DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Meeting 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Meeting 2014 Southern California Earthquake Center ANNUAL MEETING 2014 SC EC an NSF+USGS center Z (x103) -15 -10 -5 SCEC Community Fault Model Version 5.0 and Revised 3D Fault Set for Southern California PROCEEDINGS VOLUME XXIV September 6-10, 2014 SCEC LEADERSHIP Core Institutions and Board of Directors (BoD) The Board of Directors (BoD) is the USC Harvard UC Los Angeles UC Santa Cruz USGS Pasadena primary decision-making body of Tom Jordan* Jim Rice Peter Bird Emily Brodsky Rob Graves SCEC; it meets three times annually to Caltech MIT UC Riverside UNR At-Large Member approve the annual science plan, Nadia Lapusta** Tom Herring David Oglesby Glenn Biasi Roland Bürgmann management plan, and budget, and deal with major business items. The CGS SDSU UC San Diego USGS Golden At-Large Member Center Director acts as Chair of the Chris Wills Steve Day Yuri Fialko Jill McCarthy Judi Chester Board. The liaison members from the Columbia Stanford UC Santa USGS Menlo * Chair U.S. Geological Survey are non-voting Bruce Shaw Paul Segall Barbara Park ** Vice-Chair members. Ralph Archuleta Ruth Harris Science Working Groups & Planning Committee (PC) The leaders of the Disciplinary Disciplinary Committee Committees and Interdisciplinary PC Chair Seismology Tectonic Geodesy EQ Geology Computational Sci Focus Groups serve on the Planning Greg Beroza* Egill Hauksson* Jessica Murray* Mike Oskin* Yifeng Cui* Committee (PC) for three-year terms. Elizabeth Cochran Dave Sandwell Whitney Behr Eric Dunham The PC develops the annual Science Collaboration Plan, coordinates Interdisciplinary Focus Groups activities relevant to SCEC science * PC Members USR SoSAFE EFP EEII priorities, and is responsible for John Shaw* Kate Scharer* Jeanne Hardebeck* Jack Baker* generating annual reports for the Brad Aagaard Ramon Arrowsmith Ilya Zaliapin Jacobo Bielak Center. Leaders of SCEC Special Projects (i.e., projects with funding FARM SDOT GMP outside the core science program) Greg Hirth* Kaj Johnson* Kim Olsen* also serve on the Planning Committee. Pablo Ampuero Thorsten Becker Christine Goulet They ensure the activities of the Special Projects Special Projects are built into the CME CSEP WGCEP annual science plans. Phil Maechling* Max Werner* Ned Field* Danijel Schorlemmer Technical Activity Groups Code Verification SIV EQ Simulators Transient Detection Ruth Harris Martin Mai Terry Tullis Rowena Lohman GMSV Nico Luco Sanaz Rezaeian The external Advisory Council (AC) Advisory Council (AC) provides guidance in all aspects of Center activities, including basic and Gail Atkinson, Chair Donna Eberhart-Phillips M. Meghan Miller John Vidale applied earthquake research and Western U UC Davis UNAVCO U Washington related technical disciplines, formal and informal education, and public Norm Abrahamson Kate Long Farzad Naeim Andrew Whittaker outreach. Members of the AC are PG&E CalOES John A Martin MCEER/Buffalo elected by the Board for three-year Roger Bilham Warner Marzocchi Tim Sellnow terms and may be re-elected. The U Colorado INGV Rome U Kentucky Council meets annually to review Center programs and plans, and prepares a report for the Center. Center Management Center Communication, Information Administration Education & Outreach Technology Center Director Associate Director Associate Director Associate Director Tom Jordan John McRaney Mark Benthien Phil Maechling Deputy Director Special Projects/Events Education Programs Research Programmer Greg Beroza Tran Huynh Bob de Groot Scott Callaghan Contracts & Grants Digital Products David Gill Karen Young John Marquis Masha Liukis Kevin Milner Admin Coordinator Web Developer Fabio Silva Deborah Gormley David Gill Systems Programmer Communications John Yu Jason Ballmann 2 | Southern California Earthquake Center Table of Contents SCEC Leadership ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 3 State of SCEC, 2014 ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2013 Report of the Advisory Council .............................................................................................................. 