Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: State-of-the-art for assessing earthquake hazards in the United States. Report 19, The evidence for reservoir-induced macroearthquakes
Authors: Soils and Pavements Laboratory (U.S.)
Meade, R. (Ronald B.)
Keywords: Dams
Earthquake engineering
Earthquake hazards
Earthquake risk
Case studies
Earthquake intensity
Induced seismicity
Publisher: Geotechnical Laboratory (U.S.)
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
Description: Miscellaneous Paper
Abstract: The published evidence of reservoir-induced macroearthquakes is critically reviewed. The evidence is partitioned into three types: (A.) evidence of a postimpoundment increase in seismicity, (B.) correlation evidence that is composed of a plot of a reservoir variable and a seismicity variable and, in most cases, an auxiliary variable, time, and (C.) evidence based on the slope of the magnitude-frequency relationship (b value evidence). The basic source for each of these types of evidence is a suitably edited catalog of earthquake occurrences. Recommendations are given regarding catalog preparation and editing. The types of evidence are examined to recognize the effects of common methods of data acquisition and treatment. Postimpoundment change in seismicity can be assessed using certain recommended statistical tests. Recommendations are made regarding construction and interpretation of correlation evidence. The interpretation of correlation evidence is subjective because the assumptions required to construct and interpret the evidence cannot be verified. Evidence based on the b value is shown to be useless as a discriminant to identify induced seismicity from normal seismicity. Eight cases of reservoir induced macroearthquakes are reviewed. These eight cases are: (1.) Hoover/Lake Mead, (2.) Kariba, (3.) Kremasta, (4.) Koyna, (5.) Kurobe, (6.) Manic 3, (7.) Hsinfengkiang, and (8.) Nurek. Three cases (Hoover, Manic 3, and Nurek) appear to be well documented cases of induced seismicity. Two cases (Kurobe and Kremasta) are located in seismically active areas and the seismicity attributed to the reservoir is consistent with the natural local seismicity. These two cases do not appear to be cases of induced seismicity. The three remaining cases (Hsinfengkiang, Kariba, and Koyna) present insufficient information to support a conclusion.
Rights: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Appears in Collections:Miscellaneous Paper

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
MP-S-73-1-Report-19.pdf19.92 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail