4.8 Article

Deterministic full-scenario analysis for maximum credible earthquake hazards

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-42410-3

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study introduces a full-scenario analysis method for evaluating the maximum credible earthquake hazard for a specific fault by considering all uncertainties of potential future earthquakes. The method is applied in seismic hazard analysis at the Xiluodu dam in China, showing potential application value in earthquake engineering.
Great earthquakes are one of the major threats to modern society due to their great destructive power and unpredictability. The maximum credible earthquake (MCE) for a specific fault, i.e., the largest magnitude earthquake that may occur there, has numerous potential scenarios with different source processes, making the future seismic hazard highly uncertain. We propose a full-scenario analysis method to evaluate the MCE hazards with deterministic broadband simulations of numerous scenarios. The full-scenario analysis is achieved by considering all uncertainties of potential future earthquakes with sufficient scenarios. Here we show an application of this method in the seismic hazard analysis for the Xiluodu dam in China by simulating 22,000,000 MCE scenarios in 0-10 Hz. The proposed method can provide arbitrary intensity measures, ground-motion time series, and spatial ground-motion fields for all hazard levels, which enables more realistic and accurate MCE hazard evaluations, and thus has great application potential in earthquake engineering. Deterministic numerical simulations are employed to study the maximum credible earthquake hazard for a specific fault. The method is then applied for seismic hazard analysis at the Xiluodu dam in China, and its potential for earthquake engineering is evaluated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available