12 Communication, Education, and Outreach Highlights ................................................................................... 18 Research Accomplishments ............................................................................................................................ 31 SCEC4 Science Milestones .............................................................................................................................. 73 Draft 2015 Science Plan .................................................................................................................................. 78 Meeting Agenda ............................................................................................................................................. 102 Meeting Presentations .................................................................................................................................. 111 Meeting Abstracts ......................................................................................................................................... 124 Meeting Participants ..................................................................................................................................... 191 SCEC Institutions ........................................................................................................................................... 197 2014 SCEC Annual Meeting | 3 STATE OF SCEC State of SCEC, 2014 Thomas H. Jordan, SCEC Director Welcome to the 2014 Annual Meeting! This week in Palm Springs both the weather and science promise to be hot! The SCEC community will gather here from across the country and around the world to share our recent research accomplishments and review our ambitious science plans. 573 people have pre-registered for the meeting (Figure 1), and 286 poster abstracts have been submitted—the largest numbers ever. The pre-registrants include more than 155 first-time attendees and almost two hundred undergraduate and graduate students. The goals of this 24th Annual Meeting are threefold. We are more than halfway through the SCEC4 cycle, so we need to assess our research accomplishments and plan our research for the remaining two years of SCEC4. We also need to gear up for the SCEC5 proposal, which will be submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) about one year from now. But our main goal is scientific: to learn all we can about earthquakes from the formal presentations and posters, and especially from the informal discussions with our scientific colleagues. Many of those discussions will concern the M6 South Napa earthquake of two weeks ago. This destructive event is a potent reminder of why we are here. Californians and other residents of U.S. earthquake country have been lucky to live in seismically quiescent times, but this good fortune cannot be sustained indefinitely. While we have the time, we must do all we can to understand earthquake phenomena in California and elsewhere, working with our many partners towards the goal of reducing seismic risk and improving the resilience of our communities. As a long-term resident of Hotel California, I Figure 1. Registrants at SCEC Annual Meetings 1991-2014. Number for 2014 (573) is pre-registrants, with 155 remain committed to our multi- first-time attendees. Pie chart shows the demographic profile for 2014 pre-registrants. The lower bar chart is decade project, and at this the history of SCEC base funding in as-spent dollars; the connected dots are the base-funding totals in 2002 dollars. Funding for 2014 is current authorization. meeting I will ask you to join me in continuing our deep collaboration into SCEC5. In the next few days, we’ll all be standing in the hot spray of a scientific firehose. As always, the Planning Committee has put together a blazing program. Saturday and Sunday feature workshops on six worthy topics: • San Gorgonio Pass Special Fault Study Area • Testing Operational Earthquake Forecasts and Seismic Hazard Models • Community Geodetic Model Workshop • Source Inverson Validation • Earthquake Ground Motion Simulation and Validation • Post-Earthquake Rapid Scientific Response At 6 pm Sunday evening, this year’s Distinguished Speaker, Dr. Norm Abrahamson of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, will kick off the main meeting with a challenge-posing talk on “Reducing Epistemic Uncertainty in Seismic Risk Estimation.” 