Empirically Calibrated Ground-Motion Prediction Equation for Oklahoma

Novakovic, Mark; Atkinson, Gail M.; Assatourians, Karen

doi:10.1785/0120200158

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of our motivations for this conclusion is that while induced earthquakes tend to be of shallower focal depth, epicentral motions may not be markedly different (e.g., Hough 2014). This has been inferred to be the result of the correlation between stress drop and focal depth, which is increasingly recognized as an important factor that is being incorporated into ground-motion predictions for induced seismicity (e.g., Novakovic et al 2018). An additional consideration is that induced earthquakes attract considerable attention and receive much greater scrutiny than tectonic events of similar magnitude; consequently, had a small-magnitude induced earthquake triggered liquefaction, it is quite likely that this would have been recorded and reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Smallest Earthquake Magnitude that Needs to be Considered in Assessing Liquefaction Hazard?

Green

Bommer

2019

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probabilistic assessments of the potential impact of earthquakes on infrastructure entails the consideration of smaller magnitude events than those generally considered in deterministic hazard and risk assessments. In this context, it is useful to establish if there is a magnitude threshold below which the possibility of triggering liquefaction can be discounted because such a lower bound is required for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analyses. Based on field observations and a simple parametric study, we conclude that earthquakes as small as moment magnitude 4.5 can trigger liquefaction in extremely susceptible soil deposits. However, for soil profiles that are suitable for building structures, the minimum earthquake magnitude for the triggering of liquefaction is about 5. We therefore propose that in liquefaction hazard assessments of building sites, magnitude 5.0 be adopted as the minimum earthquake size considered, while magnitudes as low as 4.5 may be appropriate for some other types of infrastructure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Smallest Earthquake Magnitude that Needs to be Considered in Assessing Liquefaction Hazard?

Green

Bommer

2019

Earthquake Spectra

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To do so, a target spectrum is defined for each scenario. The target spectra are produced by the NAA-18 (Novakovic et al, 2018) ground motion prediction equation (GMPE), which has been empirically calibrated to induced motions in OK. This GMPE is based on over 7000 ground motion recordings from the OK region, including approximately 190 events of magnitude 3.5–5.8 and hypocentral distances between 2 and 500 km; most of the events have been caused by wastewater injection.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnitude thresholds and spatial footprints of damage from induced earthquakes

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise in the number of anthropogenic small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes in the central United States raises questions about the damageability of the built environment in such events. This study examines the performance of modern light-frame wood buildings, including single, multifamily, and commercial constructions, in earthquakes with moment magnitudes of 3–6, using dynamic analysis of building models subjected to ground motions recorded in past induced events in North America. We focus on first onset of damage, for example, wallboard or wallpaper cracking, and nails popping out. The results show that earthquakes with magnitudes less than 4–4.25 are unlikely to cause damage to modern constructions. However, moderate-magnitude events can cause damage over a wide geographic area (more than 30 mi from the earthquake epicenter, or 40 or more miles from a wastewater injection well). These results can be used to suggest setback distances between injection wells and certain neighborhoods or facilities, and magnitude thresholds for post-earthquake inspections.

show abstract

“…Therefore, GMMs developed for regions with potentially induced events should focus on providing robust predictions for smaller, shallow earthquakes at close source-tosite distances. These characteristics of induced seismicity often make the development of application-specific and/or region-specific GMMs, like the ones developed by Novakovic et al (2018Novakovic et al ( , 2020 and Zalachoris and Rathje (2019), a necessity. That said, GMMs based either solely on NGA-West2 data (e.g.…”

Section: Ground Motion Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time-dependent seismic hazard and risk due to wastewater injection in Oklahoma

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, Oklahoma has experienced unprecedented seismicity rates, following an increase in the volumes of wastewater that are being disposed underground. In this article, we perform a probabilistic assessment of the time-dependent seismic hazard in Oklahoma and incorporate these results into an integrated seismic risk model to assess the evolution of the statewide economic losses, including a conservative forecast through 2030. Our risk model employs an injection-driven earthquake rate model, a region-specific ground motion model, a recent Vs30 map, HAZUS exposure data and updated vulnerability curves for both structural and nonstructural elements, and contents. The calculations are performed using a stochastic Monte Carlo–based approach implemented in the OpenQuake engine. The resulting seismic hazard maps illustrate the incompatibility of the regional seismic provisions with the current seismicity. In 2015, in particular, the induced seismic hazard in several places in Oklahoma was higher than along the San Andreas fault. During the peak of seismicity in 2015, the seismic risk was 275 times higher than the background level, with the vast majority of losses originating from damages to nonstructural elements and contents. Our direct economic loss estimates are in reasonable agreement with the paid insurance claims, but show significant sensitivity to the ground motion model selection. The proposed risk model, with possible regular updates on the seismicity rate forecast, can help stakeholders define acceptable production levels.

show abstract

Empirically Calibrated Ground-Motion Prediction Equation for Oklahoma

Cited by 5 publications

References 2 publications

What is the Smallest Earthquake Magnitude that Needs to be Considered in Assessing Liquefaction Hazard?

What is the Smallest Earthquake Magnitude that Needs to be Considered in Assessing Liquefaction Hazard?

Magnitude thresholds and spatial footprints of damage from induced earthquakes

Time-dependent seismic hazard and risk due to wastewater injection in Oklahoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About