Chapter 4: The SFBR Earthquake Source Model: Magnitude and Long-Term Rates Ahyi Kim 2/23/07 EQW.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Review of Catalogs and Rate Determination in UCERF2 and Plans for UCERF3 Andy Michael.
Advertisements

(Introduction to) Earthquake Energy Balance
New Mapping of Creeping Faults Bartlett Springs Fault & northern Green Valley Fault
Stress- and State-Dependence of Earthquake Occurrence: Tutorial 2 Jim Dieterich University of California, Riverside.
The trouble with segmentation David D. Jackson, UCLA Yan Y. Kagan, UCLA Natanya Black, UCLA.
Recurrence Intervals Frequency – Average time between past seismic events – aka “recurrence interval” Recurrence Interval = Average slip per major rupture.
Christine Smyth and Jim Mori Disaster Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University.
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
Source parameters II Stress drop determination Energy balance Seismic energy and seismic efficiency The heat flow paradox Apparent stress drop.
Numerical simulation of seismic cycles at a subduction zone with a laboratory-derived friction law Naoyuki Kato (1), Kazuro Hirahara (2), and Mikio Iizuka.
Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region, 2002–2031 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2002 Chapters 1 & 2.
Extreme Earthquakes: Thoughts on Statistics and Physics Max Werner 29 April 2008 Extremes Meeting Lausanne.
Ch 3: Characterization of the SFBR Earthquake Sources Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2002.
NEW MADRID: A dying fault? GPS seismology geology Heat flow Recent data, taken together, suggest that the New Madrid seismic zone may be shutting down.
Earthquake Probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Region Working Group 2002: Chapter 6 Ved Lekic EQW, April 6, 2007 Working Group 2002: Chapter.
NEW MADRID: A dying fault? GPS seismology geology Heat flow Recent data, taken together, suggest that the New Madrid seismic zone may be shutting down.
Chapter 5: Calculating Earthquake Probabilities for the SFBR Mei Xue EQW March 16.
TOPIC 2: How does the challenge of predicting hazards differ between earthquakes - at plate boundaries -In plate boundary zones -within plates?
Earthquakes recorded in the landscape: Using digital topography to investigate earthquake faulting Christopher Crosby GEON / Arizona State University SDSC.
Earthquake Task. In 1935 Charles Richter defined the magnitude of an earthquake to be Where M, represents the magnitude, I is the intensity of the earthquake,
Outline: Lecture 4 Risk Assessment I.The concepts of risk and hazard II.Shaking hazard of Afghanistan III.Seismic zone maps IV.Construction practice What.
Paleoseismic and Geologic Data for Earthquake Simulations Lisa B. Grant and Miryha M. Gould.
Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.
The Evolution of Regional Seismicity Between Large Earthquakes David D. Bowman California State University, Fullerton Geoffrey C. P. King Institut de Physique.
Lisa Wald USGS Pasadena U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Earthquakes 101 (EQ101)
Earthquake Science (Seismology). Seismometers and seismic networks Seismometers and seismic networks Earthquake aftershocks Earthquake aftershocks Earthquake.
National Seismic Hazard Maps and Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 1.0 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (Golden, CO) California Geological.
Research opportunities using IRIS and other seismic data resources John Taber, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology Michael Wysession, Washington.
The kinematic representation of seismic source. The double-couple solution double-couple solution in an infinite, homogeneous isotropic medium. Radiation.
Toward urgent forecasting of aftershock hazard: Simultaneous estimation of b-value of the Gutenberg-Richter ’ s law of the magnitude frequency and changing.
NE Caribbean and Hispaniola = major plate boundary, 2 cm/yr relative motion Strike-slip + convergence partitioned between 3 major fault systems Apparent.
Using IRIS and other seismic data resources in the classroom John Taber, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology.
Earthquake forecasting using earthquake catalogs.
Southern California Earthquake Center Triggering Models vs. Smoothed Seismicity PG = 1.35/eqk PG = 10/eqk Information gain per earthquake Reference forecast.
Random stress and Omori's law Yan Y. Kagan Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of California Los Angeles Abstract We consider two statistical.
Constraints on Seismogenesis of Small Earthquakes from the Natural Earthquake Laboratory in South African Mines (NELSAM) Margaret S. Boettcher (USGS Mendenhall.
Quantifying and characterizing crustal deformation The geometric moment Brittle strain The usefulness of the scaling laws.
Attempting to Reconcile Holocene And Long-Term Seismicity Rates in the New Madrid Seismic Zone Mark Zoback – Stanford University NASA World Wind looking.
GNS Science Natural Hazards Research Platform Progress in understanding the Canterbury Earthquakes Kelvin Berryman Manager, Natural Hazards Research Platform.
An earthquake of magnitude 7
Stress- and State-Dependence of Earthquake Occurrence Jim Dieterich, UC Riverside.
Foreshocks, Aftershocks, and Characteristic Earthquakes or Reconciling the Agnew & Jones Model with the Reasenberg and Jones Model Andrew J. Michael.
Present-day Kinematics of the East African Rift Sarah Stamps, Eric Calais (Purdue University, IN, USA - Elifuraha.
Yan Y. Kagan Dept. Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA , Evaluation.
112/16/2010AGU Annual Fall Meeting - NG44a-08 Terry Tullis Michael Barall Steve Ward John Rundle Don Turcotte Louise Kellogg Burak Yikilmaz Eric Heien.
Does the Scaling of Strain Energy Release with Event Size Control the Temporal Evolution of Seismicity? Steven C. Jaumé Department of Geology And Environmental.
A GPS-based view of New Madrid earthquake hazard Seth Stein, Northwestern University Uncertainties permit wide range (3X) of hazard models, some higher.
Earthquakes 101 (EQ101) Lisa Wald USGS Earthquake Hazards Program
The 2002 Working Group Approach to Modeling Earthquake Probabilities Michael L. Blanpied U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program, Reston, VA.
California Earthquake Rupture Model Satisfying Accepted Scaling Laws (SCEC 2010, 1-129) David Jackson, Yan Kagan and Qi Wang Department of Earth and Space.
Earthquakes and crustal Deformation - Objectives of class- Introduce a variety of techniques to describe ‘quantitatively’ deformation of the lithosphere.
Epistemic uncertainty in California-wide simulations of synthetic seismicity Fred Pollitz, USGS Menlo Park Acknowledgments: David Schwartz, Steve Ward.
Fault Segmentation: User Perspective Norm Abrahamson PG&E March 16, 2006.
9. As hazardous as California? USGS/FEMA: Buildings should be built to same standards How can we evaluate this argument? Frankel et al., 1996.
Understanding Earth Sixth Edition Chapter 13: EARTHQUAKES © 2011 by W. H. Freeman and Company Grotzinger Jordan.
GNS Science Testing by hybridization – a practical approach to testing earthquake forecasting models David Rhoades, Annemarie Christophersen & Matt Gerstenberger.
A new prior distribution of a Bayesian forecast model for small repeating earthquakes in the subduction zone along the Japan Trench Masami Okada (MRI,
Jiancang Zhuang Inst. Statist. Math. Detecting spatial variations of earthquake clustering parameters via maximum weighted likelihood.
Future Directions and Capabilities of Simulators Jim Dieterich
Some issues/limitations with current UCERF approach
SAN ANDREAS FAULT San Francisco Bay Area North American plate
Earthquakes and crustal Deformation - Objectives of class-
Philip J. Maechling (SCEC) September 13, 2015
Understanding Earth Chapter 13: EARTHQUAKES Grotzinger • Jordan
Southern California Earthquake Center
R. Console, M. Murru, F. Catalli
SICHUAN EARTHQUAKE May 12, 2008
Earthquake Machine, part 2
V. Fault Mechanisms and Earthquake Generation
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Presentation transcript:

