DOCSLIB.ORG

Internship Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Internship Program Quarterly Newsletter Volume 4, Number 1 Southern California Earthquake Center 3 Precarious Rocks Record Seismicity 6 Interview: Jean-Bernard Minster 12 Research in Progress: San Joaquin Hills 16 SCEC News Briefs 21 1998 SCEC Research Program and Projects 26 Feature: Charles Richter S C EE C Page 2 S C E C Southern California Earthquake Center From the Center Directors . Earth Science Research Needed for Earthquake Hazard Reduction Center Director Science Director As the science director of SCEC, I am often asked what earthquake science can do to reduce earthquake hazards and what research tasks are most important in this endeavor. The statement below addresses those questions. Comments are welcome. Please bear in mind that this statement is not meant to represent the entire SCEC research agenda. The statement addresses a practical problem—how to protect lives and property. The SCEC research agenda must address this problem while also fostering fundamental discovery that may or may not reduce hazards. Furthermore, the practical agenda below must involve national and international partnerships well beyond the SCEC boundary. —David D. Jackson ffective reduction of small and large earthquakes; have been sites of abnormally Progress requires close earthquake hazards and strain rate measurements severe effects in recent earth- cooperation between earth E requires assessment of with GPS and other techniques. quakes. However, we lack a scientists and engineers. Our the hazard, identifying options comprehensive theory that understanding suffers from A critical need is to test ideas for protecting people and explains why, and we cannot lack of specific knowledge of about earthquakes. For structures, assessing the yet distinguish well between ground motion at sites where example, the size of future effectiveness of these options, site effects and unique features damage has occurred. We have earthquakes may be limited by prioritizing mitigation, and of earthquake rupture. Some settled for overly simple readily measured quantities selling the program. First, we answers will come from descriptions of ground motion, like fault length. The earth- must attack the elements of the modeling the reverberation of such as Modified Mercalli quake potential may also be hazard that can be mitigated seismic waves in sedimentary Intensity or peak horizontal strongly affected by stresses most economically. This is basins. But we need many acceleration. Damage also from previous large earth- where the earth sciences play recordings of individual depends on the duration of quakes. We cannot adequately an essential role. Predicting earthquakes as well as record- strong shaking, its frequency test these ideas locally because times of individual earth- ings of many earthquakes at content, etc. large earthquakes are so rare. quakes does not appear individual sites to distinguish An effective strategy must possible in the foreseeable between source and site effects. To understand damage better, include international coopera- future, so an effective approach seismologists must provide a tion so that earthquakes Getting the necessary data will to risk reduction must focus on more complete description of everywhere on earth can be require new seismographs and long-term earthquake poten- motion, including a “time used to test the most important future earthquakes. We can tial. To fulfill their role, earth history” or seismogram, at sites hypotheses. accelerate our learning by scientists must answer three where damage has occurred international cooperation. important questions. What level of ground shaking, but no recordings were made— Helping to install modern i.e., interpolate readings from landslides, and liquefaction seismic arrays in Japan, New will these earthquakes cause? seismograph locations to the Where will earthquakes occur Zealand, and other hotspots locations of structures. and how large could they be? The effects of earthquake could bring us needed data An adequate solution requires shaking depend on the size Studies of active faults, records sooner. We cannot afford to new data on ground shaking and complexity of fault of past earthquakes, and waste a single earthquake. and building response. rupture, reverberation and measurements of distortion of Research is needed to develop focusing of seismic waves, and the earth’s crust help to define What is the relationship computer models of ground the local soil conditions. Earth earthquake potential. The between ground shaking and shaking, test them against scientists contribute greatly to greatest need in earthquake damage to structures? existing data, and apply them safety by identifying site hazard assessment is for basic Seismic wave trains are made to estimate the ground motion characteristics that contribute data on faults and earthquakes. complex by reverberations that caused damage. A strategy to damage, independent of the We need mapping and seismic within the