DOCSLIB.ORG

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model 42ºN 38ºN 34ºN M ≥ 6.7 Earthquake Participation Rates (per year) 10 -6 10 -4 10-2 122°W 120°W 118°W USGS Open-File Report 2013–1165 CGS Special Report 228 Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER 3D perspective view of California, showing the average long-term rate at which different areas of the state participate in M≥6.7 earthquake ruptures. Black rectangles represent explicitly modeled faults (for UCERF3 Fault Model 3.1). Ruptures associated with the Cascadia megathrust are not shown. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model By Edward H. Field, Glenn P. Biasi, Peter Bird, Timothy E. Dawson, Karen R. Felzer, David D. Jackson, Kaj M. Johnson, Thomas H. Jordan, Christopher Madden, Andrew J. Michael, Kevin R. Milner, Morgan T. Page, Tom Parsons, Peter M. Powers, Bruce E. Shaw, Wayne R. Thatcher, Ray J. Weldon, II, and Yuehua Zeng (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities) U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165 California Geological Survey Special Report 228 Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792 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, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2013 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013, Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165, 97 p., California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/. Any use of trade, product, or firm 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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY JOHN LAIRD SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MARK NECHODOM DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D. STATE GEOLOGIST This page intentionally left blank. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time-Independent Model Table of Contents List of Abbreviations Used in this Report....................................................................................................................... ix Contributors to UCERF3 ................................................................................................................................................ x Executive Committee (ExCom) ................................................................................................................................... x Key Contributors ......................................................................................................................................................... x Management Oversight Committee (MOC) ................................................................................................................ x Scientific Review Panel (SRP) ................................................................................................................................... xi UCERF3 Deformation Model Evaluation Committee ................................................................................................. xi California Earthquake Authority Multidisciplinary Research Team ............................................................................ xi External Evaluation of UCERF3 ................................................................................................................................ xii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Model Framework ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Model Uncertainties .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Participants, Review, and Consensus Building ........................................................................................................... 8 Fault Models................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Definition .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Fault Zone Polygons ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Logic Tree Branches ................................................................................................................................................ 12 Development Process .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Deformation Models ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 Geologic Slip Rate Constraints ................................................................................................................................. 15 Geologic Deformation Model .................................................................................................................................... 16 Deformation Models from Joint Inversion of Geodetic and Geologic Data ............................................................... 17 Creep and Aseismicity .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Implied Moment Rates .............................................................................................................................................. 22 Logic Tree Branch Weights ...................................................................................................................................... 26 Earthquake Rate Models and the “Grand Inversion” .................................................................................................... 26 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 Implementation Ingredients ...................................................................................................................................... 29 Inversion Setup and Associated Gridded Seismicity ................................................................................................ 41 Gardner-Knopoff Aftershock Filter ............................................................................................................................ 49 Results ..................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Sensitivity Tests........................................................................................................................................................ 80 Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................... 84 Improvements Over UCERF2 ................................................................................................................................... 85 Model Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................... 87 Future Improvements ............................................................................................................................................... 89 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 90 Acknowledgements
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3.6 Geology and Soils
    3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.6 Geology and Soils 3.6 Geology and Soils This section describes and evaluates potential impacts related to geology and soils conditions and hazards, including paleontological resources. The section contains: (1) a description of the existing regional and local conditions of the Project Site and the surrounding areas as it pertains to geology and soils as well as a description of the Adjusted Baseline Environmental Setting; (2) a summary of the federal, State, and local regulations related to geology and soils; and (3) an analysis of the potential impacts related to geology and soils associated with the implementation of the Proposed Project, as well as identification of potentially feasible mitigation measures that could mitigate the significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP for the EIR regarding geology and soils can be found in Appendix B. Any applicable issues and concerns regarding potential impacts related to geology and soils that were raised in comments on the NOP are analyzed in this section. The analysis included in this section was developed based on Project-specific construction and operational features; the Paleontological Resources Assessment Report prepared by ESA and dated July 2019 (Appendix I); and the site-specific existing conditions, including geotechnical hazards, identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by AECOM and dated September 14, 2018 (Appendix H).1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting Regional Setting The Project Site is located in the northern Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province close to the boundary with the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. The Transverse Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by east-west trending mountain ranges that include the Santa Monica Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • And Short-Term Stress Interaction of the 2019 Ridgecrest Sequence and Coulomb-Based Earthquake Forecasts Shinji Toda*1 and Ross S
    Special Section: 2019 Ridgecrest, California, Earthquake Sequence Long- and Short-Term Stress Interaction of the 2019 Ridgecrest Sequence and Coulomb-Based Earthquake Forecasts Shinji Toda*1 and Ross S. Stein2 ABSTRACT We first explore a series of retrospective earthquake interactions in southern California. M ≥ ∼ We find that the four w 7 shocks in the past 150 yr brought the Ridgecrest fault 1 bar M M closer to failure. Examining the 34 hr time span between the w 6.4 and w 7.1 events, M M we calculate that the w 6.4 event brought the hypocentral region of the w 7.1 earth- M quake 0.7 bars closer to failure, with the w 7.1 event relieving most of the surrounding M stress that was imparted by the first. We also find that the w 6.4 cross-fault aftershocks M shut down when they fell under the stress shadow of the w 7.1. Together, the Ridgecrest mainshocks brought a 120 km long portion of the Garlock fault from 0.2 to 10 bars closer to failure. These results motivate our introduction of forecasts of future seismicity. Most attempts to forecast aftershocks use statistical decay models or Coulomb stress transfer. Statistical approaches require simplifying assumptions about the spatial distribution of aftershocks and their decay; Coulomb models make simplifying assumptions about the geometry of the surrounding faults, which we seek here to remove. We perform a rate– state implementation of the Coulomb stress change on focal mechanisms to capture fault complexity. After tuning the model through a learning period to improve its forecast abil- ity, we make retrospective forecasts to assess model’s predictive ability.
    [Show full text]
  • IV. Environmental Impact Analysis D. Geology and Soils
    IV. Environmental Impact Analysis D. Geology and Soils 1. Introduction This section of the Draft EIR analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts with regard to geology and soils. The analysis includes an evaluation of the potential geologic hazards associated with fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, inundation, other geologic conditions, and underlying soils. The analysis is based on the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared by Geotechnologies Inc., which is provided in Appendix D of this Draft EIR. 2. Environmental Setting a. Existing Conditions (1) Regional Geologic Setting The Project site is located in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest-trending blocks of mountain ridges and sediment-floored valleys. The dominant geologic structural features are northwest trending fault zones that fade out to the northwest or terminate at east-trending reverse faults that form the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges. The Los Angeles Basin (Basin) is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Basin is bounded to the east and southeast by the Santa Ana Mountains and San Joaquin Hills and to the northwest by the Santa Monica Mountains. Over 22 million years ago, the Basin was a deep marine basin formed by tectonic forces between the North American and Pacific plates. Since that time, over five miles of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock as well as intrusive and extrusive igneous rocks have filled the basin. During the last two million years, defined by the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs, the Basin and surrounding mountain ranges have been uplifted to form City of Los Angeles USC Development Plan SCH.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity of the Offshore Newport–Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Coastal Southern California, from Relocated Microseismicity by Lisa B
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 747–752, April 2004 Activity of the Offshore Newport–Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Coastal Southern California, from Relocated Microseismicity by Lisa B. Grant and Peter M. Shearer Abstract An offshore zone of faulting approximately 10 km from the southern California coast connects the seismically active strike-slip Newport–Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles metropolitan region with the active Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area. Relatively little seismicity has been recorded along the off- shore Newport–Inglewood Rose Canyon fault zone, although it has long been sus- pected of being seismogenic. Active low-angle thrust faults and Quaternary folds have been imaged by seismic reflection profiling along the offshore fault zone, raising the question of whether a through-going, active strike-slip fault zone exists. We applied a waveform cross-correlation algorithm to identify clusters of microseis- micity consisting of similar events. Analysis of two clusters along the offshore fault zone shows that they are associated with nearly vertical, north-northwest-striking faults, consistent with an offshore extension of the Newport–Inglewood and Rose Canyon strike-slip fault zones. P-wave polarities from a 1981 event cluster are con- sistent with a right-lateral strike-slip focal mechanism solution. Introduction The Newport–Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) was first clusters of microearthquakes within the northern and central identified as a significant threat to southern California resi- ONI-RC fault zone to examine the fault structure, minimum dents in 1933 when it generated the M 6.3 Long Beach earth- depth of seismic activity, and source fault mechanism.
    [Show full text]
  • More Fault Connectivity Is Needed in Seismic Hazard Analysis
    More Fault Connectivity Is Needed in Seismic Hazard Analysis Morgan T. Page*1 ABSTRACT Did the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) go overboard with multifault ruptures? Schwartz (2018) argues that there are too many long ruptures in the model. Here, I address his concern and show that the UCERF3 rupture-length distribution matches empirical data. I also present evidence that, if anything, the UCERF3 model could be improved by adding more connectivity to the fault system. Adding more connectivity would improve model misfits with data, particularly with paleoseismic data on the southern San Andreas fault; make the model less characteristic on the faults; potentially improve aftershock forecasts; and reduce model sensitivity to inadequacies and unknowns in the modeled fault system. Furthermore, I argue that not only was the inclusion of mul- KEY POINTS tifault ruptures an improvement on past practice, as it allows • The UCERF3 model has a rupture-length distribution that the model to include ruptures much like those that have been matches empirical data. observed in the past, but also that there is still further progress • Adding more connectivity to UCERF3 would improve data that can be made in this direction. Further increasing connec- misfits. tivity in hazard models such as UCERF will reduce model mis- • More connectivity in seismic hazard models would make fits, as well as make the model less sensitive to inadequacies in them less sensitive to fault model uncertainties. the fault model and provide a better approximation of the Supplemental Material natural system. RUPTURE-LENGTH DISTRIBUTION In a recent article, Schwartz (2018) criticizes the UCERF3 INTRODUCTION model and suggests that it has too many long ruptures (i.e., The third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast those with rupture lengths ≥100 km).
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation Based Earthquake Forecasting with Rsqsim
    Simulation Based Earthquake Forecasting with RSQSim Jacqui Gilchrist Tom Jordan (USC/SCEC), Jim Dieterich (UCR), Keith Richards-Dinger (UCR), Bruce Shaw (Columbia), and Kevin Milner (USC/SCEC) SSA Annual Meeting April 18th, 2017 – Denver, CO Main Objectives Develop a physics-based forecasting model for earthquake rupture in California Produce a suite of catalogs (~50) to investigate the epistemic uncertainty in the physical parameters used in the simulations. One million years of simulated time Several million M4-M8 events Varied simulation parameters and fault models Compare with other models (UCERF3) to see what we can learn from the differences. RSQSim: Rate-State earthQuake Simulator (Dieterich & Richards-Dinger, 2010; Richards-Dinger & Dieterich, 2012) • Multi-cycle earthquake simulations (full cycle model) • Interseismic period -> nucleation and rupture propagation • Long catalogs • Tens of thousands to millions of years with millions of events • Complicated model geometry • 3D fault geometry; rectangular or triangular boundary elements • Different types of fault slip • Earthquakes, slow slip events, continuous creep, and afterslip • Physics based • Rate- and State-dependent friction • Foreshocks, aftershocks, and earthquake sequences • Efficient algorithm • Event driven time steps • Quasi-dynamic rupture propagation California Earthquake Forecasting Models Reid renewal Omori-Utsu clustering Simulator-based UCERF UCERF3 long-term UCERF3 short-term UCERF2 STEP/ETAS NSHM long-term short-term renewal models “medium-term gap” clustering models Century Decade Year Month Week Day Anticipation Time Use of simulations for long-term assessment of earthquake probabilities Inputs to simulations Use tuned earthquake simulations to generate earthquake rate models RSQSim Calibration Develop a model that generates an earthquake catalog that matches observed California seismicity as closely as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Multinational Partnership for Research in Earthquake System Science
    Offshore South-Central California for the Community Fault Model Report for SCEC Award #15098 Submitted March 28, 2015 Investigators: Christopher Sorlien I. Project Overview Offshore South-Central California for the Community Fault Model A. Abstract The SCEC Community Fault Model in offshore central California and western Santa Barbara Channel is based on 2D fault traces published in the 1980s. There are abundant multichannel seismic reflection (MCS) data, including 3D data, which image the 3D faults. Notably, the right- lateral Hosgri fault is imaged by 3D MCS data to be gently to moderately E-dipping between about 1 and 3 km depth. Much of the effort was focused on northwest Santa Barbara Channel, because of publications proposing M~8 earthquakes on the North Channel – Pitas Point (Ventura) –San Cayetano fault system, and a publication modeling huge sea floor uplifts and tsunamis. This fault system con- tinues 120 km west of Ventura, to west of Pt. Conception where it interacts with the southern termination of the Hosgri fault. The upper 4 km to 7 km of many strands of this fault system are imaged. There are only two geometric segment boundaries in the offshore faults; one located 10 km west of UCSB, and the other being near Gaviota. One lower strand of the system, the Pitas Point-Ventura fault, is continuous for 75 km. There is no evidence for sea floor rupture of the off- shore 60 km of this fault in the last half million years, including since formation of the Last Gla- cial Maximum unconformity. Instead, deep fault slip has been absorbed by a tilting anticline forelimb.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismicity Patterns in Southern California Before and After the 1994
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Seismicity Patterns in Southern California Before and After the 1994 Northridge Earthquake: A Preliminary Report by Paul A. Reasenberg Open-File Report 95-484 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey edi­ torial standards. Any use of trade, product or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1995 Menlo Park, CA 94025 INTRODUCTION This report describes seismicity patterns in southern California before and after the January 17, 1994 Northridge (Mw = 6.7) earthquake. The report is preliminary in the sense that it was prepared as soon as the necessary data became available. The observations presented below of seismicity one year before and up to 3 months after the Northridge earthquake were compiled on April 18, 1994. The observations of the second quarter-year of post-seismic activity (April 17 to July 17) were compiled the week of July 18, 1994. The scope of the report is limited to the description of seismi­ city patterns, and excludes analysis of the regional geology, static and dynamic stresses and deformations associated with the Northridge (or previous) earthquakes, or other factors that may be relevant to a full understanding of the regional tectonics. For a summary of the Northridge earthquake see Scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Southern California Earthquake Center (1994). Various meanings have been ascribed to the term "pattern". Taken out of context, any "snapshot" or finite sample taken from nature will contain patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • SCF2 NEHRP 02HQGR0041 Report.Final
    Final Report Paleoseismology and Seismic Hazards of the San Cayetano Fault Zone 02HQGR0041 James F. Dolan Department of Earth Sciences University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0740 (213) 740-8599 [email protected] Southern California (SC) Key Words: Neotectonics, Trench Investigations, Paleoseismology, Recurrence Interval Introduction and Rationale for Research: The San Cayetano Fault The San Cayetano fault is a major, north-dipping reverse fault that extends for 40 km along the northern edge of the Ventura Basin and westward into the Sespe Mountains (Figure 1). The fault has been mapped in detail both at the surface and in the subsurface by a number of researchers, including Schlueter (1976), Yeats (1983), Çemen (1977; 1989), Dibblee (1987, 1990a, 1990b, 1991), Rockwell (1988), Yeats et al. (1994), and Huftile and Yeats (1995a; 1995b; 1996). These studies reveal that the San Cayetano fault is separated into two major sections (or 'lobes') by the 4-km-wide, Sespe Creek lateral ramp near the city of Fillmore (Figure 2). The eastern, or ‘Modelo’ lobe (so named because of prominent exposures of the Miocene Modelo Formation mudstone in the hanging wall), reaches the surface near the southern edge of the mountain front (Figure 3). The surface trace of the fault dies out ~1 km east of the city of Piru, near the mouth of Piru Creek. The mechanical connection between the San Cayetano fault and the Santa Susana fault--the major, high-slip-rate north-dipping reverse fault to the east – is structurally complicated, and there does not appear to be a simple, through-going mechanical connection between these two faults (Yeats, 1987; Huftile and Yeats, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf/17/3/932/5319294/932.Pdf 932 by Guest on 28 September 2021 Research Paper
    Research Paper GEOSPHERE Late Pleistocene rates of rock uplift and faulting at the boundary between the southern Coast Ranges and the western Transverse GEOSPHERE, v. 17 no. 3 Ranges in California from reconstruction and luminescence dating https://doi.org/10.1130/GES02274.1 14 figures; 2 tables of the Orcutt Formation CORRESPONDENCE: [email protected] Ian S. McGregor and Nathan W. Onderdonk Department of Geological Sciences, California State University–Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90804, USA CITATION: McGregor, I.S., and Onderdonk, N.W., 2021, Late Pleistocene rates of rock uplift and faulting at the boundary between the southern Coast Ranges ABSTRACT consistent with models that attribute shortening across the Santa Maria Basin and the western Transverse Ranges in California from to accommodation of clockwise rotation of the western Transverse Ranges and reconstruction and luminescence dating of the Orcutt Formation: Geosphere, v. 17, no. 3, p. 932–956, https:// The western Transverse Ranges and southern Coast Ranges of California suggest that rotation has continued into late Quaternary time. doi .org /10.1130 /GES02274.1. are lithologically similar but have very different styles and rates of Quaternary deformation. The western Transverse Ranges are deformed by west-trending Science Editor: Andrea Hampel folds and reverse faults with fast rates of Quaternary fault slip (1–11 mm/yr) ■ INTRODUCTION Associate Editor: Jeff Lee and uplift (1–7 mm/yr). The southern Coast Ranges, however, are primarily deformed by northwest-trending folds and right-lateral strike-slip faults with The Coast Ranges of California are deformed by northwest-striking faults Received 15 April 2020 Revision received 16 November 2020 much slower slip rates (3 mm/yr or less) and uplift rates (<1 mm/yr).
