Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) - Identification of area sources

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luiz1304
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the appropriate radius for seismic source identification in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) in Brazil. Recommendations vary, with some experts suggesting a radius of 200-300 km based on mapped faults, while others advocate for a radius of up to 500 km. Notably, some studies utilize a 1000 km radius, although this may not be effective due to the attenuation of ground motion as indicated by Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs). The reference NUREG/CR-6372, Vol. 1 is highlighted as a valuable resource for this analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)
  • Familiarity with Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs)
  • Knowledge of seismic source identification techniques
  • Awareness of tectonic settings, particularly intraplate regions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research best practices for seismic source identification in PSHA
  • Study the implications of source-to-site distance on Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA)
  • Examine various Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) and their applicability
  • Review NUREG/CR-6372, Vol. 1 for comprehensive guidelines on seismic hazard analysis
USEFUL FOR

Seismologists, civil engineers, and researchers involved in seismic hazard assessments, particularly those focusing on intraplate tectonic regions like Brazil.

Luiz1304
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!
I'm currently working on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) in Brazil and have a question regarding the appropriate radius for seismic source identification. When calculating Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) or spectral accelerations for a specific study area, what source-to-site distance should I consider for identifying relevant seismic sources?

I've encountered recommendations for intraplate tectonic regions like Brazil and the Eastern US. Some references suggest a radius of up to 500 km from the study area, with others to 200-300 km based on criteria like mapped faults. However, I've also seen studies using a 1000 km radius.

I think in a 1000 km radius is that even high-magnitude earthquakes might not generate significant ground motion at large distances, given the attenuation observed in Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs). Some GMPEs, that we use, show low acceleration levels beyond 100 km epicentral distance.

NUREG/CR-6372, Vol. 1, is a great reference i am using, but i would like to know if someone has seen other references or best practices for this kind of study

thank you all!
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org

Similar threads

Structure of the Galaxy: 6 Questions Confirmed
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Graduate Black Holes - the two points of view.
  • · Replies 382 ·
13
Replies
382
Views
47K
Graduate Questions on Redshift, Hubble’s Law, spacetime expansion and the standard model
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Graduate Starring Gravity, Co-Starring Magnetism
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K