DOCSLIB.ORG

Reports on Progress in Physics the Complex Dynamics of Earthquake Fault Systems: New Approaches to Forecasting and Nowcasting of Earthquakes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reports on Progress in Physics the Complex Dynamics of Earthquake Fault Systems: New Approaches to Forecasting and Nowcasting of Earthquakes Reports on Progress in Physics REVIEW Reports on progress in physics the complex dynamics of earthquake fault systems: new approaches to forecasting and nowcasting of earthquakes To cite this article: John B Rundle et al 2021 Rep. Prog. Phys. 84 076801 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 169.237.222.219 on 28/05/2021 at 18:47 Reports on Progress in Physics Rep. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) 076801 (37pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/abf893 Review Reports on progress in physics the complex dynamics of earthquake fault systems: new approaches to forecasting and nowcasting of earthquakes John B Rundle1,2,3,∗,SethStein4, Andrea Donnellan5, Donald L Turcotte2, William Klein6 and Cameron Saylor1 1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States of America 2 Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States of America 3 Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Rd, Santa Fe, NM 87501, United States of America 4 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, United States of America 5 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, United States of America 6 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, United States of America E-mail: [email protected] Received 20 August 2020, revised 31 March 2021 Accepted for publication 15 April 2021 Published 25 May 2021 Abstract Charles Richter’s observation that ‘only fools and charlatans predict earthquakes,’ reflects the fact that despite more than 100 years of effort, seismologists remain unable to do so with reliable and accurate results. Meaningful prediction involves specifying the location, time, and size of an earthquake before it occurs to greater precision than expected purely by chance from the known statistics of earthquakes in an area. In this context, ‘forecasting’ implies a prediction with a specification of a probability of the time, location, and magnitude. Two general approaches have been used. In one, the rate of motion accumulating across faults and the amount of slip in past earthquakes is used to infer where and when future earthquakes will occur and the shaking that would be expected. Because the intervals between earthquakes are highly variable, these long-term forecasts are accurate to no better than a hundred years. They are thus valuable for earthquake hazard mitigation, given the long lives of structures, but have clear limitations. The second approach is to identify potentially observable changes in the Earth that precede earthquakes. Various precursors have been suggested, and may have been real in certain cases, but none have yet proved to be a general feature preceding all earthquakes or to stand out convincingly from the normal variability of the Earth’s behavior. However, new types of data, models, and computational power may provide avenues for progress using machine learning that were not previously available. At present, it is unclear whether deterministic earthquake prediction is possible. The frustrations of this search have led to the observation that (echoing Yogi Berra) ‘it is difficult to predict earthquakes, especially before ∗Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed. Corresponding editor: Professor Michael Bevis. 1361-6633/21/076801+37$33.00 1 © 2021 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK Rep. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) 076801 Review they happen.’ However, because success would be of enormous societal benefit, the search for methods of earthquake prediction and forecasting will likely continue. In this review, we note that the focus is on anticipating the earthquake rupture before it occurs, rather than characterizing it rapidly just after it occurs. The latter is the domain of earthquake early warning, which we do not treat in detail here, although we include a short discussion in the machine learning section at the end. Keywords: earthquakes, forecasting, nowcasting, machine learning (Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal) 1. Introduction competition, among many other topics, below. But first we describe the history of earthquake prediction studies and the In order to provide an impartial test of earthquake predic- search for reliable precursors. tion the United States Geological Survey (USGS) initiated the Parkfield (California) Earthquake Prediction Experiment 2. History of earthquake precursor studies in 1985 (Bakun and Lindh 1985). Earthquakes on this section of the San Andreas fault had occurred in 1847, 1881, 1901, In the 1960s and 1970s, well-funded government earthquake 1922, 1934, and 1966. It was expected that the next earth- prediction programs began in the US, China, Japan, and the ± quake in the sequence would occur in 1988 5 years. An USSR. These programs relied on two approaches. One, based extensive array of instrumentation was deployed. The expected on laboratory experiments showing changes in the physical earthquake finally occurred on September 28, 2004. No precur- properties of rocks prior to fracture, involved searching for pre- sory observations outside the expected background levels were cursors or observable behavior that precedes earthquakes. A observed (Bakun et al 2005). The earthquake had not been second was based on the idea of the seismic cycle, in which predicted. This result has been interpreted to imply the infeasi- strain accumulates over time following a large earthquake. bility of deterministic short-term prediction of earthquakes on Hence areas on major faults that had not had recent earth- a consistent basis. quakes could be considered ‘seismic gaps’ likely to have large Successful near-term predictions of future earthquakes, earthquakes. which have happened on occasion, are very limited. A notable The idea that earthquake prediction was about to become exception was the M = 7.3 Haicheng earthquake in north- reality was promoted heavily in the media. US Geological east China that occurred on February 4, 1975. This predic- Survey director William Pecora announced in 1969 ‘we are tion resulted in the evacuation of the city which saved many predicting another massive earthquake certainly within the lives. It was reported that the prediction was based on fore- next 30 years and most likely in the next decade or so’ shocks, groundwater anomalies and animal behavior. It should on the San Andreas fault. California senator Alan Cranston, be noted, however, that no prediction was made prior to the prediction’s leading political supporter, told reporters that ‘we occurrence of the M = 7.8 Tangshan earthquake in China on have the technology to develop a reliable prediction system July 28, 1976. Reports suggest the death toll in this case was already at hand.’ Although the President’s science advisor as high as 600 000. questioned the need for an expensive program given the low It seems surprising that it is not possible to make reliable death rate from earthquakes, lobbying prevailed and funding short-term predictions of the occurrence of a major earthquake poured into the US program and similar programs in other (Kanamori 2003, Keilis-Borok 2002, Mogi 1985, Scholz 2019, countries. Turcotte 1991). Based on analog laboratory experiments, pre- To date this search has proved generally unsuccessful. As cursory micro cracking expressed as small earthquakes should a result, it is unclear whether earthquake prediction is even occur, and precursory strain would also be expected. Fore- possible. In one hypothesis, all earthquakes start off as tiny shocks occur prior to about 25% of major earthquakes, but it is earthquakes, which happen frequently. However, only a few difficult to distinguish foreshocks from background seismicity cascade via a failure process into large earthquakes. This since they are all ‘just earthquakes’. hypothesis draws on ideas from nonlinear dynamics or chaos An important recent development in this area was the theory, in which small perturbations can grow to have unpre- regional earthquake likelihood models (RELM) test of earth- dictable large consequences. These ideas were posed in terms quake forecasts in California. Forecasts had to be sub- of the possibility that the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil mitted prior to the start of the evaluation period, so this might set off a tornado in Texas, or in general that minus- was a true prospective evaluation. Six participants submit- cule disturbances do not affect the overall frequency of storms ted forecasts for 7700 cells. Two of the forecasts showed but can modify when they occur (Lorenz 1995). In this view, promise, these being the pattern informatics (PI) and epidemic because there is nothing special about those tiny earthquakes type aftershock sequence (ETAS) forecasts. We discuss this that happen to grow into large ones, the interval between large 2 Rep. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) 076801 Review earthquakes is highly variable, and no observable precursors However, this phenomenon has not been substantiated as a should occur before them. If so, earthquake prediction is either general phenomenon. Similar difficulties beset reports of a impossible or nearly so. decrease in the electrical resistivity of the ground before Support for this view comes from the failure to observe a some earthquakes, consistent with large-scale microcracking. compelling pattern of precursory behavior before earthquakes Changes in the amount and composition of groundwater have (Geller 1997). Various possible precursors have been sug- also been observed. For example, a geyser in Calistoga, Cal- gested—and some may have been real in certain cases—but ifornia, changed its period between eruptions before the Mw none have yet proved to be a general feature preceding all 6.9 1989 Loma Prieta and Mw 5.7 1975 Oroville, California, earthquakes, or to stand out convincingly from the normal earthquakes. range of the Earth’s variable behavior. In many previous cases, Efforts have also been made to identify ground deforma- it was not realized that a successful prediction scheme must tion immediately preceding earthquakes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 974-1002, August 1994 New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement by Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith Abstract Source parameters for historical earthquakes worldwide are com­ piled to develop a series of empirical relationships among moment magnitude (M), surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, rupture area, and maximum and average displacement per event. The resulting data base is a significant update of previous compilations and includes the ad­ ditional source parameters of seismic moment, moment magnitude, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, and average surface displacement. Each source parameter is classified as reliable or unreliable, based on our evaluation of the accuracy of individual values. Only the reliable source parameters are used in the final analyses. In comparing source parameters, we note the fol­ lowing trends: (1) Generally, the length of rupture at the surface is equal to 75% of the subsurface rupture length; however, the ratio of surface rupture length to subsurface rupture length increases with magnitude; (2) the average surface dis­ placement per event is about one-half the maximum surface displacement per event; and (3) the average subsurface displacement on the fault plane is less than the maximum surface displacement but more than the average surface dis­ placement. Thus, for most earthquakes in this data base, slip on the fault plane at seismogenic depths is manifested by similar displacements at the surface. Log-linear regressions between earthquake magnitude and surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, and rupture area are especially well correlated, show­ ing standard deviations of 0.25 to 0.35 magnitude units.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State Seismic Mitigation Policy Gap Analysis
    Washington State Seismic Mitigation Policy Gap Analysis A Cross‐State Comparison Scott B. Miles, Ph.D. Brian D. Gouran, L.G. October, 2010 Prepared for Washington State Division of Emergency Management Resilience Institute Working Paper 2010_2 1 Washington State Gap Analysis; S. Miles & B. Gouran Resilience Institute Working Paper 2010_2 October, 2010 This document was prepared under an award from FEMA, Department of Homeland Security. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of FEMA or the US Department of Homeland Security. Washington State Gap Analysis; S. Miles & B. Gouran Resilience Institute Working Paper 2010_2 October, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to understand how Washington State compares with other states with respect to state‐level seismic mitigation policies. This facilitates the identification of potential Washington State policy gaps that might be filled with policies similar to those of other states. This study was accomplished by compiling, synthesizing, and analyzing state‐level policies listed in the mitigation plan of 47 states (3 could not be obtained by the completion of the study). A catalog of describing each of the compiled policies – legislation or executive orders – was assembled. A spreadsheet database was created in order to synthesize, search, and analyze the policies. Quantitative analysis was conducted using a cross‐state analysis and two different computed indicators based on seismic risk and policy count. The cross‐state analysis facilitate a broad assessment of Washington State’s policy coverage given its seismic risk, as well as identification of policies from states with more seismic mitigation policies that Washington State.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthquake Losses to Single-Family Dwellings: California Experience
    Earthquake Losses to Single-Family Dwellings: California Experience U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1939-A Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of Insurance /§ L ---. =. i wt. 9<m III Cover: Damage caused by the 1933 Long Bench California, earthquake. Photograph by Harold Er^le, 1933. Chapter A Earthquake Losses to Single-Family Dwellings: California Experience By KARL V. STEINBRUGGE and ST. ALGERMISSEN Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of Insurance U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1939 ESTIMATION OF EARTHQUAKE LOSSES TO HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L Peck, 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. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Catalog-in-Publication Data Steinbrugge, Karl V. Earthquake losses to single-family dwellings. (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1939-A) (Estimation of earthquake losses to housing in California) "Prepared in cooperation with the State of California Department of Insurance." Includes bibliographical references. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1939-A 1. Insurance, Earthquake California. 2. Earthquakes California. I. Algermissen, Sylvester Theodore, 1932- . II. California. Dept. of Insurance. III. Title. IV. Series. V. Series:
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Minority Report to “Improving Natural Gas Safety in Earthquakes”
    Draft Minority Report to “Improving natural gas safety in earthquakes,” Prepared by Carl L. Strand For the ASCE-25 Task Committee on Earthquake Safety Issues for Gas Systems and the California Seismic Safety Commission July 10, 2002 I appreciate the opportunity of serving as a Member of the ASCE-25 Task Committee on Earthquake Safety Issues for Gas Systems. Ours was a consensus committee in the sense that efforts were made to achieve a consensus among the members on the wording of the Committee’s reports, which include a 1-page insert for the Seismic Safety Commission’s (SSC’s) “Homeowners’ guide to earthquake safety,” and a 40—50 page report. However, as is often the case with consensus committees, there was considerable disagreement on many of the issues that were raised. It is traditional in such cases for those in the minority to express their disagreements in a minority report, which is published at the end of the report that was approved by the majority. The Forward to this minority report—submitted as a letter to the SSC on June 26, 2002—summarizes my deep concerns about the majority report and the insert to the homeowners’ guide. This is a first draft of the minority report. It is my intention to revise it following the Hearing on July 11th, which will give me an opportunity to correct any errors, incorporate any additional comments raised during the Hearing that I believe should be included, and consider any suggestions that are made that might improve the document. If the majority report is revised, I may find it appropriate to delete certain sections of the minority report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Research Results Described in the Following Summaries Were Submitted by the Investigators on May 10, 1984 and Cover the 6-Mo
    The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on May 10, 1984 and cover the 6-months period from October 1, 1983 through May 1, 1984. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the three major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Open File Report No. 84-628 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Parts of it were prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. The data and interpretations in these progress reports may be reevaluated by the investigators upon completion of the research. Readers who wish to cite findings described herein should confirm their accuracy with the author. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, VOLUME XVIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson Thelraa R. Rodriguez CONTENTS Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Page I. Recent Tectonics and Earthquake Potential (T) Determine the tectonic framework and earthquake potential of U.S. seismogenic zones with significant hazard potential. Objective T-1. Regional seismic monitoring........................ 1 Objective T-2. Source zone characteristics Identify and map active crustal faults, using geophysical and geological data to interpret the structure and geometry of seismogenic zones.
