2/21/20132013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II1 UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications Hazard comparison metrics Inversion testing –Convergence and eqn. set weighting.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD FOR LAS VEGAS VALLEY, NEVADA Barbara Luke Wanda J. Taylor.

Advertisements

Now Some Implications of Deformation Models & Seismicity Observations…

EPRI/SOG Mmax –Six earth-science teams, diverse methods largest observed eq (+ increment) catalog statistics – extreme occurrences seismogenic feature:

J. Louie 9/5/2005 OutlineOutline 1.Refraction Microtremor for Shallow Vs 2.ReMi-Borehole Comparison 3.Los Angeles Transect 4.Las Vegas Transect 5.Effect.

Slip Rate Studies Along the Sierra Madre-Cucamonga Fault System Using Geomorphic and 10 Be Cosmogenic Surface Exposure Age Constraints.

Active Folding within the L.A. Basin with a focus on: Argus et al. (2005), Interseismic strain accumulation and anthropogenic motion in metropolitan Los.

16/9/2011UCERF3 / EQ Simulators Workshop RSQSim Jim Dieterich Keith Richards-Dinger UC Riverside Funding: USGS NEHRP SCEC.

10/09/2007CIG/SPICE/IRIS/USAF1 Broadband Ground Motion Simulations for a Mw 7.8 Southern San Andreas Earthquake: ShakeOut Robert W. Graves (URS Corporation)

Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.

American Samoa Seismic Hazard Maps Mark D. Petersen, Stephen C. Harmsen, Kenneth S. Rukstales, Charles S. Mueller, Daniel E. McNamara, Nicolas Luco, and.

1 High Performance Computing at SCEC Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California.

Rupture, Seismic Waves, and Shaking. Earthquake Origins and Seismic Waves –Focus point where earthquake rupture occurs Shallow focus - 70 km or less (80%

Larry Braile AS-1 Workshop, September, 2008 San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake Ground Motion Simulations

103/25/04 NGA Workshop Parameterization of Basin Response Based on 3D Simulations by PEER/SCEC 3D Ground Motion Project Team PI: Steven M. Day San Diego.

Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Gail M. Atkinson, UWO David M. Boore, USGS (BSSA, 2006)

Using Geodetic Rates in Seismic Hazard Mapping March 30, Geodetic and Geologic slip rate estimates for earthquake hazard assessment in Southern California.

Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.

UseIT Tutorial # 3 Earthquakes in the Southern California Fault System Tom Jordan June 16, 2011.

Brainstorm: How to assess an Earthquake: Stroked off B.C. coast? Rapid Earthquake Risk Assessment Source Parameters USGS World Shake Maps USGS Shake Aftershocks.

If we build an ETAS model based primarily on information from smaller earthquakes, will it work for forecasting the larger (M≥6.5) potentially damaging.

Title: Spatial Data Mining in Geo-Business. Overview  Twisting the Perspective of Map Surfaces — describes the character of spatial distributions through.

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.

Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Comparison of February 2010 Chile, January 2010 Haiti, and December 2004 Sumatra Earthquakes. EarthquakeMagnitude*Focal DepthTsunamiDeaths Chile8.835 km“minor”~900.

Tectonic boundaries and hot spots. A useful reference dynamicearth/sitemap.html

Comments on UCERF 3 Art Frankel USGS For Workshop on Use of UCERF3 in the National Seismic Hazard Maps Oct , 2012.

Part 8: Fold Types. Tensional Stress Compressive Stress Shear Stress Orientation of stress leads to different folds.

National Seismic Hazard Maps and Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 1.0 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (Golden, CO) California Geological.

Fig. 1. A wiring diagram for the SCEC computational pathways of earthquake system science (left) and large-scale calculations exemplifying each of the.

Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.

Lg Q Across the Continental US Dan McNamara and Rob Wesson with Dirk Erickson, Arthur Frankel and Harley Benz.

Translating the 2009 Provisions into ASCE 7-10: Ground Motions Maps

Simulation of Seismic-Wave Propagation Through the Lake Tahoe Basin, Calif.-Nevada: A Scenario Approach to Probabilistic Shaking Hazard Gretchen C. Schmauder.

Some General Implications of Results Because hazard estimates at a point are often dominated by one or a few faults, an important metric is the participation.

112/16/2010AGU Annual Fall Meeting - NG44a-08 Terry Tullis Michael Barall Steve Ward John Rundle Don Turcotte Louise Kellogg Burak Yikilmaz Eric Heien.

