Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 228–233 | Cite as

Assessment of the design displacement values at seismic fault crossings and of their excess probability

  • Alexander StromEmail author
  • Alexey Ivaschenko
  • Andrey Kozhurin
Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Line structures such as pipelines that cross active faults should be designed to retain leaktightness if the design displacement (Ddesign) occurs. Principal approaches to the Ddesign and rupture kinematics assessment are described. They are based on relationships between earthquake magnitude, rupture length and displacement, and on the detailed field data on a specific fault that crosses the pipeline route. Since the future offset at the crossing may exceed the design value, the probability of a displacement occurrence where the safety of the structure can not be ensured should be estimated. Assessment method on such event probability is described and exemplified through active fault studies carried out at several pipeline projects in Russia.

Keywords

Active Fault Surface Rupture Design Displacement Pipeline Sakhalin Island 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Barka A (1992) The North Anatolian fault zone. Annales Tectonicae, Special Issue, Supplement to 6:164–195.Google Scholar
  2. Biasi GP, Weldon II RJ (2006) Estimating surface rupture length and magnitude of paleoearthquakes from point measurements of rupture displacement. Bulletin Seismological Society of America 96:1612–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bulgakov PF, Ivaschenko AI, Kim Chun UN, et al. (2002) Active faults of Sakhalin. Geotectonics 36:227–246.Google Scholar
  4. Chipizubbov AV (1998) Identification of single-event and evenaged past surface ruptures and assessment of past earthquakes magnitudes on the base of their dimensions. Russian Geology and Geophysics 39(3):386–398.Google Scholar
  5. Dowrick DJ, Rhoades DA (2004) Relations between earthquake magnitude and fault rupture dimensions: how regionally variable are they? Bulletin Seismological Society of America 94:776–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haeussler PJ, Schwartz DP, Dawson TE, et al. (2004) Surface rupture and slip distribution of the Denali and Totschunda Faults in the 3 November 2002 M 7.9 Earthquake, Alaska. Bulletin Seismological Society of America 94(6B):23–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghose S, Mellors RJ, Korjenkov AM, et al. (1997). The Ms=7.3 1992 Suusamyr, Kyrgyzstan, Earththquake in the Tien Shan: 2. Aftershock focal mechanisms and surface deformation. Bulletin Seismological Society of America 87:23–38.Google Scholar
  8. Lunina OV (2001) Effect of the lithosphere stress on the relationships of surface rupture parameters and earthquake magnitudes. Russian Geology and Geophysics 42:1389–1398.Google Scholar
  9. Matsuda T (1998) Present state of long-term prediction of earthquakes based on active fault data in Japan. Zisin, Journal Seismological Society of Japan, 2nd series 50:23–33.Google Scholar
  10. Mattiozzi P, Strom AL (2008) Crossing Active Faults on the Sakhalin II Onshore Pipeline Route: Pipeline Design and Risk Analysis. In A. Santini and N. Moraci (eds.), 2008 Seismic Engineering Conference Commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria Earthquake. American Institute of Physics, pp 1004–1013.Google Scholar
  11. McCalpin JP (Ed.) (1996) Paleoseismology. San Diego: Academic Press. pp 1–588.Google Scholar
  12. McCalpin JP (Ed.) (2009) Paleoseismology. 2nd edition. Academic Press, imprint of Elsevier pp 1–613.Google Scholar
  13. Nowroozi AA (1985) Empirical relations between magnitudes and fault parameters for earthquakes in Iran, Bulletin Seismological Society of America 75:1327–1338.Google Scholar
  14. Nowroozi AA, Mohajer-Ashjai A (1985) Fault movements and tectonics of Eastern Iran: Boundaries of the Lut Plate. Geophysical Journal Royal Astronomical Society 83:215–237.Google Scholar
  15. Otsuka M (1964) Earthquake magnitude and surface fault formation. J. Phys. Earth, 12:19–24.Google Scholar
  16. Ryall AS, VanWormer JD (1980) Estimations of maximum magnitude and recommended seismic zone changes in the Western Great Basin. Bulletin Seismological Society of America 70:1573–1581.Google Scholar
  17. Strom AL (2000) Assessment of seismic rupture displacement values and of their occurrence probability. In Assessment and monitoring of natural risks, Proccedings of the “Risk-2000” Conference. Moscow, 37–41. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  18. Strom AL, Nikonov AA (1997) Relationships between seismic faults parameters and earthquakes’ magnitude. Izvestia, Physics of the Earth 33(12):1011–1022.Google Scholar
  19. Strom AL, Nikonov AA (2000) Slip distribution along seismic faults and consideration of their irregularity for paleoseismological studies. Volcanology and Seismology 21:705–722.Google Scholar
  20. Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2006) A note on probabilistic assessment of fault displacement hazard. In Proceedings of the 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. April 18–22, 2006, San Francisco, California, USA. Paper No. 1793.Google Scholar
  21. Wells DL, Coppersmith KJ (1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement. Bulletin Seismological Society of America 84:974–1002.Google Scholar
  22. Youngs RR, Arabasz WJ, Anderson RE, et al. (2003) A methodology for probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA), Earthquake Spectra 19(1):191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Strom
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexey Ivaschenko
    • 2
  • Andrey Kozhurin
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Geospheres Dynamics of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Geological Institute of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations