British earthquakes

Musson, R. M. W.

doi:10.1016/s0016-7878(07)80001-0

Cited by 36 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Jura occupies a tectonically-stable intraplate location characterized by low-magnitude (M L < 4.0) seismic activity (Musson, 2007). No seismic events exceeding M L 3.5 have been recorded on Jura or the adjacent shelf within the past~40 years of instrumental observations (Julian Bukits, personal communication, March 2013).…”

Section: The Paps Of Juramentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced rock‐slope failure following ice‐sheet deglaciation: timing and causes

Ballantyne

Wilson

Gheorghiu

et al. 2013

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The temporal pattern of rock-slope failures (RSFs) following Late 12Pleistocene deglaciation on tectonically stable terrains is controversial: previous 13 studies variously suggest (1) rapid response due to removal of supporting ice 14 ('debuttressing'), (2) a progressive decline in RSF frequency, (3) a millennial-scale 15 delay before peak RSF activity. We test these competing models through 10 Be Stadial glacial limits, but that runout debris was removed by LLS glaciers. 36Keywords: Rock-slope failure; paraglacial; surface exposure dating; stress release; 37 palaeoseismicity. 2002; Leith et al., 2011; McColl, 2012 Cormier et al., 2005; Agliardi et al., 2009; El Bedoui et al., 2009; Hippolyte et al., 58 2009), to constrain the extent of Pleistocene glacier advances 59 2011), to determine the level of hazard at former landslide sites (Welkner et al., 2010), 60to estimate long-term rates of pre-failure sliding (Hermanns et al., 2012) and to 61 determine the contribution of RSFs to postglacial denudation and landscape evolution 62 (Barnard et al., 2001; Antinao and Gosse, 2009; Seong et al., 2009; Hewitt et al., 63 2011; Shroder et al., 2011). The timing of individual dated RSFs has been variously 64 related to deglacial unloading and stress release (Cossart et al., 2008; Shroder et al., 65 Gosse, 2009; Sanchez et al., 2010; Stock and Uhrhammer, 2010; Hermanns and 67 Niedermann, 2011; Hewitt et al, 2011; Penna et al., 2011) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 that dip ESE at 25-40° and are locally intruded by doleritic dykes (Walker, 1961; 132 Anderton, 1976 132 Anderton, , 1977 132 Anderton, , 1985. 134When the last British-Irish Ice Sheet reached its maximum extent at ~27-26 ka, 135westwards-moving ice crossed Jura and extended to the Atlantic shelf edge, 195 km 136 west of the island (Hubbard et al., 2009; Clark et al., 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 to 7% younger. Where citation of both ages is necessary, the age derived using LL 288LPR is cited first, followed in brackets by the age derived using NWH11.6 LPR. 290An additional advantage of using LPRs is that the variability amongst different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...

show abstract

Section: The Paps Of Juramentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced rock‐slope failure following ice‐sheet deglaciation: timing and causes

Ballantyne

Wilson

Gheorghiu

et al. 2013

Earth Surf Processes Landf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sissons and Cornish, 1982;Ballantyne, 1997;Morner, 2004;Hippolyte et al, 2009;Lagerbäck and Sundh, 2008;Sanchez et al, 2010). In common with the rest of the British Isles, presentday seismic activity in Donegal is subdued (Blake, 2006), and seismic events with M L > 4 are rare (Musson, 2007). However, there is evidence that earthquake activity in tectonically stable intraplate locations was much greater following Late Pleistocene glaciation than at present (Gregerson and Basham, 1989;Stewart et al, 2000;Morner, 2005).…”

Section: Glacio-isostatic Uplift and Palaeoseismicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Lateglacial rock slope failures in north‐west Ireland: age, causes and implications

Ballantyne

Wilson

Schnabel

et al. 2013

J Quaternary Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nine postglacial quartzite rock slope failures (RSFs) in NW Ireland were dated using cosmogenic 10 Be. Weighted mean RSF ages range from 17.7 ± 0.9 ka to 12.5 ± 0.7 ka or 16.6 ± 0.7 ka to 11.7 ± 0.5 ka, depending on assumed 10 Be production rate. All dated RSFs occurred within ~5000 years following ice-sheet deglaciation at ~17.4ka (~16.3 ka) and all but two occurred within 2000 years after deglaciation. The timing of RSFs rules out glacial 'debuttressing', permafrost degradation and enhanced deglacial cleft-water pressures as triggers of failure in most cases. We infer that paraglacial stress release and associated fracture propagation were critical in reducing rock masses to critical stability, though earthquakes caused by Lateglacial glacioisostatic rebound and/or release of stored tectonic stresses may have triggered failure in some or all cases. In conjunction with data from related studies, our results imply that most undated RSFs outside the limit of Younger Dryas glaciation in the British Isles are of Lateglacial age, and that numerous Lateglacial RSFs occurred inside these limits, with subsequent removal of debris by glaciers. They support the view that paraglacial RSF activity in tectonically-stable intraplate terrains was concentrated within a few millennia following deglaciation.

show abstract

“…Beam Column joints are an important part of any construction and their behavior is a significant factor and plays an important role in the overall behavior of framed structures (reinforced concrete) when confronted with seismic waves or excitation [1,2,3]. The most important reason for failure and catastrophic collapse during earthquakes is inadequate availability of shear reinforcement in joints of reinforced concrete structures [4] and [5].…”

Section: Background: Modelling Beam-column Jointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint for Cyclic Earthquake Loading

Rahim¹

2019

AJCEA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a reinforced concrete beam-column joint model that was carried out for cyclic earthquake loading. The beam-column joint is the most important part of a building and modelling such an element and determining its structural behavior under the effect of seismic citations is essential to avoid losing lives and money. The non-linear analysis consisted of two types: (1) Non-linear static analysis that includes applying cyclic earthquake loading and (2) Non-linear dynamic analysis that involves applying three real historic earthquakes with different frequencies and magnitudes. The crack pattern analysis was established for non-linear static and non-linear dynamic to determine the worst-case scenario in terms of crack size. Another beneficial analysis was seismic analysis, which targeted the critical response time by which the maximum axial force, displacement and stress has occurred for applied real earthquakes. It was found that the structure sustained all the applied real earthquakes, however failure of the structure took place during the third cycle (50mm) of cyclic earthquake loading. After comparing the results with previous published work it was observed that the size of the reinforcement bars plays a major role in terms of load carrying capacity of the structure. It was observed that cracks occurred mostly under the Friuli earthquake due to the highest magnitude among other earthquakes. There was a variation in the location of cracks within the structure for each earthquake. Intermediate and major cracks occurred during the third cycle (50mm) of cyclic earthquake loading within the joint. The cracks were developed and increased as the cycle was increased leading to cracks across the joint after the forth and fifth cycles and failure of the structure. Although the critical response time for the Friuli earthquake was lower than the other earthquakes it was the most active and had a larger effect on the model. This is because the Friuli earthquake had the highest magnitude among applied earthquakes. The results obtained from the author's model were used to suggest some recommendations on Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (2004) BS EN 1998-1: 2004 to improve the performance of beam-column joints during earthquakes. The main reasons for beam-column joint failure are due to the transverse steel which crosses diagonal cracks and begins yielding, anchorage failure of reinforcement, loss in moment carrying capacity of columns near joints and the opening and closing of cracks due to cyclic loading.

show abstract

British earthquakes

Cited by 36 publications

References 40 publications

Enhanced rock‐slope failure following ice‐sheet deglaciation: timing and causes

Enhanced rock‐slope failure following ice‐sheet deglaciation: timing and causes

Lateglacial rock slope failures in north‐west Ireland: age, causes and implications

Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Beam-column Joint for Cyclic Earthquake Loading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About