Aftershock Hazard Assessment Based on Utilization of Observed Main Shock Demand

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 569-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziya Muderrisoglu ◽  
Ufuk Yazgan
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Assessment ◽  
Shock Intensity ◽  
Main Shock ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Earthquake Sequence ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Aftershock Hazard

This paper presents an aftershock hazard assessment method that is based on taking into account the macroseismic indicators of the main shock observed at the site. The proposed method is referred to as conditional aftershock hazard assessment (CAHA). The essence of the CAHA method is to estimate the aftershock hazard at the site conditioned on the main shock intensity exhibited at that location. This is achieved by exploiting the correlation between the ground motion intensities exhibited during the main shock and the aftershock events. Specifically, the correlation of the epsilons registered for the two events, is utilized. Investigation of the epsilon correlation indicates that highest correlation occurs at the range of periods between 0.8 and 1.0 s. Based on the estimated epsilon correlation, the mean and the dispersion of the aftershock ground motion intensity, are estimated. An application of the proposed method to a set of sites affected by the 2011 Van (Turkey) M w7.2 earthquake sequence is illustrated. The performance of the method is assessed in comparison with the conventional approaches. For the considered example application, the hazard estimated using the proposed method shows a better agreement with the actual aftershock recordings, compared to the existing approaches.

scholarly journals From scenario-based seismic hazard to scenario-based landslide hazard: fast-forwarding to the future via statistical simulations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luigi Lombardo ◽  
Hakan Tanyas
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Landslide Susceptibility ◽  
Additive Model ◽  
Landslide Hazard ◽  
Northridge Earthquake ◽  
Ground Acceleration ◽  
Temporal Dimension ◽  
Earthquake Scenario ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Ground Motion Scenarios

AbstractGround motion scenarios exists for most of the seismically active areas around the globe. They essentially correspond to shaking level maps at given earthquake return times which are used as reference for the likely areas under threat from future ground displacements. Being landslides in seismically actively regions closely controlled by the ground motion, one would expect that landslide susceptibility maps should change as the ground motion patterns change in space and time. However, so far, statistically-based landslide susceptibility assessments have primarily been used as time-invariant.In other words, the vast majority of the statistical models does not include the temporal effect of the main trigger in future landslide scenarios. In this work, we present an approach aimed at filling this gap, bridging current practices in the seismological community to those in the geomorphological and statistical ones. More specifically, we select an earthquake-induced landslide inventory corresponding to the 1994 Northridge earthquake and build a Bayesian Generalized Additive Model of the binomial family, featuring common morphometric and thematic covariates as well as the Peak Ground Acceleration generated by the Northridge earthquake. Once each model component has been estimated, we have run 1000 simulations for each of the 217 possible ground motion scenarios for the study area. From each batch of 1000 simulations, we have estimated the mean and 95% Credible Interval to represent the mean susceptibility pattern under a specific earthquake scenario, together with its uncertainty level. Because each earthquake scenario has a specific return time, our simulations allow to incorporate the temporal dimension into any susceptibility model, therefore driving the results toward the definition of landslide hazard. Ultimately, we also share our results in vector format – a .mif file that can be easily converted into a common shapefile –. There, we report the mean (and uncertainty) susceptibility of each 1000 simulation batch for each of the 217 scenarios.

scholarly journals Ground motions in urban Los Angeles from the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence

2021 ◽  
pp. 875529302110039
Author(s):  
Filippos Filippitzis ◽  
Monica D Kohler ◽  
Thomas H Heaton ◽  
Robert W Graves ◽  
Robert W Clayton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Earthquake Sequence ◽  
Motion Prediction ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction Equations ◽  
Prediction Equations ◽  
Ground Motion Prediction ◽  
Velocity Models ◽  
Spectral Accelerations

We study ground-motion response in urban Los Angeles during the two largest events (M7.1 and M6.4) of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence using recordings from multiple regional seismic networks as well as a subset of 350 stations from the much denser Community Seismic Network. In the first part of our study, we examine the observed response spectral (pseudo) accelerations for a selection of periods of engineering significance (1, 3, 6, and 8 s). Significant ground-motion amplification is present and reproducible between the two events. For the longer periods, coherent spectral acceleration patterns are visible throughout the Los Angeles Basin, while for the shorter periods, the motions are less spatially coherent. However, coherence is still observable at smaller length scales due to the high spatial density of the measurements. Examining possible correlations of the computed response spectral accelerations with basement depth and Vs30, we find the correlations to be stronger for the longer periods. In the second part of the study, we test the performance of two state-of-the-art methods for estimating ground motions for the largest event of the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence, namely three-dimensional (3D) finite-difference simulations and ground motion prediction equations. For the simulations, we are interested in the performance of the two Southern California Earthquake Center 3D community velocity models (CVM-S and CVM-H). For the ground motion prediction equations, we consider four of the 2014 Next Generation Attenuation-West2 Project equations. For some cases, the methods match the observations reasonably well; however, neither approach is able to reproduce the specific locations of the maximum response spectral accelerations or match the details of the observed amplification patterns.

scholarly journals The Zagreb (Croatia) M5.5 Earthquake on 22 March 2020

Geosciences ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snježana Markušić ◽  
Davor Stanko ◽  
Tvrtko Korbar ◽  
Nikola Belić ◽  
Davorin Penava ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Structural Engineering ◽  
Main Shock ◽  
Residential Buildings ◽  
Tectonic Setting ◽  
Time Lapse ◽  
Earthquake Sequence ◽  
Epicentral Area ◽  
Local Soil ◽  
Seismic Amplification ◽  
Zagreb Area

On 22 March 2020, Zagreb was struck by an M5.5 earthquake that had been expected for more than 100 years and revealed all the failures in the construction of residential buildings in the Croatian capital, especially those built in the first half of the 20th century. Because of that, extensive seismological, geological, geodetic and structural engineering surveys were conducted immediately after the main shock. This study provides descriptions of damage, specifying the building performances and their correlation with the local soil characteristics, i.e., seismic motion amplification. Co-seismic vertical ground displacement was estimated, and the most affected area is identified according to Sentinel-1 interferometric wide-swath data. Finally, preliminary 3D structural modeling of the earthquake sequence was performed, and two major faults were modeled using inverse distance weight (IDW) interpolation of the grouped hypocenters. The first-order assessment of seismic amplification (due to site conditions) in the Zagreb area for the M5.5 earthquake shows that ground motions of approximately 0.16–0.19 g were amplified at least twice. The observed co-seismic deformation (based on Sentinel-1A IW SLC images) implies an approximately 3 cm uplift of the epicentral area that covers approximately 20 km2. Based on the preliminary spatial and temporal analyses of the Zagreb 2020 earthquake sequence, the main shock and the first aftershocks evidently occurred in the subsurface of the Medvednica Mountains along a deep-seated southeast-dipping thrust fault, recognized as the primary (master) fault. The co-seismic rupture propagated along the thrust towards northwest during the first half-hour of the earthquake sequence, which can be clearly seen from the time-lapse visualization. The preliminary results strongly support one of the debated models of the active tectonic setting of the Medvednica Mountains and will contribute to a better assessment of the seismic hazard for the wider Zagreb area.

scholarly journals Application of the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007) and the European Macroseismic Scale (EMS-98) to the Kalamata (SW Peloponnese, Greece) earthquake (Ms=6.2, September 13, 1986) and correlation with neotectonic structures and active faults

2014 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis G. Fountoulis ◽  
Spyridon D. Mavroulis
Keyword(s):  
Structural Damage ◽  
Active Fault ◽  
Main Shock ◽  
Active Faults ◽  
Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Seismic Intensity ◽  
Fault Zones ◽  
Earthquake Sequence ◽  
Ground Subsidence ◽  
Earthquake Scenario

On September 13, 1986, a shallow earthquake (Ms=6.2) struck the city of Kalamata and the surrounding areas (SW Peloponnese, Greece) resulting in 20 fatalities, over 300 injuries, extensive structural damage and many earthquake environmental effects (EEE). The main shock was followed by several aftershocks, the strongest of which occurred two days later (Ms=5.4). The EEE induced by the 1986 Kalamata earthquake sequence include ground subsidence, seismic faults, seismic fractures, rockfalls and hydrological anomalies. The maximum ESI 2007 intensity for the main shock has been evaluated as IX<sub>ESI 2007</sub>, strongly related to the active fault zones and the reactivated faults observed in the area as well as to the intense morphology of the activated Dimiova-Perivolakia graben, which is a 2nd order neotectonic structure located in the SE margin of the Kalamata-Kyparissia mega-graben and bounded by active fault zones. The major structural damage of the main shock was selective and limited to villages founded on the activated Dimiova-Perivolakia graben (IX<sub>EMS-98</sub>) and to the Kalamata city (IX<sub>EMS-98</sub>) and its eastern suburbs (IX<sub>EMS-98</sub>) located at the crossing of the prolongation of two major active fault zones of the affected area. On the contrary, damage of this size was not observed in the surrounding neotectonic structures, which were not activated during this earthquake sequence. It is concluded that both intensity scales fit in with the neotectonic regime of the area. The ESI 2007 scale complemented the EMS-98 seismic intensities and provided a completed picture of the strength and the effects of the September 13, 1986, Kalamata earthquake on the natural and the manmade environment. Moreover, it contributed to a better picture of the earthquake scenario and represents a useful and reliable tool for seismic hazard assessment.

scholarly journals A comparison of bushfire fuel hazard assessors and assessment methods in dry sclerophyll forest near Sydney, Australia

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 755 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny J. Watson ◽  
Sandra H. Penman ◽  
Ross A. Bradstock
Keyword(s):  
Hazard Assessment ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Urban Fringe ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fuel Load ◽  
Forest Sites ◽  
Sclerophyll Forest ◽  
Hazard Assessments ◽  
Sydney Australia

Over the last decade, fire managers in Australia have embraced the concept of ‘fuel hazard’, and guides for its assessment have been produced. The reliability of these new metrics, however, remains to be determined. This study compared fuel hazard ratings generated by five assessment teams using two Australian hazard assessment methods, in two dry sclerophyll forest sites on Sydney’s urban fringe. Attributes that underpin hazard scores, such as cover and height of various fuel layers, were also assessed. We found significant differences between teams on most variables, including hazard scores. These differences were more apparent when fuel hazard assessments focussed on individual fuel layers than when teams’ assessments were summarised into an overall fuel hazard score. Ratings of surface (litter) fuel hazard were higher when one assessment method was used than when assessors employed the other; however, ratings of elevated (shrub) and bark fuel hazard were relatively consistent across assessment methods. Fuel load estimates based on the two hazard assessment methods differed considerably, with differences between teams also significant. Inconsistency in scoring fuel hazard may lead to discrepancies in a range of management applications, which in turn may affect firefighting safety and effectiveness.

The Godavari Valley earthquake sequence of April 1969

1970 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 601-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harsh K. Gupta ◽  
Indra Mohan ◽  
Hari Narain
Keyword(s):  
Main Shock ◽  
Focal Depth ◽  
Earthquake Sequence ◽  
Total Strain ◽  
Type I ◽  
Aftershock Area ◽  
Macroseismic Effects ◽  
Godavari Valley

abstract The Godavari Valley earthquake sequence of April 1969 has been studied in detail. The (Sg − Pg) and the (Pg − Pn) intervals have been used for estimating the extent of aftershock area and focal depth variations respectively. The main shock of magnitude 5.7 was followed by a number of aftershocks which are related by the function Log N = a + b M. The value of b is found to be −0.51. The main shock of April 13 accounted for 70 per cent of the total strain released. This sequence belongs to Type I of Mogi's classification. The macroseismic effects are also discussed briefly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document