Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Post-earthquake inspection is required by many dam safety regulations. Typically, based on the magnitude of
the earthquake, the guidelines define an area within which dams should be inspected. The areas are established on
ground-motion relations derived for the western United States. In eastern North America (ENA), the attenuation is
slower with distance from the earthquake epicentre, and as a consequence the inspection area should be significantly
larger than that recommended by the current guidelines. We review the state of knowledge on earthquake damage to
dams, the factors used to define post-earthquake inspections, and the earthquake characteristics used to define the
guidelines. We recommend new radii of inspections for dams applicable in ENA, including the Province of Quebec.
Derived from historical earthquake information, the proposed new radii of inspections are twofold to sixfold larger than
the 1988 guidelines of the International Commission on Large Dams. It is also suggested that a half-magnitude unit be
added to every magnitude rapidly released by seismological organizations to include the intrinsic uncertainty in magnitude values and types. Our proposed approach is only one avenue that dam owners can follow to comply with dam
safety regulations. Irrespective of the avenue chosen, however, this paper emphasizes the need for dam owners to consider the lower ground motion attenuation in ENA.
Key words: earthquake, damage, dam, inspection, natural hazards, emergency response.
Rsum : Linspection post-sisme est requise par plusieurs recommandations de scurit des barrages. Suivant la magnitude du sisme, les rgles actuelles dfinissent une rgion lintrieur de laquelle les barrages doivent tre inspects. Les rgions sont dfinies daprs les relations dattnuation des ondes sismiques drives pour lOuest amricain.
Dans lest de lAmrique du Nord (EAN), lattnuation partir de lpicentre est plus faible, ce qui se traduit par des
rgions dinspection beaucoup plus vastes que celles gnralement recommandes. Cet article fait un survol de ltat
des connaissances des dommages subis par les barrages lors de sismes, des facteurs utiliss pour dfinir les inspections post-sismes et des caractristiques sismologiques utilises dans la dfinition des recommandations. Cet article
recommande de nouveaux rayons dinspection pour les barrages dans lEAN, y compris dans la province de Qubec.
Drivs des renseignements sur les sismes historiques, les critres dinspection proposs reprsentent un accroissement
variant entre 2 6 par rapport aux normes de la Commission Internationale des Grands Barrages de 1988. On suggre
aussi lajout dune demie unit de magnitude aux valeurs de magnitude diffuses rapidement par les observatoires sismologiques afin de compenser lincertitude intrinsque des valeurs et types de magnitude. Lapproche que nous proposons nest quune des avenues que peuvent suivre les oprateurs de barrages pour rpondre aux recommandations de
scurit des barrages. Peu importe lavenue que choisiront les propritaires de barrages, cet article souligne
limportance de considrer la faible attnuation des ondes sismiques dans lEAN.
Mots cls : tremblement de terre, dommages, barrages, inspection, risques naturels, intervention durgence.
Lamontagne and Dascal
1027
Introduction
Earthquake ground motions can represent a significant threat
to dams and their appurtenant structures because they can induce
significant damage and possible structural failure. In the event of
damage, immediate action may be necessary to prevent further
Received 12 July 2005. Accepted 28 April 2006. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cgj.nrc.ca on
28 October 2006.
M. Lamontagne.2 Natural Resources Canada, 588 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y7, Canada.
O. Dascal.3 4444, rue Sherbrooke Ouest, Montral, QC H3Z 1E4, Canada.
1
doi:10.1139/T06-065
1016
1017
ICOLD 1988
USSD 2003c
>4.0
5.06.0
6.07.0
7.08.0
>8.0
<25
<50
<80
<125
<200
<40
<80
<120
<200
<320
(<25)
(<50)
(<75)
(<125)
(<200)
Table 1. Examples of distances derived from the relationship of Tani (2000) and presented in Fig. 2.