4 | Southern California Earthquake Center STATE OF SCEC Over the next three days, the agenda will feature keynote speakers addressing fundamental problems, discussions of major science themes, poster sessions on research results, earthquake response exercises, technical demonstrations, education and outreach activities, and some lively social gatherings. Assessing SCEC Accomplishments Last year, we requested an assessment of the key SCEC4 activities from our external Advisory Council (AC), and they responded with a detailed and thoughtful evaluation, narrated in terms of the “six fundamental problems of earthquake science” posed in the SCEC4 science plan (Table 1). They noted how these system-level problems
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relationship Between Structures, Stress and Seismicity in The
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. ???, XXXX, DOI:10.1029/, 1 Relationship between structures, stress and 2 seismicity in the Charlevoix seismic zone revealed by 3 3-D geomechanical models: Implications for the 4 seismotectonics of continental interiors A. F. Baird, S. D. McKinnon, and L. Godin 5 Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen's 6 University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada A. F. Baird, L. Godin, and S. D. McKinnon, Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. ([email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]) D R A F T July 11, 2010, 11:16am D R A F T X - 2 BAIRD ET AL.: STRUCTURES, STRESS AND SEISMICITY IN THE CSZ 7 Abstract. The Charlevoix seismic zone in the St. Lawrence valley of Qu´ebec 8 is the most active in eastern Canada. The structurally complex region com- 9 prises a series of subparallel steeply dipping Iapetan rift faults, superimposed 10 by a 350 Ma meteorite impact structure, resulting in a heavily faulted vol- 11 ume. The elongate seismic zone runs through the crater parallel to the rift. 12 Most large events localize outside the crater and are consistent with slip along 13 the rift faults, whereas background seismicity primarily occurs within the 14 volume of rock bounded by the rift faults within and beneath the crater. The 15 interaction between rift and crater faults is explored using the three-dimensional 16 stress analysis code FLAC3D. The rift faults are represented by frictional 17 discontinuities and the crater by a bowl-shaped elastic volume of reduced 18 modulus.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Ground Motion
    The Lorna Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989-Strong Ground Motion ROGER D. BORCHERDT, Editor STRONG GROUND MOTION AND GROUND FAILURE Thomas L. Holzer, Coordinator U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1551-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Manuscript approved for publication, October 6, 1993 Text and illustrations edited by George A. Havach Library of Congress catalog-card No. 92-32287 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution Box 25286, MS 306, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page A1 Strong-motion recordings ---................................. 9 By A. Gerald Brady and Anthony F. Shakal Effect of known three-dimensional crustal structure on the strong ground motion and estimated slip history of the earthquake ................................ 39 By Vernon F. Cormier and Wei-Jou Su Simulation of strong ground motion ....................... 53 By Jeffry L. Stevens and Steven M. Day Influence of near-surface geology on the direction of ground motion above a frequency of 1 Hz----------- 61 By John E. Vidale and Ornella Bonamassa Effect of critical reflections from the Moho on the attenuation of strong ground motion ------------------ 67 By Paul G. Somerville, Nancy F. Smith, and Robert W. Graves Influences of local geology on strong and weak ground motions recorded in the San Francisco Bay region and their implications for site-specific provisions ----------------- --------------- 77 By Roger D.
