Here - Stuff
Here - Stuff Here - Stuff
COMMENTS AND REPLIESComment on “Evidence that the 2008 M w 7.9 WenchuanEarthquake Could Not Have Been Induced by the ZipingpuReservoir” by Kai Deng, Shiyong Zhou, Rui Wang, RussellRobinson, Cuiping Zhao, and Wanzheng ChengShemin GeReply to “Comment on ‘Evidence that the 2008 M w 7.9Wenchuan Earthquake Could Not Have Been Induced bythe Zipingpu Reservoir’ by Kai Deng, Shiyong Zhou, RuiWang, Russell Robinson, Cuiping Zhao, and WanzhengCheng” by Shemin GeShiyong Zhou and Kai Deng970 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
EASTERN SECTIONRESEARCH LETTERSReassessment of Stable Continental Regionsof Southeast AsiaRussell L. WheelerRussell L. WheelerU. S. Geological SurveyABSTRACTProbabilistic seismic-hazard assessments of the central andeastern United States (CEUS) require estimates of the size ofthe largest possible earthquake (Mmax). In most of the CEUS,sparse historical seismicity does not provide a record of moderateand large earthquakes that is sufficient to constrain Mmax.One remedy for the insufficient catalog is to combine thecatalog of moderate to large CEUS earthquakes with catalogsfrom other regions worldwide that are tectonically analogousto the CEUS (stable continental regions, or SCRs). After theNorth America SCR, the largest contribution of earthquakesto this global SCR catalog comes from a Southeast Asian SCRthat extends from Indochina to southeasternmost Russia.Integration and interpretation of recently published geologicaland geophysical results show that most of these SoutheastAsian earthquakes occurred in areas exposing abundant alkalineigneous rocks and extensional faults, both of Neogene age(last 23 million years). The implied Neogene extension precludesclassification of the areas as SCR crust. The extensionalso reduces the number of moderate and large Southeast Asianhistorical earthquakes that are available to constrain CEUSMmax by 86 percent, from 43 to six.INTRODUCTIONMost probabilistic seismic-hazard assessments of the centraland eastern United States (CEUS: east of the RockyMountains) and elsewhere worldwide require an estimateof Mmax, the moment magnitude of the largest earthquakethat is thought to be possible within a specified area (Wheeler2009a,b). Wheeler (2009a) cited example assessments, includingRisk Engineering Inc. et al. (1986), Johnston et al. (1994),and Petersen et al. (2008). The value of Mmax is important inprobabilistic computations for building codes and for design ofcritical structures such as nuclear power plants (Mueller 2010).Accurate estimates of Mmax are more important for nuclearreactors than building codes because reactor designs requireconsideration of smaller annual probabilities of unexpectedlystrong ground motions (Petersen et al. 2008; Office of NuclearRegulatory Research 2007).The historical record of the CEUS contains earthquakes ofmoment magnitude M 7.0 or larger only at the seismic zones ofNew Madrid, Missouri; Charleston, South Carolina; and perhapsCharlevoix, Quebec (Ebel 1996, 2011; Johnston 1996c;Hough et al. 2000; Bakun and Hopper 2004). Elsewhere inthe CEUS, sparse seismicity suggests that large earthquakesmay have recurrence intervals longer than the historical record,which is generally two to four centuries long. Wherever sufficientpaleoseismic work has been done in the CEUS outsidethe New Madrid, Charleston, and Charlevoix zones, findingsdocument occurrences of prehistoric earthquakes larger thanany in the historical record that occurred at intervals longerthan the historical record (Madole 1988; Crone and Luza1990; Crone, Machette, and Bowman 1997; Crone, Machette,Bradley et al. 1997; Obermeier 1998; McNulty and Obermeier1999; Tuttle et al. 2006; Cox et al. 2010). If recurrence intervalsare that long, then earthquakes larger than any observedhistorically are possible. If such an earthquake is not in the historicalrecord, then Mmax may not have been observed and itmust be estimated by other means. Indirect methods based onphysics, statistics, or the geologic properties of small areas havegenerally given Mmax estimates that lack strong supportingevidence (Chinnery 1979; Coppersmith et al. 1987; Wheeler2009a). Another approach was needed and the next sectionsummarizes it.Stable Continental RegionsA recent workshop on CEUS Mmax concluded that identificationand study of global tectonic analogs of the CEUS andtheir seismicity is the preferred approach to the problems arisingfrom short historical records (Wheeler 2009b, 141–143).doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.971Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 971
- Page 165 and 166: Ambient Noise Measurements followin
- Page 167 and 168: ▲▲Figure 1. Location of the noi
- Page 169 and 170: ▲▲Figure 5. Site N20 showing HV
- Page 171 and 172: ▲▲Figure 8. Comparison between
- Page 173 and 174: Use of DCP and SASW Tests to Evalua
- Page 175 and 176: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Aerial image of C
- Page 177 and 178: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 4. DCP test bein
- Page 179 and 180: ▲▲Figure 7. SASW setup at a sit
- Page 181 and 182: where X ~ N(μ X , σ X 2 ) is shor
- Page 183 and 184: Using the same critical layers as s
- Page 185 and 186: Performance of Levees (Stopbanks) d
- Page 187 and 188: ▲▲Figure 3. Typical geometry an
- Page 189 and 190: TABLE 1Damage severity categories (
- Page 191 and 192: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 6. A) Large sand
- Page 193 and 194: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 8. A) Representa
- Page 195 and 196: each of the Waimakariri River and a
- Page 197 and 198: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Horizontal peak g
- Page 199 and 200: only minor damage, mostly to their
- Page 201 and 202: (A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 5. Ferrymead
- Page 203 and 204: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Damage to sou
- Page 205 and 206: (A)(B)▲▲Figure 11. Settlement o
- Page 207 and 208: (A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 14. Railway B
- Page 209 and 210: Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Associ
- Page 211 and 212: New PublicationsCanGeoRefThe Americ
- Page 213 and 214: Wednesday, 18 AprilTechnical Sessio
- Page 215: Verification of a Spectral-Element
- Page 219 and 220: (A)70°N100°W 60°W70°N(B)100°E1
- Page 221 and 222: Mongolia SCRThe presence or absence
- Page 223 and 224: the small horizontal relative motio
- Page 225 and 226: 80°100°120°140°EXPLANATIONBorde
- Page 227 and 228: Chang, K. H. (1997). Korean peninsu
- Page 229 and 230: Wheeler, R. L. (2008). Paleoseismic
- Page 231 and 232: A significant outcome of this study
- Page 233 and 234: TABLE 1 (continued)Earthquakes for
- Page 235 and 236: ▲▲Figure 2. Earthquakes used in
- Page 237 and 238: Meeting CalendarM E E T I N GC A L
- Page 239 and 240: 201 Plaza Professional Bldg. • El
- Page 241 and 242: Seismological Research Letters (SRL
- Page 243 and 244: Christa von Hillebrandt-Andrade, Pr
COMMENTS AND REPLIESComment on “Evidence that the 2008 M w 7.9 WenchuanEarthquake Could Not Have Been Induced by the ZipingpuReservoir” by Kai Deng, Shiyong Zhou, Rui Wang, RussellRobinson, Cuiping Zhao, and Wanzheng ChengShemin GeReply to “Comment on ‘Evidence that the 2008 M w 7.9Wenchuan Earthquake Could Not Have Been Induced bythe Zipingpu Reservoir’ by Kai Deng, Shiyong Zhou, RuiWang, Russell Robinson, Cuiping Zhao, and WanzhengCheng” by Shemin GeShiyong Zhou and Kai Deng970 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011