crust. To develop to estimate ground motion and particulars of earthquakes. imaging of faults; fault and prioritize protective building response together will trenching to find dates and Young sedimentary sections, measures, we must know how vastly improve our ability to sizes of prehistoric earth- margins of sedimentary basins, long and how strong the waves optimize and sell an earth- quakes; seismic recordings of and other topographic features must be to cause damage. quake mitigation strategy. Southern California Earthquake Center Quarterly Newsletter, Vol. 4, No.1, 1998 Southern California Earthquake Center S C E C Page 3 Precarious Rocks May Help Estimate L.A. Basin’s Seismic Hazard By Jill Andrews from data gathered on much earthquakes in northern What’s a Precarious Rock? smaller earthquakes—and are Nevada, no delicately balanced therefore uncertain. Various rocks were found. Rock Out in the field, the initial judgment of precariousness is hazard maps for California “aprons” on steep sidehills relatively easy: the rocks look as though they could be toppled (including the SCEC “Phase II” “showed instability, including by relatively low accelerations. hazard map) depend on these mixtures of rocks with fresh In addition, they have to be in uncertain extrapolations, and surfaces that lack desert a position so that once toppled, according to Brune, there are varnish, rocks that have been they would not return to an no known field methods other flipped over with dark varnish unstable position with further than the use of precarious on the bottom and red oxide shaking. In most cases, the rocks to test these extrapola- (typical of the underside of rocks are also not the result of tions. rocks) on the top, and abun- having recently fallen dant rocks with multiple Brune’s methods for studying downslope or accidentally impact marks.” precarious rocks use observa- ending up where they are. tions of rock varnish (a dark, Ground accelerations necessary Quantitatively, the acceleration uniform finish) to assess how to topple some precarious required to topple a rock is long they have been in place. rocks can be estimated with roughly proportional to the Rock varnish, combined with stability calculations, force tests tangent of the angle between local geomorphic evidence, can in the field, and artificially vertical and a line from the help establish the approximate induced ground motion. In center of mass to the base length of time precarious rocks addition, studies of areas of rocking point, multiplied by have been in their present recent high ground motion the acceleration of gravity positions. For example, in a further calibrate the methods (Wiechert, 1994). study he conducted in the (Brune, 1992). A statistical vicinity of known historic study of a number of rocks is ames Brune’s 1998 SCEC- percent the force of gravity) or funded research project, less. Significant damage to About the researcher: James N. Brune is director of the Seismo- J“Study of the Toppling older buildings begins at this logical Laboratory at the Mackay School of Mines and professor of geophysics in the Department of Geological Sciences at the Accelerations of Precarious level. University of Nevada, Reno, a SCEC core institution. Brune is Rocks on a Profile Perpendicu- For comparison, the Southern the recipient of numerous honors and awards, including the 1997 lar to the San Andreas Fault for California Earthquake Center Seismological Society of America Medal, an award given for sci- Constraining Strong Motion produced a hazard map entific contributions that bolster the overall field of earthquake Attenuation Relationships for showing the number of times science and engineering. Great Earthquakes,” is an per century the shaking from innovative approach to earthquakes will exceed 20 When presenting the medal to Brune, Ralph Archuleta, president earthquake hazard assessment. percent the force of gravity. of SSA, pointed out that Jim’s mentors, colleagues, and students His studies of precariously Cast in probability terms, the have “universally commented on his deep intuitive approach to balanced rocks may provide same analysis predicts that the addressing fundamental problems. Phrases such as ’extraordi- important quantitative greater southern California nary intuitive sense,’ ’incredible strength of intuition and sharp- constraints on ground motion region should experience a ness of reasoning,’ and ’remarkable physical insight’ are used to from large earthquakes in the magnitude 7.0 or greater describe his approach to science.” last few thousand years (also earthquake
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NEPEC) 1 September 2016, 12:00 to 2:00 PM EDT, Via Phone and Webex
    Meeting summary: National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) 1 September 2016, 12:00 to 2:00 PM EDT, via phone and Webex Main topics: 1. Completion of NEPEC statement on proper posing and testing of earthquake predictions. 2. Updates on previous topics. 3. Chair transition. Note: Copies of presentations noted below available on request to Michael Blanpied <[email protected]>. Agenda: The meeting was opened at 12:05 PM, with members, speakers and guests joined by phone and logged into a Webex session for sharing of slide presentations. After a roll call (attendees are listed at the end of this summary) and review of the agenda, Mike Blanpied and Bill Leith thanked and praised Terry Tullis for his outstanding service as chair of the NEPEC, and welcomed Roland Bürgmann to the chairmanship. Discussion of draft NEPEC statement, with goal of completing for delivery to USGS Tullis asked members for comments on a draft report, “Evaluation of Earthquake Predictions,” which the council has prepared at the request of USGS. Hearing no comments, Tullis thanked a writing team that had led the final phase of document development, and declared the document final and approved. Decision: NEPEC declared final their opinion document, “Evaluation of Earthquake Predictions.” Action: Tullis to send the report with cover letter to USGS Director Suzette Kimball. Update on Pacific Northwest earthquake communication plan development Joan Gomberg summarized progress of a project that aims to create an earthquake risk communications plan for the Casacadia region encompassing the western reaches of Washington, Oregon, northern California and British Columbia. NEPEC had earlier identified the need for such a plan, noting that it will be challenging for earthquake science experts residing in many federal, state and private institutions to swiftly agree on data interpretation and conclusions when faced with “situations of concern” such as a large offshore earthquake, large subduction interface creep event, or maverick earthquake prediction that catches public attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of John Geesman on Behalf
    California Energy Commission Case No: A.12-11-009 DOCKETED Exhibit No: A4NR-1 13-IEP-1J Witness: John Geesman TN 71511 JUL 02 2013 Application of Pacific Gas and Electric ) Company for Authority, Among Other Things, ) to Increase Rates and Charges for Electric and ) Application 12-11-009 Gas Service Effective on January 1, 2014. ) (Filed November 15, 2012) (U 39 M) ) __________________________________________ ) ) And Related Matter. ) Investigation 13-03-007 __________________________________________) PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JOHN GEESMAN ON BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUNE 28, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE OF THIS TESTIMONY……………………………………………………………………2 II. PG&E’s REFUSAL TO APPLY LICENSE-REQUIRED TESTS TO NEW SEISMIC INFORMATION……………..…………………………………………………………………………….4 III. PG&E’s INTERNAL EMAILS …………………………………………………………………………6 IV. SIGNIFICANCE OF MORE CONSERVATIVE DAMPING ASSUMPTIONS………………………….………………………………………………………………..8 V. NRC STAFF’S DETERMINATION OF LICENSE VIOLATION ……………………………10 VI. PECULIAR COMMENTS FROM NEW NRC BRANCH CHIEF ……………………......13 VII. WITHDRAWAL OF PG&E’s LAR; DDE ANALYSES DEFERRED TO 2015…….…………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 VIII. NRC ENFORCEMENT FORBEARANCE = DE FACTO LICENSE AMENDMENT? ...........…………………………………………………………………………....19 IX. SELECTING THE WRONG LEVEL SSHAC ..…………………………………………………..22 X. PACKING THE SSHAC WITH PG&E INSIDERS................................................23 XI. OPENLY EMBRACING COGNITIVE BIAS........................................................24
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Agenda 2016 UJNR Meeting, Napa, CA Wednesday, 16 November 2016 08:30 Welcoming Remarks (Dr. William Leith, Mr. Masato Kano)
    1 Agenda 2016 UJNR Meeting, Napa, CA Wednesday, 16 November 2016 08:30 Welcoming Remarks (Dr. William Leith, Mr. Masato Kano) Session 1 National Policies, Strategies Programs, Networks, and ongoing/upcoming Projects 08:45 William Leith “Update on the Earthquake Hazards Program” 09:00 Gerald Bawden “DeVelopment of a GNSS-Enhanced Tsunami Early Warning System” 09:15 Naoshi Hirata “Japanese earthquake researches for seismic and tsunami disaster reduction” 09:30 Gerald Bawden “NISAR – NASA and ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar Mission OVerView of the mission and science objectiVes” 09:45 Elizabeth Cochran “The Path Towards Public Earthquake Early Warning for the Western U.S.” 10:00 Morgan Moschetti “The 2014 Update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model” 10:15 Gavin Hayes “Recent advances in earthquake response and research at the USGS NEIC” 10:30-10:45 Break Session 2 The 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake Sequence 10:45 Noriko Kamaya “The 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake - OVerView of the Seismic ActiVity and New Guidelines for the Seismic Forecast Information after Big Earthquakes” 11:00 Masayuki Yoshimi “Strong ground motion of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake obserVed in the midst of seVerely damaged area” 11:15 Norimitsu Nakata “Seismicity and structure responses following the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake” 2 11:30 Takahiko Uchide “Fault model of the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake inferred from hypocenter distribution and strong-motion records” 11:45 Tomokazu Kobayashi “Detailed ground surface displacement and fault ruptures of the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake Sequence
