Final Technical Report Award Number G10AP00086 Sponsors Name: Seismological Society of America Conference Title: Seismological Society of America’s 2010 Annual Meeting in Portland, Oregon Conference Dates: April 21‐23, 2010 Summary of Program: This year’s SSA Annual Meeting included 282 oral presentations and 258 poster presentations distributed among 31 sessions. The meeting was attended by 557 participants from 26 countries. The meeting was preceded by the annual board meeting and committee meetings. Selected results of those meetings were shared with the membership at the annual luncheon, the first day of the meeting. Special presentations were given at the two other luncheons. The Joyner Lecture, a special lecture focusing on the boundary of seismology and engineering, was presented on Thursday night. The attached PDF contains the following: ‐ The program schedule (pages 2‐32) ‐ The meeting report including the annual luncheon minutes, the board minutes, awards presentations, and treasurer’s report (pages 33‐62) ‐ A list of registrants (Pages 63‐73) ‐ All the meeting abstracts (Pages 74‐187) SSA Annual meeting program SSA 2010 Annual Meeting Announcement Seismological Society of America Technical Sessions 21–23 April 2010 (Wednesday–Friday) Portland, Oregon IMPORTANT DATES Meeting Pre-registration Deadline 19 March 2010 Hotel Reservation Cut-Off 29 March 2010 Online Registration Cut-Off 9 April 2010 PROGRAM COMMITTEE TECHNICAL PROGRAM This year’s technical program committee is composed of co- Advances in Seismic Hazard Mapping chairs Seth Moran (USGS–Cascades Volcano Observatory) Recently much progress has been made in developing infor- and Nick Beeler (USGS–Vancouver), Ivan Wong (Seismic mative regional seismic hazard maps that incorporate local Hazards Group, Oakland CA), Ray Weldon (University of as well as regional geologic and geotechnical data. These new Oregon), Vicki McConnell (DOGAMI), and Anne Trehu maps often rely on a probabilistic characterization of hazard (Oregon State University). to account for uncertainties and have been developed for soil amplification, liquefaction hazard, and seismic slope insta- MEETING CONTACTS bilities. Also, recent applications of remotely sensed data have improved post-event hazard maps. This session will be used to Technical Program Committee Co-Chairs highlight new approaches in both pre-event seismic hazard Nick Beeler & Seth Moran, [email protected] maps and post-event seismic hazard surveys. Conveners: Laurie G. Baise ([email protected]), Abstract Submissions/Logistics Keith L. Knudsen ([email protected]) Joy Troyer Seismological Society of America At the Interface Between Earthquake Sciences and 510.559.1784 Earthquake Engineering in the Pacific Northwest [email protected] As the Pacific Northwest comes to grips with the destructive potential of the Cascadia subduction zone and as more active Registration crustal faults are identified, particularly in the Puget Sound Sissy Stone region, our understanding of seismic hazards has improved. Seismological Society of America Greater efforts are being made by both the earth science and 510.559.1780 engineering communities to insure that new and existing [email protected] critical and important structures and facilities as well ordinary buildings are capable of withstanding this higher level hazard. Exhibits Examples of these efforts include the continuing evolution of Sarah Karlson the USGS National Hazard Maps in the Pacific Northwest and Seismological Society of America two regional seismic hazard studies for dams being conducted 510-559-1783 in eastern Washington and British Columbia. This session will [email protected] focus on recent advances in the earthquake sciences and how doi: 10.1785/gssrl.81.2.253 Seismological Research Letters Volume 81, Number 2 March/April 2010 253 they have impacted earthquake engineering practices in the Deterministic Simulated Ground Motion Records under Pacific Northwest. Case histories where state-of-the-art knowl- ASCE 7-10 as a Bridge Between Geotechnical and edge and procedures are implemented are of particular interest Structural Engineering Industry to this session. According to new requirements of the American Society of Conveners: Ivan G. Wong ([email protected]), Civil Engineers Standard (ASCE 7-10 Chapter 21 Site-Specific Arthur D. Frankel ([email protected]) Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design), at least five recorded or simulated horizontal ground motion acceleration Building Code Uses of Seismic Hazard Data time histories shall be selected from events having magnitudes The SSA statement of purpose includes the objective to “pro- and fault distances that are consistent with those that control mote public safety by all practical means.” Building codes are the Maximum Considered Earthquake. In some cases (e.g., one of the most effective means of elevating public safety. This from M6.0 to M8, less than 5 km from the fault zone) there session will focus on the ways in which building code applica- may not be five sets of recorded ground motions that are appro- tions use, or could use, seismic hazard data from seismologists priate, and simulated ground motion would be needed. Based and others. Examples include: on analytical and numerical simulation for the earthquake rup- • The use of national and regional/urban probabilistic and ture propagations ground-motion modeling methods are being deterministic hazard maps to develop maps of ground increasingly used to supplement the recorded ground-motion motion intensities for the design of new structures and/ database. Unfortunately, there is no official procedure to fol- or the evaluation/retrofit of existing structures, including low for near-field sites (D < 5 km from the fault) and for deter- buildings,bridges, dams, etc.; mining whether facilities and bridges are considered critical • Site-specific hazard analysis for such structures and others or essential. This presents a paradox: the Building Codes and (e.g., nuclear power plants); Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10 requires engineers to provide simu- • The use of ground motion time histories, whether recorded lation of ground motion records (Chapter 21), but there is no or simulated; and official procedure for accomplishing this at near-field sites. This • The incorporation of earthquake effects other than ground paradox should be resolved as soon as possible. motion, such as slope instability, liquefaction, total and We invite papers that focus on simulating ground motions differential settlement, surface displacement, etc., into that satisfy ASCE/SEI 7-10 and address one or more of the fol- building codes lowing aspects: 1) procedures for simulating horizontal-, verti- Contributors to the session are encouraged to either present cal-, and torsion-component ground-motion records for planar information on current uses of seismic hazard data in building and nonplanar fault topology within 5 km of a fault zone; 2) code applications, or to propose future uses that are in line with comparisons of solutions for different deterministic models; 3) the SSA objective to promote public safety by all practical means. procedures for determining site-specific design ground-motion Conveners: Nicolas Luco ([email protected]), Charles A. parameters for landslides and slope stability analyses with Kircher ([email protected]) time history procedures; 4) site-specific design ground-motion parameters for bridges and essential facilities (with time his- Characterizing the Next Cascadia Earthquake and tory procedures) located within 5 km of a fault zone. Tsunami Conveners: Alexander Bykovtsev (bykovtsev1@yahoo. New insights into the Holocene rupture history of the com), Walter Silva ([email protected]) Cascadia subduction zone, the structure of its forearc, and episodic tremor and slip events located down-dip of the seis- Earthquake Debates mogenic zone are redefining source models aimed at charac- Invited speakers will debate important issues in earthquake terizing the next megathrust earthquake and tsunami in the science. Such issues include the predictability of earthquakes, Pacific Northwest. This session will feature new research in the distribution of earthquake sizes on major faults, the role the fields of geology, seismology and geodesy that have led to of Coulomb stress change in earthquake triggering, and many improvements in understanding the seismic potential of the others. The predictability debate has been with us for decades Cascadia megathrust. Of particular interest to this session are and is based on many of the contentious issues debated in this studies that provide better constraints on the width of the rup- session. Speakers will debate what earthquake prediction really ture zone, the magnitude of slip, potential fault segmentation means, how it can be evaluated, and whether it is realistic for and highlight remaining uncertainties. We also encourage sub- scientists to promise progress to funding agencies or the public. missions that address how new findings can be used to reduce The issue of earthquake size is often distilled into two limiting human losses from future megathrust earthquakes and tsuna- hypotheses: characteristic or Gutenberg-Richter distribution. mis, in particular, assessments of seismic and tsunami hazards Does Gutenberg-Richter behavior in a large region imply simi- for mitigation purposes. lar behavior on individual faults, and how do we decide when Conveners: Rob Witter ([email protected]), Chris earthquakes are on individual