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Jordan: Solving Prediction Problems in Earthquake System Science
    BLUE WATERS HIGHLIGHTS SOLVING PREDICTION PROBLEMS IN EARTHQUAKE SYSTEM SCIENCE Allocation: NSF/3.4 Mnh ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE PI: Thomas H. Jordan1 Collaborators: Scott Callaghan1; Robert Graves2; Kim Olsen3; Yifeng Cui4; The SCEC team has combined the Uniform California 4 4 1 1 1 Jun Zhou ; Efecan Poyraz ; Philip J. Maechling ; David Gill ; Kevin Milner ; Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF), the official statewide Omar Padron, Jr.5; Gregory H. Bauer5; Timothy Bouvet5; William T. Kramer5; 6 6 6 7 model of earthquake source probabilities, with the CyberShake Gideon Juve ; Karan Vahi ; Ewa Deelman ; Feng Wang computational platform to produce urban seismic hazard 1Southern California Earthquake Center models for the Los Angeles region at seismic frequencies up 2U.S. Geological Survey to 0.5 Hz (Fig. 1). UCERF is a series of fault-based models, 3 San Diego State University released by the USGS, the California Geological Survey, and 4San Diego Supercomputer Center 5 SCEC, that build time-dependent forecasts on time-independent National Center for Supercomputing Applications 6Information Sciences Institute rate models. The second version of the time-dependent model 7AIR Worldwide (UCERF2, 2008) has been implemented, and the third version, released last summer (UCERF3, 2014), is being adapted into the Blue Waters workflow. SCIENTIFIC GOALS CyberShake uses scientific workflow tools to automate the repeatable and reliable computation of large ensembles Research by the Southern California Earthquake Center (millions) of deterministic earthquake simulations needed for (SCEC) on Blue Waters is focused on the development of physics-based PSHA (Graves et al., 2010). Each simulation physics-based earthquake forecasting models. The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SSC 306 Thompson
    1 San Andreas and Other Fault Sources; Background Source SSC TI Team Evaluation Steve Thompson Diablo Canyon SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Workshop #3 Feedback to Technical Integration Team on Preliminary Models March 25-27, 2014 San Luis Obispo, CA PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 2 Overview of the Preliminary SSC Model SSC Elements: Key Fault Sources San Andreas and Other Regional Fault Sources Background Source PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 3 San Andreas and Other Fault Sources San Andreas Fault Other 200-Mile Site Region Faults Goal: Goals: Capture maximum Complete SSC within 200-mi contribution of SAF Site Region Confirm past results about contribution of “other” faults PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 4 San Andreas Fault Approach: Approximate UCERF3 Characterization Ten Sections in 200-mi Matched a composite “Participation MFD” Overestimates UCERF3 Solution PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 5 San Andreas Fault Source Composite Participation MFD: P SC CR Pf Ch Cz BB MN MS (SB) = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 풊 7.0, = 9 ( ) 푀 ≤ 푅푅푅푅푇푇푇푇푇 푀 � 푅푅푅푅푖 푀 푖=1 PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 6 San Andreas Fault Source Composite Participation MFD: P SC CR Pf Ch Cz BB MN MS (SB) = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 풊 = 1 2 3 4 5 풌 7.0 < 7.5, = 5 ( ) 푀 ≤ 푅푅푅푅푇푇푇푇푇 푀 � 푅푅푅푅푘 푀 푘=1 PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 7 San Andreas Fault Source Composite Participation MFD: P SC CR Pf Ch Cz BB MN MS (SB) = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 풊 = 1 2 3 4 5 풌 = 1 2 3 풏 > 7.5, = 3 ( ) 푀 푅푅푅푅푇푇푇푇푇 푀 � 푅푅푅푅푛 푀 푛=1 PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 8 San Andreas Fault Source Composite Participation MFD: P Ch MS P CR Ch BB MS P SC CR Pf Ch Cz BB MN MS (SB) = 1 2
    [Show full text]