CVEEN 6330

Homework Assignment 3
Part A - Earthquake Magnitude and Fault Parameters from Geologic Data
The use of modern seismologic methods and historical records for estimation of the maximum earthquake potential of
a region is limited by the short historical record, during which only a few of the main faults have experienced surface
faulting with accompanying large earthquakes. The applications of other geologic methods (e.g., fault displacement
measurements, fault rupture measurements and age determinations) enables use to expand our knowledge of potential
seismic conditions such as earthquake magnitude, recurrence intervals, and fault slip rates.
1.

Using the geologic map and the fault traces mapped in the Salt Lake Valley, determine the magnitude of the
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) for the:
(a) Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch Fault
(b) Taylorsville Fault
(c) Granger Fault
For the Salt Lake City segment of the Wasatch Fault, assume that this segment is comprised of the East
Bench Fault and the Wasatch Fault zone that extends to the south into Draper, Utah.
For 1 (a), (b) and (c) use the regression equations found in Table 2A of Wells and Coppersmith to make the
prediction of MCE based on surface rupture length (SRL). In estimating surface rupture length, use a
curvelinear distance. (Note that Wells and Coppersmith recommend that the regression equation developed
for all-slip-type is appropriate for most applications because of the large number of data and good statistical
correlations (see p. 1000).)
Also, discuss any additional assumptions and/or uncertainties with your estimates of the MCE.

2.

Using the estimates of surface rupture length from problem 1, estimate the mean and maximum amount of
expected displacement on the fault systems. Give you answer in meters. Discuss any assumptions and
uncertainties with your estimates of mean and maximum fault displacement.

3.

Given an earthquake with M = 6.5, what is the surface rupture length and maximum amount of fault
displacement that would you expect using the paper from Wells and Coppersmith?

Part B - Median Response Spectra from Attenuation Relations

4.

Use the Abrahamson and Silva (2008) attenuation relation for this problem and the fault parameter for the
Salt Lake City Segment of the Wasatch Fault. Assume that this fault is capable of generating a M w 7.0
earthquake and the depth to the base of the fault is 20 km. Also, assume that the fault ruptures to the surface.
a. Make a plot of peak ground acceleration (pga) in g as a function of distance from the fault trace. To
do this, plot pga (y-axis) versus Rx for distances values between 0 and 100 km. Assume that the
fault ruptures to the surface and that the soil type is NEHRP site class D with the Vs values for this
site class at the mid-range. Also, assume that all Rx distances are located on the hanging wall side
of the fault. Assume that the average dip angle of the fault (i.e., rupture plane) is 45 degrees. See
additional information at the end of this homework. To determine the Z1.0 and Z2.5 values use Deep
Profile 1 in the attached figures. Assume that these depths do not vary as a function of distance
from the fault.
b. Use the information provided to construct a median 5 percent damped acceleration, velocity and
displacement response spectra for the intersection of I215 and Hwy 201using the Abrahamson and
Silva (2008) attenuation relation.
c. Compare the median acceleration response spectrum develop in 4b with the average median
response spectrum from all other NGA relations.

TOP PORTION OF DEEP PROFILE: 0 - 1000m

Vs (m/s)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0
100

End, Wong et al.

2002, published
(152m)

200
Unconsolidated

300
Semi-consolidated

depth (m)

400
SLC Airport East, Wong &
Silva (1993)

500
600
700

Lacustrine-alluvial silt and

clay (Northern CA Bay Mud),
Wong et al. (2002,
published)
Interpreted cross section,
distance = 15.5km, Hill et al.
(1990)
Generic U.S. Rock, Boore &
Joyner (1997)

800
Deep Profile I, this study

900
Deep Profile II, Wong et al.
(2002, unpublished)

1000

BOTTOM PORTION OF DEEP PROFILE: 1000 - 7000m

Vs (m/s)
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1000

1500

2000

2500

Consolidated
Bedrock

End, Wong and Silva

1993 (>2600m)

3000

SLC Airport East, Wong & Silva

(1993)
depth (m)

3500

4000

4500

5000

Lacustrine-alluvial silt and clay

(Northern CA Bay Mud), Wong et
al. (2002, published)
Interpreted cross section,
distance = 15.5km, Hill et al.
(1990)
Generic U.S. Rock, Boore &
Joyner (1997)
Deep Profile I, this study

5500

6000

Deep Profile II, Wong et al. (2002,

unpublished)

Matchpoint
(6000m)

6500

7000

Infinite Half-Space

3500

4000