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update 3 November 2014 through 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.

Can we forecast an Earthquake??? In the next minute there will be an earthquake somewhere in the world! This sentence is correct (we have seen that there.

EARTHQUAKES Chapter 13. STRESS BUILDS UNTIL IT EXCEEDS ROCK STRENGTH Local rock strength Stress Earthquakes Time.

Earthquakes 101 (EQ101) Lisa Wald USGS Earthquake Hazards Program

Process for 2007 Maps CA Oct 2006 PacNW Mar 2006 InterMtn West June 2006 CEUS May 2006 National User-Needs Workshop DEC 2006 CA Draft maps (Project 07)

UCERF3 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) 14 Full-3D tomographic model CVM-S4.26 of S. California 2 CyberShake 14.2 seismic hazard.

California Earthquake Rupture Model Satisfying Accepted Scaling Laws (SCEC 2010, 1-129) David Jackson, Yan Kagan and Qi Wang Department of Earth and Space.

Ground Motions and Liquefaction – The Loading Part of the Equation

CyberShake and NGA MCER Results Scott Callaghan UGMS Meeting November 3, 2014.

9. As hazardous as California? USGS/FEMA: Buildings should be built to same standards How can we evaluate this argument? Frankel et al., 1996.

Southern California Earthquake Center CyberShake Progress Update November 3, 2014 – 4 May 2015 UGMS May 2015 Meeting Philip Maechling SCEC IT Architect.

May 9, 2016 Learning Target: I will be able to describe the processes that cause earthquakes. Success Criteria: I can explain what will cause “the big.

EARTHQUAKES Information from the USGS Locations of Earthquakes Dots are earthquakes.

EERI Seminar on Next Generation Attenuation Models Updates to Maps for the 2015 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC)

Earthquakes USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Earthquake Basics

Images courtesy of Google Earth (top), and USGS (bottom).

Project 17 Report to Provisions Update Committee April 12, 2017

Kinematic Modeling of the Denali Earthquake

Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center

CE 5603 Seismic Hazard Assessment

NEHRP Research: U.S. Geological Survey

SAN ANDREAS FAULT San Francisco Bay Area North American plate

Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015

Development of a young pull-apart basin in the California Continental Borderland: High-resolution seismic reflection profiling of San Pedro Basin Robert.

San Clemente Fault Zone Catalina Fault Zone San Diego Trough

Creager, Wech, Vidale, Melbourne

CyberShake Study 17.3 Science Readiness Review

SCEC UGMS Committee Meeting No. 6

Dr. Praveen K. Malhotra, P.E.

Preliminary PEER-NGA Ground Motion Model

Creager, Wech, Vidale, Melbourne

Creager, Wech, Vidale, Melbourne

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis

CyberShake Study 18.8 Technical Readiness Review

Presentation transcript:

2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II1 UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications Hazard comparison metrics Inversion testing –Convergence and eqn. set weighting Hazard maps –Influence of logic tree branches –Contributions to changes in hazard Hazard curves at sites

Hazard Evaluation: Metrics Ground motion values: –2% in 50 years(Prob. Exceed.) –10% in 50 years(Prob. Exceed.) –RTGM (1% Prob. Collapse in 50 yr.) Frequencies –PGA –5Hz –1Hz Curves:NEHRP (2009) Test Cities Other WGCEP, PBR Maps:Full logic-tree for PGA (1440 branches) Partial tree for 1Hz (40 branches) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II2

Hazard Metrics: RTGM Risk Targeted Ground Motion (RTGM) Adopted by BSSC in conjunction with 2009 NEHRP provisions Ground motion for 1% probability of collapse in 50 years Computed at frequencies: 5Hz and 1Hz Scalar valued Considers entire hazard curve 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II3

Hazard Curves: Inversion Convergence 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II4 San Diego PGA San Francisco 1Hz Examine variation over repeated inversion runs Single “reference” branch 100 runs

Hazard Curves: Inversion Eqn. Weights 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II5 San Diego PGA San Francisco 1Hz Examine effect of varying inversion equation weights 11 weight variants

Hazard Maps: UC2 vs. UC3 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II6

Hazard Ratios: Grid vs. Fault Sources 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II7

Hazard Ratios: Grid Source Comparison 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II8

Hazard Ratios: Smooth Seis. Comparison 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II9

Branch Ratios: Fault Models 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II10

Branch Ratios: Deformation Models 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II11

Branch Ratios: Magnitude Scaling Rel. 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II12

Branch Ratios: Dsr (slip along rupture) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II13

Branch Ratios: M≥5 rate 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II14

Branch Ratios: Off-fault M max 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II15

Branch Ratios: Smoothed Seis. models 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II16

Hazard Ratio: Sources of Change Explain all non-yellow areas –Smoothed seismicity model –New faults, slip changes, or Mo rate changes –Methodological changes

Shows influence of M max & total M≥5 rate increase for gridded seismicity UCERF 3.2 / NSHMP08 Grid Sources Only (and using only U2 Smoothed Seis.) Sources of Change: M max & M≥5 rate

Shows influence of tighter U3 Smoothed Seis. Model UCERF 3.2 / NSHMP08 Grid Sources Only (using both U2 & U3 Smoothed Seis.) Artifact of “Deep seismicity” being excluded from denominator map Sources of Change: Artifacts

UCERF 3.2 / NSHMP08 Grid Sources Only (using both U2 & U3 Smoothed Seis Map) Influenced by UCERF3 smoothed- seismicity branch Shows influence of tighter U3 Smoothed Seis. Model Sources of Change: Grid Sources

UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Big Lagoon-Bald Mtn : Extended N ~60 km, and moment rate ~8 times higher on ABM Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

New faults: Klamath Falls Lake E & W UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Gillem and Cedar Mtn. faults have lower slip rates UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Four new faults Likely Fault (moment rate doubled) UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

8 new faults (ABM rates high due to block boundary) Maacama (20% increase in moment rate) West Napa (factor of 3.5 increase in Mo rate, ABM about 4 times higher than others) UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Great Valley 07 (Orestimba) moment rate went down by ~60% New Great Valley faults UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Calaveras (So) - Paicines extension Complex combination of new faults and geometric and rate changes UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

New fault: Oceanic – West Hausna (NeoKinema rate more than 4 times higher than others) 3 new faults UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

New fault: Lost Hills Mix of new faults & gridded sources New faults in Mojave UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

New Fault: Cerro Prieto New faults: San Clemente San Diego Trough Santa Cruz Catalina Ridge San Pedro Basin UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Cucamonga: biggest methodological change Death Valley Faults (North, South, and Black Mtn. Frontal): moment rates went down ~40% UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Anacapa Dume: moment rate down by factor of 3 UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black Sources of Change: Fault Sources

Addition of, or moment rate change on faults UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

Hazard Analysis Sites 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II34

Hazard Analysis Sites 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II35

Hazard Curves: Blue: Logic tree weighted mean hazard curve (UC3) Light Blue: Logic tree min max hazard curve range Red: UC2 logic tree weighted mean (solid), min and max (dashed) hazard curves Green: NSHMP reference value Ground motion histogram of logic tree branches summed over weights Tornado diagram 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II36

Hazard Curves: Los Angeles 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II37 PGA1Hz

Hazard Curves: San Francisco 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II38 PGA1Hz

Sites with changes > 10% 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II39 SiteGroupchange ReddingWGCEP287% BrookingsWGCEP257% San DiegoNEHRP137% Carson CityWGCEP127% Long BeachNEHRP122% VallejoNEHRP121% NorthridgeNEHRP119% Big SurWGCEP118% Century CityNEHRP114% SiteGroupchange San BernardinoWGCEP88% Malibu WestWGCEP86% EurekaNEHRP86% PalmdaleWGCEP85% Santa RosaNEHRP83% OaklandNEHRP82% Death ValleyNEHRP64% CucamongaWGCEP59%

Hazard Curves: Redding (x3) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II40 PGA1Hz

Grid & Fault Conributions: Redding 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II41

Hazard Curves: San Diego (140%) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II42 PGA1Hz

Hazard Curves: Vallejo (120%) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II43 PGA1Hz

Hazard Curves: San Bernardino (88%) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II44 PGA1Hz

Hazard Curves: Oakland (82%) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II45 PGA1Hz

Hazard Curves: Cucamonga (50%) 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II46 PGA1Hz

Hazard Ratios: PGA vs. 1Hz 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II47

Hazard Ratios: PGA vs. 1Hz 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II48

Hazard Ratios: Logic-Tree Weight Variation 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II49

Continued UCERF3 analysis… Branch averaged solutions Deaggregation Stacked histograms of ground motion distribution at sites for each logic tree node (branch correlations) Repeat convergence and equation weight tests Higher resolution maps around San Francisco and Los Angeles Hazard analyses online: – 2/21/ USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II50