Magnitude
5.06.1
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
11
23
61
160
424
Post-earthquake inspection
Post-earthquake inspection is required by many dam
safety regulations, such as those of ICOLD and the United
States Society on Dams (USSD). The ICOLD guidelines for
the inspection of dams after an earthquake follow two scenarios (ICOLD 1983, 1988):
(1) An inspection should be done if an earthquake has occurred or has been reported to have occurred with a
magnitude (M)5 and within a distance from the dam
given in Table 2 (in this paper). The distance should
constrain the area where significant or potentially damaging ground motions could have an impact on the
structure.
(2) An inspection should be done if all communications
from the dam are lost and there is a potential danger for
failure of the dam.
The guidelines of ICOLD (1983, 1988) were adopted by
the US Commission on Large Dams (USCOLD) in 1983 and
subsequently by the USSD, which replaced USCOLD. The
5
M is thereafter used to mean magnitude in a general sense, irrespective of the magnitude scale. More details on the magnitude scales are
given later in the paper.
2006 NRC Canada
1018
Table 3. The Swiss inspection levels as a function of MSK intensity of recorded peak accelerations (FOWG 2003).
Inspection
level
1
Action
MSK
intensity
No immediate inspection
required
Inspection within 24 h
IV
VVI
Immediate inspection
>VI
Description
Felt by people inside
houses
Felt by people outside;
damage to chimneys
People rushing outside;
damage moderate to
significant
>10
>20
>25
>50
>50
>100
1019
Table 4. Fault dimensions for stable continental earthquakes of
various moment magnitudes (M) (after Johnston 1993).
M
Length (km)
Width (km)
Slip (m)
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.6
1.8
8.0
30.0
150.0
0.6
1.8
4.1
11.0
22.0
0.09
0.29
0.91
2.90
9.10
reports of human reaction to shaking, damage done to structures, and other effects. The intensity at a location depends
on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the
epicentre, the local geology and topography, and the earthquake resistance of the structures. Although many intensity
scales exist, the modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) scale is
the most commonly used for North American earthquakes
(Table 5). The MMI scale is designated by Roman numerals
that range from perceptible shaking (0) to catastrophic destruction (XII). Although intensity values are related to
ground shaking levels, the MMI scale does not have a mathematical basis; instead, it is an arbitrary ranking based on
observed effects. Intensity scales differ from the magnitude
scales in that the effects of any one earthquake vary greatly
from place to place, so there may be many intensity values
(e.g., IV, VII) measured from one earthquake.
Isoseismal maps show the contours of iso-intensities (generally hand drawn) and sometimes the distribution of intensity values. These maps provide a rapid estimate of the
nature and distribution of the shaking. In general, the
isoseismals are roughly circular and centred on the area with
maximum damage (the epicentral region). Because of local
site conditions (source characteristics, anisotropy in wave
propagation, geology, topography, and geotechnical conditions), however, the circles are often distorted into ellipses
with the epicentre sometimes not at the centre. Since they
represent areas of potential damage, isoseismal maps can be
used to study the appropriateness of the post-earthquake inspection area.
The MMI scale and isoseismal maps are not ideal for describing all possible consequences of an earthquake. First,
intensity rating can be subjective, since any value covers a
range of effects on humans, structures, and the environment.
Some analysts look for many effects before assigning the
level, whereas others consider the maximum level witnessed
in a given area. Second, intensity reports only sample the inhabited areas, which leaves out many sparsely populated areas. In the 20th century, questionnaires were mailed to town
postmasters who could only describe what they knew of the
local impact. Today, anyone who feels an earthquake can fill
out internet-based questionnaires, providing a better sampling of the maximum local impact. Lastly, isoseismal lines
are very approximate boundaries of the areas where an
earthquake was felt at a given level.
If all communications are cut off, then the on-site operator
can use a subjective rating of the local intensity (e.g.,
FOWG 2003; Table 3) witnessed to determine if the dam inspection should proceed. Determining intensity is very approximate, however, because intensity differences of up to
three levels can exist within a few kilometres, so this approach should be used only if communications fail. Table 5
2006 NRC Canada
1020
Table 5. Approximate relationship between the magnitude of an earthquake and the maximum intensity on the modified Mercalli scale
(source: USGS, 2006).
