progression of tasks and -...
Post on 12-Jun-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Taiwan SSHAC Level 3 PSHA StudyWorkshop #3, June 19‐23, 2017
Taipei, Taiwan
B.S. HuangSSC
TI‐Team Leader
Progression of SSC Tasks and Issues
1
SSC Technical Report
GMC Technical Report
Hazard Input Document
Taiwan SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Project Procedure
WM1
WM4
KM
Evaluation
Integration
Documentation and PPRP Review
WM2
2
WM3
WS1
WS2
WS3
2
1.
Reviewing of SSC Tasks and Progression
3
SSC Task Category in WS‐2
Task Category Items Number
1 Development of Earthquake Catalog 8
2 Areal Source 13
3 Active Fault Source 15
4 Subduction
Zone Source 9
5 GPS and Geodetic Survey 3
6 Shanchiao
Fault 5
7 Hengchun
Fault 5
8 New Issue 2
Total: 604
Task 1: Development of Earthquake Catalog
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Historical earthquake catalogue before AC.
1900.
2. Collecting the previous all available earthquake
catalogue including Taiwan and Mainland China
region and covering Lat.115 to 125, and Lon.19
to 29.
3. Select Earthquake catalogue de‐clustering
method and obtain the main‐shocks.
4. The relocation earthquake catalogue (M>=2) of
modern seismogram network in Taiwan from
1991 to Jun. 2015.
5. Remove eqk's that occurred on known faults in
the zone.
6. Correllating larger earthquakes with
seismogenic structure (active fault).
7. Determining the focal mechanism and fault
plane solution of the larger earthquake
(M>=6.5) since 1900
8. The distribution and characterization of volcanic
earthquakes in northern Taiwan.
Done
Done
Closed
Workshop #1 Working Meeting #2
Workshop #2Working
Meeting #1
Done
Done
Done
Done
5
Done
Task 2: Areal Source (1/2)
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Summarize existing area zoning scheme
2. Determine seismogenic thickness.
3. Areal source boundaries Leaky or Strict.
4. Determine if areal source has the preferred
orientation of fault rupture or random.
Rupture Orientations for Future
Earthquakes.
5. Top of Rupture for Future Earthquakes
(Blind Faults?)
6. Rupture Mechanisms (Style of faulting) for
Future Earthquakes.
7. Create Truncated exponential model (G‐R
law) for areal source. There are two
regression methods : (1) Maximum
likelihood (2) Least square.
DoneDone
Workshop #1 Working Meeting #2
Workshop #2
Done
Done
Done
Working Meeting #1
Done
Done
6
Task 2: Areal Source (2/2)
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
8. Define volcanic seismicity areas.
9. The focal depth distribution of areal
source.
10. Estimating the upper bound magnitude.
And define the Mmax in each zone.
11. Rupture Dips for Future Earthquakes.
12.Invert geodetic and focal mechanism
data to identify domains of specific style
and orientation of crustal deformation.
13.Identifying seismic source zone, same
model need to consider “zoneless with
smoothing”, “seismotectonic”
and
“Mmax”
zones.
Workshop #2
Done
Done
Done
ClosedWorking Meeting #1 Workshop #1
Working Meeting #2
Done
Done
7
Task 3: Active Fault Source (1/2)
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Define the parameters needed for each
active fault
2. Develop active fault database for study area.
3. Define the geometries of each active fault
for digital database. Rupture length and
area.
4. The multiple dip‐angle orientation needs to
be considered for low angle active faults in
Taiwan.
5. Seismogenic Thickness.
6. Displacement per Event for certain faults.
7. Characteristic Magnitude.
8. Determine the recurrence interval of active
fault (Youngs and Coppersmith, 1985). Time
dependent?
9. Layered branch model? Linking of active
fault segments into larger ruptures.
Done
Done
Workshop #1 Working Meeting #2
Workshop #2
Done
Done
DoneDone
Done
Done
Done
Working Meeting #1
8
Task 3: Active Fault Source (2/2)
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
10.High slip rate (>5 mm/yr) just ending
needs to be reviewed.
11.Review the scaling law for active fault in
difference mechanism.
12.Most of active fault have not enough
geological data for establishing the
recurrence model. Therefore, how to
decide the occurrence probabilistic
model of active fault?
13.Review the scaling law for interface and
intraslab of subduction zone.
14.Avoid double counting the seismic rate
and estimate the maximum magnitude of
earthquake of each areal resources of
Taiwan, espically Western Taiwan.
