DOCSLIB.ORG

UCERF3 and Planning for an Eventual UCERF4

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UCERF3 and Planning for an Eventual UCERF4 Workshop On Assessing UCERF3 and Planning for an Eventual UCERF4 -- Introduction & Overview -- Edward (Ned) Field Menlo Park, June 19, 2019 Workshop On Assessing UCERF3 and Planning for an Eventual UCERF4 Agenda You? Workshop On Assessing UCERF3 and Planning for an Eventual UCERF4 Thanks to: Agenda for funding these workshops SCEC & USGS staff (Tran, Deborah, and Migual; Susan Garcia) for handing workshop logistics Warning – this workshop is streaming live and the video will likely be made available later Seismic Hazard Analysis Probability Two main model components: that shaking level will be exceeded 1) Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2) Earthquake Shaking model For a given earthquake rupture, this gives the Gives the probability of all possible earthquake probability that an intensity-measure type will ruptures (fault offsets) throughout the region exceed some level of concern and over a specified time span Empirical Physics-based “Attenuation Relationships” “Waveform Modeling” System-Level Earthquake-Rupture-Forecast Ingredients: Science: 30-Year Earthquake Probability 0.01% 0.1% 1% 10% the integration of The Composite Forecast—UCERF diverse sources of Seismograph knowledge about a complex system with The San Andreas Fault Thepasses San through Andreas the Fault the goal of obtaining passesCarrizo through Plain the Carrizo Plain Seismology EARTHQ UAKE predictive Monitoring instruments provide a record of California earthquakes EPICENTERS during recent historical times—where understanding and when they occur and how strong they are. Paleoseismology Geology FAULTS Trenching across the Hayward Fault in Fremont TECTONIC MOVEMENT Geodesy NorthN ort Amer h Amer ican PlaPlatt e Physics – scaling laws e Fault Plane Ruptured Earthquake Magnitudes and the Areas of Fault Rupture Pacifc Plat M Length Depth Average slip Area (miles) (miles) (feet) (square miles) The magnitude of an earthquake,earthquakeM (M ), ,which which is is a a measure measure of of e 5.0 1.8 1.8 0.5 the energy released in the quake, is dependent on the area 5.5 3.1 3.1 0.8 of the fault plane that ruptures (length times depth) and the 6.0 5.6 5.6 1.5 distance the fault slips during the quake. 6.5 13 7.5 2.7 7.0 42 7.5 4.8 7.5 133 7.5 8.5 8.0 420 7.5 15 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 sqsquare miles miles Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3) By the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities: Edward H. Field, Thomas H. Jordan, Morgan T. Page, Kevin R. Milner, Bruce E. Shaw, Timothy E. Dawson, Glenn P. Biasi, Tom Parsons, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Andrew J. Michael, Ray J. Weldon II, Peter M. Powers, Kaj M. Johnson, Yuehua Zeng, Karen R. Felzer, Nicholas van der Elst, Christopher Madden, Ramon Arrowsmith, Maximilian J. Werner, Wayne R. Thatcher Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3) By the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities: • Added faults Edward H. Field, Thomas H. Jordan, Morgan T. Page, Kevin R. Milner, Bruce E. Shaw, Timothy E. Dawson, Glenn P. • Better geodetic Biasi, Tom Parsons, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Andrew J. Michael, Ray J. Weldon II, Peter M. Powers, Kaj M. Johnson, Yuehua Zeng, Karen R. Felzer, Nicholas van der Elst, Christopher Madden, Ramon Arrowsmith, Maximilian J. Werner, constraints Wayne R. Thatcher Improved • Relaxed elastic-rebound segmentation model (& on all • Included multi- faults) fault ruptures (e.g., Kaikoura) Included spatiotemporal clustering (e.g., aftershock sequences) Working Groups on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEPs) (the most official time-dependent earthquake forecasts for California) A better and more useful approximation UCERF2 UCERF3 UCERF4, 202? 