Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T19:18:04.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 19 September 1985 Mexico Earthquake: Technical Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Walter W. Hays
Walter W. Hays
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The September 19, 1985, Mexico earthquake reminded scientists and engineers of the importance of considering soil amplification effects in earthquake-resistant design. The Mexico earthquake illustrated the “worst case”—the ground response and the building response occurring at approximately the same period, 2 seconds. This resonance phenomenon was predictable on the basis of similar experiences in past earthquakes. A number of areas in the United States also exhibit significant predictable soil amplification effects. Special steps are needed in these areas to mitigate the potential damage and losses that could occur in future earthquakes.

Type
Papers from the Second International Assembly on Emergency Medical Services: Focus on Disasters, Baltimore, Maryland, April, 1986
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 2 , Issue 1-4: Contributions from the Second International Assembly on Emergency Medical Services-Focus on Disaster, Baltimore, Md., USA, 1986 and 4th World Congress on Emergency and Disaster Medicine Brighton, U.K. June, 1985 , 1986 , pp. 9 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beck, J. L., and Hall, , 1986, Engineering features of the recent Mexican earthquake, Engineering and Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, v. 49, pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
Borcherdt, R. D., 1975, Studies of seismic zonation of the San Francisco Bay region, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A, 102 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, W. W., 1986, Seismic microzoning along the Wasatch fault zone, Utah, European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 8th, Proceedings, v. 1., pp. 80–88.Google Scholar
Hays, W. W., 1980, Proceedures for estimating earthquake ground motions, U.S. Geological Professional Paper 1114, 77p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, W. W., 1978, Ground response maps for Tonopah, Nevada, Seismological Society of America, v. 68, pp. 451–470.Google Scholar
MacMurdo, J., 1824, Papers relating to the earthquake which occurred in India in 1819, Philadelphia Magazine, v. 63, pp. 105–177.Google Scholar
McNally, Karen, 1981, Plate subduction and prediction of earthquake along the Middle American Trench, in Simposon, D. W., and Richards, P. G. (Editors), Earthquake Prediction—An International Review, American Geophysical Uniton, Maurice Euring Series, v. 4, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. R., and Hewlett, R. A., 1975, Analysis of seismic response in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada: a preliminary microzonation, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 65, pp. 1575–1598.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. R., Weaver, N. L., and Davis, A. H., 1971, Amplification of seismic body waves by low-velocity layers, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 61, pp. 109–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academy of Sciences, 1985, Impressions of the Guerrero-Michoacan, Mexico Earthquake of 19, September, 1985—A Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Washington, D.C., 32 p.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. M., Tinsley, J. C., and Borcherdt, R. D., 1985, Predicting relative ground response, in Ziony, J. F. (Editor), Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region—an earthscience perspective, U.S. Geological Survey Professional paper 1360, pp. 221–248.Google Scholar
Rosenblueth, Emilio, 1986, The Mexican earthquake: a firsthand report, Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, January, pp. 38–40.Google Scholar
Seed, H. B., Whitman, R. V., Dezfuliar, H., Dobry, R., and Idriss, I. M., 1972, Soil Conditions and building damage in the 1967 Caracas earthquake, Journal of the Soil Mechanics Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 98, pp. 787–806.Google Scholar
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1969, Influence of soil conditions on ground motions during earthquakes, Journal of the Soil mechanics Foundations division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 95, pp. 1199–1218.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P., 1985, Earthquake ground motions: implications for designing structures and reconciling structural damage, Earthquake Spectra, v. 1, pp. 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tezcan, S. S., Seed, H. B., Whitman, R. V., Serff, N., Christian, J. T., Durgunoglu, H. T., and Yegian, M., 1977, Resonant period effects in the Gediz, Turkey earthquake of 1970, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, v. 5, pp. 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toki, K., and Cherry, S., 1972, Influence of subsurface acceleration and strain from accelerograms recorded at ground surface, European Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, 4th Proceedings, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar