The 30 November 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage Earthquake

2019 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. West ◽  
Adrian Bender ◽  
Matthew Gardine ◽  
Lea Gardine ◽  
Kara Gately ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Aftershock Activity ◽  
Deep Earthquake ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
Lower Amplitude ◽  
Rupture Mechanism

Abstract The Mw 7.1 47 km deep earthquake that occurred on 30 November 2018 had deep societal impacts across southcentral Alaska and exhibited phenomena of broad scientific interest. We document observations that point to future directions of research and hazard mitigation. The rupture mechanism, aftershocks, and deformation of the mainshock are consistent with extension inside the Pacific plate near the down‐dip limit of flat‐slab subduction. Peak ground motions >25%g were observed across more than 8000  km2, though the most violent near‐fault shaking was avoided because the hypocenter was nearly 50 km below the surface. The ground motions show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of regional geology and near‐surface soil conditions. Aftershock activity was vigorous with roughly 300 felt events in the first six months, including two dozen aftershocks exceeding M 4.5. Broad subsidence of up to 5 cm across the region is consistent with the rupture mechanism. The passage of seismic waves and possibly the coseismic subsidence mobilized ground waters, resulting in temporary increases in stream flow. Although there were many failures of natural slopes and soils, the shaking was insufficient to reactivate many of the failures observed during the 1964 M 9.2 earthquake. This is explained by the much shorter duration of shaking as well as the lower amplitude long‐period motions in 2018. The majority of observed soil failures were in anthropogenically placed fill soils. Structural damage is attributed to both the failure of these emplaced soils as well as to the ground motion, which shows some spatial correlation to damage. However, the paucity of instrumental ground‐motion recordings outside of downtown Anchorage makes these comparisons challenging. The earthquake demonstrated the challenge of issuing tsunami warnings in complex coastal geographies and highlights the need for a targeted tsunami hazard evaluation of the region. The event also demonstrates the challenge of estimating the probabilistic hazard posed by intraslab earthquakes.

scholarly journals The 30 October 2020 Samos (Eastern Aegean Sea) Earthquake: effects of source rupture, path and local-site conditions on the observed and simulated ground motions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aybige Akinci ◽  
Daniele Cheloni ◽  
AHMET ANIL DINDAR
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
Peak Ground Velocity ◽  
Ground Shaking ◽  
Local Site ◽  
Eastern Aegean ◽  
Motion Characteristics ◽  
Eastern Aegean Sea

Abstract On 30 October 2020 a MW 7.0 earthquake occurred in the eastern Aegean Sea, between the Greek island of Samos and Turkey’s Aegean coast, causing considerable seismic damage and deaths, especially in the Turkish city of Izmir, approximately 70 km from the epicenter. In this study, we provide a detailed description of the Samos earthquake, starting from the fault rupture to the ground motion characteristics. We first use Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) and Global Positioning System (GPS) data to constrain the source mechanisms. Then, we utilize this information to analyze the ground motion characteristics of the mainshock in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV), and spectral pseudo-accelerations. Modelling of geodetic data shows that the Samos earthquake ruptured a NNE-dipping normal fault located offshore north of Samos, with up to 2.5-3 m of slip and an estimated geodetic moment of 3.3 ⨯ 1019 Nm (MW 7.0). Although low PGA were induced by the earthquake, the ground shaking was strongly amplified in Izmir throughout the alluvial sediments. Structural damage observed in Izmir reveals the potential of seismic risk due to the local site effects. To better understand the earthquake characteristics, we generated and compared stochastic strong ground motions with the observed ground motion parameters as well as the ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs), exploring also the efficacy of the region-specific parameters which may be improved to better predict the expected ground shaking from future large earthquakes in the region.

scholarly journals Seismic hazard evaluation

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Somerville
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Earthquake Source ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Motion Models ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ground Motion Models

