Next-Level ShakeZoning for Earthquake Hazard Definition
in NevadaJohn N. Louie, Nevada Seismological Lab.
with undergraduate interns:Will Savran, Brady Flinchum, Colton Dudley, Nick Prina
and Geology B.S. graduate Janice Kukuk
USGS ShakeMap based on statistical averages Most data came from California, Japan, Taiwan
Next-Level ShakeZoning for Nevada Based on Physics, Geological & Geotechnical data
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Clark County & Henderson Parcel Map10,721 Measurements Parcel Classification for IBC
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Adding Geology & Geotechnical DataBlack Hills Fault in Google Earth with USGS Qfaults trace
ShakeZoning Geotech Map
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Adding Physics
Black Hills M6.5 event Short trace but 4-m scarps
noted Viscoelastic finite-
difference solution 0.5-Hz frequency 0.20-km grid spacing A few hours on our small
cluster Mode conversion, rupture
directivity, reverberation, trapping in basins
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Black Hills M6.5 Scenario Results
Max Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) >140 cm/sec
PGV over 60 cm/sec (yellow) bleeds into LVV through Railroad Pass
Large event for a short fault Unlikely, but add to hazard
probabilistically Need to know how unlikely
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Surprising Effect of Parcel Map Over IBC Defaults1-D Amplification Used in IBC, ShakeMap
3-D Amplification from ShakeZoning
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
ShakeMap versus ShakeZoning•Yellow is 60 cm/sec on both•Geotech estimated from topography
•ShakeZoning shows trapping in basins•Hazard map is difficult to predict
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Frenchman Mountain Fault M6.7 ScenarioPossible Scarp in Neighborhood
Event Inside the LVV Basin
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
2-Segment Frenchman Mtn. Fault M6.7
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
Effect of Parcel Map Over IBC Defaults
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011
We Are Computing Dozens of Scenarios
J. Louie, NESC 2/9/2011