1 / 22

Wind velocity & Seismic activity – a couple? Summer 2012 RET @ LHO

Wind velocity & Seismic activity – a couple? Summer 2012 RET @ LHO. Mark Buchli Liberty High School, Issaquah, WA Wind Map. Educational Aspect. Compiled a revised punch list for Bluestone 2.0 ( To date, 2 of 6 items have been addressed )

hila
Download Presentation

Wind velocity & Seismic activity – a couple? Summer 2012 RET @ LHO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wind velocity & Seismic activity – a couple? Summer 2012 RET @ LHO Mark Buchli Liberty High School, Issaquah, WA Wind Map

  2. Educational Aspect • Compiled a revised punch list for Bluestone 2.0 (To date, 2 of 6 items have been addressed ) • Updated Using LIGO’s e-Lab as a tool for Understanding Science – Advanced Version (the 1200 data points dilemma 1 month = 36 min, 1 week = 8 min, etc)

  3. 2011 Research Question: Which arm @ LHO is seismically more vulnerable to wind effects? Fraction of time (hours) Wmph >25 mph: LLO = .009 LHO = .104* Therefore LHO has 12x as many “windy” days * R. Schofield, 2002

  4. Targets of interest – EY & EX stations EX EY • Note topography (flat vs. dip), face profiles & location of weather station • SW (225 - 250) on EY = direct wall encounter

  5. Wind Effects – a simplified view • Uniform lateral pressure  lateral force • Lateral force  acceleration • Acceleration  seismic foot print?

  6. Wind Effects – a simplified view Using: KE = ½ mv2 Mass transfer rate α velocity E seismic α v2 E wind α v3 v1 v2

  7. 2011 continued:slope comparisons – EY is target of interest for future research

  8. Wmph & seisZ samples – 2012 project EY 1440 minutes /day

  9. Histogram (yearly) of Wind Direction

  10. Wmph Histograms

  11. Effect of Refined Wmph Binning

  12. Wmph Reliability Check # 21 EY Separation = 11.6 miles

  13. Wind Effects – a proposed coupling mechanism v1 v2

  14. Testing the Wmph – using a DFT/FFT An automotive application of frequency spectrum (Brüel & Kjær "Structural Testing") Changing a complex, contaminated signal from a time domain to a frequency domain Extracting an estimate of frequency components

  15. FFT of Wmph for 3 days in May 2010

  16. FFT of SeisZ for 3 days in May2010

  17. Methods: typical plot

  18. Are they a couple? Average slope (all bins) = 1.53 +/- .22 Average slope (all bins) = 2.19 +/- .45

  19. Methods: typical plots & the uncoupling

  20. Are they a couple? – 2nd chance

  21. Questions for future work (2013 ?) • Why the uncoupling when analysis becomes more granular? • Could multi-year data be merged to produce a larger sample size? • How does EX, MX, & MY compare to EY ? • Can the β term (y –intercept) be used to test the model? If so, how? • Is there a different/better mathematical model?

  22. Acknowledgements • Fred Raab • Dale Ingram • Robert Scofield • Tran Phung • Jonathan Hanks • Support Staff @ Caltech • NSF

More Related