Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Wind Farm Offshore England
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Overview of PSHA Methodology
- Identify all relevant earthquake sources.
- Characterize the rates at which earthquakes of various magnitudes (M) are expected to occur for each source.
- Characterize the distribution of source-to-site distances (R) for each source.
- Predict the chosen intensity measure for all combinations of magnitude, distance and ε (the number of standard deviations of the ground motion model used to estimate the intensity measure) for each source.
- Combine the probabilities of M and R to calculate the rate of each M and R scenario. Then, for each M and R scenario, use a ground motion model to calculate the probability of the desired intensity measure (usually spectral acceleration for a given structural natural period) being greater than a threshold value. Multiply the rate of the M and R scenario by the probability of the intensity measure and sum over all scenarios. Repeat step 5 for different threshold values to calculate the hazard curve.
3. Tectonic Background
3.1. Geologic Setting
3.2. Seismicity of the UK
4. Seismic Source Characterization
4.1. Magnitude Recurrence Relation
4.2. Seismic Source Model 1
4.3. Seismic Source Model 2
4.4. Smooth Gridded Seismicity Source Models
5. Ground Motion Characterization
6. Results and Discussion
7. Conclusions
- There is a negligible difference in results between the center and four corners of the wind farm. This finding is important for other infrastructure projects in the North Sea that cover large areas, such as wind farms. Instead of performing PSHA for each wind turbine location, the results from this study show that results from the center of the wind farm are adequate for the entire wind farm area.
- The main source controlling the hazard is the source that includes the 1931 Dogger Bank earthquake. Additional studies to characterize this earthquake could, therefore, be beneficial to reduce uncertainty for seismic hazard analyses in the UK sector of the North Sea.
- The earthquake scenarios controlling the hazard are Mw = 5.0–6.3 and R = 110–210 km. Compared to other regions, these magnitudes are relatively low and the distances large. This result will help guide the selection of appropriate acceleration time series for other seismic hazard studies in the North Sea.
- For exposure levels L1, L2, and L3, the ISO 19901-2 ELE and ALE return periods are 950 and 3000, 450 and 1200, and 200 and 450 years, respectively.
- The peak ground acceleration (PGA) on rock for return periods of 475 years and 2475 years are 0.025 g and 0.050 g, respectively, which indicates low seismic hazard. These values are lower than previous studies, most likely due to the improved ground motion models used in the PSHA calculations.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kaynia, A.M. Seismic considerations in design of offshore wind turbines. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 124, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Principia Mechanica Ltd. North Sea Seismicity; UK Dept. of Energy Offshore Technology Report No. OTH 86 219; HMSO: London, UK, 1986; p. 73. [Google Scholar]
- BGS & Ove Arup and Partners. UK Continental Shelf Seismic Hazard; Health and Safety Executive Offshore Technology Report OTH 93 416; HMSO: London, UK, 1997; p. 103. [Google Scholar]
- EQE International Ltd. Seismic Hazard-UK Continental Shelf; Health and Safety Executive Offshore Technology Report 2002/005; Health and Safety Executive (HSE): London, UK, 2002; p. 70. [Google Scholar]
- Bungum, H.; Lindholm, C.D.; Dahle, A.; Hicks, E.; Høgden, S.; Nadim, F.; Holme, J.K.; Harbitz, C. Development of Seismic Zonation for Norway: Final Report; Norwegian Council for Building Standardization (NBR): Oslo, Norway, 1998; p. 187. [Google Scholar]
- Bungum, H.; Lindholm, C.D.; Dahle, A.; Woo, G.; Nadim, F.; Holme, J.K.; Gudmestad, O.T.; Hagberg, T.; Karthigeyan, K. New seismic zoning maps for Norway, the North Sea, and the United Kingdom. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2000, 71, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallard, D.J.; Skipp, B.O.; Aspinall, W.P. An Appraisal of Existing Seismic Hazard Estimates for the UK Continental Shelf; Health and Safety Executive Research Report 166; Health and Safety Executive (HSE): London, UK, 2003; p. 83. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 19901-2. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries–Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures–Part 2: Seismic Design Procedures and Criteria; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- Kramer, S. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering; Prentice and Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996; p. 653. [Google Scholar]
- Abrahamson, N. HAZ45.2. Available online: https://github.com/abrahamson/HAZ (accessed on 2 January 2017).
- Hale, C.; Abrahamson, N.; Bozorgnia, Y. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Code Verification; PEER Report No. 2018/03; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2018; p. 103. [Google Scholar]
- Cornell, C.A. Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1968, 58, 1583–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGuire, R.K. Seismic Structural Response Risk Analysis Incorporating Peak Response Regressions on Earthquake Magnitude and Distance; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil Engineering/Research Report R74–51; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- McGuire, R.K. FRISK: Computer Program for Seismic Risk Analysis Using Faults as Earthquake Sources; U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report; U.S. Geological Survey: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1978; pp. 78–1007. [Google Scholar]
- Kulkarni, R.B.; Youngs, R.R.; Coppersmith, K.J. Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, 21–28 July 1984; Volume 1, pp. 263–270. [Google Scholar]
- Woessner, J.; Laurentiu, D.; Giardini, D.; Crowley, H.; Cotton, F.; Grünthal, G.; Valensise, G.; Arvidsson, R.; Basili, R.; Demircioglu, M.B.; et al. The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: Key components and results. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 3553–3596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grünthal, G.; Wahlström, R.; Stromeyer, D. The unified catalogue of earthquakes in central, northern, and northwestern Europe (CENEC)—updated and expanded to the last millennium. J. Seismol. 2009, 13, 517–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grünthal, G. and the GSHAP Region 3 Working Group. Seismic hazard assessment for Central, North and Northwest Europe: GSHAP Region 3. Ann. Di Geofis. 1999, 42, 999–1011. [Google Scholar]
- Glennie, K.W.; Underhill, J.R. Development and Evolution of Structural Styles. In Petroleum Geology of the North Sea: Basic Concepts and Recent Advances; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NPD. CO2 Atlas for the Norwegian Continental Shelf-Chapter 4.1: Geology of the North Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Available online: https://www.npd.no/en/facts/publications/co2-atlases/co2-atlas-for-the-norwegian-continental-shelf/4-the-norwegian-north-sea/4.1-geology-of-the-north-sea/ (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Cotterill, C.; Long, D.; James, L.; Forsberg, C.F.; Phillips, E.; Ruiter, A.; Tjelta, T.I.; Dove, D. The evolution of the Dogger Bank, North Sea: A complex history of terrestrial, glacial and marine environmental change. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2017, 171, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.R.; Rose, J.; Candy, I.A.N. Sea-level changes, river activity, soil development and glaciation around the western margins of the southern North Sea Basin during the Early and early Middle Pleistocene: Evidence from Pakefield, Suffolk, UK. J. Quat. Sci. 2006, 21, 155–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musson, R.M.W.; Sargeant, S.L. Eurocode 8 Seismic Hazard Zoning Maps for the UK; Seismology and Geomagnetism Programme Technical Report CR/07/125; British Geological Survey: Keyworth, UK, 2007; p. 70. [Google Scholar]
- Chadwick, R.A.; Pharaoh, T.C.; Williamson, J.P.; Musson, R.M.W. Seismotectonics of the UK; British Geological Survey Technical Report; WA/96/3C; British Geological Survey: Keyworth, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Baptie, B. Seismogenesis and state of stress in the UK. Tectonophysics 2010, 482, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baptie, B. Stress Field Orientations in North Wales: Implications for Preferred Faulting Directions; British Geological Survey Commercial Report; CR/13/139; British Geological Survey: Keyworth, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Musson, R.M.W. Evaluation of Seismic Hazard Source Models. In Seismicity Modelling in Seismic Hazard Mapping; Lapajne, J., Vidrih, R., Eds.; Slovenian Geophysical Survey: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Musson, R.M.W. The seismicity of the British Isles. Ann. Geofis. 1996, 39, 463–469. [Google Scholar]
- Muir Wood, R. Deglaciation seismotectonics: A principal influence on intraplate seismogenesis at high latitudes. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2000, 19, 1399–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISC. International Seismological Centre Online Bulletin. Available online: http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscbulletin/search/bulletin/ (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- British Geological Survey. BGS Earthquake Database Search. Available online: http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/dataSearch.html (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Gutenberg, B.; Richter, C.F. Frequency of earthquakes in California. Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer. 1944, 34, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bommer, J.J.; Crowley, H. The Purpose and Definition of the Minimum Magnitude Limit in PSHA Calculations. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2017, 88, 1097–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giardini, D.; Woessner, J.; Danciu, L. Seismic Hazard Harmonization in Europe (SHARE): Online Data Resource. 2013. Available online: https://portal.share-eu.org:8080/jetspeed/portal/ (accessed on 10 October 2019). [CrossRef]
- NRC. Technical Report: Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities; DOE and U.S. NRC, 3176; EPRI: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tromans, I.J.; Aldama-Bustos, G.; Douglas, J.; Lessi-Cheimariou, A.; Hunt, S.; Daví, M.; Musson, R.M.W.; Garrard, G.; Strasser, F.O.; Robertson, C. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for a new-build nuclear power plant site in the UK. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Villani, M.; Lubkowski, Z.; Free, M.; Musson, R.M.W.; Polidoro, B.; McCully, R.; Koskosidi, A.; Oakman, C.; Courtney, T.; Walsh, M. A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for Wylfa Newydd, a new nuclear site in the United Kingdom. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 4061–4089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosca, I.; Sargeant, S.; Baptie, B.; Musson, R.; Pharaoh, T. Revising the Seismic Hazard Maps for the UK. In Proceedings of the International Conference for Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics (SECED), Greenwich, UK, 9–10 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Grünthal, G. The Up-dated Earthquake Catalogue for the German Democratic Republic and Adjacent Areas–Statistical Data Characteristics and Conclusions for Hazard Assessment. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Analysis of Seismicity and Seismic Risk, Liblice, Czechia, 17–22 June 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Reasenberg, P. Second-order moment of central California seismicity, 1969–1982. J. Geophys. Res. 1985, 90, 5479–5495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stepp, J.C. Analysis of completeness of the earthquake sample in the Puget Sound Area and its effect on statistical estimates of earthquake hazard. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Microzonation, Seattle, WA, USA, October 1972; Available online: https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/sites/default/files/references/stepp-1972.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2021).
- Weichert, D.H. Estimation of the earthquake recurrence parameters for unequal observation periods for different magnitudes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 1980, 70, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooks, C.; Douglas, J.; Shipton, Z. Improving earthquake ground-motion predictions for the North Sea. J. Seism. 2020, 24, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akkar, S.; Sandikkaya, M.A.; Bommer, J.J. Empirical ground motion models for point- and extended-source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 359–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akkar, S.; Çağnan, Z. A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2010, 100, 2978–2995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rietbrock, A.; Strasser, F.; Edwards, B. A stochastic earthquake ground-motion prediction model for the United Kingdom. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2013, 103, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrahamson, N.A.; Silva, W.J.; Kamai, R. Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq. Spectra 2014, 30, 1025–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cauzzi, C.; Faccioli, E.; Vanini, M.; Bianchini, A. Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 13, 1587–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villani, M.; Polidoro, B.; Ader, T.; McCully, R.; Lubkowski, Z.; Courtney, T.J.; Walsh, M. A selection of GMPEs for the UK based on ground motion and macroseismic datasets. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2019, 109, 1378–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bommer, J.J.; Douglas, J.; Scherbaum, F.; Cotton, F.; Bungum, H.; Fäh, D. On the selection of ground motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis. Seism. Res. Lett. 2010, 81, 783–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bindi, D.; Massa, M.; Luzi, L.; Ameri, G.; Pacor, F.; Puglia, R.; Augiera, P. Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 12, 391–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rietbrock, A.; Edwards, B. Update of the UK Stochastic Ground Motion Model Using a Decade of Broadband Data. In Proceedings of the International Conference for Society for Earthquake and Civil Engineering Dynamics (SECED), Greenwich, UK, 9–10 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chiou, B.S.-J.; Youngs, R.R. Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq. Spectra 2014, 30, 1117–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boore, D.M.; Stewart, J.P.; Seyhan, E.; Atkinson, G.M. NGAWest 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq. Spectra 2014, 30, 1057–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cotton, F.; Scherbaum, F.; Bommer, J.J.; Bungum, H. Criteria for selecting and adjusting ground motion models for specific target regions: Application to central Europe and rock sites. J. Seism. 2006, 10, 137–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, G.M.; Boore, D.M. Modifications to Existing Ground-Motion Prediction Equations in Light of New Data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2011, 101, 1121–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boore, D.M.; Kishida, T. Relations between some horizontal component ground-motion intensity measures used in practice. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 2017, 107, 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurocode 8 EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance–Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings; The European Union Per Regulation 305/2011; Directive 98/34/EC; Directive 2004/18/EC; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, J.P.; Parker, G.A.; Atkinson, G.M.; Boore, D.M.; Hashash, Y.M.A.; Silva, W.J. Ergodic site amplification model for central and eastern North America. Earthq. Spectra 2020, 36, 42–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlton, B.; Pestana, J.; Bray, J.; Tokimastu, K. A simplified model to estimate non-liquefiable NEHRP F site design spectra. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 110, 28–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klose, M.; Wang, J.; Ku, A. Seismic Design for Offshore Wind Farms–Lessons Learnt from the ACE Joint Industry Project. In Proceedings of the ASME 2021 Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Virtual Online, 21–30 June 2021. [Google Scholar]
Zone | N (Mmin = 4) | b-Value | Zone | N (Mmin = 4) | b-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SC1 | 0.0010 | 1.028 | EC6H | 0.0020 | 0.972 |
EC7 | 0.0240 | 0.906 | NOR0 | 0.0012 | 1.050 |
EC9M | 0.0070 | 1.005 | NOR1 | 0.0062 | 1.050 |
EC10 | 0.0140 | 1.012 | NOR2 | 0.0012 | 1.050 |
M123 | 0.0010 | 1.007 | NOR3 | 0.0451 | 1.050 |
EC1 | 0.0140 | 0.926 | NOR4 | 0.0094 | 1.050 |
EC2L | 0.0020 | 1.053 | NOR5 | 0.0103 | 1.050 |
EC2M | 0.0030 | 1.062 | NOR9 | 0.0652 | 1.050 |
EC45 | 0.0080 | 1.013 | NOR33 | 0.0022 | 1.050 |
Mmax,1 (Weight) | Mmax,2 (Weight) | Mmax,3 (Weight) | |
---|---|---|---|
UK onshore | 5.5 (0.2) | 6.0 (0.5) | 6.5 (0.3) |
UK offshore | 6.0 (0.6) | 6.5 (0.4) | - |
Norway offshore | 6.0 (0.4) | 6.5 (0.4) | 7.0 (0.2) |
Zone | N (Mmin = 4) | b-Value | Fault Mechanism (%) | Dmin (Km) | Dmax (Km) | Mmax,1 (Weight) | Mmax,2 (Weight) | Mmax,3 (Weight) | Mmax,4 (Weight) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SS | N | R | |||||||||
BEAS177 | 0.0126 | 1.000 | 35 | 50 | 15 | 7 | 13 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.8 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.2) | 7.4 (0.1) |
DEAS980 | 0.0051 | 1.000 | 90 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
DEAS983 | 0.0653 | 0.927 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 3 | 25 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS006 | 0.0631 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS007 | 0.0026 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS008 | 0.0119 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS009 | 0.0316 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS010 | 0.0631 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS012 | 0.0158 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS013 | 0.0038 | 0.970 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS014 | 0.0100 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS015 | 0.0007 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
GBAS977 | 0.0148 | 1.000 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
NLAS037 | 0.0631 | 1.000 | 90 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
NLAS178 | 0.0010 | 1.000 | 90 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 13 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.8 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.2) | 7.4 (0.1) |
NOAS039 | 0.0548 | 1.002 | 33 | 33 | 34 | 0 | 34 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
NOAS055 | 0.1259 | 1.000 | 50 | 40 | 10 | 0 | 40 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
NOAS056 | 0.0178 | 1.000 | 50 | 40 | 10 | 0 | 34 | 6.5 (0.5) | 6.7 (0.2) | 6.9 (0.2) | 7.1 (0.1) |
≥M | This Study | Mosca et al. [38] (North Sea) | Musson and Sergeant [23] (Dogger Bank) | Villani et al. [37] (Britain) | SHARE [16] (Northern Europe) | SHARE [16] (UK) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.25 | 1975 | 1970 | 1970 | |||
3.50 | 1975 | 1970 | 1950 | |||
3.75 | 1950 | 1970 | 1965 | |||
4.00 | 1930 | 1890 | 1850 | 1750 | 1890 | 1900 |
4.25 | 1900 | |||||
4.50 | 1820 | 1750 | 1700 | 1500 | ||
4.75 | 1820 | 1800 | 1800 | |||
5.00 | 1800 | 1650 | 1650 | |||
5.25 | 1700 | |||||
5.50 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | |||
5.75 | 1650 |
Model | N (Mmin = 4) | b-Value |
---|---|---|
SS-G09-GR | 0.3574 | 0.930 |
SS-G09-RE | 0.4042 | 0.988 |
SS-NRC12-GR | 0.3770 | 1.124 |
SS-NRC12-RE | 0.4358 | 1.140 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carlton, B.; Barwise, A.; Kaynia, A.M. Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Wind Farm Offshore England. Geotechnics 2022, 2, 14-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics2010002
Carlton B, Barwise A, Kaynia AM. Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Wind Farm Offshore England. Geotechnics. 2022; 2(1):14-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics2010002
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarlton, Brian, Andy Barwise, and Amir M. Kaynia. 2022. "Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Wind Farm Offshore England" Geotechnics 2, no. 1: 14-31. https://doi.org/10.3390/geotechnics2010002