Magnitude
Maximum
intensity
1.02.0
3.03.9
I
IIIII
4.04.9
IVV
5.05.9
VIVII
6.06.9
VIIIX
7.0 and
higher
VIII or
higher
Description
Not felt except by a very few persons under especially favourable conditions
II: felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings
III: felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings; many people
do not recognize it as an earthquake; standing motorcars may rock slightly; vibrations similar to
the passing of a truck; duration estimated
IV: felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day; at night, some awakened; dishes,
windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound; sensation like heavy truck striking building; standing motorcars rocked noticeably
V: felt by nearly everyone; many awakened; some dishes, windows broken; unstable objects
overturned; pendulum clocks may stop
VI: felt by all, many frightened; some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster;
damage slight
VII: damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; damage slight to moderate
in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken
VIII: damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial
buildings, with partial collapse; damage great in poorly built structures; fall of chimneys, factory
stacks, columns, monuments, walls; heavy furniture overturned
IX: damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown
out of plumb; damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse; buildings shifted off
foundations
X: some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed
with foundations; rails bent
XI: few, if any (masonry), structures remain standing; bridges destroyed; rails bent greatly
XII: damage total; lines of sight and level are distorted; objects thrown into the air
presents a very approximate relationship between the maximum intensity and the magnitude of an earthquake, which
could be used to approximate the earthquake size. We recommend that local staff use a minimum MMI intensity of VI
as the basis of inspection, which would correspond to an
earthquake of at least M 5.0. Ideally, a local operator would
rely on ground shaking measurements from the dams to determine if actions are warranted. Unfortunately, there are
very few dams currently instrumented in Quebec (or in eastern Canada), so we cannot yet base our guidelines and actions on recorded ground motions at each dam location, as is
done in California with the 5% PGA trigger level.
Determining the dimensions of the inspection area
The ICOLD, USCOLD, and USSD inspection criteria
were based on attenuation of ground motions derived for
WNA. In ENA, it has been known for decades that a much
lower attenuation exists for strong ground motions. This implies that, for a given earthquake magnitude, the area where
the earthquake is felt and where damage occurs is much
greater in ENA than in WNA (Nuttli 1972) (Fig. 1). As a
consequence, the distances for inspection of structures in
ENA should be significantly greater than those recommended by ICOLD (1988) and USSD (2003). A good illustration that the California inspection criteria must be adapted
for the ENA is presented in Fig. 4. For earthquakes of a
given magnitude, the MMI V is reported almost twice as far
in ENA than in WNA. Although the distances reported for
MMI V in WNA are approximately proportional to the mag-
nitude, the ENA data show much more scatter, especially for
M > 5 earthquakes. For smaller ENA and WNA earthquakes,
the MMI V distances are less than 200 km.
In California, the inspection area dimensions are defined
by strong ground-motion relations. We decided not to rely
on such relations because of the uncertainties arising from
large variations among the relations (which partly depends
on the small number of moderate to large earthquakes on
which the relations are based). Most relations assume just
two surface-material types, either bedrock or stiff soils,
whereas our inspection criteria must consider a variety of
soil types and conditions. Also, such relations are best fits to
the ground-motion measurements, whereas our proposed inspection criteria are deliberately more conservative so as to
include all potentially damaged sites.
Data selection
In developing proposed guidelines, we chose to use the intensity databases of past earthquakes where damage or impact is expressed by the local MMI value. An advantage is
that intensity reports sample numerous local geological conditions, analogous to the local site conditions of dams in
Quebec. Intensity information for past earthquakes of North
America exists in databases and publications. Most ENA intensity information on US territory can be found in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
web-accessible database (NOAA 1996). For some earthquakes felt on Canadian territory, the GSC maintains an intensity database, but for most earthquakes the information
only exists in publications. Long axes of isoseismals were
2006 NRC Canada
measured from published isoseismal maps, and most maximum distances for given intensities were obtained from the
NOAA database. We chose earthquakes for which reliable
isoseismal data and maps were available in ENA (Table 6).