    [Show full text]
  • Haywired Area Affected by Collapse.Docx.Docx
    SESM 16-03 An Earthquake Urban Search and Rescue Model Illustrated with a Hypothetical Mw 7.0 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault By Keith A. Porter Structural Engineering and Structural Mechanics Program Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering University of Colorado July 2016 UCB 428 Boulder, Colorado 80309-0428 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. ii An Earthquake Urban Search and Rescue Model Illustrated with a Hypothetical Mw 7.0 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Objective ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Literature About People Trapped by Building Collapse ........................................................................................
    [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]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS VOLUME XXIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM October 1986 OPEN-FILE REPORT 87-63 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S.Geological Survey editorial standards Any use of trade name is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. Menlo Park, California 1986 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM, SUMMARIES OF TECHNICAL REPORTS VOLUME XXIII Prepared by Participants in NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM Compiled by Muriel L. Jacobson Thelma R. Rodriguez The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on May 16, 1986 and cover the 6-months period from May 1, 1986 through October 31, 1986. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the three major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. Open File Report No. 87-63 This report has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Parts of it were prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and the opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. The data and interpretations in these progress reports may be reevaluated by the investigators upon completion of the research.
    [Show full text]
  • Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes Developing Successful Risk Reduction Programs
    Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes Developing Successful Risk Reduction Programs FEMA P-774 / October 2009 FEMA Th e cover photos show signifi cant damage to unreinforced masonry buildings that resulted from earthquakes occurring over the last century, across the country. Front Cover Photo Credits (clockwise from top left): 1886, Charleston, South Carolina: J. K. Hillers, U.S. Geological Survey 2003, San Simeon, California: Josh Marrow, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Reconnaissance Team 2001, Nisqually, Washington: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 1935, Helena, Montana: L. H. Jorud, courtesy of Montana Historical Society and Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology 1993, Klamath Falls, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 2008, Wells, Nevada: Craig dePolo, Wells Earthquake Portal, www.nbmg.unr. edu/WellsEQ/. Unreinforced Masonry Buildings and Earthquakes Developing Successful Risk Reduction Programs FEMA P-774/October 2009 Prepared for: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Cathleen Carlisle, Project Monitor Washington, D.C. Prepared by: Applied Technology Council (ATC) 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California Principal Author Robert Reitherman Contributing Author Sue C. Perry Project Manager Th omas R. McLane Project Review Panel Ronald P. Gallagher Jon A. Heintz William T. Holmes Ugo Morelli Lawrence D. Reaveley Christopher Rojahn Any opinions, fi ndings, conclusions, or recom- mendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily refl ect the views of FEMA. Additionally, neither FEMA or any of its employees makes any warrantee, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion to Reopen Record for New Info Re Seismic Events & Geologic
    l .. 33.7._ , , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O g.g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARD "# J1 19 A!!:55 ) ::h; - In the Matter of ) ..,; .. ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) DocketNos.50-27$O.L. ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ) JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON SEISMIC ISSUES ' , | JOEL R. REYNOLDS, ESQ. ETHAN P. SCHULMAN, ESQ. L ERIC HAVIAN, ESO. JOHN R. PHILLIPS, ESQ. Center for Law in the Public Interest L 10951 W. Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 (213) 470-3000 Attorneys for Joint Intervenors SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC. ECOLOGY ACTION CLUB B407190244 BA0716 PDR ADOCK 05000275 SANDRA SILVER g PDR GORDON SILVER ELIZABETH APPELBERG JOHN J. FORSTER SO ' _ - . .-. - . - . - . - . - < - *, , er ._. , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL BOARD . ) . In the Matter of ) ) PACIFIC. GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-274 0.L. ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo. Canyon Nuclear Power ) Plant, Units 1.and 2) ) ) JOINT INTERVENORS' MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD ON SEISMIC ISSUES The SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, SCENIC SHORE- -LINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC., ECOLOGY. ACTION CLUB, SANDRA SILVER,.GORDON SILVER, ELIZABETH APFELBERG, and JOHN FORSTER ; (" Joint Intervenors") hereby request the Atomic Safety and . Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") to reopen the record in order to receive significant new information directly relevant- to the seismic safety of_the Diablo Canyon Nuclear _ Power Plant ("Diablo Canyon"). The new information, arising out of recent ; . seismic events and-geologic studies, is described in the attached affidavit of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Circular 85. Washington State Earthquake Hazards
    WASHING1rON STATE EARTHQUAKE:HAZARDS by LINDA LAWRANCE NOS , ANTHONY QAMAR, AND GERALD W. THORSEN WASHING TON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCE INFORMATION CIRCULAR 85 1988 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources Brian Boyle - Commissioner of Public Lands Art Stearns - Supervisor Division of Geology and Earth Resources Raymond Lasmanis, State Geologist Cover photo: Damage to an unreinforced masonry building in downtown Centralia in 1949. A man was killed by the falling upper walls of this two-story corner building. Unreinforced masonry walls, gables, cornices, and partitions were the most seriously damaged structures in the 1949 and 1965 earthquakes. Inferior mortar and inadequate ties between walls and floors compounded the damage. (Photo from the A. E. Miller Col­ lection, University of Washington Archives) -- WASHING TON ST ATE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS by LINDA LAWRANCE NOSON, ANTHONY QAMAR, AND GERALD W. THORSEN WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES INFORMATION CIRCULAR 85 1988 • . ' NaturalWASHING10N STATE Resources DEPARTMENT OF Brtan Boyle • Commasloner 01 P\lbllc Lands Art Steorns • Supervisor Divisfon 0 1 Geology and Earth Resources Raymond Lasmanis. State Geo!ogisl The authors gratefully acknowledge review of the manuscript of this publication by members of the Geophysics Program. University of Washington. This report is available from: Publications Washington Department of N arural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Mail Stop PY-12 Olympia, WA 98504 The printing of this report was supported by U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Agreement No. 14-08-0001-A0509. This publication is free, but please add $1.00 to each order for postage and handling. Make checks or money orders payable to the Department of Natural Resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Us Geological Survey Creepmeters In
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESPONSE OF U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CREEPMETERS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA TO THE OCTOBER 18, 1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE By K.S. Breckenridge1 and R.W. Simpson2 Open-File Report 95-830 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorse­ ment by the U.S. Geological Survey. 1995 1 retired 2USGS, 345 Middlefield Rd., MS 977, Menlo Park, CA 94025 RESPONSE OF U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CREEPMETERS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA TO THE OCTOBER 18,1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE ' By K.S. Breckenridge and R.W. Simpson Table of Contents Abstract ........................... 3 Introduction ......................... 3 Data from eight creepmeters closest to the earthquake ............ 5 Rainfall effects and creep retardation ................. 6 Coseismic steps and static stress changes ................ 8 Creep rate changes and static stress changes ............... 10 Coefficient of apparent friction ................... 12 Creep rate vs. stress law ...................... 12 Models exploring depth-origin of Loma Prieta afterslip ............ 16 Retardation and anomalous behavior before the earthquake? .......... 17 Conclusions ......................... 19 Acknowledgments ....................... 20 Appendix A: Site notes ...................... 20 References cited ........................ 23 Table Captions ........................ 29 Tables ........................... 31 Figures ........................... 37 1 This report has been submitted to "The Loma Prieta, California, earthquake of October 17, 1989 postseismic effects, aftershocks, and other phenomena: U.S. Geological Survey Profes­ sional Paper 1550-D (in preparation)." RESPONSE OF U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CREEPMETERS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA TO THE OCTOBER 18,1989 LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE By K.S.
    [Show full text]