Seismic Hazard Mapping of California considering Site Effects

Kalkan, Erol; Wills, Chris J.; Branum, David M.

doi:10.1193/1.3478312

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison of seismic hazard and building inventory parameters Site-specific V S30 incorporates V S30 values on 0.05-degree PSHA grid based on a simplified V S30 map of California(Kalkan et al 2010). Both ShakeMap correction(Wald et al 2005) and site-specific correction are based on National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classifications and amplification factors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Annualized and Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimations for California

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We update annualized and scenario earthquake loss estimations for California using HAZUS, a loss estimation tool developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and evaluate the effects of changes in input ground motions over the last decade on estimated earthquake losses. Our estimated statewide average earthquake loss to building stock from shaking is approximately $2.8 billion per year, with 32% of it occurring in Los Angeles County and 23% in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan statistical area. This estimate reflects a 25% to 28% reduction because of changes in input ground motions. Scenario results indicate a 28% to 63% reduction in estimated building economic losses because of changes in input ground motions. Changes in input ground motions are mainly attributed to the use of next generation attenuation relations and, to a lesser extent, to updated earthquake source models and differing approaches for incorporating near-surface site effects.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Annualized and Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimations for California

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, Pullammanappallil et al (2006) and Louie et al (2010) showed that for 13 PBR sites V S30 is on average about 660 m/s. Both linear wave propagation theory (e.g., Aki and Richards 2002) and example calculations in Kalkan et al (2010) predict that decreased V S30 leads to slightly stronger ground motions than for the assumed conditions for the maps. For such rocks, the probability of consistency would decrease slightly when this is considered.…”

Section: To What Extent Are the New (2008) Hazard Maps Consistent Witmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The objective of the national hazard model is to predict the hazard for a generic site with V S30 = 760 m/s, so the annual exceedance rate curves calculated for the national maps for the site of the PBR are not site-specific curves. Kalkan et al (2010) recalculated the seismic hazard for California considering site effects. Because PBRs typically form in granitic terranes, most will be in the V S30 = 760 m/s category used by Kalkan et al (2010), for which the hazard is identical to the national maps.…”

Section: To What Extent Are the New (2008) Hazard Maps Consistent Witmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kalkan et al (2010) recalculated the seismic hazard for California considering site effects. Because PBRs typically form in granitic terranes, most will be in the V S30 = 760 m/s category used by Kalkan et al (2010), for which the hazard is identical to the national maps.…”

Section: To What Extent Are the New (2008) Hazard Maps Consistent Witmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Petersen et al 2008). The hazard adjusted for site condition given by Kalkan et al (2010) is the same because the rock is within a V S30 = 760 m/s map group. The horizontal acceleration found in Figure 1, 0.36 g, is the static toppling acceleration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Workshop Report: Applications of Precarious Rocks and Related Fragile Geological Features to U.S. National Hazard Maps

Anderson

Brune

Biasi

et al. 2011

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

this workshop was to develop recommendations to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on the use of precariously balanced rocks and related fragile geological features to improve the national seismic hazard maps (NSHM). The context of the workshop is the growing realization that it is essential to regard hazard maps as the calculated output of hazard models that should be tested, and that fragile geological features provide the only data to validate the predictions of these models at low probabilities.A fragile geological feature (FGF) was defined as a feature that might be easily destroyed by strong earthquake ground motions and is mechanically simple enough to allow for analysis of the ground motions that might cause it to be destroyed. For testing the prediction of a seismic hazard model, an FGF must also have been in essentially the present geometry for enough time to constrain past ground motions. A precariously balanced rock (PBR) is the type example of an FGF. A PBR is a rock that is balanced on, but not mechanically attached to, its pedestal, and it has a high ratio of height to width of the contact with the pedestal, so that it is easily toppled. Brune and Whitney (1992) and Brune (1996) suggested that PBRs might serve as low-resolution seismoscopes to put upper bounds on ground motions over the lifetime of the rock. FGFs were recognized by Hanks et al. (2006) for their critical contribution to evaluation of extreme ground motions at Yucca Mountain. Because PBRs have been studied more than other FGFs, most attention at the workshop focused on their distribution and analysis. However, generalization to other FGFs is generally straightforward.Particularly in arid environments where most PBRs have been found, very old PBRs test the predictions of probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) over time intervals of greater than 10 4 years, related to probabilities ~10 -4 per year. Figure 1 shows an example of a PBR and illustrates the measurement of parameter α, where gtanα is the static acceleration needed to initiate tipping of the rock. Together with the rock dimension, α is a fundamental indicator of stability. Early studies (e.g., Brune 1996, 1999; Anderson and Brune 1999b) compared rocks such as these with hazard curves developed from the national hazard model (i.e., the input model used for the NSHM) and from alternative hazard models, and found numerous inconsistencies (e.g., Figure 2). Characterization, testing, and interpretation of PBRs have been developed considerably beyond the level of analysis shown in Figures 1 and 2. Significant advances in quantifying rock stability were described by Anooshehpoor et al. (2004) through testing in the field. Purvance, Anooshehpoor et al. (2008) and Purvance, Brune et al. (2008) demonstrate that under dynamic excitations the probability of overturning depends on two parameters: PGA and one of PGV, SA(1s), or SA(2s), as illustrated in Figure 3. Rood et al. (2010) and Balco et al. (forthcoming) advance the understanding of dating and the life cycle of a PBR.The prese...

show abstract

V_S₃₀ mapping and site characterization in the seismically active intraplate region of Western India: implications for risk mitigation

Sairam

Singh

Patel

et al. 2019

Near Surface Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TWe carried out shallow subsurface investigations at 600 sites covering all types of geological units in the Northwestern Deccan Volcanic Province of India, using the multichannel analysis of surface waves and suspension PS-logging methods. The results reveal that V S30 values are in the range of 760-1500 m/s for granites and Deccan traps, thus enabling their classification as B-class, as per the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program recommendations. The Tertiary, Cretaceous, Jurassic and Paleoproterozoic sediments show V S30 values between 360 and 760 m/s, and hence, are assigned C-class. Further, the Quaternary soils are categorized as D-class, since they show V S30 in the range of 180-360 m/s. Also, the Holocene tidal flat and Rann sediments are classified as E-class, since the V S30 values are less than 180 m/s. The observed site response reveals that the D-and E-type soils have significantly higher seismic amplification than that in the B-and C-category soils. We noticed that the buildings on D-and E-classes soils experienced higher damage than those on the B-and C-classes, during the past large earthquakes in the Northwestern Deccan Volcanic Province. Our study suggests that V S30 is a good proxy for soil classifications in the Northwestern Deccan Volcanic Province. We validated our results using available geological, geophysical and geotechnical data. For the first time, a regional site characterization map for the Northwestern Deccan Volcanic Province of India is prepared based on geology and V S30 .

show abstract

Seismic Hazard Mapping of California considering Site Effects

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Annualized and Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimations for California

Annualized and Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimations for California

Workshop Report: Applications of Precarious Rocks and Related Fragile Geological Features to U.S. National Hazard Maps

V_S₃₀ mapping and site characterization in the seismically active intraplate region of Western India: implications for risk mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Seismic Hazard Mapping of California considering Site Effects

Cited by 10 publications

References 13 publications

Annualized and Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimations for California

Annualized and Scenario Earthquake Loss Estimations for California

Workshop Report: Applications of Precarious Rocks and Related Fragile Geological Features to U.S. National Hazard Maps

VS30 mapping and site characterization in the seismically active intraplate region of Western India: implications for risk mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

V_S₃₀ mapping and site characterization in the seismically active intraplate region of Western India: implications for risk mitigation