Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Note on the Earthquake Double Counting

지진의 이중산입에 대한 소고(小考)

  • Noh, Myunghyun (Department of Structural Systems & Site Safety Evaluation, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety)
  • 노명현 (한국원자력안전기술원 구조부지평가실)
  • Received : 2023.03.06
  • Accepted : 2023.04.04
  • Published : 2023.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As a result of active geological investigation of faults in Korea, many Quaternary faults have been identified and some of them were judged to have potential to generate earthquakes. Those faults need to be considered as additional seismic sources in the seismic hazard analysis. When a fault is introduced as a new source, the earthquakes generated by the fault should be removed from the area sources that include any part of the fault, to avoid double counting. In practice, however, double counting cannot completely be avoided as the complete separation of the fault-generated earthquakes from the area sources is impossible due to uncertainties related to the earthquake location, subsurface structures of faults, etc. When a new fault source is introduced, the only constraint is the invariance of earthquake frequency. The maximum earthquake and the Richter-b value should also be subject to change, but there are no competent approaches to estimate the change due to incomplete separation of earthquakes. To gain insight into the effect of a new fault source, an example calculation of the seismic hazard were carried out. The example calculation shows that addition of a new fault source centers seismic hazard around the fault source.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

심사위원들의 검토의견을 통해 논문의 완성도가 제고되었습니다. 이에 논문을 심사해 주진 심사위원들께 감사드립니다. 본 연구는 원자력안전위원회의 재원으로 한국원자력안전재단의 지원을 받아 수행한 원자력안전연구사업의 연구결과입니다(No. 2205001).

References

  1. Kim YS. Research and development of active fault of Korea Peninsula. 2022 Jan 28. Available from: https://www.ndmi.go.kr.
  2. Nuclear Safety and Security Commission. Siting criteria for the nuclear reactor facilities. Notice No. 2017-15. 2017.
  3. Ornthammarath T, Warnitchai P, Chan C-H, Wang Y, Shi X., Nguyen PH, Nguyen LM, Kosuwan S, Thant M. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessments for Northern Southeast Asia (Indochina): Smooth seismicity approach. Earthquake Spectra. 2020;36(SI):69-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020942528
  4. Penarubia H, Johnson KL, Styron RH, Bacolcol TC, Sevilla WIG, Perez JS, Bonita JD, Narag IC, Solidum RU, Pagani MM, Allen TI. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis model for the Philippines. Earthquake Spectra. 2020;36(SI):44-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293019900521
  5. Rong Y., Xu X, Cheng J, Chen G, Magistrale H, Shen Z-K. A probabilistic seismic hazard model for Mainland China. Earthquake Spectra. 2020;36(SI):181-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755293020910754
  6. Petersen MD, Shumway AM, Powers PM, Moschetti MP, Llenos AL, Michael AJ, Mueller CS, Frankel AD, Rezaeian S Rukstales KS, McNamara DE, Okubo PG, Zeng Y, Jaiswal KS, Ahdi SK, Altekruse JM, Shiro BR. 2022. 2021 US national seismic hazard model for the State of Hawaii. Earthquake Spectra. 2022;38(2):865-916. https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930211052061
  7. Rivas-Medina A, Benito M, Gaspar-Escribano JM. Approach for combining fault and area sources in seismic hazard assessment: application in south-eastern Spain. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018;18:2809-2823. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2809-2018
  8. Anderson JG and Luco JE. Consequences of slip rate constraints on earthquake occurrence relations. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1983;73(2):471-496.
  9. Youngs RR and Coppersmith KJ. Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1985;75(4):939-964.
  10. Thatcher W, Pollitz FF. Temporal evolution of continental lithospheric strength in actively deformin regions. GSA Today. 2008;18(4):4-11. https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01804-5A.1
  11. Murray JR, Minson SE, Svarc JL. Slip rates and spatially variable creep on faults of the northern San Andreas system inferred through Bayesian inversion of global positioning system data. Jour. Geophy. Res. Solid Earth. 2014;119(7):6023-6047. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB010966
  12. Ghione F, Poggi V., Lindholm C. A hybrid probabilistic seismic hazard model for Northeast India and Bhutan combining distributed seismicity and finite faults. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 2021;123:1-18.
  13. Biasi GP. Appendix H: Maximum likelihood recurrence intervals for California paleoseismic sites. Open File Report 2013-1165. United States of Geological Survey.
  14. Pisarenko VF, Lyubushin AA, Lysenko VB, and Golubieav TV. Statistical estimation of seimsic hazard parameters: maximum possible magnitude and related parameters. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1996;86(3):691-700. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0860030691
  15. Kijko A. Estimation of the maximum earthquake magnitude, mmax. Pure and Applied Geophysics. 2004;161(8):1655-1681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-004-2531-4
  16. Noh M. A parametric estimation of Richter-b and mmax from an earthquake catalog. Geosciences Journal. 2014;18(3):339-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-014-0010-1
  17. Wells DL and Coppersmith KJ. New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1994;84(4):794-1002.
  18. Hanks TC and Bakun WH. A bilinear source-scaling model for M-logA observations of continental earthquakes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2002;92(5):1841-1846. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120010148
  19. Hanks TC and Bakun WH. M-logA observations for recent large earthquakes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2008;98(1):490-494. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070174
  20. Shaw BE. Constant stress drop from small to great earthquakes in magnitude-area scaling. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2009;99(2A):871-875. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080006
  21. Stafford PJ. Source-scaling relationships for the simulation of rupture geometry within probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2014;104(4):1620-1635. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130224
  22. Weichert DH. Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 1980;70(4):1337-1346. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0700041337
  23. Sadigh K, Chang C-Y, Egan JA, Makdisi F, and Youngs RR. Attenuation relationships for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California Strong Motion Data. Seim. Res. Lett. 1997;68(1):180-189. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.68.1.180