Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Robb E. S. Moss

Publications and source records attributed to Robb E. S. Moss.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2021

Probabilistic fault displacement hazard assessment (PFDHA) for nuclear installations according to IAEA safety standards

In the last 10 yr, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revised its safety standards for site evaluations of nuclear installations in response to emerging fault displacement hazard evaluation practices developed in Member States. New amendments in the revised safety guidance (DS507) explicitly recommend fault displacement hazard assessment, including separate approaches for candidate new sites versus existing sites. If there is insufficient basis to conclusively determine that a fault is not capable of surface displacement at an existing site, then a probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA) is recommended to better characterize the hazard. This new recommendation has generated the need for the IAEA to provide its Member States with guidance on performing PFDHA, including its formulation and implementation. This article provides an overview of current PFDHA state‐of‐practice for nuclear installations that is consistent with the new IAEA safety standards. We also summarize progress in an ongoing international PFDHA benchmark project that will ultimately provide technical guidance to Member States for conducting site‐specific fault displacement hazard assessments.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2018

Examination of differences between three SPT-based seismic soil liquefaction triggering relationships

The preceding companion paper presented the updating of the seismic soil liquefaction triggering relationship of Cetin et al. [1], and compared the resulting updated relationship with the earlier version. In this second paper, a detailed cross-comparison is made between three triggering relationships: (1) Seed et al. [2], as slightly updated by the NCEER Working Group (Youd et al. [3]), (2) Boulanger and Idriss [4], and (3) Cetin et al. [5]. Differences between these three triggering relationships, and the apparent causes of them are examined. Also studied are the impacts of these differences on levels of conservatism with regard to evaluation of liquefaction triggering hazard, and the resulting risks for engineering projects.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering↗
USGS2018

SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering hazard

This study serves as an update to the Cetin et al. (2000, 2004) [1,2] databases and presents new liquefaction triggering curves. Compared with these studies from over a decade ago, the resulting new Standard Penetration Test (SPT)-based triggering curves have shifted to slightly higher CSR-levels for a given N1,60,CS for values of N1,60,CS greater than 15 blows/ft, but the correlation curves remain essentially unchanged at N1,60,CS values less than 15 blows/ft. This paper addresses the improved database and the methodologies used for the development of the updated triggering relationships. A companion paper addresses the principal issues that cause differences among three widely used SPT-based liquefaction triggering relationships.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering↗
USGS2016

Summary of SPT based field case history data of CETIN (2016) database

This report provides documentation of the Cetin et al. (2016) field performance case histories, probabilistic maximum likelihood assessment and the sources of differences between the liquefaction triggering resistance estimations (CRR values) of the widely used liquefaction triggering relationships of Seed et al. (1985), Cetin et al. (2004, 2016) and Boulanger and Idriss (2012). Cetin et al. (2016-a) presented a concise summary of the improved database and the updated triggering relationships. For the sake of completeness, as part of Chapter 2 of this report, Cetin et al. (2016-a) manuscript is re-presented, as edited to include the electronic supplements, and a broader and more detailed documentation of all of case histories. This broader and more detailed documentation along with the interpretations of other researchers is presented in Appendix A. Similarly, site response analyses details and results from Cetin (2000) is re-presented in Appendix B. To enable the readers to quickly refer to Cetin and Seed (2004), it is also included in Appendix C. The sources of differences between the liquefaction triggering resistance estimations (CRR values) of the widely used liquefaction triggering relationships of Seed et al. (1985), Cetin et al. (2004) and Boulanger and Idriss (2012) were discussed in Cetin et al. (2016-b). Again, for the sake of completeness, as part of Chapter 3 of this report, Cetin et al. (2016-b) manuscript is re-presented, as edited to the include of electronic supplements, and a detailed response to issues addressed by Idriss and Boulanger (2012). Also, the technical response letter (Cetin, 2014) prepared at the request of the members of the NRC Committee on the State of the Art and Practice in Earthquake Induced Soil Liquefaction Assessment, is given in Appendix D, which is helpful to follow the technical discussions. This report is intended only as a concise summary of a vast amount of data. The interpretations presented are those of the research team. A more detailed description of some of the details of the methods and procedures used to evaluate and analyze these field performance case histories is also presented in Cetin (2000) and Cetin et al. (2000) though the final evaluations presented in this report are the most recent interpretations undertaken under these current studies.

Report↗
USGS2015

Geotechnical effects of the 2015 magnitude 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks

This article summarizes the geotechnical effects of the 25 April 2015 M 7.8 Gorkha, Nepal, earthquake and aftershocks, as documented by a reconnaissance team that undertook a broad engineering and scientific assessment of the damage and collected perishable data for future analysis. Brief descriptions are provided of ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landsliding, soil failure, and infrastructure performance. The goal of this reconnaissance effort, led by Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance, is to learn from earthquakes and mitigate hazards in future earthquakes.

Gorkha↗