Manila subduction zone

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Manila subduction zone"

Suzanna Cook
5 years ago
Views:

1 Manila subduction zone Andrew T.S. Lin SSC TI Team Member Taiwan SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Study Workshop #3, June 19 23, 2017 Taipei, Taiwan 1 1

2 Manila subduction zone Hazard Contribution Geometry Setting interface 1 and interface 2 Logic tree Interface and Source Geometry Slip rate Magnitude Distribution 2

3 Distribution of Hazard Contribution (NPP3) NPP3 AEP=10 4 3

4 Manila Subduction Zone Geometry Setting A A Modify from Park et al.(2002) A A Interface 1 Interface 2 Trench Branch Point Bottom of Interface 4

5 Manila Subduction Zone Geometry Setting Case

6 Interface Manila subduction interface Source Slip ate (mm/yr) Magnitude pdf Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) Max. Magn. Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface Y&C Char Truncated Exponential Case 1 B:8 km / M:30km B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Strasser (SRL)+0.25 Strasser (A)+0.25 Blaser (RLD)+0.25 Splay fault + Interface 2 S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] * Note: Max Magn. = Char. Magn Char. Magn. is calculated from Magnitude Scaling Law: Strasser et al (2010) and Blaser et al (2010) 6

7 Interface Manila subduction interface Source Slip ate (mm/yr) Magnitude pdf Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) Max. Magn. Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface Y&C Char Truncated Exponential Case 1 B:8 km / M:30km B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Strasser (SRL)+0.25 Strasser (A)+0.25 Blaser (RLD)+0.25 Splay fault + Interface 2 S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] * Note: Max Magn. = Char. Magn Char. Magn. is calculated from Magnitude Scaling Law: Strasser et al (2010) and Blaser et al (2010) 7

Manila subduction interface Interface Interface Interface 1 +interface 2 Interface Splay fault is more active than the Frontal fault at manila trench, based on the seismic reflection data.

8 Manila subduction interface Interface Interface Interface 1 +interface 2 Interface Splay fault is more active than the Frontal fault at manila trench, based on the seismic reflection data. In that case, splay fault+ interface2 would be given a weighing of and the other two models would be given weighing of. Splay Fault Interface 1 Interface 2 Interface 2 (Lin et al. 2009) Splay fault + Interface 2 Splay Fault Interface 1 Interface 2 8

9 Interface Manila subduction interface Source Slip ate (mm/yr) Magnitude pdf Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) Max. Magn. Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface Y&C Char Truncated Exponential Case 1 B:8 km / M:30km B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Strasser (SRL)+0.25 Strasser (A)+0.25 Blaser (RLD)+0.25 Splay fault + Interface 2 S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] * Note: Max Magn. = Char. Magn Char. Magn. is calculated from Magnitude Scaling Law: Strasser et al (2010) and Blaser et al (2010) 9

10 Interface Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface 2 Splay fault + Interface 2 Manila subduction interface Source Source S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) Manila Subducton interface Segmentation point The segmentation of northern Manila subduction zone could be defined based on the trench geometry. The trench strike changes at about 22.2 N (Lin et al., )

Manila subduction interface Source Interface Interface 1 +

(485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) Manila Subducton

and geophysical data happens at about 20 N LRTPB (Luzon Ryukyu

11 Manila subduction interface Source Interface Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface 2 Splay fault + Interface 2 Source S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) Manila Subducton interface Segmentation point The change of earthquake distribution and geophysical data happens at about 20 N LRTPB (Luzon Ryukyu transform plate boundary) COB (continental oceanic plate boundary) (Hsu et al. 2004) 11

12 Interface Manila subduction interface Source Slip ate (mm/yr) Magnitude pdf Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) Max. Magn. Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface Y&C Char Truncated Exponential Case 1 B:8 km / M:30km B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Strasser (SRL)+0.25 Strasser (A)+0.25 Blaser (RLD)+0.25 Splay fault + Interface 2 S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] * Note: Max Magn. = Char. Magn Char. Magn. is calculated from Magnitude Scaling Law: Strasser et al (2010) and Blaser et al (2010) 12

13 Manila subduction interface Interface Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface 2 Splay fault + Interface 2 Source S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) Single source (D1, D2, D3) is more active than Multisource(D1+D2, D2+D3, D1+D2+D3). If the source is more active, the weighting would be given higher. 13

14 Interface Manila subduction interface Source Slip ate (mm/yr) Magnitude pdf Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) Max. Magn. Interface 1 + interface 2 Interface Y&C Char Truncated Exponential Case 1 B:8 km / M:30km B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Strasser (SRL)+0.25 Strasser (A)+0.25 Blaser (RLD)+0.25 Splay fault + Interface 2 S1+S2+S3 (485 km) S2+S3(452 km) S1+S2(355 km) S2 (322km) B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] * Note: Max Magn. = Char. Magn Char. Magn. is calculated from Magnitude Scaling Law: Strasser et al (2010) and Blaser et al (2010) 14

15 Manila subduction interface Geometry Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) B:8 km / M:30km Case 1 B:8 km / M:50km WM #3 B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] WS #3 * Extend the interface of depth to 50 km, the rupture area and the maximum magnitude will increase. 15

Based on the seismic reflection result. B:12 km / M:40km [0.

16 Manila subduction interface Geometry Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) B:8 km / M:30km Case 1 B:8 km / M:50km Manila Subducton Interface Interface1 Depth Based on the seismic reflection result. B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] Interface1 Depth Interface2 Depth 8 km 30 km 12 km 40 km 15 km 50 km (Lin et al., 2008) 16

$refraction result.$

17 Manila subduction interface Geometry Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) B:8 km / M:30km Case 1 B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Manila Subducton Interface Interface1 Depth Based on the wide angle seismic refraction result. Interface1 Depth Interface2 Depth 8 km 30 km 12 km 40 km 15 km 50 km (Lester et al., 2013) B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] 17

8] B:12 km / M:50km Manila Subducton Interface Interface2 Depth Based on the seismicity.

18 Manila subduction interface Geometry Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) B:8 km / M:30km Case 1 B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Manila Subducton Interface Interface2 Depth Based on the seismicity. Interface1 Depth Interface2 Depth 8 km 30 km 12 km 40 km 15 km 50 km B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] Seismicity is the relocated result from Wu et al. (2016). 18

19 Manila subduction interface Geometry Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) B:8 km / M:30km Case 1 B:8 km / M:50km B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Geometry We assumed that the dips of all faults are varied by interface geometry. Marine geophysical researches show the interface dipping from shallow to steep. However, marine reflection seismic research shows some faults have low angle thrust features in shallow part, such as North Luzon back thrust fault (Reed et al., 1992). is the closest model to the surface of interface which is determined from seismicity. Thus, the weighting of is given as with high confident. The with steep fault dips is given lowest weight and Case 1 with shallow fault dipping is given higher weight. B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] Dip gentle Depth shallow steep deep 19

20 Manila subduction interface Geometry Geometry (Case) Branch Point (B) / Interface 2(M) (Depth) B:8 km / M:30km Case 1 B:8 km / M:50km The range of uncertainty is wide and the median is lacking evidence, so we give almost equal weighting as. B:12 km / M:40km [0.8] B:12 km / M:50km Marine geophysical researches show B:12 km / M:40km is more reliable, so B:12 km / M:40km is given as [0.8] with high confident. B:15 km / M:50km [1.0] 20

21 Manila Subduction Interface Geometry Setting Case

22 Manila Subduction Interface Slip Rate Slip Rate (mm/yr) The range of uncertainty is wide and the median is lacking evidence, so we give almost equal weighting as. Slip Rate (mm/yr) Max. Medium Min. WS# WM# WS# Plate Convergence: 86 mm/yr Slip rate: 30~40 mm/yr Hsu et al., 2016 Slip rate: 8~12 mm/yr 22

23 Cumulative geologic slip rate across the entire southern region WS# 2 Case 1 WS# 3 Case 1 WM# 3 Case 1 Manila Trench Manila Splay Total slip rate % % Other Faults (%) (mm/yr) Fault (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Manila Trench Manila Splay Total slip rate % % Other Faults (%) (mm/yr) Fault (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Manila Trench Manila Splay Total slip rate % % Other Faults (%) (mm/yr) Fault (mm/yr) (mm/yr) Other Faults include West Hengchun Offshore Structure, Hengchun Fault, East Hengchun Offshore Fault, North Luzon Backthrust Fault, North Luzon Strike Slip Fault, Soutwest Hengchun Fault. WS# 2 WM# 3 WS# 3 The slip rate of Manila trench accounts for percent of the slip rate of southern region of Taiwan. Consider the plate convergence rate (86/mm/yr) Modify the slip rate of manila trench and splay fault. Modify the slip rate of manila trench. Manila Trench Slip Rate (mm/yr) Max. Medium Min. WS# WM# WS#

24 Manila subduction interface Magnitude Distribution Area Strasser (L) Strasser (A) Interface Style of Length Depth (km) Magnitude Dip ( ) Distribution (km 2 Blaser(RLD)+0.25 ) Source Faulting (km) B M A M M M1 Max. Magn. Magnitude pdf B1/M Strasser SRL+0.25 B1/M Y&C Char D1 117Strasser B2/M2 A B2/M4 Truncated Blaser(RLD)+0.25 B3/M3 15 Exponential B1/M B1/M D2 The range of uncertainty is 229 wide, so B2/M2 we give 12almost 40 equal weighting as 8.59 ( 8.40 ) B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M D3 274 B2/M B2/M B3/M Interface1 + Interface2 90 (RV) D1+D2 346 D2+D3 503 D1+D2+D3 620 B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M Interface1+ Interface

25 Manila subduction interface Magnitude Distribution Area Strasser (L) Strasser (A) Interface Style of Length Magnitude Depth Distribution (km) Dip ( ) (km 2 Blaser(RLD)+0.25 ) Source Faulting (km) Max. Magn. B Magnitude M pdf A M M M1 B1/M Strasser SRL+0.25 B1/M Y&C Char D1 95 Strasser B2/M2 A B2/M4 Truncated Blaser(RLD)+0.25 Exponential B3/M B1/M B1/M D2 The range of uncertainty is 215 wide, B2/M2 so we give 12 almost 40 equal weighting as 8.54 ( 8.37 ) B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M D3 243 B2/M B2/M B3/M Interface2 Interface 90 (RV) B1/M B1/M D1+D2 310 B2/M B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M D2+D3 458 B2/M B2/M B3/M D1+D2+D3 553 B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M

26 Manila subduction interface Magnitude Distribution Area Strasser (L) Strasser (A) Interface Style of Length Depth (km) Magnitude Dip ( ) Distribution (km 2 Blaser(RLD)+0.25 ) Source Faulting (km) Max. Magn. B Magnitude M pdf A M M M1 B1/M Strasser SRL+0.25 B1/M Y&C Char 3492 S1 33Strasser B2/M2 A B2/M4 Truncated Blaser(RLD)+0.25 Exponential B3/M B1/M B1/M S2 The range of uncertainty is 322 wide, so B2/M2 we give 12almost 40 equal weighting as 8.83 ( 8.61 ) B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M S3 130 B2/M B2/M B3/M Splay Fault+ Interface2 90 (RV) S1+S2 354 S2+S3 452 S1+S2+S3 484 B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M B1/M B1/M B2/M B2/M B3/M Splay Fault + Interface

27 Thank you 27

28 Geometry Setting 6km Interface 1 Interface 2 Trench Branch Point Bottom of Interface 28

Node: Slip Rate Cumulative geologic slip rate across the entire southern region Slip Rate Slip Rate MT % MSF % WHCOS % HCF % SWHC % EHCOF % NLBF % NLSSF % Total slip rate min 8 25.3 4 12.7 1.7 5.4 2.

77 min 8 25.2 4 12.6 2.84 8.9 2.20 6.9 0.60 1.9 5.1 16.1 5 15.8 4 12.6 31.74 mid 10 19.2 6 11.5 3.81 7.3 8.80 16.9 2.50 4.8 7.1 13.6 8 15.3 6 11.5 52.21 max 12 16.8 8 11.2 5.63 7.9 13.20 18.4 3.70 5.

29 Node: Slip Rate Cumulative geologic slip rate across the entire southern region Slip Rate Slip Rate MT % MSF % WHCOS % HCF % SWHC % EHCOF % NLBF % NLSSF % Total slip rate min Case 1 mid max min mid max min mid max WS#2 Manila Trench Slip Rate (mm/yr) Max. Medium Min. WS# WM# WS#

Node: Slip Rate Cumulative geologic slip rate across the entire southern region New Slip Rate Slip Rate MT % MSF % WHCOS % HCF % SWHC % EHCOF % NLBF % NLSSF % Total slip rate Case 1 min 8 24.8 4 12.

30 Node: Slip Rate Cumulative geologic slip rate across the entire southern region New Slip Rate Slip Rate MT % MSF % WHCOS % HCF % SWHC % EHCOF % NLBF % NLSSF % Total slip rate Case 1 min mid max min mid max min mid max WM#3 Manila Trench Slip Rate (mm/yr) Max. Medium Min. WS# WM# WS#

31 Node: Slip Rate Cumulative geologic slip rate across the entire southern region New Slip Rate Slip Rate MT % MSF % WHCOS % HCF % SWHC % EHCOF % NLBF % NLSSF % Total slip rate Case 1 min mid max min mid max min mid max WS# 3 Manila Trench Slip Rate (mm/yr) Max. Medium Min. WS# WM# WS#

Overview of the Seismic Source Characterization for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

Overview of the Seismic Source Characterization for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Scott Lindvall SSC TI Team Lead Palo Verde SSC SSHAC Level 3 Project Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1 Questions from