Interpreting intraplate tectonics for seismic hazard: a UK historical perspective

Musson, R. M. W.

doi:10.1007/s10950-011-9268-1

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…National models or those covering several countries, however, are traditionally based on similar yet different procedures that are not harmonised and can result in considerable differences at country borders (e.g. Grünthal et al 1998;Grünthal and Wahlström 2000;Wiemer et al 2009b;Stucchi et al 2011;Dominique and Andre 2012;Musson 2012). The project "Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe" (SHARE) was planned to overcome such differences and to benefit from the latest improvements in input data sets, from new approaches in modelling earthquake sources, and from a new generation of ground motion measurements and attenuation models.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

489

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model (ESHM13) results from a community-based probabilistic seismic hazard assessment supported by the EU-FP7 project "Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe" (SHARE, 2009(SHARE, -2013. The ESHM13 is a consistent seismic hazard model for Europe and Turkey which overcomes the limitation of national borders and includes a through quantification of the uncertainties. It is the first completed regional effort contributing to the "Global Earthquake Model" initiative. It might serve as a reference model for various applications, from earthquake preparedness to earthquake risk mitigation strategies, including the update of the European seismic regulations for building design (Eurocode 8), and thus it is useful for future safety assessment and improvement of private and public buildings. Although its results constitute a reference for Europe, they do not replace the existing national design regulations that are in place for seismic design and construction of buildings. The ESHM13 represents a significant improvement compared to previous efforts as it is based on (1) the compilation of updated and harmonised versions of the databases required for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (2) the adoption of standard procedures and robust methods, especially for expert elicitation and consensus building among hundreds of European experts, (3) the multi-disciplinary input from all branches of earthquake science and engineering, (4) the direct involvement of the CEN/TC250/SC8 committee in defining output specifications relevant for Eurocode 8 and (5)

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Woessner

Danciu

Giardini

et al. 2015

Bull Earthquake Eng

489

330

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conceptually, for the purposes of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, a fault source is a seismogenic fault that has produced earthquakes in the past and can be expected to continue doing so (Musson, 2012). Long‐term slip rates are a key component of fault source input data for seismic hazard modelling (e.g., Allen et al, 2020; Stirling et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paleoseismology of the 2016 M_W 6.1 Petermann earthquake source: Implications for intraplate earthquake behaviour and the geomorphic longevity of bedrock fault scarps in a low strain‐rate cratonic region

King

Quigley

Clark

et al. 2021

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 20 May 2016 MW 6.1 Petermann earthquake in central Australia generated a 21 km surface rupture with 0.1 to 1 m vertical displacements across a low‐relief landscape. No paleo‐scarps or potentially analogous topographic features are evident in pre‐earthquake Worldview‐1 and Worldview‐2 satellite data. Two excavations across the surface rupture expose near‐surface fault geometry and mixed aeolian‐sheetwash sediment faulted only in the 2016 earthquake. A 10.6 ± 0.4 ka optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) age of sheetwash sediment provides a minimum estimate for the period of quiescence prior to 2016 rupture. Seven cosmogenic beryllium‐10 (10Be) bedrock erosion rates are derived for samples < 5 km distance from the surface rupture on the hanging‐wall and foot‐wall, and three from samples 19 to 50 km from the surface rupture. No distinction is found between fault proximal rates (1.3 ± 0.1 to 2.6 ± 0.2 m Myr−1) and distal samples (1.4 ± 0.1 to 2.3 ± 0.2 m Myr−1). The thickness of rock fragments (2–5 cm) coseismically displaced in the Petermann earthquake perturbs the steady‐state bedrock erosion rate by only 1 to 3%, less than the erosion rate uncertainty estimated for each sample (7–12%). Using 10Be erosion rates and scarp height measurements we estimate approximately 0.5 to 1 Myr of differential erosion is required to return to pre‐earthquake topography. By inference any pre‐2016 fault‐related topography likely required a similar time for removal. We conclude that the Petermann earthquake was the first on this fault in the last ca. 0.5–1 Myr. Extrapolating single nuclide erosion rates across this timescale introduces large uncertainties, and we cannot resolve whether 2016 represents the first ever surface rupture on this fault, or a > 1 Myr interseismic period. Either option reinforces the importance of including distributed earthquake sources in fault displacement and seismic hazard analyses.

show abstract

“…As a result of this geographic position, the UK is characterised by low levels of earthquake activity that is generally understood to result from the reactivation of existing faults in response to present-day forces (e.g. Musson 2012a). The nature of the crustal strain field and its relation to the observed distribution of earthquake activity in the British Isles is still not clearly understood due to the very low strain rates.…”

Section: Seismo-tectonic Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lilwall 1976;Arup 1993;Musson and Winter 1996;Musson and Sargeant 2007). This was partly driven by the rapid growth of the British nuclear industry at the end of the 1970s, which prompted the need for safety cases in seismic hazard (Musson 2012a), and also by a desire to quantify the hazard from damaging earthquakes with moderate magnitudes (4-5 moment magnitude M w ), e.g. the 2007 Folkestone (4.0 M w ) earthquake (Ottemöller et al 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 2020 national seismic hazard model for the United Kingdom

Mosca

Sargeant

Baptie

et al. 2022

Bull Earthquake Eng

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present updated seismic hazard maps for the United Kingdom (UK) intended for use with the National Annex for the revised edition of Eurocode 8. The last national maps for the UK were produced by Musson and Sargeant (Eurocode 8 seismic hazard zoning maps for the UK. British Geological Survey Report CR/07/125, United Kingdom, 2007). The updated model uses an up-to-date earthquake catalogue for the British Isles, for which the completeness periods have been reassessed, and a modified source model. The hazard model also incorporates some advances in ground motion modelling since 2007, including host-to-target adjustments for the ground motion models selected in the logic tree. For the first time, the new maps are provided for not only peak ground acceleration (PGA) but also spectral acceleration at 0.2 s (SA0.2s) and 1.0 s for 5% damping on rock (time-averaged shear wave velocity for the top 30 m Vs30 ≥ 800 m/s) and four return periods, including 475 and 2475 years. The hazard in most of the UK is generally low and increases slightly in North Wales, the England–Wales border region, and western Scotland. A similar spatial variation is observed for PGA and SA0.2s but the effects are more pronounced for SA0.2s. Hazard curves, uniform hazard spectra, and disaggregation analysis are calculated for selected sites. The new hazard maps are compared with the previous 2007 national maps and the 2013 European hazard maps (Woessner et al. in Bull Earthq Eng 13:3553–3596, 2015). There is a slight increase in PGA from the 2007 maps to this work; whereas the hazard in the updated maps is lower than indicated by the European maps.

show abstract

Interpreting intraplate tectonics for seismic hazard: a UK historical perspective

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Paleoseismology of the 2016 M_W 6.1 Petermann earthquake source: Implications for intraplate earthquake behaviour and the geomorphic longevity of bedrock fault scarps in a low strain‐rate cratonic region

The 2020 national seismic hazard model for the United Kingdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Interpreting intraplate tectonics for seismic hazard: a UK historical perspective

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results

Paleoseismology of the 2016 MW 6.1 Petermann earthquake source: Implications for intraplate earthquake behaviour and the geomorphic longevity of bedrock fault scarps in a low strain‐rate cratonic region

The 2020 national seismic hazard model for the United Kingdom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Paleoseismology of the 2016 M_W 6.1 Petermann earthquake source: Implications for intraplate earthquake behaviour and the geomorphic longevity of bedrock fault scarps in a low strain‐rate cratonic region