2007 2014, 2015, 2017 UCERF3 (2014) ? “All models are wrong, … some are useful” (Box, 1979) • All models embody assumptions, approximations, and uncertainties • Is UCERF3 misleading in terms of implied hazard or risk? • What would we want to change or improve in the next model? Assessing UCERF3 and Planning for an Eventual UCERF4 Workshop Goals: • Collect constructive feedback on UCERF3 • Gather suggestions for UCERF4 (what should be done and how soon) So we can articulate a plan by the end of the year Was the UCERF3 development and review process adequate? Or did we “play God” by foisting an unreviewed, premature, and poorly documented model on the user community? ~25% of funding ($2,000,000) CEA Geoscience WGCEP Organization organizations & Funding Sources NSF SCEC Management oversight Scientific review committee panel USGS USGS Menlo Park MOC SRP Sources of USGS WGCEP funding Golden State of CA CGS Working Group on California Earthquake WGCEP Working group ProBaBilities ExCom leadership … Subcom. Subcom. Subcom. … A B C Task-oriented subcommittees ~25% of funding ($2,000,000) CEA Geoscience WGCEP Organization organizations & Funding Sources Other coreNSF members: SCEC Management oversight Morgan Page Scientific review committee panel Karen Felzer USGS USGS Peter Powers Menlo Park MOC SRP Bruce Shaw Sources of USGSNed Field (USGS, Chair) WGCEPGlenn funding Biasi GoldenThomas Parsons (USGS, Menlo Park) Dave Jackson Tim Dawson (CGS) Art Frankel State of CA CGSRay Weldon (U of O) Jeanne Hardebeck Andy Michael (USGS, Menlo Park) Peter Powers Kevin Milner Working Group on WGCEP Working group Wayne Thatcher California Earthquake ProBaBilities ExCom leadership Kaj Johnson Yuehua Zeng … Peter Bird Chris Madden Subcom. Subcom. Subcom. … A B C Others… Task-oriented subcommittees ~25% of funding ($2,000,000) CEA Geoscience WGCEP Organization organizations & Funding Sources NSF SCEC Management oversight Scientific review committee panel USGS USGS Menlo Park MOC SRP Sources of USGS WGCEP funding Golden Thomas H. Jordan (SCEC, Chair) Thomas Brocher (USGS, Menlo Park ) State of CA CGS Jill McCarthy (USGS, Golden ) Chris Wills (CGS) Working Group on California Earthquake WGCEP Working group ProBaBilities ExCom leadership … Subcom. Subcom. Subcom. … A B C Task-oriented subcommittees CEA Geoscience WGCEP Organization organizations & Funding Sources NSF SCEC Management oversight Scientific review committee panel USGS USGS Menlo Park MOC SRP Sources of USGS WGCEP funding Golden Bill Ellsworth (chair) Art Frankel State of CA CGS Duncan Agnew Ramon Arrowsmith Yehuda Ben-Zion Greg Beroza (PC Liason) Working Group on Mike Blanpied California Earthquake WGCEP WorkingDavid group Schwartz ProBaBilities ExCom leadershipSue Hough Warner Marzocchi Rick Shoenberg Hamid Haddadi… Subcom. Subcom. Subcom. … A B C Task-oriented subcommittees CEA Geoscience WGCEP Organization organizations & Funding Sources ProcessNSF also evaluatedSCEC by both NEPEC & CEPEC Management oversight Scientific review (National and California Earthquake Predictioncommittee Evaluation Councilspanel) USGS USGS Menlo Park MOC SRP Sources of USGS WGCEP funding Golden State of CA CGS Working Group on California Earthquake WGCEP Working group ProBaBilities ExCom leadership … Subcom. Subcom. Subcom. … A B C Task-oriented subcommittees CEA Geoscience WGCEP Organization organizations & Funding Sources UseNSF in 2014 USGSSCEC PSHA maps was evaluated approved by Management oversight Scientific review NSHMP Steering Committee: committee panel USGS USGS Menlo Park • MOC SRP Sources of USGSJohn Anderson (chair) WGCEP funding • GoldenChris Wills • Keneth Campbell State of CA CGS • Martin Chapman • WorkingMichael Group Hamburger on •CaliforniaNilesh Earthquake Shome WGCEP Working group ProBaBilities ExCom leadership • Norm Abrahamson • Ray Weldon … • WilliamSubcom. Lettis Subcom. Subcom. … A B C Task-oriented subcommittees Many consensus- building meetings and workshops: More Logic-tree Branches (relative to UCERF2) to represent Epistemic Uncertainty UCERF3 Publications UCERF3-TI (Time-Independent Model): http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165 • Main report and 20 Appendices in USGS OFR 2013-1165 (also CGS Special Report 228) • Main report & Appendix N also in BSSA (2014) UCERF3-TD (Long-Term Time Dependent Model) • Main report & two methodology papers published in BSSA (April, 2015) • USGS Fact sheet too UCERF3-ETAS (Spatiotemporal Clustering Model for OEF) • Published in BSSA (June, 2017; available on line) A Synoptic View of the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (SRL, 2018) Did we “play God” by foisting an unreviewed, premature, and poorly documented model on the user community? My opinion: No But… There is understandable frustration in the user community with respect to understanding the model, implementing the model (e.g., deterministic analysis or or directivity effects), and modifying the model (e.g., site-specific analysis with improved data constraints) UCERF3 Model In Brief… 3 3 UCERF2 à UCERF3 153 fault sections added 95 fault sections modified 102 unchanged Tim Dawson, Appendix A 3 UCERF2 à UCERF3 • Two alternative models • Particular attention to fault endpoints (for multi-fault Tim Dawson, rupture possibilities) Appendix A • Fault-Zone Polygons defined to be more explicit about what each represents (well defined surface or braided system) Peter Powers, Appendix O 3 For the first time, both Geologic Data GPS Data geologic and geodetic data have been systematically combined into a set of deformation models Dawson & Weldon (Appendix B) 3 & Appendix B UCERF3 for Geologic Model Geologic ABM NeoKinema Zeng (Dawson & Weldon) (Kaj Johnson) (Peter Bird) (Yuehua Zeng) Tim Dawson Ray Weldon See Appendix C (& references therein) Fault Slip Rates Slip Fault - Finish this On Tom Parsons Kaj Johnson Wayne Thatcher Fault & others… - Off Deformation Yuehua Zeng Peter
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Appendix K—The UCERF3 Earthquake Catalog
    Appendix K—The UCERF3 Earthquake Catalog By K.R. Felzer1 The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3) earthquake catalog is an update of the catalog compiled for UCERF2, which is documented in Felzer and Cao (2008). The present document summarizes the updates and changes from the previous catalog. These include: The current catalog covers seismicity through the end of 2011. The current catalog includes an earthquake ID if one was assigned by the original network. This is listed in column 15. If no ID was assigned, there is a “99” in this column. The current catalog includes earthquakes down to M2.5 that occurred after 1984, when the seismic network was updated and catalog completeness improved. Prior to 1984 only earthquakes M≥4.0 are included. The UCERF2 catalog was M≥4.0 throughout. In UCERF2 the catalog of origin was often listed as ANSS (Advanced National Seismic System), which is a summary catalog compiled from contributing networks. The catalog now indicates the actual member network that contributed the event solution. Please note that no changes have been made to the pre-1932 portion of the catalog. Felzer and Cao (2008) provide documentation for this era. The UCERF3 catalog is given in a 17-column format as follows: 1. Year 2. Month 3. Day 4. Hour 5. Minute 6. Second 7. Latitude 8. Longitude 9. Depth 10. Magnitude 11. Magnitude type (currently given as “0” for all pre-1932 magnitudes) 12. Magnitude source 13. Magnitude uncertainty (standard error; given as “0” if unknown) 1U.S. Geological Survey. Appendix K of Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Hazard for Low-Slip-Rate Strike-Slip Faults Offshore Southern California
    Characterizing hazard for low-slip-rate strike-slip faults offshore Southern California Jayne Bormann1, Graham Kent2, Neal Driscoll3, Valerie Sahakian4, Jillian Maloney5, and Alistair Harding3 1 Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach 2 Nevada Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno 3 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego 4Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oregon 5 Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University [email protected] Understanding seismic hazard due to offshore faults lags behind our understanding of hazard due to their onshore counterparts because of the challenges and costs associated with imaging submarine faults and sampling seafloor sediments. Nevertheless, offshore faults pose considerable hazard to coastal communities and infrastructure, especially when these communities are located near long strike-slip or subduction zone faults that have the ability to produce large earthquakes. In Southern California, geodetic data indicate that offshore faults collectively accumulate 6-8 mm/yr of right-lateral shear strain, approximately 15% of the total 50 mm/yr of Pacific-North American plate boundary deformation. This shear is distributed across a series of northwest-striking, sub-parallel, right-lateral strike-slip faults that cut highly extended, rotated, and translated submarine continental crust in a tectonic province referred to as the Inner California Borderlands. Despite the proximity of these faults to densely populated coastal communities in Southern California, uncertainties regarding basic seismic source parameters such as fault dip, length, mode of deformation, slip rate, and potential connections between the offshore faults force assumptions about fault geometry, potential earthquake magnitude, rupture length, and recurrence interval that increase epistemic uncertainty in regional seismic hazard models such as UCERF3.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix N—Grand Inversion Implementation and Testing
    Appendix N—Grand Inversion Implementation and Testing By Morgan T. Page1, Edward H. Field1, Kevin R. Milner2, and Peter M. Powers1 Abstract We present results from an inversion-based methodology developed for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) that simultaneously satisfies available slip- rate, paleoseismic event-rate, and magnitude-distribution constraints. Using a parallel simulated- annealing algorithm, we solve for the long-term rates of all ruptures that extend through the seismogenic thickness on major mapped faults in California. In this system-level approach, rupture rates, rather than being prescribed by experts as in past models, are derived directly from data. The inversion methodology enables the relaxation of fault segmentation and allows for the incorporation of multi-fault ruptures, which are needed to remove magnitude-distribution misfits that were present in the previous model, UCERF2. In addition to UCERF3 model results, we present verification of the inversion methodology, including sensitivity tests, convergence metrics, and a synthetic test. Introduction The evaluation of earthquake rupture forecasts in California dates back to the original Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP; 1988), which considered the probabilities of future earthquakes on different segments of the San Andreas Fault. The most recent California model, UCERF2 (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2007), used expert opinion to determine the rates of ruptures on many of the major faults. This expert opinion framework is not compatible with the incorporation of significant numbers of multi-fault ruptures on a large, complex fault system. Furthermore, in UCERF2 methodology, there was no way to simultaneously constrain that the model fit both observed paleoseismic event rates and fault slip rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)
    Field, E. H., Jordan, T. H., Page, M. T., Milner, K. R., Shaw, B. E., Dawson, T. E., Biasi, G. P., Parsons, T., Hardebeck, J. L., van der Elst, N., Michael, A. J., Weldon, II, R. J., Powers, P. M., Johnson, K. M., Zeng, Y., Bird, P., Felzer, K. R., van der Elst, N., Madden, C., ... Jackson, D. D. (2017). A Synoptic View of the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Seismological Research Letters, 88(5), 1259-1267. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170045 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1785/0220170045 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Seismological Society of America at http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/content/early/2017/07/07/0220170045. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ 1 A Synoptic View of the Third Uniform California 2 Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) 3 Edward H. Field, Thomas H. Jordan, Morgan T. Page, Kevin R. Milner, Bruce E. 4 Shaw, Timothy E. Dawson, Glenn P. Biasi, Tom Parsons, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, 5 Andrew J. Michael, Ray J. Weldon II, Peter M. Powers, Kaj M. Johnson, Yuehua 6 Zeng, Peter Bird, Karen R.