For the WNA, we selected a few representative earthquakes
as a basis for comparison. In our analysis, we have tried to
use the MW rating as the primary magnitude to define the
earthquake size. If not available, a representative magnitude
was selected, generally the first magnitude value shown in
Table 6.
The intensity data were defined using two approaches
(Fig. 5). In the first approach, the long axis of a given MMI
isoseismal was measured on the isoseismal map. As mentioned previously, the isoseismals are rarely circles centred
on the epicentre. Consequently, measuring the long axis of
the ellipse of a given isoseismal ensures that the measurements are independent of the position of the epicentre,
which can be very approximate for historical earthquakes.
Due to the uncertain position of the epicentre of historical
earthquakes and the asymmetry of isoseismals in some
maps, we chose to use the long axis of the ellipse. Our measured values could then be somewhat conservative, a position that we are willing to accept, considering the intrinsic
uncertainty of isoseismal surfaces. In the second approach,
the maximum distances to communities with MMIs of VI
and VII were used. Epicentral distances were taken from the
NOAA database or computed from GSC epicentres and
community coordinates. The two approaches give very similar results; the isoseismal line underestimates the maximum
distance with a given MMI value (since it averages values
over space), but since we are measuring the long axis of the
isoseismal area, the two values are very similar in the end.
Analysis
MMIs VI and VII were considered to define the inspection areas (Figs. 6, 7; Table 6). MMI VI was only considered
for discussion purposes because dams have a relatively
strong resistance to seismic loading at that level. Instead, we
selected MMI VII (slight to moderate damage in well-built
ordinary structures) to represent potential damage to dams.
MMI VII corresponds to damage to unreinforced masonry
1021
1022
Table 6. Eastern and western North America earthquakes for which intensity data were available for this study.
Earthquake
Datea
Max. intensity
MMI
18111216
-7.6 (MW)
XI
18840810
18890901
-5.5
-6.9 (MW)
VIVII
X
Charleston, Mo.
Charleston, Mo.
Wabash River Valley, Ind.
CharlevoixKamouraska, Que.
Grand Banks
Attica, N.Y.
Temiskaming, Que.
18951031
19031104c
19090927
19250301
19291118
19290812
19351101
-6.7
-4.9
-5.1
6.2
7.2
5.2
6.1
VIII
VII
VII
VIII
VII
VIII
VII
Western Ohio
Charlevoix, Que.
Ossipee Lake, N.H.
CornwallMassena
19370309
19391019
19401220
19440905
5.5
5.3
5.8
5.8
(MS)
(MW); 5.4 (mb); 5.6 (mb(Lg)); 5.8 (MS)
(MS); 5.5 (mb); 5.5 (mb(Lg))
(MW); 5.8 (mb(Lg)); 4.6 (mb); 5.1 (MS)
VIII
VII
VII
VIII
Southern Michigan
Charlevoix, Que.
Southern Illinois
QuebecMaine
Charlevoix, Que.
Miramichi, N.B.
Blue Mountain Lake, N.Y. (Goodnow)
North Nahanni, N.W.T.
4.6
5.6
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.5
5.1
6.6
6.8
5.9
(mN)
(ML)
(mb)
(mb)
(mb(Lg)); 4.6 (mb); 4.5 (MS)
(MW); 5.8 (mb); 5.1 (MS); 5.7 (mb(Lg))
(mb); 5.1 (mN)
(MW); 6.6 (MS)
(MW); 6.9 (MS)
(MW); 5.9 (mb); 5.7 (MS); 6.5 (mb(Lg))
VI
V
VII
VI
VI
VI
VI
IX
Saguenay, Que.