Chapter 4: The SFBR Earthquake Source Model: Magnitude and Long-Term Rates Ahyi Kim 2/23/07 EQW

SFBR Earthquake Source Model SFBR earthquake model  Size  Size Locations Locations Magnitude Magnitude Long-term recurrence rate Long-term recurrence rate Earthquake: fixed, floating and back ground Constructed from variety of geologic, geodetic and seismic data

Outline Compute rate of characterized earthquake, γ char Compute rate of characterized earthquake, γ char Long-term occurrence rate and interval Long-term occurrence rate and interval Evaluating the SFBR model Evaluating the SFBR model

Introduction: Calculating Rupture Source Rates in Complex Model If each segment act as independent rupture source, the rate of earthquake, γwill be Long-term moment release rate of segment Mean moment of earthquakes However, SFBR model allows segments to fail in combination Char: characterized rupture source Fchar: fraction of seismogenic moment rate expended in characterized eq

Steps in the calculation sequence Eq. 4-2a

Estimating the magnitudes and moments of earthquakes Mean characteristic Magnitude: M-logA relations Wells and Coppersmith(1994) Regression of 83 continental eq WG99 4-5a and 4-5c: 95% bound of 4-5b Hanks and Bakun(2001) : based on constant stress drop source scaling. For 7<M, L-model scaling of average fault slip U=αL, α=2E-5 4-6a4-6b a4-5b4-5c

Comparison of candidate M-logA relationships

1906 San Francisco event (1)The 1906 eq is one instance in a global dataset (2)1906 eq is the one of the event which is relevant to SFBR

Weight of M-logA models

Calculating mean moment approximation

Estimating rupture source moment rates

Fault segment moment rate μ=3E11dyne/cm^2 ν : long-term slip rate (Table 3.8)

Regional slip rate constraint Prescott et al. (2001): GPS data between 1992 and 2000 in central California  mm/yr Argus and Gordon (2001): GPS and VBLI  39+-2m/yr Long-term estimates DeMets and Dixon (1999) and Prescott et al.(2001):global plate- motion models mm/yr

Defining relative likelihoods of rupture Moment rate for each rupture source: product of available moment rate and the moment-balanced factors, summed across all rupture scenarios

Partitioning moment rate across earthquake types Fchar characteristic earthquake Fchar characteristic earthquake Fchar Fractions of seismogenic moment rate aftershocks Fafter small earthquake Fsmall small earthquake Fsmall Fchar + Fafetr + Fsmall = 1

Seismic moment rate in aftershocks Summed moment of aftershock=10% of main shock moment But This is because of some of very large aftershocks If the large aftershocks are removed, 3+-2% Fafter = 0

Seismic moment rate in smaller earthquakes

Magnitude-frequency distributions for faults Pi(M>Mτ) is the probability that the magnitude of rupture i is greater than the threshold value fmi(m) is the magnitude pdf for the ith rupture source

Background earthquakes Based on Gutenberg-Richter distribution For the (M>3) a=3.67( at 95% confidence) b=0.89 For the (M>5.5) a=3.94( at 95% confidence) b=0.89 Wesson et al.

Results: Long-term earthquake rates in the SFBR

Evaluating the SFBR Model (Regional comparisons) M> eq/yr b=1.02 M<6.7 b=0.9

Timing of Large EQ on SFBR faults

Evaluating the SFBR Model (Fault-specific comparisons)

Comparison of SFBR model to other models Frequency of events (6.7>M) Andrews and Schwere(2000) /yr 1 B=(2/3)b 1 B=(2/3)b SFBR model 0.031/yr using eq1 in Andrews and Schwere(2000): 0.028/yr Using roll-off model: 0.043/yr