Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By: Mridula Research Scholar Enroll. No. 10917013 Under the Supervision of Prof. (Mrs.)Amita Sinhval Prof. H.R.Wason
Outline
Objective Introduction Methods
Deterministic (DSHA)
Seismic
Hazard
Analysis
3/5/2011 2
Objective
Study various methods of hazard assessment and implementing it to a site 30.1250 and 78.125o
3/5/2011 3
INTRODUCTION
3/5/2011
Seismic hazard analysis is the description and/or evaluation of effect of future earthquakes on human activities. (Orozova, 1999). Seismic hazard analysis involves the quantitative estimation of ground shaking hazards at a particular area.(Kramer, 2009) Theseismichazardanalysis is concernedwith gettingan estimateof thestrong motionparameters atasitefor thepurposeof earthquake resistant design or seismic safetyassessment (Gupta, 2002). The objective of earthquake hazard analysis is to quantify the level of ground motion at
Rieter (1990)
3/5/2011 5
3/5/2011
3/5/2011
3/5/2011
DSHA
is that ground motion is directly related to an earthquake, specified by a magnitude and distance. The uncertainty, including groundmotion uncertainty, is explicitly expressed in DSHA results. An easily understood and transmitted method of estimating seismic hazard and results that are clear to the analyst (earth scientist), the user (engineer) and those elements of the general public who are interested in nuclear power3/5/2011 plant safety or 9
Advantages of DSHA
Insufficiency of DHSA (Kramer,2009 and Krinitzsky, 2003) The data, when available, are used to interpret
seismic source zones. Because different interpretations of the input data are possible, large uncertainties are often associated with source characterisation. While calculating source to site distance the transmission path is assumed to be homogenous. It provides no information on the following:
likelihood (time )of occurrence of the MCE earthquake, the likelihood of assuming where it is assumed to occur, and the level of shaking that might be expected during a finite period of time .
Different
empirical relation gives different ground motion. It does not account for the effect of uncertainties10 3/5/2011 in
sources that are unrecognized; Lineaments, landslides, and other geomorphic features that are mistaken for faults; Capable faults that show up blind in trenching and whose potentials may be decided erroneously; Dead faults or faults that move by creep which can be misjudged as capable of damaging earthquakes; Boundaries of earthquake zones that
3/5/2011 11
The goal of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is to quantify the rate (or probability) of exceeding various ground-motion levels at a site (or a map of sites) given all possible earthquakes. The numerical/analytical approach to PSHA was first formalized by Cornell (1968). In PSHA unlike DSHA certain uncertainties in size, location and rate of recurrence of earthquake
3/5/2011
12
3/5/2011
13
3/5/2011
14
Linear Source
The earthquake occur on very small segment of the fault between L=l and L=l+dl fL(l)=fR(r), and fR(r)=r/Lf
Volume Source
For more complex geometry the irregular source zone is divided into large numbers of discrete elements of equal area as shown in figure.
3/5/2011
15
Size Uncertainty
The
size of an earthquake is described in terms of its magnitude. The concept of magnitude was first developed by Charles Richter in 1935 which is now known as local magnitude . It is defined as the logarithm to base ten of maximum amplitude in microns measured on WoodAndersons Torsional Seismometer at the epicentral distance of
3/5/2011
16
Attenuation Relationships
3/5/2011
17
Advantages of PSHA
3/5/2011
18
Disadvantages of PSHA
3/5/2011
19
Uncertainties in PSHA
Epistemic
Uncertainty: Results from imperfect knowledge about the process of earthquake generation and the assessment of their effects. An example of epistemic uncertainty is the shape of the magnitude distribution for a given seismic source. Aleatory Variability: Also known as randomness is probabilistic variability that results from natural physical processes. The size, location, and time of the next earthquake on a fault and the details of
3/5/2011
20
CASE STUDY
The
area taken under consideration is from latitude (29.5-33.5) and longitude (7482). A site (30.125, 78.125) is taken under consideration. The data is taken from USGS site.
3/5/2011
21
at latitude 30.125o and longitude 78.125o is taken under consideration. DSHA is performed as follows: Identification of source
A site
Following sources which are capable of producing strong ground motion are identified: Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) Main Central Thrust (MCT) Main Frontal Thrust (MFT) Allaknanda fault (AF) Mahendragarh-Dehradun fault (MDF)
3/5/2011 22
3/5/2011
23
Calculation of expected magnitude: Studies of worldwide earthquakes have shown that faults do not rupture over the entire lengths or areas during the individual event (Kramer, 2009). Fault rupture length has often been used to estimate earthquake magnitude. The empirical relationship between fault rupture length and magnitude is give by (Coppersmith and Sl.no Wells, 1994). Fault Relationship
1
2 3 4
Movement
Strike Slip Reverse Normal All
M w
Mw =5.16 - 1.12 Log L Mw =5.00 - 1.22 Log L Mw =4.86 - 1.32 Log L Mw =5.08 - 1.16 Log L
3/5/2011
24
Result
3/5/2011
25
3/5/2011
26
R e su l : t Fo r th e re g i n l t( 2 9 . 5 o to 33 . 5 o) o a and long (74o to 82o) the return period for magnitude 8 earthquakes is more than 5000 years where as magnitude 6 occurs every 13 years and lesser magnitude earthquakes occur almost daily.
3/5/2011
27
Conclusion
3/5/2011
28
3/5/2011
29