mrwgeo
Geotechnical
- Feb 24, 2003
- 7
AWWA standards for water tank design (e.g. D-100-96) state that for design of tanks (paraphrase) "in an active fault zone capable of generating magnitude 7.0 or greater event, consideration should be given to developing a seismic response spectrum."
The California Geological Survery (CGS) has a specific definition of an "active" fault, but there are other definitions. Similarly, CGS defines a zone around active faults, but I find it hard to believe that was the definitions intended, and we geologist all know faults can vary from a very well defined single plane to broad zones of shearing.
I am interested in how others interpret the AWWA standards and when they feel development of a seismic response speactrum is warranted. Also, many practitioners seem to like using a probabalistic analyses, but I think that when close to an active fault, particularly one with a high probability of an event within the life of the structure, a deterministic approach is preferable. Thoughts?
The California Geological Survery (CGS) has a specific definition of an "active" fault, but there are other definitions. Similarly, CGS defines a zone around active faults, but I find it hard to believe that was the definitions intended, and we geologist all know faults can vary from a very well defined single plane to broad zones of shearing.
I am interested in how others interpret the AWWA standards and when they feel development of a seismic response speactrum is warranted. Also, many practitioners seem to like using a probabalistic analyses, but I think that when close to an active fault, particularly one with a high probability of an event within the life of the structure, a deterministic approach is preferable. Thoughts?