19470810
19521014
19681109
19740615
19790819
19820109
19831007
19851005
19851223
19881125
Mont-Laurier, Que.
Ungava, Que.
Cap-Rouge, Que.
19901019
19891225
19971107
VVI
UD
VII
Cte-Nord, Que.
Kipawa, Que.
Au Sable Forks, N.Y.
19990316
20000101
20020420
V
VI
VII
18721215
19181206
19460623
19490822
19490413
19570126
19580412
19590818
19610917
19650429
19710209
19891018
-7.0
-7.0
7.3
8.1
6.9 (mb)
5.0 (ML)
4.1 (ML)
7.3 (MW); 7.7 (ML)
5.1 (ML)
6.5 (mb); 6.5 (MS)
6.6 (MW); 6.2 (mb); 6.6 (MS); 6.5 (ML)
7.2 (MW); 6.5 (mb); 7.1 (MS); 7.0 (ML)
IX
VII
VII
VII
VII
VI
VI
X
VI
VII
XI
IX
(MSn)
VIII
Note: NA, not applicable, meaning that the level of intensity was not reached or that no information was available due to a lack of man-made struca
Dates are given as yearmonthday.
b
The first magnitude listed is the one used in the diagrams. The MW scale is the first one preferred, followed by the mb scale.
c
Two earthquakes.
2006 NRC Canada
MMI V
Long axis of
isoseismal
(km)
1250
1023
MMI VI
Max.
distance
(km)
Long axis of
isoseismal
(km)
1206
950
320
1625
100
630
1100
171
400
200
1600
-1000
130
620
215
151
1297
1305
378
830
105
800
ND
70
420
260
390
590
145
614
265
420
100
130
300
100
110
480
90
100
450
300
350
132
430
1145
403
621
351
160
45
NA
130
-10
-10
NA
50
UD
1000
855
570
-225
10
UD
-20
200
<200
60
100
432
800
250
675
910
590
115
190
750
40
500
500
480
MMI VII
Max.
distance
(km)
1020
Long axis of
isoseismal
(km)
725
526
100
460
50
320
215
54
600
40
460
40
-10
-80
137
54
325
-350
-20
-70
20
160
34
-30
26
104
7
-40
176
126
27
700
45
237
207
410
NA
NA
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
UD
570
268
340
NA
UD
-30
200
NA
50
70
NA
NA
20
520
85
600
700
450
60
NA
340
320
40
170
560
290
NA
NA
140
NA
150
230
80
350
300
200
Max.
distance
(km)
20
References
Stover and Coffman 1993; Bakun and
Hopper 2004
Stover and Coffman 1993
Stover and Coffman 1993; Bakun and
Hopper 2004
Stover and Coffman 1993
Stover and Coffman 1993
Stover and Coffman 1993
Bent 1992; Cajka 1999
Smith 1966; Bent 1995
Stover and Coffman 1993
Smith 1966; Ebel et al. 1986; Bent
1996a
Stover and Coffman 1993
Smith 1966; Ebel et al. 1986
Ebel et al. 1986
Smith 1966; Street and Turcotte 1977;
Ebel et al. 1986; Bent 1996b
Stover and Coffman 1993
Smith 1966
Gordon et al. 1970
Wetmiller 1975
Hasegawa and Wetmiller 1980
Wetmiller et al. 1984
Seeber and Ambruster 1986
Wetmiller et al. 1988
North et al. 1989; Tinawi et al. 1990;
Cajka and Drysdale 1996
Lamontagne et al. 1994
Drysdale et al. 1990
Cajka and Halchuk 1998; Nadeau et al.
1998
Lamontagne et al. 2004
Bent et al. 2002
Seeber et al. 2002; Pierre and
Lamontagne 2004
Stover and Coffman 1993
Stover
Stover
Stover
Stover
Stover
and
and
and
and
and
Coffman
Coffman
Coffman
Coffman
Coffman
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
tures to help quantify the intensity; ND, no data; UD, undefined; , point data not currently available in the existing databases.