This paper reviews concepts and trends in seismic hazard characterization that have emerged in the past decade, and identifies trends and concepts that are anticipated during the coming decade. New methods have been developed for characterizing potential earthquake sources that use geological and geodetic data in conjunction with historical seismicity data. Scaling relationships among earthquake source parameters have been developed to provide a more detailed representation of the earthquake source for ground motion prediction. Improved empirical ground motion models have been derived from a strong motion data set that has grown markedly over the past decade. However, these empirical models have a large degree of uncertainty because the magnitude - distance - soil category parameterization of these models often oversimplifies reality. This reflects the fact that other conditions that are known to have an important influence on strong ground motions, such as near- fault rupture directivity effects, crustal waveguide effects, and basin response effects, are not treated as parameters of these simple models. Numerical ground motion models based on seismological theory that include these additional effects have been developed and extensively validated against recorded ground motions, and used to estimate the ground motions of past earthquakes and predict the ground motions of future scenario earthquakes. The probabilistic approach to characterizing the ground motion that a given site will experience in the future is very compatible with current trends in earthquake engineering and the development of building codes. Performance based design requires a more comprehensive representation of ground motions than has conventionally been used. Ground motions estimates are needed at multiple annual probability levels, and may need to be specified not only by response spectra but also by suites of strong motion time histories for input into time-domain non-linear analyses of structures.

Evaluation of SCEC CyberShake Ground Motions for Engineering Practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 1311-1328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ganyu Teng ◽  
Jack Baker
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Response Spectra ◽  
Building Design ◽  
Empirical Models ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Engineering Practice ◽  
Ground Motion Selection ◽  
Promising Source

This paper evaluates CyberShake (version 15.12) ground motions for potential application to high-rise building design in the Los Angeles region by comparing them against recordings from past earthquakes as well as empirical models. We consider two selected sites in the Los Angeles region with different underlying soil conditions and select comparable suites of ground motion records from CyberShake and the NGA-West2 database according to the ASCE 7-16 requirements. Major observations include (1) selected ground motions from CyberShake and NGA-West2 share similar features, in terms of response spectra and polarization; (2) when selecting records from Cyber-Shake, it is easy to select motions with sources that match the hazard deaggregation; (3) CyberShake durations on soil are consistent with the empirical models considered, whereas durations on rock are slightly shorter; (4) occasional excessive polarization in ground motion is produced by San Andreas fault ruptures, though those records are usually excluded after the ground motion selection. Results from this study suggest that CyberShake ground motions are a suitable and promising source of ground motions for engineering evaluations.

Near-Field Ground Motions and Shaking from the 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, Mainshock: Insights from Instrumental, Macroseismic Intensity, and Remote-Sensing Data

2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (4) ◽  
pp. 1506-1516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Hough ◽  
Sang-Ho Yun ◽  
Jungkyo Jung ◽  
Eric Thompson ◽  
Grace A. Parker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Near Field ◽  
Remote Sensing Data ◽  
Prediction Equation ◽  
Intensity Data ◽  
Radar Images ◽  
Conversion Equation ◽  
The Town

ABSTRACT Shaking from the 6 July 2019 Mw 7.1 Ridgecrest, California, mainshock was strongly felt through southern California, but generated relatively minimal structural damage in Ridgecrest. We consider the extent to which a damage proxy map (DPM) generated from satellite-based Synthetic Aperture Radar images can detect minor damage throughout the town of Ridgecrest. The DPM does not, as expected, detect all minor structural damage to individual structures, nor can it distinguish between structural damage and earthquake-related movement that is not consequential. However, the DPM does confirm many instances of minor structural damage to larger structures and groups of smaller structures and in some instances suggests minor structural damage that is not apparent upon visual inspection. Although ambiguous identification of minor damage may not be useful to guide earthquake response, the identification of minor, possibly hidden damage is potentially useful for other purposes. Overall, the DPM confirms that structural damage was commensurate with modified Mercalli intensity no higher than 7 throughout Ridgecrest. We consider both instrumental and intensity data to explore further the distribution of near-field ground motions over the frequency range of engineering concern. Peak ground accelerations and peak ground velocities estimated from “Did You Feel It?” intensity data using the Worden et al. (2012) ground-motion intensity conversion equation (GMICE) are consistent with recorded instrumental data. Both instrumental and estimated mainshock peak accelerations are further consistent with predictions from both the Boore et al. (2014) ground-motion prediction equation (GMPE), but lower than predicted by the Atkinson and Wald (2007) and Atkinson et al. (2014) intensity prediction equations (IPEs). A GMPE such as Boore et al. (2014), which is constrained by a large global dataset, together with a well-constrained GMICE, may thus characterize expected shaking intensities for large earthquakes better than an IPE based on more limited intensity data.