    [Show full text]
  • Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Evaluation, Section 2
    LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY WESTSIDE PURPLE LINE EXTENSION PROJECT, SECTION 2 ADVANCED PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Contract No. PS‐4350‐2000 Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Evaluation, Section 2 Prepared for: Prepared by: 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 March 2017 Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Evaluation, Section 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES‐1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Scope of Work .................................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Previous and Ongoing Investigations ............................................................................... 1‐1 2.0 TECTONIC SETTING ............................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Santa Monica Fault .......................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1.1 Description and Regional Setting of the Santa Monica Fault ............................. 2‐1 2.1.2 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Models of the Santa Monica Fault .................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.1.3 Potential for
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the 3Rd Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)
    Overview of the 3rd Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) Edward (Ned) Field & other WGCEP participants: Thomas H. Jordan, Morgan T. Page, Kevin R. Milner, Bruce E. Shaw, Timothy E. Dawson, Glenn P. Biasi, Tom Parsons, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Andrew J. Michael, Ray J. Weldon II, Peter M. Powers, Kaj M. Johnson, Yuehua Zeng, Karen R. Felzer, Nicholas van der Elst, Christopher Madden, Ramon Arrowsmith, Maximilian J. Werner, Wayne R. Thatcher Overview of the 3rd Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) Edward (Ned) Field & other WGCEP participants: Thomas H. Jordan, Morgan T. Page, Kevin R. Milner, Bruce E. Shaw, Timothy E. Dawson, Glenn P. Biasi, Tom Parsons, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, Andrew J. Michael, Ray J. Weldon II, Peter M. Powers, Kaj M. Johnson, Yuehua Zeng, Karen R. Felzer, Nicholas van der Elst, Christopher Madden, Ramon Arrowsmith, Maximilian J. Werner, Wayne R. Thatcher Biggest Issues: previous models lacked multi-fault ruptures and spatiotemporal clustering (potentially damaging aftershocks) NZ Canterbury earthquake sequence 2016 M 7.8 NZ Kaikoura Quake 12 to 20 different faults O’Rourke et al. (2014) UCERF3 Implications Practical: Scientific: • Both multi-fault ruptures and • UCERF3 implies Gutenberg Richter is spatiotemporal clustering are included not applicable to all faults (e.g., as basis for OEF) • Combining finite faults with • Question: is UCERF3 useful enough to be spatiotemporal clustering implies a need worth operationalizing? (model value for elastic rebound/relaxation depends on hazard
    [Show full text]
  • Block Models, Cluster Analysis and Space Geodetic Data Needs to Better Estimate Fault Slip and Intra-Block Strain Rates in South
    Block Models, Cluster Analysis and! Space Geodetic Data Needs to Better Estimate ! Fault Slip and Intra-block Strain Rates in Southern California" Wayne Thatcher, Bob Simpson and Jim Savage U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park California Assumed California GPS Block Geometry (Parsons, Johnson et al, 2012) Block Geometry Derived from MoJave GPS Cluster Analysis 30 (Savage & Simpson, JGR, in review, 2012 ) 33 32 27 31 26 23 29 24 Central Walker Lane 20 SF 21 25 Bay Area 22 28 17 18 19 16 15 13 11 12 14 34 E MoJave 10 9 8 Region 4 3 7 6 1 2 5 Legend 0 55 110 220 UCERF3_GPS stations UCERF3_Block_model_2011_06_29 Kilometers But GPS Velocity Field Alone Constrains Locaon of Major AcRve Fault Boundaries >1400 edited velocity vectors Courtesy of T. Herring, MIT, to UCERF3 Schemac Illustraon of Cluster Analysis Method Vn Ve Cluster Analysis of GPS Vectors IdenRfies Major Tectonic Elements of California • No subJecRve assumpRon of block geometry • Simple, intuiRve analysis method • Major acRve tectonic features delineated: - faults of San Andreas system - MoJave Desert faults - Sierra Nevada-Great Valley microplate - Western boundary of Basin & Range - Cascadia subducRon zone boundary Cluster Analysis with Four GPS Clusters Determined Four San Francisco Bay Area Blocks Clearly IdenRfied Solely by Cluster Analysis See Graymer & Simpson G23B-931 Poster This A_ernoon Simpson, Thatcher & Savage GRL, 2012 Cluster Analysis Applied to MoJave Desert GPS with UCERF3 Block Boundaries (Grey Lines) & GPS Sites (Dots) Savage & Simpson, 2012, JGR, submi`ed 5 StasRcally Significant Clusters are Spaally Coherent Main Features Map of 5 Clusters • Cluster DistribuRon Similar to UCERF3 Block Geometry • However, Some Differences too • Garlock Fault Not “Seen” by Cluster Analysis • Existence of Smaller Blocks Not Precluded by Cluster Analysis • Large Block Rotaon in NEMD Does Not Contaminate Analysis Savage & Simpson, 2012 JGR, submi`ed Data Needs for Be`er Modeling of Steady-State Surface Velocity Field in Southern California • Be`er Precision in GPS VelociRes Everywhere (e.g.
    [Show full text]