1024
Fig. 5. Illustration of the two methods used to scale the distances of maximum intensity using the 1988 Saguenay earthquake isoseismals as an example (MMI V, light gray shading;
MMI VI, dark gray shading; , epicentre of the earthquake). In
the first method (A), the long axis of the MMI ellipse is measured (1000 km), whereas in the second method (B), the
epicentral distance of the maximum MMI V data point is scaled
(855 km; computed from the coordinates of the epicentre and the
data point).
Fig. 6. Distribution of the area extents for MMI V, MMI VI, and
MMI VII for ENA earthquakes. The area extent is the long axis
of the ellipse defined by the isoseismals (see Fig. 5). The lines
represent the linear regression curves plotted on a semilogarithmic
graph. In addition, the steps represent the proposed guidelines
for inspection (Rec. Inspection).
determined, a 0.5 magnitude unit is added to the magnitude value. The areal extent of dams to be inspected is
then determined from Table 7.
(2) In case all communications are cut off, it is recommended that the site operator use a minimum MMI intensity of VI as the basis of inspection (damage
negligible in buildings of good design and construction,
damage slight to moderate in well-built ordinary struc-
Magnitudea
Proposed
ICOLD 1988
<4.5
4.5 M
5.0 M
5.5 M
6.0 M
>7.0
No inspection required
50
150
300
500
600
<25
<25
<50
<50
<80
<125
<
<
<
<
5.0
5.5
6.0
7.0
a
M is the preliminary magnitude released by the Geological Survey of
Canada +0.5 magnitude unit.
1025
Fig. 8. Comparisons of the various sets of guidelines for the
post-earthquake inspection of dams. The recommended values for
ENA are represented by the curve (This study). The proposed
guidelines include the maximum distance of damaged earthfill
dams of Tani (2000) and ICOLD (1988) and USSD (2003)
guidelines. In addition, the maximum distances and magnitudes
of the MMI VII felt reports are shown with dates of those that
are above our recommendations. The largest ENA earthquake
(1811) data point is also shown.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Dr. Martin Wieland of Energy Switzerland and Donald H. Babbitt, consulting engineer in Sacramento California, for their information on the post-earthquake
procedures in Switzerland and California, respectively. We
also thank Les Whitney and David McCormack of Natural
Resources Canada for reviewing drafts of the manuscript and
two anonymous reviewers of the Canadian Geotechnical Journal.
References
Adams, J., Wetmiller, R.J., Hasegawa, H.S., and Drysdale, J. 1991.
The first surface faulting from a historical intraplate earthquake
in North America. Nature (London), 352: 617619.
Atkinson, G.M., and Boore, D.M. 1995 Ground motion relations
for eastern North America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85: 1730.
Bakun, W.H., and Hopper, M.G. 2004. Magnitudes and locations
of the 18111812 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886
Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94: 6475.
Bent, A.L. 1992. A re-examination of the 1925 Charlevoix, Quebec, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 82: 20972113.
Bent, A.L. 1995. A complex double-couple source mechanism for
the Ms 7.2 1929 Grand Banks earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 85: 10031020.
2006 NRC Canada
1026
Bent, A.L. 1996a. An improved source mechanism for the 1935
Timiskaming, Quebec, earthquake from regional waveforms.
Pure and Applied Geophysics, 146: 520.
Bent, A.L. 1996b. Source parameters of the damaging Cornwall
Massena earthquake of 1944 from regional waveforms. Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, 86: 489497.
Bent, A.L., Lamontagne, M., Adams, J., Woodgold, C.R.D.,
Halchuk, S., Drysdale, J., Wetmiller, R.J., Ma, S., and Dastous,
J.B. 2002. The Kipawa, Quebec, Millennium earthquake.
Seismological Research Letters, 73: 285297.
Cajka, M.G. 1999. The 1925 Charlevoix, Qubec, earthquake: reevaluation of the Canadian intensity data using the Modified
Mercalli Scale. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3786.
