Page images
PDF
EPUB

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Dallas L. Peck, Director

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region—An earth-science perspective.

(U.S. Geological Survey professional paper; 1360)

Bibliography: p. 471

Supt. of Docs. no.:1 19.16:1360

1. Earthquakes California-Los Angeles region. I. Ziony, Joseph. II. U.S. Geological Survey professional paper; 1360. QE535.2.U6E93 363.3'495'0979494 85-600239

1985

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

FOREWORD

Devastating earthquakes have sporadically struck many populated centers of the United States (for example, Boston, Mass., in 1755; Charleston, S.C., in 1886; San Francisco, Calif., in 1906; Long Beach, Calif., in 1933; Tacoma and Seattle, Wash., in 1949 and 1965; Anchorage, Alaska, in 1964; and San Fer nando, Calif., in 1971). Although a damaging earthquake at a given locality in the United States is a relatively rare event, the likelihood of truly catastrophic loss of life and property is increasing as development and construction accelerate in the 39 States that lie in regions of major or moderate potential for large earthquakes.

Beginning with Clarence E. Dutton's investigations of the 1886 Charleston earthquake, scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey have studied earthquakes and their effects. The great Alaska earthquake of 1964 and the 1971 San Fernando earthquake awakened officials to the threat facing many urban areas and stimulated geologists and seismologists to analyze the conditions that control the distribution of earthquake damage. The United States Congress, recognizing that the potential for large earthquakes is a national concern, enacted the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124), which establishes objectives to (1) develop earthquake-resistant engineering-design methods; (2) predict earthquakes and characterize seismic hazards; (3) develop model codes for land use and construction; and (4) prepare plans for responding to major destructive earthquakes. Within these broad objectives, two major goals of the Geological Survey have been to improve methods of evaluating geologically controlled earthquake effects and to delineate earthquake hazards in major urban regions at high seismic risk. Studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A) was a solid advance in the assessment of earthquake hazards. That report presented methods for evaluating earthquake, surface-faulting, ground-shaking, and ground-failure potential and described a multidisciplinary approach to seismic zonation. Subsequent earth-science maps and evaluations of California's San Francisco Bay region prepared by the Geological Survey were the bases for derivative maps that are now being used in engineering design, land use planning, and emergencyresponse planning to reduce future earthquake losses.

Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth-Science Perspective, which builds on the foundations laid by the San Francisco Bay region studies, indicates how rapidly the science of earthquake hazard assessment is evolving. For example, innovative new concepts for predicting the extent and severity of strong shaking and of earthquake-triggered landsliding have resulted from research in the Los Angeles region. In presenting state-of-the-art methods, this volume describes the potential for damaging geologic and seismologic effects and demonstrates the application of evaluative techniques to selected areas of that region. We expect to publish more detailed maps of hazard potential for much of the region over the next several years. The hazard-evaluation methods described herein can also be used for evaluating and mapping earthquake hazards in other urban areas such as Salt Lake City, Utah, Seattle, Wash., and Anchorage, Alaska, all of which are vulnerable to earthquake damage. The ultimate benefits of studies such as those reported in this volume are the reduced loss of life, injury, and property damage and the continued functioning of vital services and economic activities following a potentially destructive earthquake. To achieve these benefits, scientists, engineers, and planners must cooperate in the development of useful technical products. In turn, officials in both the private sector and in the government must determine which actions acceptable to the general public can best reduce future earthquake losses.

Durent.

Dallas L. Peck

Director, U.S. Geological Survey

PREDICTING SEISMIC INTENSITIES 151

J. F. Evernden and J. M. Thomson

Why ground-motion parameters saturate at high magnitude, 152⚫ Method for
predicting seismic intensities, 156 Correlating intensity with strong-motion
parameters, 160• Applying the intensity prediction method, 170⚫ Using seismic
intensities to predict earthquake losses, 184 • Mathematical details of model for
predicting intensities, 201

PREDICTIVE MAPPING OF EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION 203
W. B. Joyner and T. E. Fumal

Predictive equations, 204⚫ Using local shear-wave velocity to improve predictions
of site effects, 205⚫ Characterizing earthquake sources, 208 • Applying the
method, 212. Dependence of probabilistic ground-motion estimates on param-
eters of the magnitude-frequency relation, 216

PREDICTING RELATIVE GROUND RESPONSE 221
A. M. Rogers, J. C. Tinsley, and R. D. Borcherdt