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 11Th United States-Japan Natural Resources Panel for Earthquake Research, Napa Valley, California, November 16–18, 2016
    Proceedings of the 11th United States-Japan Natural Resources Panel for Earthquake Research, Napa Valley, California, November 16–18, 2016 Edited By Shane Detweiler and Fred Pollitz Open-File Report 2017–1133 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. The abstracts by non-U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) authors in this volume are published as they were submitted. Abstracts authored entirely by non-USGS authors do not represent the views or position of the USGS or the U.S. Government and are published solely as part of this volume. Suggested citation: Detweiler, S., and Pollitz, F., eds., 2017, Proceedings of the 11th United States-Japan natural resources panel for earthquake research, Napa Valley, California, November 16–18, 2016: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Secondary Aftershocks and Their Importance for Aftershock Forecasting by Karen R
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 1433–1448, August 2003 Secondary Aftershocks and Their Importance for Aftershock Forecasting by Karen R. Felzer, Rachel E. Abercrombie, and Go¨ran Ekstro¨m Abstract The potential locations of aftershocks, which can be large and damag- ing, are often forecast by calculating where the mainshock increased stress. We find, however, that the mainshock-induced stress field is often rapidly altered by after- shock-induced stresses. We find that the percentage of aftershocks that are secondary aftershocks, or aftershocks triggered by previous aftershocks, increases with time after the mainshock. If we only consider aftershock sequences in which all after- shocks are smaller than the mainshock, the percentage of aftershocks that are sec- ondary also increases with mainshock magnitude. Using the California earthquake catalog and Monte Carlo trials we estimate that on average more than 50% of after- shocks produced 8 or more days after M Ն5 mainshocks, and more than 50% of all aftershocks produced by M Ն7 mainshocks that have aftershock sequences lasting at least 15 days, are triggered by previous aftershocks. These results suggest that previous aftershock times and locations may be important predictors for new after- shocks. We find that for four large aftershock sequences in California, an updated forecast method using previous aftershock data (and neglecting mainshock-induced stress changes) can outperform forecasts made by calculating the static Coulomb stress change induced solely by the mainshock. Introduction It has long been observed that aftershocks may produce sequence. We also show that while the exact factors that their own aftershocks, commonly known as secondary af- determine aftershock location may be many and complex, tershocks (Richter, 1958).
    [Show full text]
  • Computing a Large Refined Catalog of Focal Mechanisms for Southern California
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 1179–1194, June 2012, doi: 10.1785/0120110311 Ⓔ Computing a Large Refined Catalog of Focal Mechanisms for Southern California (1981–2010): Temporal Stability of the Style of Faulting by Wenzheng Yang, Egill Hauksson, and Peter M. Shearer Abstract Using the method developed by Hardebeck and Shearer (2002, 2003) termed the HASH method, we calculate focal mechanisms for earthquakes that occurred in the southern California region from 1981 to 2010. When available, we use hypocenters refined with differential travel times from waveform cross correlation. Using both the P-wave first motion polarities and the S/P amplitude ratios computed from three-component seismograms, we determine mechanisms for more than 480,000 earthquakes and analyze the statistical features of the whole catalog. We filter the preliminary catalog with criteria associated with mean nodal plane uncertainty and azimuthal gap and obtain a high-quality catalog with approximately 179,000 focal mechanisms. As more S/P amplitude ratios become available after 2000, the average nodal plane uncertainty decreases significantly compared with mechanisms that in- clude only P-wave polarities. In general the parameters of the focal mechanisms have been stable during the three decades. The dominant style of faulting is high angle strike-slip faulting with the most likely P axis centered at N5°E. For earthquakes of M<2:5, there are more normal-faulting events than reverse-faulting events, while the opposite holds for M>2:5 events. Using the 210 moment-tensor solutions in Tape et al. (2010) as benchmarks, we compare the focal plane rotation angles of common events in the catalog.