70 pp.
Cajka, M.G., and Drysdale, J.A. 1996. Intensity report of the November 25, 1988, Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake. Geological
Survey of Canada, Open File 3279. 71 pp.
Cajka, M.G., and Halchuk, S. 1998. Collecting intensity data via
the internet: the Cap-Rouge, Qubec. Seismological Research
Letters, 69: 585587.
ConnectingPower. 2003. Chinese earthquakes crack dams. International Water Power and Dam Construction 24 Nov. 2003
[online]. Available from http://www.ConnectingPower.com/ [accessed 19 October 2006].
Drysdale, J., Horner, R.B., Kolinsky, R., and Lamontagne, M.
1990. Canadian earthquakes, national summary, October
December 1989. Geological Survey of Canada, Energy Mines
and Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Ebel, J.E., Somerville, P.G., and McIver, J.D. 1986. A study of the
source parameters of some large earthquakes of northeastern
North America. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91(B8):
82318247.
FOWG. 2003. Scurit des ouvrages daccumulation. Documentation
de base pour la vrification des ouvrages daccumulation aux
sismes [online]. Federal Office of Water and Geology (FOWG),
Bern, Switzerland. Available from www.bwg.admin.ch/themen/
sperren/f/pdf/bdebbs.pdf [accessed 30 December 2004].
Gordon, D.W., Bennett, T.J., Herrmann, R.B., and Rogers, A.M.
1970. The south-central Illinois earthquake of November 9,
1968: macroseismic studies. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 60: 953971.
Haddon, R.A.W. 1996. Earthquake source spectra in eastern North
America. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86:
3001313.
Hasegawa, H.S., and Wetmiller, R.J.W. 1980. The Charlevoix
earthquake of 19 August 1979 and its seismo-tectonic environment. Earthquake Notes, 51(4): 2337.
Hauksson, E., Jones, L.M., and Shakal, A.F. 2003. Trinet: a modern ground-motion seismic network. In International handbook
of earthquake and engineering seismology. Edited by W. Lee, H.
Kanamori, P. Jennings, and C. Kisslinger. Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Vol. 81B, pp. 12751284.
Heaton, T.H., Tajima, F., and Mori, A. 1986. Estimating ground
motions using recorded accelerograms. Surveys in Geophysics,
8(1): 2583.
Hydro-Qubec. 2001. Guide pour la slection des paramtres
sismiques. Rapport du sous-comit Sismicit, Hydro-Qubec,
Montral, Que. 81 pp.
ICOLD. 1983. Seismicity and dam design. Commission
Internationale des Grands Barrages, Bulletin 46. 121 pp.
ICOLD. 1988. Inspection of dams following earthquakes guidelines. Commission Internationale des Grands Barrages, Bulletin 62.
33 pp.
1027
Wetmiller, R.J., Horner, R.B., Hasegawa, H.S., North, R.G.,
Lamontagne, M., Weichert, D.H., and Evans, S.G. 1988. An
analysis of the 1985 Nahanni earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 78: 590616.
Wieland, M. 2003. Earthquake safety of concrete dams and seismic
design criteria for major dam projects. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Hydropower, Tehran, Iran, 2728 May 2003.
Available from www.energy.poyry.com/linked/en/hydropower/pu_
en_earthquake_s_concrete.pdf [accessed on 18 October 2006].
Glossary
epicentre point on the earths surface vertically above
the hypocentre (or focus)
epicentral distance distance between a point and the epicentre of
an earthquake
hypocentre point at depth where a seismic rupture begins
intensity describes the effects of an earthquake, at a
given place, on natural features, industrial installations, and human beings; in North America, the modified Mercalli scale is the
preferred intensity scale (see Table 5 for a description)
magnitude number that characterizes the relative size of
an earthquake; for a discussion of the various
magnitude scales, see the section titled Earthquake magnitude
rupture surface length of a fault along which faulting
occurred during an earthquake