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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Earthquake recurrence models Are earthquakes random in space and time? We know where the faults are based on the geology and geomorphology Segmentation.
Advertisements

New Mapping of Creeping Faults Bartlett Springs Fault & northern Green Valley Fault
New paleoseismic data from the northern San Jacinto Fault Zone, southern California Nate Onderdonk (CSULB) Tom Rockwell (SDSU) Sally McGill (CSUSB) Gayatri.
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.
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)
Recurrence Intervals Frequency – Average time between past seismic events – aka “recurrence interval” Recurrence Interval = Average slip per major rupture.
Prague, March 18, 2005Antonio Emolo1 Seismic Hazard Assessment for a Characteristic Earthquake Scenario: Integrating Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches.
Use of Paleoseismic Data in Seismic Hazard Analysis: Examples from Europe K.Atakan and A.Ojeda Institute of Solid Earth Physics University of Bergen Allégt.41,
1 High Performance Computing at SCEC Scott Callaghan Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California.
Ch 3: Characterization of the SFBR Earthquake Sources Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2002.
Earthquake Probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Region Working Group 2002: Chapter 6 Ved Lekic EQW, April 6, 2007 Working Group 2002: Chapter.
A New Approach To Paleoseismic Event Correlation Glenn Biasi and Ray Weldon University of Nevada Reno Acknowledgments: Tom Fumal, Kate Scharer, SCEC and.
Chapter 4: The SFBR Earthquake Source Model: Magnitude and Long-Term Rates Ahyi Kim 2/23/07 EQW.
Using Geodetic Rates in Seismic Hazard Mapping March 30, Geodetic and Geologic slip rate estimates for earthquake hazard assessment in Southern California.
Chapter 5: Calculating Earthquake Probabilities for the SFBR Mei Xue EQW March 16.
Characterization of Ground Motion Hazard PEER Summative Meeting - June 13, 2007 Yousef Bozorgnia PEER Associate Director.
EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE Crucial for hazards, earthquake physics & tectonics (seismic versus aseismic deformation) Recordings of the east-west component of.
Time-dependent seismic hazard maps for the New Madrid seismic zone and Charleston, South Carolina areas James Hebden Seth Stein Department of Earth and.
E ARTHQUAKE C ENTER S OUTHERN C ALIFORNIA Statewide 3D Community Fault Model (SCFM) A statewide community-based, object-oriented, 3-D representation of.
Types of Plate Boundaries in California The Great California ShakeOut.
The Empirical Model Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena. A low modern/historical seismicity rate has long been recognized in the San Francisco Bay Area Stein 1999.
The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 Learning from the Past to Advance the Future By Mrs. Cheney.
Earthquake potential of the San Andreas and North Anatolian Fault Zones: A comparative look M. B. Sørensen Department of Earth Science, University of Bergen,
The San Andreas Fault By Kevin Buckley And Nicholas Schuch, Esquire.
Segments of the San Andreas Fault Historically, the San Andreas has been divided up into individual fault segments that range from tens to hundreds of.
NA-Pa Plate Boundary Wilson [1960] USGS Prof. Paper 1515.
Southern California Earthquake Center Mini Grand Challenge Lindsay Arvin Daniel Philo Ryan Meier Jing Yuan Kelvin Vasquez Ngoc Kiem.
San Andreas Big Bend A geometric feature Restraining the relative plate motion Nature’s solution Impacts include:  patterns of faults, seismicity  Rupture.
Turkey Earthquake Risk Model Financing the Risks of Natural Disasters World Bank Washington, DC, June 2-3, 2003 Dennis E. Kuzak Senior Vice President,
Paleoseismic and Geologic Data for Earthquake Simulations Lisa B. Grant and Miryha M. Gould.
Time-independent hazard-random process in time: used for building design, planning, insurance, probability Time-dependent hazard-a degree of predictability,
Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Comments on UCERF 3 Art Frankel USGS For Workshop on Use of UCERF3 in the National Seismic Hazard Maps Oct , 2012.
Updating Models of Earthquake Recurrence and Rupture Geometry of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for UCERF3 and the National Seismic Hazard Maps Art Frankel.
Lisa Wald USGS Pasadena U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Earthquakes 101 (EQ101)
NE Caribbean and Hispaniola = major plate boundary, 2 cm/yr relative motion Strike-slip + convergence partitioned between 3 major fault systems Apparent.
Blue – comp red - ext. blue – comp red - ext blue – comp red - ext.
Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.
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.
Compilation to date Much of the deformation at the Wrightwood site is distributed across complicated small faults and folds that, in the.
Jayne Bormann and Bill Hammond sent two velocity fields on a uniform grid constructed from their test exercise using CMM4. Hammond ’ s code.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Earthquake is Inevitable: The Disaster is Not.
T19 ~10,200 BP Cascadia: The Movie This sequence will start automatically and shows the Cascadia Holocene earthquake sequence, starting 10,000 years ago.
CISN: Draft Plans for Funding Sources: OES/FEMA/ANSS/Others CISN-PMG Sacramento 10/19/2004.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) Development of a Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF)
San Andreas MW 7.9 Earthquake: Slip at Critical Lifeline Crossings ShakeOut scenario for southern California Dr. Ken Hudnut U.S. Geological Survey,
9. As hazardous as California? USGS/FEMA: Buildings should be built to same standards How can we evaluate this argument? Frankel et al., 1996.
112/16/2010AGU Annual Fall Meeting - NG44a-08 Terry Tullis Michael Barall Steve Ward John Rundle Don Turcotte Louise Kellogg Burak Yikilmaz Eric Heien.
1 Ivan Wong Principal Seismologist/Vice President Seismic Hazards Group, URS Corporation Oakland, CA Uncertainties in Characterizing the Cascadia Subduction.
The repetition of large earthquakes, with similar coseismic offsets along the Carrizo segment of San Andreas fault has been documented using geomorphic.
David Schmidt Ray Weldon Reed Burgette Randy Krogstad Haiying Gao
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 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)
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.
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.
What is characteristic about a characteristic earthquake? Implications from multi-scale studies of the relative earthquake size distribution Stefan Wiemer.
Comments on physical simulator models
Plate tectonics: Quantifying and characterizing crustal deformation
Velocities in ITRF – not appropriate for interpretation
Some issues/limitations with current UCERF approach
SAN ANDREAS FAULT San Francisco Bay Area North American plate
Tectonics V: Quantifying and characterizing crustal deformation
Southern California Earthquake Center
Pop Quiz 3 Review.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Presentation transcript:

National Seismic Hazard Maps and Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 1.0 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (Golden, CO) California Geological Survey (Sacramento, CA) Ken Campbell (EQECAT)

Western U.S. Hazard Model

A and B faults 2/3 weight1/3 weightB-faults: A-faults:1.0 weight 0 weight CharacteristicG-R

2 mm/yr, M strike=-25 b=0.8 2 mm/yr M strike=-45 b=0.8 4 mm/yr M strike=-45 b= mm/yr M strike=-35 b= mm/yr Death Valley White Mountains 1 mm/yr Genoa Antelope V. Honey Lake 2.5 mm/yr Surprise Valley 1.3 Hat Creek, McCarther, Cedar Mtn mm/yr

Comparison of model slip rates with NUVEL I slip rates

Time-independent 2002 NSHM 1996 faults with a few modifications WGCEP 2002 rates for S.F. Bay area faults Southern San Andreas (moment balanced) Model 1 paleoseismic rate model: Weights assigned so the total rates of large earthquakes on given segments consistent with observed paleoseismic rates. Magnitude determined from magnitude-area relations, moment rate from slip rate and fault area, recurrence rates determined by dividing the moment rate by seismic moment of scenario earthquake. 5 independent single segment ruptures (wt=0.1) 1857 and southern S.A. ruptures (wt=0.5) Complete rupture of all 5 segments (wt=0.4) Model 2 Characteristic slip model: Uses SCEC Phase 2 slip and rates. Carrizo rate = 1857 rate (4.7e-3/yr), 4.75 m displacement (SCEC Phase 2), leftover slip rate on Mojave (9 mm/yr, 4.4 m event) and Cholame (12 mm/yr, 4.75 m event); Coachella+San Bern., M 7.7 event and slip rate and rupture area gives recurrence rate of 5.5e-3).