15. Evaluate the offshore data around
major faults near NPP4
Done
Done
Done
Done
Done
Working Meeting #2
Working Meeting #1
Workshop #1 Workshop #2
Done
9
Task 4: Subduction Zone Source (1/2)
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1.Background rates in Taiwan are higher
than in Sumatra and Chile. Why?
2.Determine the parameters and the
columns for subduction zone interface
sources. Are they the same as active fault
table.
3. The Manila subduction extend toward
Taiwan island, where is the termination
of Manila subduction zone interface.
Done
Done
Done
Workshop #1 Working Meeting #2
Workshop #2
Working Meeting #1
10
Done
Done
Task 4: Subduction Zone Source (2/2)
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
4. Uncertainty in geometry (both dip and
lateral extent beneath Taiwan),
segmentation, slip rate, and maximum
magnitude should be fully explored.
5. Segmentation for subduction interface.
6. Consider the potential for larger
magnitudes.
7. There are splay faults in the off‐shore of
southwestern Taiwan. How to distinguish
the source between subduction zone
interface and the splay faults in the
southern subduction zone region.
8. How to estimate the M‐max of
subduction zone intraslab source?
9. What is the magnitude pdf of subduction
zone intraslab?
Done
Workshop #2
Done
Done
11
Done
Workshop #1 Working Meeting #2
Working Meeting #1
Task 5: GPS and Geodetic Survey
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Do GPS and geodetic information are
proper to use for estimating the slip rate
(GPS is not long‐term slip rate)? Are GPS
data just only for reference materials?
How to use the result of PS‐InSAR and
slip deficit to facilitate estimating the
long‐term slip.
2. The strain rate and the deficit rate map
obtained by GPS could be considered for
editing the border of zoning scheme and
estimating the activity of faults.
3. To adopt GPS velocity field to estimate
the slip rate of northern and southern
subduction zone of Taiwan.
Done
Workshop #1 Workshop #2
Done
Done
Working Meeting #1
Working Meeting #2
12
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Fault segmentation and mechanism: the
criteria of segmentatin, maganitude
estimation and focal mechanism.
2. Slip rate and activity: slip rate of each
scenario rupture case. On‐land and off‐
shore slip rate estimation of Shanchiao
fault.
3. Geometry of fault: rupture length,
rupture area, seismogenic structure
depth, multiple dip‐angle.
4. Historical event (1867,1694), northern
Taiwan normal fault mechanism
structure.
5. PDF of magnitude of Shanchiao fault
Estimate Characteristic earthquake and
Time‐dependent model.
Done
Done
Task 6: Shanchiao Fault
DoneWorkshop #1 Workshop
#2
Done
Done
Working Meeting #1
Working Meeting #2
13
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1. Fault segmentation and mechanism: the
criteria of segmentatin, maganitude
estimation and focal mechanism.
2. Slip rate and activity: slip rate of each
scenario rupture case. On‐land and off‐
shore slip rate estimation of Hengchun
fault.
3. Geometry of fault: rupture length,
rupture area, seismogenic structure
depth, multiple dip‐angle.
4. Historical event, southern Taiwan normal
fault mechanism structure. Considering
the possibility of the link of Chaochou
fault and Hengchun fault, the structure
under west tableland nearby Hengchun
fault, and off‐shore part of Hengchun
fault.
5. PDF of magnitude of Hengchun fault
Estimate Characteristic earthquake and
Time‐dependent model.
Done
Done
Task 7: Hengchun Fault
DoneWorkshop #1 Workshop
#2
Done
Done
Working Meeting #1
Working Meeting #2
Task 8: New Issues
Task Item2015 2016
4th Quater 1st Quater 2nd Quater 3rd Quater 4th Quater
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Issue 7: Evaluate the Offshore (West)
Hengchun strucutre
Issue 8: North Ilan Structures: geologic
mapping,
geometry and location
(offshore), and submarine volcano
Working Meeting #1 Workshop #1 On goning
Working Meeting #2
Workshop #2
15
On going
Issue Project Recommendation researcher
7 Evaluate the Offshore (West) Hengchun fault Prof. Char‐Shine Liu
8North Ilan Structures: geologic mapping,
geometry and
location
(offshore), and submarine volcano Prof. Shu‐Kun Hsu
56
task items have done
2
tasks items have closed
2
tasks items (new issue) are ongoing
SSC Tasks in Workshop #3
Total 60
Tasks
16
2.