On the Seismic Response of the Faculty of Architecture and Engineering Building at Tohoku University

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 523-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Wang ◽  
Enrique Villalobos ◽  
Santiago Pujol ◽  
Hamood Al-Washali ◽  
Kazuki Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Response ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Strong Ground Motions ◽  
First Motion ◽  
Strong Ground

The Faculty of Architecture and Engineering Building at Tohoku University survived two strong ground motions. This is not surprising because the structure was stiff and strong. What is surprising is that the first ground motion did not cause severe structural damage but the second one caused so much structural damage that the building had to be evacuated and demolished. The damage occurred despite two key facts: (1) the intensities of the mentioned ground motions are understood to have been similar and (2) the building was strengthened after the first motion (and before the second) following stringent standards.

Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Liquefaction Hazard Evaluation

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven L. Kramer ◽  
Robert A. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Earthquake Engineering ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Excess Pore Pressure ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Peak Acceleration ◽  
Intensity Measure ◽  
Arias Intensity ◽  
Intensity Measures ◽  
Liquefaction Hazard

The requirements of performance-based earthquake engineering place increasing importance on the optimal characterization of earthquake ground motions. With respect to liquefaction hazard evaluation, ground motions have historically been characterized by a combination of peak acceleration and earthquake magnitude, and more recently by Arias intensity. This paper introduces a new ground motion intensity measure, CAV5, and shows that excess pore pressure generation in potentially liquefiable soils is considerably more closely related to CAV5 than to other intensity measures, including peak acceleration and Arias intensity. CAV5 is shown to be an efficient, sufficient, and predictable intensity measure for rock motions used as input to liquefaction hazard evaluations. An attenuation relationship for CAV5 is presented and used in an example that illustrates the benefits of scaling bedrock motions to a particular value of CAV5, rather than to the historical intensity measures, for performance-based evaluation of liquefaction hazards.

A New State‐of‐the‐Art Platform for Probabilistic and Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (6) ◽  
pp. 2262-2275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Candia ◽  
Jorge Macedo ◽  
Miguel A. Jaimes ◽  
Carolina Magna‐Verdugo
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Hazard ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Hazard Assessment ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Tectonic Setting ◽  
Source Parameters ◽  
Seismic Hazard Assessment ◽  
Hazard Evaluation ◽  
Benchmark Solutions

ABSTRACT A new computational platform for seismic hazard assessment is presented. The platform, named SeismicHazard, allows characterizing the intensity, uncertainty, and likelihood of ground motions from subduction‐zone (shallow interface and intraslab) and crustal‐zone earthquakes, considering site‐specific as well as regional‐based assessments. The platform is developed as an object‐oriented MATLAB graphical user interface, and it features several state‐of‐the‐art capabilities for probabilistic and deterministic (scenario‐based) seismic hazard assessment. The platform integrates the latest developments in performance‐based earthquake engineering for seismic hazard assessment, including seismic zonation models, ground‐motion models (GMMs), ground‐motion correlation structures, and the estimation of design spectra (uniform hazard spectra, classical conditional mean spectrum (CMS) for a unique tectonic setting). In addition to these standard capabilities, the platform supports advanced features, not commonly found in existing seismic hazard codes, such as (a) computation of source parameters from earthquake catalogs, (b) vector‐probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (c) hazard evaluation based on conditional GMMs and user‐defined GMMs, (d) uncertainty treatment in the median ground motions through continuous GMM distributions, (e) regional shaking fields, and (f) estimation of CMS considering multiple GMMs and multiple tectonic settings. The results from the platform have been validated against accepted and well‐documented benchmark solutions.

scholarly journals Application of wavelet for seismic wave analysis in Kathmandu Valley after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake, Nepal

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Binod Adhikari ◽  
Subodh Dahal ◽  
Monika Karki ◽  
Roshan Kumar Mishra ◽  
Ranjan Kumar Dahal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wavelet Transform ◽  
Random Process ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Vertical Motion ◽  
Earthquake Ground Motion ◽  
Kathmandu Valley ◽  
Time Frequency ◽  
Long Period

AbstractIn this paper, we estimate the seismogenic energy during the Nepal Earthquake (25 April 2015) and studied the ground motion time-frequency characteristics in Kathmandu valley. The idea to analyze time-frequency characteristic of seismogenic energy signal is based on wavelet transform which we employed here. Wavelet transform has been used as a powerful signal analysis tools in various fields like compression, time-frequency analysis, earthquake parameter determination, climate studies, etc. This technique is particularly suitable for non-stationary signal. It is well recognized that the earthquake ground motion is a non-stationary random process. In order to characterize a non-stationary random process, it is required immeasurable samples in the mathematical sense. The wavelet transformation procedures that we follow here helps in random analyses of linear and non-linear structural systems, which are subjected to earthquake ground motion. The manners of seismic ground motion are characterized through wavelet coefficients associated to these signals. Both continuous wavelet transform (CWT) and discrete wavelet transform (DWT) techniques are applied to study ground motion in Kathmandu Valley in horizontal and vertical directions. These techniques help to point out the long-period ground motion with site response. We found that the long-period ground motions have enough power for structural damage. Comparing both the horizontal and the vertical motion, we observed that the most of the high amplitude signals are associated with the vertical motion: the high energy is released in that direction. It is found that the seismic energy is damped soon after the main event; however the period of damping is different. This can be seen on DWT curve where square wavelet coefficient is high at the time of aftershock and the value decrease with time. In other words, it is mostly associated with the arrival of Rayleigh waves. We concluded that long-period ground motions should be studied by earthquake engineers in order to avoid structural damage during the earthquake. Hence, by using wavelet technique we can specify the vulnerability of seismically active region and local topological features out there.

Detecting ground motion in Schleswig-Holstein from radar satellite data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Hoogestraat ◽  
Henriette Sudhaus ◽  
Andreas Omlin
Keyword(s):  
Time Series ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Time Series Data ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Anthropogenic Sources ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Near Surface ◽  
Radar Images ◽  
Persistent Scatterers

<p>The near-surface geology of northern Germany is characterized by glacial deposits, deformed by rising Permian and Upper Triassic salt structures. Ground motions potentially associated with salt tectonic processes are very slow and are superimposed by signals of e.g. hydrological and anthropogenic sources. To measure them requires the detection of motion rates in the range of a few millimeters per year with sufficient spatial coverage. For large areas little is known about the rates and the characteristics of ground motions, even though they directly affect anthropogenic infrastructure and could have an impact on the future use of the underground for storage purposes or the exploitation of geothermal energy.</p><p>To measure ground motion, we use radar interferometric time series data provided by the German Aerospace Center and the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources' Ground motion service. These data are based on Synthetic Aperture Radar images acquired by ESA's ERS and Sentinel satellites. Time-series analyses are possible for temporally stable backscattering objects (persistent scatterers) on the ground. Generally, this results in spatially dense observations over built-up areas and sparse observations over rural areas.</p><p>We use a set of geostatistical methods to analyze these time series data. We see signals of large-scale surface-deforming processes such as the subsidence of the marshes and small-scale signals like the swelling of Permian anhydrite at the Segeberger "Kalkberg". And we can observe subsidence processes over the historic town of Lübeck.</p><p>Our work extends the area of application of the PS-InSAR technique from areas with high motion rates to regions with particulary low motion rates. We discuss methods that can be used to link ERS data to the Sentinel-1 data, in particular, to separate long-term motion processes from short-term effects. We are working on techniques that shall help to decompose different signal sources. Finally, we aim to prepare a set of tools, that can be used by the community.</p>

Earthquake Ground Motions: Implications for Designing Structures and Reconciling Structural Damage

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jogeshwar P. Singh
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Ground Motion ◽  
Ground Motions ◽  
Strong Motion ◽  
Soil Condition ◽  
Dominant Factor ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Earthquake Ground Motions ◽  
Geological Conditions ◽  
Strong Ground

Until recently, characteristics of strong ground motion resulting from different soil conditions were considered the dominant factor in developing design ground motions and reconciling observed damage. Interpretation of recent recordings of earthquakes by strong motion instrument arrays installed in California and Taiwan show that basic characteristics of strong motion are greatly influenced by the seismological and geological conditions. For a given soil condition, the characteristics of strong ground motion (peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, peak ground displacement, duration, spectral content, and time histories) can vary significantly whether the site is near or far from the seismic source. As local soil conditions only modify the ground motions produced by a given source, variability in ground motion due to seismologic and geologic conditions (for a given soil condition) must be considered in estimating earthquake ground motions for structural design or for estimating structural vulnerabilities to reconcile earthquake-related damage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document