    [Show full text]
  • Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source
    C Default Source Characteristics for CEUS SSC Project Study Region Table C-5.4 Future Earthquake Characteristics RLME Sources Table C-6.1.1 Charlevoix RLME Table C-6.1.2 Charleston RLME Table C-6.1.3 Cheraw Fault RLME Table C-6.1.4 Oklahoma Aulacogen RLME Table C-6.1.5 Reelfoot Rift–New Madrid Fault System RLMEs Table C-6.1.6 Reelfoot Rift–Eastern Margin Fault RLME Table C-6.1.7 Reelfoot Rift–Marianna RLME Table C-6.1.8 Reelfoot Rift–Commerce Fault Zone RLME Table C-6.1.9 Wabash Valley RLME Seismotectonic Zones Table C-7.3.1 St. Lawrence Rift Zone (SLR) Table C-7.3.2 Great Meteor Hotspot Zone (GMH) Table C-7.3.3 Northern Appalachian Zone (NAP) Table C-7.3.4 Paleozoic Extended Crust Zone (PEZ; narrow [N] and wide [W]) Table C-7.3.5 Illinois Basin-Extended Basement Zone (IBEB) Table C-7.3.6 Reelfoot Rift Zone (RR; including Rough Creek Graben [RR-RCG]) Tables C-7.3.7/7.3.8 Extended Continental Crust Zone–Atlantic Margin (ECC-AM) and Atlantic Highly Extended Crust (AHEX) Tables C-7.3.9/7.3.10 Extended Continental Crust Zone–Gulf Coast (ECC-GC) and Gulf Coast Highly Extended Crust (GHEX) [No Table C-7.3.11] [Oklahoma Aulacogen (OKA); see Table C-6.1.4] Table C-7.3.12 Midcontinent-Craton Zone (MidC) Mmax Zones Criteria for defining the MESE/NMESE boundary for the two-zone alternative are discussed in Section 6.2.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Studies on the 1988 MW 5.9 Saguenay, Quebec, Earthquake Sequence
    Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Further studies on the 1988 MW 5.9 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake sequence Journal: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Manuscript ID cjes-2017-0231.R2 Manuscript Type: Article Date Submitted by the Author: 04-Apr-2018 Complete List of Authors: Ma, Shutian; Carleton University, Earth Sciences Motazedian, Dariush; Carleton University, Earth Sciences Lamontagne, Maurice; Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of Canada Draft Keyword: Saguenay earthquake, rupture plane, relocation, depth phase, aftershocks Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special N/A Issue? : https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Page 1 of 41 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 1 Further studies on the 1988 MW 5.9 Saguenay, Quebec, 2 earthquake sequence 3 4 5 6 Shutian Ma1, Dariush Motazedian2, Maurice Lamontagne3 7 8 9 (1)Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University 10 1125 Colonel By Drive 11 Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada 12 [email protected] Draft 13 (S.M.) 14 15 (2)Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University 16 1125 Colonel By Drive 17 Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada 18 [email protected] 19 (D.M.) 20 21 (3)Geological Survey of Canada 22 Natural Resources Canada, 601 Booth St, 23 Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0E8, Canada 24 [email protected] 25 (M.L.) 26 1 https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjes-pubs Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Page 2 of 41 27 28 Abstract: 29 Many small earthquakes occur annually in Eastern Canada, but moderate to 30 strong earthquakes are infrequent. The 25 November 1988 MW 5.9 Saguenay 31 mainshock remains the largest earthquake in the last 80 years in eastern North 32 America.
    [Show full text]
  • (Title of the Thesis)*
    LARGE LANDSLIDES IN SENSITIVE CLAY IN EASTERN CANADA AND THE ASSOCIATED HAZARD AND RISK TO LINEAR INFRASTRUCTURE by Peter Eugene Quinn A thesis submitted to the Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering In conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada April, 2009 Copyright © Peter E. Quinn, 2009 Abstract The Saint Lawrence Lowlands in eastern Canada contain extensive deposits of marine soils deposited in post-glacial seas during and following the retreat of the most recent continental glacier. These marine soils include silt and clay deposits known collectively as Champlain clay. When the pore fluid in these marine deposits has changed over time to a lower salinity, the clay can become very sensitive, or demonstrate substantial strength loss after reaching the peak strength with sufficient strain under undrained load conditions. Sensitive clay soils are subject to a peculiar type of very large landslide that typically involves great extents of nearly horizontal ground, usually occurring suddenly and without warning. These landslides tend to be described as “retrogressive” in the literature and practice, implying that they develop as a series of successive small failures that advance rearward until a final stable position is reached. The work of this thesis is organized into four different themes, with an overall objective of understanding the hazard and risk associated with large landslides in sensitive clay to linear infrastructure such as railways. The first theme, documented in Chapter 2, develops a number of spatial relationships between specific physiographic and geologic features and landslide occurrence or absence, as determined through air photo analysis and a review of the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 43, Vibratory Ground Motion
    Nuclear Development 244 Chestnut Street, Salem, NJ 08079 0 PSEG Power LLC ND-2012-0039 July 19, 2012 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Subject: PSEG Early Site Permit Application Docket No. 52-043 Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 43, Vibratory Ground Motion References: 1) PSEG Power, LLC letter to USNRC, Application for Early Site Permit for the PSEG Site, dated May 25, 2010 2) RAI No. 43, SRP Section: 02.05.02 - Vibratory Ground Motion, dated December 12, 2011 (eRAI 6162) 3) PSEG Power, LLC Letter No. ND-2012-0002 to USNRC, Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 43, Vibratory Ground Motion, dated January 10, 2012 4) PSEG Power, LLC Letter No. ND-2012-0006 to USNRC, Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 43, Vibratory Ground Motion, dated January 25, 2012 5) PSEG Power, LLC Letter No. ND-2012-0009 to USNRC, Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 43, Vibratory Ground Motion, dated February 9, 2012 6) PSEG Power, LLC Letter No. ND-2012-0018 to USNRC, Response to Request for Additional Information, RAI No. 43, Vibratory Ground Motion, dated March 15, 2012 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 2 7/19/12 Commission The purpose of this letter is to respond to the request for additional information (RAI) identified in Reference 2 above. This RAI addresses Vibratory Ground Motion, as described in Subsection 2.5.2 of the Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), as submitted in Part 2 of the PSEG Site Early Site Permit Application, Revision 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Saguenay, Le 19 Août 2020 Madame Joannie Martin Gestionnaire De
    Saguenay, le 19 août 2020 Madame Joannie Martin Gestionnaire de projet, Bureau régional du Québec Agence d’évaluation d’impact du Canada 1550, avenue d’Estimauville Québec (Québec) G1J 0C1 Objet : Projet Énergie Saguenay – Complexe de liquéfaction de gaz naturel à Saguenay. Dépôt de l’addenda 2 du document‐réponses en complément à la première demande d’information sur l’étude d’impact environnemental et révision de la portée du projet en lien avec la navigation (No dossier 005543) : ACEE‐78 Risques sismiques Madame Martin, Vous trouverez annexé à cette lettre, un rapport d’évaluation des aléas sismiques spécifiques au site réalisé par la firme Nanometrics inc. en réponse à la question ACEE‐78. Puisque le rapport est rédigé en anglais, vous trouverez ci‐dessous une traduction du sommaire exécutif. Une évaluation probabiliste des aléas sismiques (PSHA) propre au site a été menée pour un complexe de liquéfaction de gaz naturel proposé près de Saguenay, au Québec. L'évaluation est réalisée par Nanometrics en collaboration avec le Dr Gail Atkinson, qui a agi en tant que conseiller technique pour l'étude. Ce rapport décrit la méthodologie, les hypothèses et les résultats. L'objectif principal était de déterminer les spectres d’aléa uniformes horizontaux et verticaux pour une condition de roche dure (site de classe A), pour des périodes de retour de 475, 975 et 2 475 ans. Les zones de sources sismiques sont définies pour modéliser le taux d'activité, la distribution spatiale et la magnitude maximale dans un rayon de moins de 500 km du site. L'approche du zonage de la source consiste à commencer avec les zones et les taux de source régionaux déterminés par la Commission géologique du Canada (CGC), et à explorer les modifications qui pourraient être nécessaires pour l’adaptation des modèles au site.
    [Show full text]
  • Unistar Nuclear Services, LLC
    FSAR: Section 2.5 Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering 2.5 GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING {This section presents information on the geological, seismological, and geotechnical engineering properties of the Nine Mile Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant (NMP3NPP) site. Section 2.5.1 describes basic geological and seismologic data, focusing on those data developed since the publication of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for licensing Nine Mile Point (NMP) Unit 1 and Unit 2. Section 2.5.2 describes the vibratory ground motion at the site, including an updated seismicity catalog, description of seismic sources, and development of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake and Operating Basis Earthquake ground motions. Section 2.5.3 describes the potential for surface faulting in the site area, and Section 2.5.4 and Section 2.5.5 describe the stability of surface materials at the site. Appendix D of Regulatory Guide 1.165, “Geological, Seismological and Geophysical Investigations to Characterize Seismic Sources,” (NRC, 1997) provides guidance for the recommended level of investigation at different distances from a proposed site for a nuclear facility. The site region is that area within 200 mi (322 km) of the site location The site vicinity is that area within 25 mi (40 km) of the site location The site area is that area within 5 mi (8 km) of the site location The site is that area within 0.6 mi (1 km) of the site location These terms, site region, site vicinity, site area, and site, are used in Section 2.5.1 through Section 2.5.3 to describe these specific areas of investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Hazard Assessment
    Seismic Hazard Assessment March 2011 Prepared by: AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. NWMO DGR-TR-2011-20 Seismic Hazard Assessment March 2011 Prepared by: AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. NWMO DGR-TR-2011-20 Seismic Hazard Assessment - ii - March 2011 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Seismic Hazard Assessment - iii - March 2011 Document History Title: Seismic Hazard Assessment Report Number: NWMO DGR-TR-2011-20 Revision: R000 Date: March 2011 AECOM Canada Ltd. Prepared by: B. Youngs (AMEC Geomatrix, Inc.) Reviewed by: G. Atkinson (University of Western Ontario) Approved by: R.E.J. Leech Nuclear Waste Management Organization Reviewed by: T. Lam Accepted by: M. Jensen Seismic Hazard Assessment - iv - March 2011 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Seismic Hazard Assessment - v - March 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report develops design ground motions for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) proposed Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) project at the Bruce nuclear site in the Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario. One important aspect of site evaluation is the assessment of the earthquake ground motions that could occur during the design/service life of the DGR. To provide adequate protection for the public and the environment, the DGR would be designed to withstand the effects of very rare events, including the occurrence of strong earthquake ground shaking at the site. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) was conducted for the DGR that incorporates uncertainties in the models and parameters that affect seismic hazard. Guidance on conducting a PSHA, with the goal of capturing the knowledge of the informed scientific community regarding the inputs to the analysis, was provided in a landmark report by the Senior Seismic Hazard Advisory Committee (SSHAC).
    [Show full text]
  • Relationship Between Structures, Stress and Seismicity
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, B11402, doi:10.1029/2010JB007521, 2010 Relationship between structures, stress and seismicity in the Charlevoix seismic zone revealed by 3‐D geomechanical models: Implications for the seismotectonics of continental interiors A. F. Baird,1 S. D. McKinnon,1 and L. Godin1 Received 4 March 2010; revised 11 July 2010; accepted 3 August 2010; published 6 November 2010. [1] The Charlevoix seismic zone in the St. Lawrence valley of Québec is the most active in eastern Canada. The structurally complex region comprises a series of subparallel steeply dipping Iapetan rift faults, superimposed by a 350 Ma meteorite impact structure, resulting in a heavily faulted volume. The elongate seismic zone runs through the crater parallel to the