    [Show full text]
  • NEPEC) Wednesday and Thursday, September 10-11, 2008
    Meeting Agenda (Draft) National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) Wednesday and Thursday, September 10-11, 2008. Boardroom, Hilton Palm Springs Resort 400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA Wednesday, September 10 2:00 pm Introductions, review agenda Jim Dieterich 2:15 Earthquake Rupture Forecasts: UCERF wrap-up and looking forward Ned Field Ned will begin with a summary of how the Working Group wrapped up work on UCERF2 and how those results were transmitted to the public and for use by the CEA and National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. He will then give his thoughts on research required to improve future time-dependent rupture forecasts and hazard assessments. 3:15 Break 3:30 Update on SCEC-sponsored activities Terry Tullis Terry will brief the Council on the suite of research supported under SCEC’s focus group on Earthquake Forecasting and Predictability, and on the coordination of development of earthquake simulator software. 3:45 Research funding: CEA Tom Jordan, Ned Field Tom and Ned will give an update on the status of discussions between CEA, USGS, CGS and SCEC on continued CEA support of UCERF development. 4:00 CSEP: Status and plans Tom Jordan, Danijel Schorlemmer Tom will brief the Council on development of an international Colaboratory for Study of Earthquake Predictability, international and domestic activities, tests already underway, and potential for expansion to a broader suite of prediction types. Danijel will report on work to establish testing centers in California, Zurich, Japan, New Zealand and elsewhere. 5:00 NEPEC discussion 5:30 Adjourn Thursday, September 11 8:30 Continental breakfast (in the meeting room) 9:00 Administrative updates Mike Blanpied 9:15 Science updates: M8/MSc, GEM, others Council, guests 9:45 Analysis of Accelerated Moment Release (AMR) method Jeanne Hardebeck Jeanne will describe results from a suite of observational tests applied to the Accelerating Moment Release earthquake prediction hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Meeting
    Southern California Earthquake Center ANNUAL MEETING Hierarchical Seismic Networks around the San Jacinto Fault Zone Waveforms, Spectrograms & Correlograms Local Time (hours) -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0 -115.5 (Ben-Zion et al, 2015) 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 x 10-2 20250 162 10-100 Hz 34.5 150 1 0 Freq (Hz) 50 4000 -1 0 34.0 -4000 -2 250 -3 2 x 10 100-200 Hz 150 1 P1 Freq (Hz) 50 0 P2 33.5 5000 -1 P3 0 -5000 -2 P4 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 -0.2 -0.1 0 .01 0.2 UTC Time (hours) Correlation Time (s) 33.0 33.75 1 32.5 -117.5 -117.0 -116.5 -116.0 -115.5 33.50 Vp (km/s) 2 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.0 Vs 33.25 0 3.6 5 Profile 1 -117.00 -116.75 116.50 10 3.4 15 3 Rayleigh Group Velocities (m/s) 3.2 0 Profile 2 Frequency = 3 Hz 3.0 5 33.542 10 2.8 15 Depth (km) 2.6 33.540 4 0 Profile 3 (km/s) Depth (km) 5 10 33.538 15 (Zigone et al, 2015) 0 5 5 Profile 4 33.536 (Roux et al, 2016) 34.5 10 34.0 15 -116.595 -116.592 -116.589 -116.0 (Allam & Ben-Zion, 2012) 33.5 -116.5 -117.0 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 250 350 450 550 650 33.0 -117.5 Fault Normal Distance (km) MEETING PROGRAM September 10-14, 2016 Core Institutions and Board of Directors (BoD) The Board of Directors (BoD) is the USC Harvard Texas A&M UC Santa Barbara USGS Menlo Park primary decision-making body of SCEC; Tom Jordan, Chair Jim Rice Patrick Fulton Ralph Archuleta R.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Meeting
    Southern California Earthquake Center 2010Annual Meeting Proceedings and Abstracts, Volume XX September 11-15, 2010 S C E C an NSF+USGS center ANNUAL MEETING of the Southern California Earthquake Center Proceedings and Abstracts, Volume XX Cover Image: Section of the Borrego fault rupture formed during the 4 April 2010 El Mayor-Cucapah earthquake. (Peter Gold, Austin Elliott, Michael Oskin, and Alejandro Hinojosa. Image was generated in LidarViewer software developed by Oliver Kreylos at the W.M. Keck Center for Active Visualization in the Earth Sciences (KeckCAVES) at UC Davis.) Center Organization SCEC ORGANIZATION SCEC ADVISORY COUNCIL Center Director, Tom Jordan Mary Lou Zoback, Chair, Risk Management Solutions Deputy Director, Greg Beroza Jeffrey Freymueller, Chair-Designate, U. Alaska Associate Director for Administration, John McRaney Gail Atkinson, U. Western Ontario Associate Director for Communication, Education, Roger Bilham, U. of Colorado (new member 2010) and Outreach, Mark Benthien Donna Eberhart-Phillips, UC Davis Associate Director for Information Technology, Phil Maechling John Filson, U.S. Geological Survey (Emeritus) Special Projects and Events Coordinator, Tran Huynh Jim Goltz, CalEMA Research Contracts and Grants Coordinator, Steve Mahin, PEER Karen Young Anne Meltzer, Lehigh University Administrative Coordinator, Deborah Gormley Denis Mileti, U. Colorado (Emeritus) Education Programs Manager, Robert de Groot M. Meghan Miller, UNAVCO Digital Products Manager, John Marquis Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates
    [Show full text]
  • NEPEC) Wednesday and Thursday, September 10-11, 2008
    Draft Summary Meeting Summary National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) Wednesday and Thursday, September 10-11, 2008. Hilton Palm Springs Resort, Palm Springs, CA Attending: NEPEC Members: James Dieterich, University of California, Riverside (Chair) David Applegate (Co-chair, by phone) David Jackson, University of California, Los Angeles Evelyn Roeloffs, USGS, Vancouver, WA Barbara Romanowicz, University of California, Berkeley Bruce Shaw, Columbia University Wayne Thatcher, USGS, Menlo Park Jeroen Tromp, California Institute of Technology Robert Wesson, USGS Emeritus, Golden {Members Arrowsmith, Ekstrom, Ellsworth and Zoback did not attend} USGS Staff: Guests: Mike Blanpied (NEPEC executive secretary) Jim Brune, University of Nevada, Reno Nick Beeler Tran Huynh, SCEC Ned Field* Tom Jordan*, SCEC Jeanne Hardebeck* Mike Reichle*, CGS, retired Lucy Jones David Rhodes, New Zealand Danijel Schorlemmer*, SCEC * Invited speakers Terry Tullis*, Brown University Ned Field — Earthquake Rupture Forecasts: UCERF wrap-up and looking forward. Field described the products that accompanied the release of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast version 2 (UCERF2), which, along with newly available Next-Generation Attenuation (NGA) relations, were used in calculations of time-independent hazard in the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), and calculations of time-dependent hazard under consideration for rate adjustments by the California Earthquake Authority (CEA). Field listed lessons learned during completion of the UCERF study. He explained that the UCERF model represents “best available science,” but is extremely complex and unwieldy. A number of its features exist because they were inherited from earlier efforts, were required to match procedures used to build the NSHM, or are place-holders used with recognition that further research will lead to improved methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Faulting, Damage, and Intensity in the Canyondam Earthquake of May 23, 2013
    Faulting, Damage, and Intensity in the Canyondam Earthquake of May 23, 2013 By K. Chapman, M.B. Gold, John Boatwright, J. Sipe, V. Quitoriano, D. Dreger, and Jeanne Hardebeck Open-File Report 2016–1145 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. “Did You Feel It” (DYFI) ZIP-Code map for the area around Lake Almanor, California. Locations for interviews, the Plumas County Office of Emergency Services reports, and the geocoded DYFI reports are superimposed on the map. MMI, Modified Mercalli Intensity. Faulting, Damage, and Intensity in the Canyondam Earthquake of May 23, 2013 By K. Chapman, M.B. Gold, John Boatwright, J. Sipe, V. Quitoriano, D. Dreger, and Jeanne Hardebeck Open-File Report 2016–1145 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • SCEC Award #14024
    Workshop Report for “Community Stress Model (CSM) Workshop” SCEC Award #14024 PIs: Jeanne Hardebeck (USGS) Brad Aagaard (USGS) Thorsten Becker (USC) David Sandwell (Scripps) Bruce Shaw (Columbia) John Shaw (Harvard) CSM Progress to Date: Crustal stress is a fundamental quantity that is relevant to many aspects of the earthquake problem. SCEC4 has committed to the development of the Community Stress Model (CSM) to provide the SCEC community with better constraints on the stress field, and with a means to formally test physical connections between observations and stress models. The intended CSM end-product, a model or suite of models for the stress tensor in the California lithosphere, will be useful for numerous SCEC core science issues. These include a better understanding of how faults are loaded, redistribute strain via earthquakes, and evolve over time. There is a range of potential uses for the CSM, including seismic hazard estimates, earthquake stress interaction studies, dynamic earthquake rupture models and earthquake simulators. Moreover, even the discussions of the issues involved in the construction of a CSM are leading to scientific progress. The initial effort of the CSM was to compile and compare all of the existing relevant models held by the SCEC community. A call went out for contribution of data and models, and 16 models were submitted, primarily models of stress or stressing rate in the upper crust. At the 2012 CSM Workshop, we compared the submitted models, and discovered an encouraging agreement between models on the stress orientations throughout southern California, and on the stressing rate and its orientation along the major faults of the San Andreas system.
    [Show full text]