami-genetic”) in any given year in coastal Peru. (Kilikov 2005)

5
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013 Magnitude (Richter) Return Period (years) Likelihood (% chance in 1 year) 60.5200% 71.190% 86.315.9% (Kilikov 2005) % Chance = 1 / Return Period x 100 %

6
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013

7
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013 (b) Determine the 10 year, 50 year, and 100 year return period of tsunami run up heights. 10 year = 2.8m, 50 year = 15m, 100 year = 25m (Kilikov 2005)

8
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013 (c) Determine the Richter magnitude earthquake that the building would need to withstand, in order to survive for 50 years. 8.6 Richter magnitude

9
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion John Peralta 2013 Build on Oscar R. Benevides (green 20m site) Build to withstand 9.0 Richter Scale Earthquake Build to withstand yearly 6.0 Richter Scale Earthquake

10
Questions? John Peralta 2013 References Kulikov, Evgueni A., Alexander B. Rabinovich, and Richard E. Thomson."Estimation of tsunami risk for the coasts of Peru and northern Chile." Natural Hazards 35.2 (2005): 185-209. “Google Maps.” Google Maps. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2013..

11
Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Appendix Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Appendix John Peralta 2013 More Reasons for why I chose 1 Data Set over another 1.Return period shorter so erring on the safer side and expecting the worst of the two scenarios 2.The newer dataset is more advanced as the historical data set may be missing unrecorded events 3.Focuses on a shorter and more current time span which may represent a current trend in the area

12
John Peralta 2013 http://www.osdma.org/ViewDetails.aspx?vchglinkid=GL002&vchplinkid=PL009 Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Appendix Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Appendix Cannonball!!!

13
John Peralta 2013 Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Appendix Location (a) Return period (b) (c) Conclusion Appendix Although paper for whole coast, percentage of EQ in region high

Similar presentations

OK

California Geologic Regions and Hazards Presentation DAY 2.

California Geologic Regions and Hazards Presentation DAY 2.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google