Source models
17
Seismic Source Characterization in Taiwan
Catalog removal foreshocks and fault rupture events–
Using mainshocks Data (1900~2015/6) (from Prof. Wu)
–
Removal of 22 fault earthquake events (from Sinotech Mr. Lee)–
Removal of 1 interface earthquake event (1920, Mw 8.0, D 25km)
19
Taiwan Region
China Region
Pacific Region
For Calculation–
Check the completeness
of the catalog at the
different region–
Use the Maximum Likelihood Estimation
(Weichert, 1980) to calculate b‐
value and activity rate in each subzone
–
Check the Mmax.
in each subzone–
Various Zoning Schemes
•
A, B, S, zoneless
Areal Source ‐
Earthquake Catalog
De-clustering (after-
and fore-shocks)
declusted
19
Zoning Scheme B
20
Zoning Scheme S
21
Zoneless
22
North
5 Primary Faults South
3 Primary Faults
Primary Faults
Primary Fault: in 20 km range of each NPP sites, and will affect NPPs’
safety. 23
Western foothills belt:
Sanyi Fault:1939(Mw5.5)
Shihtan, Tuntzuchiao Fault:1935(Mw7.2)
Chelungpu Fault:1999(Mw7.65)、2009(Mw6.3)
Liuchia Fault:1930(Mw6.3)、1930(Mw6.2)
Meishan Fault:1906(Mw6.9)
Hsinhua Fault:1946(Mw6.1)
Eastern longitudinal faults:
Milun Fault:1913(Mw6.2)、1951(Mw7.3)、1951(Mw7.1)、1982(Mw6.0)
Lingding Fault:1951(Mw7.5)、1957(Mw6.5)、1992(Mw5.4)
Rueyshui Fault:1972(Mw6.8)
Luyeh Fault:1923(Mw5.2)、2006(Mw6.2)
Chihshang Fault:1951(Mw6.6)、1951(Mw7.4)、1992(Mw5.3)、2003(Mw6.5)24
Indentify onshore
faults associated earthquakes
Remove fault associated earthquakes Sinotech, 2010 & Cheng, S. N.
24
1 Shuanglienpo structure 26 Hsiaokangshan fault
2 Yangmei structure 27 Kaoping River structure
3 Hukou fault 28 Milun fault
4 Fengshan river strike‐slip structure 29 Longitudinal Valley fault
5 Hsinchu fault 30 Central Range structure
6 Hsincheng fault 31 Luyeh fault
7 Hsinchu frontal structure 32 Taimali coastline structure
8 Touhuanping structure 33 Southern Ilan structure
9 Miaoli frontal structure 34 Chushiang structure
10 Tunglo structure 35 Gukeng structure
11 East Miaoli structure 36 Tainan frontal structure
12 Shihtan fault 37 Longchuan structure
13 Sanyi fault 38 Youchang structure
14 Tuntzuchiao fault 39 Fengshan hills frontal structure
15 Changhua fault 40 Taitung Canyon Fault
16 Chelungpu fault 41 Binhai Fault
17 Tamaopu ‐
Shuangtung fault 42 North Luzon Strike Slip Fault
18 Chiuchiungkeng fault 43 North Luzon Backthrust Fault
19 Meishan fault 44 East Hengchun Offshore Fault
20 Chiayi frontal structure 45 Hengchun Ridge Offshore Fault
21 Muchiliao ‐
Liuchia fault 46 Manila Splay Fault
22 Chungchou structure 47 Ryukyu Strike Slip Fault
23 Hsinhua fault 48 Okinawa Trough Fault
24 Houchiali fault
25 Chishan fault
48 Other Faultsadd
Okinawa Trough fault
Num event Distance to Okinawa trough
fault (Dip N50o)
DIstance to I fault(Dip N55o)
a 1922/9/1 M7.7
9km depth
8.3 km (horizontal distance from
epicenter to fault)
33.5 km (horizontal distance from
epicenter to fault)
b 1922/9/14 M7.320km depth
5.5 km (horizontal distance from
epicenter to fault)
28.4 km (horizontal distance from
epicenter to fault)
26
Source Type of Subduction Zone
Ryukyu Subduction Zone (A – A’)1)
Interface (Depth: 0 ~ 35km)
2)
Beneath Interface Crustal (Depth: 0 ~ 35km)3)
Intraslab (35km ~ )
Manila Subduction Zone (B – B’)1)
Interface (0 ~ 50km)
2)
Beneath Interface Crustal (Depth: 0 ~ 50km)3)
Intraslab (50km ~ )
Ryukyu Subduction Zone Manila Subduction Zone
AA’’
AA
BB BB’’
11
22
AA’’AA
33
NLatitudeE
BB’’BB 11
22
33
Latitude
Subduction Interface of Ryukyu & Manila
3.
Hazard Contribution of Each Source (Source
Sensitivity)
28
Logic Tree
Fault source Northern primary faults
Southern primary faults
Other faults
: Onshore & Offshore
Subduction zone Ryukyu subduction
Manila subduction
Areal source Scheme B
Scheme
S
Zoneless
Logic Tree Node
Geometry
RuptureModel
Style of Faulting RuptureSource
Vertical Rate
Seismogenic DepthDip
Magnitude Distribution Model
Fault Geometry Model
SeismogenicProbability Magnitude pdfMax. Magn.
Activity
*Max Magn.
:•Max Magn. = Char. Magn. + 0.25 •Char. Magn. is calculated from Magnitude Scaling Law:
For Fault source: Wells and Coppersmith (1994), Yen and Ma (2011).For interface source: Strasser et al (2010) and Blaser et al (2010).
Distribution of Hazard Contribution (NPP1)
31
AEF=10 AEF=10 ‐‐44
Distribution of Hazard Contribution (NPP2)
32
AEF=10 AEF=10 ‐‐44
Distribution of Hazard Contribution (NPP4)
33
AEF=10 AEF=10 ‐‐44
Distribution of Hazard Contribution (NPP3)
34
AEF=10 AEF=10 ‐‐44
Day 1 (2017/6/19)–
SSC Tasks & Issues
•
Progression of SSC Tasks and Issues – B.S. Huang (Chaired by PM)•
SSC Sensitivity – C.H. Loh
–
Logic tree•
Current Logic tree
Principle of weighting, Scaling law – K. Clahan
–
Areal Source•
Areal Soruce, (Shallow, Deep zone and zoneless) – C.T. Cheng
•
Areal source modeling, (1.B value processing 2.Three Region boundary 3.Max. Magnitude setting 4.Volcanic source 5.Earthquake catalog application)–
C.H.
Yeh
Workshop #3 Agenda Outline in 2.5 days
35
Day 2 (2017/6/20)–
Fault source
•
Introduction of Fault source modeling – C.H. Yeh•
North Primary fault ‐Shanchiao, ST‐II, Aodi, North Ilan and S fault–
B.S. Huang
•
South Primary fault‐
Hengchun fault and West Hengchun offshore structure (Geometry of Manila subduction zone) – A.T. Lin
•
Other faults‐
Onshore and offshore faults–
C.T. Cheng
Day 3 (2017/6/21)–
Subduction zone source model
•
Ryukyu Subduction zone – C.T. Cheng •
Manila subduction zone–
A.T. Lin
Workshop #3 Agenda Outline in 2.5 days
36
Thanks for Your Attention
37
51234 6
78910
10 Issues
For Data Collection Recommendations during WS #1
Issue Project Recommendation researcher
7 Evaluate the Offshore (West) Hengchun fault Prof. Char‐Shine Liu
8North Ilan Structures: geologic mapping,
geometry and
location
(offshore), and submarine volcano Prof. Shu‐Kun Hsu
Signed Contract
Whole Taiwan Each NPP Specific FaultPlate motion analysis of GPS and
geodetic data along 5 transects
across Taiwan
LiDAR review and
interpretation of
potential faults
within 20 km of each
nuclear power plant.
Evaluate the Offshore (West)
Hengchun fault
Compilation of an updated
offshore Taiwan active fault map
North Ilan Structures: geologic
mapping,
geometry and location
(offshore), and submarine volcano
Development of a tsunami
database from available literature
Alternative GPS block
model analysis of the
approximately 50 km
radius around each
NPP
Evaluate the offshore data around
major faults near NPP4
Determination of the historical
cataloging of potential earthquake
information in Taiwan
Geologic mapping and fault activity
evaluation of the Fenggang fault
38
39
Okinawa Trough fault
Mw 7.7, 1922/9/1, D 9km
Mw 7.3, 1922/9/14, D 20 km
Mw 7.3, 1963/2/13, D 26 km
Okinawa Trough fault
Indentify offshore
faults associated earthquakes
top related