Geology topics

A.F. Shakal

Publications and source records attributed to A.F. Shakal.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2012

Strong Motion Instrumentation of Seismically-Strengthened Port Structures in California by CSMIP

The California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP) has instrumented five port structures. Instrumentation of two more port structures is underway and another one is in planning. Two of the port structures have been seismically strengthened. The primary goals of the strong motion instrumentation are to obtain strong earthquake shaking data for verifying seismic analysis procedures and strengthening schemes, and for post-earthquake evaluations of port structures. The wharves instrumented by CSMIP were recommended by the Strong Motion Instrumentation Advisory Committee, a committee of the California Seismic Safety Commission. Extensive instrumentation of a wharf is difficult and would be impossible without the cooperation of the owners and the involvement of the design engineers. The instrumentation plan for a wharf is developed through study of the retrofit plans of the wharf, and the strong-motion sensors are installed at locations where specific instrumentation objectives can be achieved and access is possible. Some sensor locations have to be planned during design; otherwise they are not possible to install after construction. This paper summarizes the two seismically-strengthened wharves and discusses the instrumentation schemes and objectives. ?? 2009 ASCE.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2004

A study of possible ground-motion amplification at the Coyote Lake Dam, California

The abutment site at the Coyote Lake Dam recorded an unusually large peak acceleration of 1.29g during the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake. Following this earthquake another strong-motion station was installed about 700 m downstream from the abutment station. We study all events (seven) recorded on these stations, using ratios of peak accelerations, spectral ratios, and particle motion polarization (using holograms) to investigate the relative ground motion at the two sites. We find that in all but one case the motion at the abutment site is larger than the downstream site over a broad frequency band. The polarizations are similar for the two sites for a given event, but can vary from one event to another. This suggests that the dam itself is not strongly influencing the records. Although we can be sure that the relative motion is usually larger at the abutment site, we cannot conclude that there is anomalous site amplification at the abutment site. The downstream site could have lower-than-usual near-surface amplifications. On the other hand, the geology near the abutment site is extremely complex and includes fault slivers, with rapid lateral changes in materials and presumably seismic velocities. For this reason alone, the abutment site should not be considered a normal free-field site.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS1994

The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989: Strong ground motion

Strong ground motion generated by the Loma Prieta, Calif., earthquake (MS~7.1) of October 17, 1989, resulted in at least 63 deaths, more than 3,757 injuries, and damage estimated to exceed $5.9 billion. Strong ground motion severely damaged critical lifelines (freeway overpasses, bridges, and pipelines), caused severe damage to poorly constructed buildings, and induced a significant number of ground failures associated with liquefaction and landsliding. It also caused a significant proportion of the damage and loss of life at distances as far as 100 km from the epicenter. Consequently, understanding the characteristics of the strong ground motion associated with the earthquake is fundamental to understanding the earthquake's devastating impact on society. The papers assembled in this chapter address this problem. Damage to vulnerable structures from the earthquake varied substantially with the distance from the causative fault and the type of underlying geologic deposits. Most of the damage and loss of life occurred in areas underlain by 'soft soil'. Quantifying these effects is important for understanding the tragic concentrations of damage in such areas as Santa Cruz and the Marina and Embarcadero Districts of San Francisco, and the failures of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and the Interstate Highway 880 overpass. Most importantly, understanding these effects is a necessary prerequisite for improving mitigation measures for larger earthquakes likely to occur much closer to densely urbanized areas in the San Francisco Bay region. The earthquake generated an especially important data set for understanding variations in the severity of strong ground motion. Instrumental strong-motion recordings were obtained at 131 sites located from about 6 to 175 km from the rupture zone. This set of recordings, the largest yet collected for an event of this size, was obtained from sites on various geologic deposits, including a unique set on 'soft soil' deposits (artificial fill and bay mud). These exceptional ground-motion data are used by the authors of the papers in this chapter to infer radiation characteristics of the earthquake source, identify dominant propagation characteristics of the Earth?s crust, quantify amplification characteristics of near-surface geologic deposits, develop general amplification factors for site-dependent building-code provisions, and revise earthquake-hazard assessments for the San Francisco Bay region. Interpretations of additional data recorded in well-instrumented buildings, dams, and freeway overpasses are provided in other chapters of this report.

California↗

USGS1984

The 1984 Morgan Hill, California, earthquake

The Morgan Hill, California, earthquake (magnitude 6.1) of 24 April 1984 ruptured a 30-kilometer-long segment of the Calaveras fault zone to the east of San Jose. Although it was recognized in 1980 that an earthquake of magnitude 6 occurred on this segment in 1911 and that a repeat of this event might reasonably be expected, no short-term precursors were noted and so the time of the 1984 earthquake was not predicted. Unilateral rupture propagation toward the south-southeast and an energetic late source of seismic radiation located near the southeast end of the rupture zone contributed to the highly focused pattern of strong motion, including an exceptionally large horizontal acceleration of 1.29g at a site on a dam abutment near the southeast end of the rupture zone.

California↗