Previous studies, 221⚫ Comparative ground response in the Los Angeles region,
224⚫ Geologic and geotechnical parameters affecting ground response,
226 ⚫ Comparing ground response with geologic factors, 233 • Clustering sites to
reflect ground-response variability, 236 Predicting geographic variation in
ground response, 241⚫ Validity and limitations of technique, 246

[ocr errors]

PREDICTING EARTHQUAKE GROUND-MOTION TIME-HISTORIES 249
P. A. Spudich and S. H. Hartzell

The earthquake rupture process, 249 How ground motions are simulated,
252⚫ Mathematical details, 254 Green's functions and their approximation,
255⚫ Detailed example of ground-motion simulation, 260

EARTHQUAKE-TRIGGERED GROUND FAILURE

EVALUATING LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 263

J. C. Tinsley, T. L. Youd, D. M. Perkins, and A. T. F. Chen

Liquefaction and resulting ground failure, 266 Method for evaluating liquefaction potential, 287⚫ Mapping liquefaction susceptibility, 268⚫ Liquefaction susceptibility in the Los Angeles region, 276⚫ Determining liquefaction opportunity, 297⚫ Liquefaction potential maps and their limitations, 314

PREDICTING AREAL LIMITS OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDING 317 R. C. Wilson and D. K. Keefer

Landslides in historical earthquakes worldwide, 319 Examples of landslides in California earthquakes, 323⚫ Numerical models for earthquake-induced landslides, 327⚫ Severity of shaking as a function of magnitude and distance, 332⚫ Predicting the limits of landsliding from an earthquake, 335⚫ A hypothetical site evaluation, 338

EARTHQUAKE-RELATED PHENOMENA OFFSHORE

IDENTIFYING POTENTIALLY ACTIVE FAULTS AND UNSTABLE SLOPES OFFSHORE 347

S. H. Clarke, Jr., H. G. Greene, and M. P. Kennedy

Acquiring and interpreting marine geophysical data, 350 Potential geologic hazards in the offshore Los Angeles region, 357

EVALUATING TSUNAMI POTENTIAL 375

D. S. McCulloch

Tsunami generation and propagation, 376 California tsunami history, 387⚫ Tsunami potential in coastal southern California, 392 • Tsunami hazard reduction, 402⚫ California tsunamis from 1812 to 1975, 409

APPLICATIONS

PREDICTED GEOLOGIC AND SEISMOLOGIC EFFECTS OF A POSTULATED
MAGNITUDE 6.5 EARTHQUAKE ALONG THE NORTHERN PART OF THE
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD ZONE 415

J. I. Ziony, J. F. Evernden, T. E. Fumal, E. L. Harp, S. H. Hartzell, W. B. Joyner, D. K. Keefer,
P. A. Spudich, J. C. Tinsley, R. F. Yerkes, and T. L. Youd

Geology of the demonstration area, 415 The postulated earthquake, 417 • Surface faulting and deformation, 419⚫ Seismic intensities, 420⚫ Horizontal acceleration, velocity, and response spectral values, 423 • Time-histories of ground motion, 430⚫ Liquefaction-related ground failure, 434⚫ Landsliding, 436⚫ Other effects, 441

USING EARTH-SCIENCE INFORMATION FOR EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION 443

W. J. Kockelman

Anticipating damage to critical facilities, 443⚫ Adopting seismic safety plans, 449⚫ Retrofitting highway bridges, 454⚫ Regulating development in potential surface fault rupture areas, 457 Strengthening or removing unsafe masonry buildings, 481. Other examples, 485

REFERENCES CITED 471

PHOTOGRAPH CREDITS

p.42, aerial view northwestward along the San Andreas fault near San Bernardino (D. M. Morton, USGS); p. 100, aerial view above Pomona northeastward along eastern San Gabriel Mountains and part of upper Santa Ana River basin (D. M. Morton, USGS); p. 126, determining seismic velocities of near-surface geologic materials by using a truck-mounted recording system (L. J. Hwang, USGS); p. 150, computer-generated map showing Modified Mercalli intensities for 1952 Kem County earthquake (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1223); p. 248, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (J. I. Ziony, USGS); p. 316, landslide triggered by 1971 San Femando earthquake on western side of Golden State Freeway (). 1. Ziony, USGS); p. 374, damage to railroad in Seward, Alaska, from tsunami waves generated by 1964 Alaska earthquake (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, now the National Ocean Survey); p. 470, Olive View Hospital after 1971 San Fernando earthquake (Reuben Kachadoorian, USGS).

« PreviousContinue »