rift. Most large events localize outside the crater and are consistent with slip along the rift faults, whereas background seismicity primarily occurs within the volume of rock bounded by the rift faults within and beneath the crater. The interaction between rift and crater faults is explored using the three‐dimensional stress analysis code FLAC3D. The rift faults are represented by frictional discontinuities, and the crater is represented by a bowl‐shaped elastic volume of reduced modulus. Differential stresses are slowly built up from boundary displacements similar to tectonic loading. Results indicate that weakening the rift faults produces a stress increase in the region of the crater bounded by the faults. This causes a decrease in stability of optimally oriented faults and may explain the localization of low‐level seismicity. Additionally, slip distribution along the rift faults shows that large events localize at the perimeter of the crater and produce focal mechanisms with P axes oblique to the applied stress field, consistent with historic large earthquakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada AECB WORKSHOP on SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT in SOUTHERN ONTARIO — RECORDED PROCEEDINGS
    INFO-0604-2 CA9800077 AECB Workshop on Seismic Hazard Assessment in Southern Ontario — Recorded Proceedings m. • •:> Ottawa, Ontario June 19-21. 1995 NEXT PAOE(S) !ef t PLANK Atomic Energy Commission de controle Control Boara de I'energie atomique Canada AECB WORKSHOP ON SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO — RECORDED PROCEEDINGS PREFACE A workshop on seismic hazard assessment in southern Ontario was conducted on June 19-21, 1995. The purpose of the workshop was to review available geological and seismological data which could affect earthquake occurrence hi southern Ontario and to develop a consensus on approaches that should be adopted for characterization of seismic hazard. The workshop was structured in technical sessions to focus presentations and discussions on four technical issues relevant to seismic hazard in southern Ontario, as follows: (1) The importance of geological and geophysical observations for the determination of seismic sources. (2) Methods and approaches which may be adopted for determining seismic sources based on integrated interpretations of geological and seismological information. (3) Methods and data which should be used for characterizing the seismicity parameters of seismic sources. (4) Methods for assessment of vibratory ground motion hazard. This document presents transcripts from recordings made of the presentations and discussion from the workshop. It will be noted, in some sections of the document, that the record is incomplete. This is due in part to recording equipment malfunction and in part due to the poor quality of recording obtained for certain periods. PREFACE Un atelier sur revaluation des dangers sismiques en Ontario meridional a 6te tenu du 19 au 21 juin 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Data Summary Tables
    D APPENDIX DATA SUMMARY TABLES Default Source Characteristics for CEUS SSC Project Study Region Table D-5.4 Future Earthquake Characteristics RLME Sources Table D-6.1.1 Charlevoix RLME Table D-6.1.2 Charleston RLME Table D-6.1.3 Cheraw Fault RLME Table D-6.1.4 Oklahoma Aulacogen RLME Table D-6.1.5 Reelfoot Rift–New Madrid Seismic Zone RLMEs [No Table D-6.1.6] [Reelfoot Rift–Eastern Rift Margin RLME; see Table D-6.1.5] [No Table D-6.1.7] [Reelfoot Rift–Marianna RLME; see Table D-6.1.5] [No Table D-6.1.8] [Reelfoot Rift–Commerce Fault Zone RLME; see Table D-6.1.5] Table D-6.1.9 Wabash Valley RLME Seismotectonic Zones Table D-7.3.1 St. Lawrence Rift Zone (SLR) Table D-7.3.2 Great Meteor Hotspot Zone (GMH) Table D-7.3.3 Northern Appalachian Zone (NAP) Table D-7.3.4 Paleozoic Extended Crust Zone (PEZ; narrow [N] and wide [W]) [No Table D-7.3.5] [Illinois Basin-Extended Basement Zone (IBEB); see Table D-6.1.9] [No Table D-7.3.6] [Reelfoot Rift Zone (RR) including Rough Creek Graben (RR-RCG); see Table D-6.1.5] Table D-7.3.7 Extended Continental Crust Zone–Atlantic Margin (ECC-AM) [No Table D-7.3.8] [Atlantic Highly Extended Crust Zone (AHEX); see Table D-7.3.7] Table D-7.3.9 Extended Continental Crust Zone–Gulf Coast (ECC-GC) [No Table D-7.3.10] [Gulf Coast Highly Extended Crust Zone (GHEX); see Table D-7.3.9] [No Table D-7.3.11] [Oklahoma Aulacogen (OKA); see Table D-6.1.4] Table D-7.3.12 Midcontinent-Craton Zone (MidC) D-1 Mmax Zones Criteria for defining the MESE/NMESE boundary for the two-zone alternative are discussed in Section 6.2.2.
    [Show full text]