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 TIME-DEPENDENT SEGMENTATION MODELS Legacy models Geologic model WGCEP 2002 Petersen et al. 2002

New time-dependent models 1. Legacy Model 1: Applied to time-independent model 1 (paleoseismic rate model). Probability gains are averaged for all segments involved in multi-segment ruptures. 2. Legacy Model 2: Applied to time-independent model 2 (characteristic slip model). Total time-dependent rate of earthquakes on Carrizo defined as Leftover rate put on single segment ruptures. 3. Geologic model: 2 complete rupture models (single segment and multi-segment ruptures). Single segments based on typical methods of calculating probabilities (wt 10%), multi-segment ruptures based on Weldon et al. characteristic type model (wt 90%).

TIME-DEPENDENT ANALYSIS FOR SOUTHERN SAN ANDREAS : MODEL 3 Two multi segment rupture models based on Weldon et al Rupture scenarios for the Southern San Andreas fault. Vertical bars represent the age range of paleoseismic events recognized to date, and horizontal bars represent possible ruptures. Gray shows regions/times without data. In (A) all events seen on the northern 2/3 of the fault are constrained to be as much like the 1857 AD rupture as possible, and all other sites are grouped to produce ruptures that span the southern ½ of the fault; this model is referred to the North Bend/South Bend scenario. In (B) ruptures are constructed to be as varied as possible, while still satisfy the existing age data. From Weldon et al.:

CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE

, Lognormal density function: defined by sigma and mu-hat which is The median recurrence.

TIME-DEPENDENT ANALYSIS FOR SOUTHERN SAN ANDREAS : MODEL 1 The time-dependent 30-year probabilities for the five segments Coachella, San Bernardino, Mojave, Carrizo, and Cholame are 0.325, 0.358, 0.342, 0.442, and assuming a lognormal distribution. The equivalent annual rates are calculated using the formula r = -ln(1-p)/t, where p is the segment time-dependent probability in t (30 years). This rate is divided by the Poissonian rate of the 2002 model and produces the probability gain for each segment. The gains for five segments are 1.141, 1.918, 1.065, 1.690, and The weighted gain for this 5-segment rupture is (= (0.325x x x x X1.114)/ ( )). The final annual rate for this rupture is the Poissonian rate ( ) multiplied by this gain and the 2002 model weight (0.4), which is (= x1.384x0.4). Segment probability gain Multi-Segment probability gain

TIME-DEPENDENT ANALYSIS FOR SOUTHERN SAN ANDREAS : MODEL 2 We apply these different mean recurrence times and the same elapse times and intrinsic and parametric uncertainties and calculate time-dependent 30-year probabilities and their equivalent annual rates as we did in model 1. These rates are , , , , and for the segments: Coachella, San Bernardino, Mojave, Carrizo, and Cholame respectively. The Carrizo segment in T.D. model 2 only ruptures in 1857 type of events, so the time-dependent annual rate for 1857 type of rupture is defined as the rate for Carrizo segment ( ). The Cholame and Mojave segments are allowed in 2002 model to rupture independently. The time-dependent rates for these two segments are their time-dependent rates, which are converted from their 30-year probabilities, subtracted by the rate for 1857 type events or (= – ) for Cholame and (= – ) for Mojave ruptures.

2/3 weight 1/3 weight Recurrence: moment of characteristic earthquake/moment rate of fault B-faults: A-faults:1.0 weight 0 weight

Time-dependent model applied to A-faults WGCEP 2002 Petersen et al Cramer et al Frankel et al. 2002