Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Edward H. Field

Publications and source records attributed to Edward H. Field.

70 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2012

A comparison among observations and earthquake simulator results for the allcal2 California fault model

In order to understand earthquake hazards we would ideally have a statistical description of earthquakes for tens of thousands of years. Unfortunately the ∼100‐year instrumental, several 100‐year historical, and few 1000‐year paleoseismological records are woefully inadequate to provide a statistically significant record. Physics‐based earthquake simulators can generate arbitrarily long histories of earthquakes; thus they can provide a statistically meaningful history of simulated earthquakes. The question is, how realistic are these simulated histories? This purpose of this paper is to begin to answer that question. We compare the results between different simulators and with information that is known from the limited instrumental, historic, and paleoseismological data. As expected, the results from all the simulators show that the observational record is too short to properly represent the system behavior; therefore, although tests of the simulators against the limited observations are necessary, they are not a sufficient test of the simulators’ realism. The simulators appear to pass this necessary test. In addition, the physics‐based simulators show similar behavior even though there are large differences in the methodology. This suggests that they represent realistic behavior. Different assumptions concerning the constitutive properties of the faults do result in enhanced capabilities of some simulators. However, it appears that the similar behavior of the different simulators may result from the fault‐system geometry, slip rates, and assumed strength drops, along with the shared physics of stress transfer. This paper describes the results of running four earthquake simulators that are described elsewhere in this issue of Seismological Research Letters. The simulators ALLCAL (Ward, 2012), VIRTCAL (Sachs et al., 2012), RSQSim (Richards‐Dinger and Dieterich, 2012), and ViscoSim (Pollitz, 2012) were run on our most recent all‐California fault model, allcal2. With the exception of ViscoSim, which ran for 10,000 years, all the simulators ran for 30,000 years. Presentations containing content similar to this paper can be found at http://scec.usc.edu/research/eqsims/.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2012

Trimming the UCERF2 hazard logic tree

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2 (UCERF2) is a fully time‐dependent earthquake rupture forecast developed with sponsorship of the California Earthquake Authority (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities [WGCEP], 2007; Field et al., 2009). UCERF2 contains 480 logic‐tree branches reflecting choices among nine modeling uncertainties in the earthquake rate model shown in Figure 1. For seismic hazard analysis, it is also necessary to choose a ground‐motion‐prediction equation (GMPE) and set its parameters. Choosing among four next‐generation attenuation (NGA) relationships results in a total of 1920 hazard calculations per site. The present work is motivated by a desire to reduce the computational effort involved in a hazard analysis without understating uncertainty. We set out to assess which branching points of the UCERF2 logic tree contribute most to overall uncertainty, and which might be safely ignored (set to only one branch) without significantly biasing results or affecting some useful measure of uncertainty. The trimmed logic tree will have all of the original choices from the branching points that contribute significantly to uncertainty, but only one arbitrarily selected choice from the branching points that do not.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2011

Seismic-Hazard Maps for the Conterminous United States, 2008

Probabilistic seismic-hazard maps were prepared for the conterminous United States portraying peak horizontal acceleration and horizontal spectral response acceleration for 0.2- and 1.0-second periods with probabilities of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years and 2 percent in 50 years. All of the maps were prepared by combining the hazard derived from spatially smoothed historic seismicity with the hazard from fault-specific sources. The acceleration values contoured are the random horizontal component. The reference site condition is firm rock, defined as having an average shear-wave velocity of 760 m/s in the top 30 meters corresponding to the boundary between NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program) site classes B and C. This data set represents the results of calculations of hazard curves for a grid of points with a spacing of 0.05 degrees in latitude and longitude. The grid of points were contoured to produce the final representation of the seismic-hazard. These maps are intended to summarize the available quantitative information about seismic ground motion hazard for the conterminous United States from geologic and geophysical source.

Scientific Investigations Map↗
USGS2010

CyberShake: A Physics-Based Seismic Hazard Model for Southern California

CyberShake, as part of the Southern California Earthquake Center’s (SCEC) Community Modeling Environment, is developing a methodology that explicitly incorporates deterministic source and wave propagation effects within seismic hazard calculations through the use of physics-based 3D ground motion simulations. To calculate a waveform-based seismic hazard estimate for a site of interest, we begin with Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2.0 (UCERF2.0) and identify all ruptures within 200 km of the site of interest. We convert the UCERF2.0 rupture definition into multiple rupture variations with differing hypocenter locations and slip distributions, resulting in about 415,000 rupture variations per site. Strain Green Tensors are calculated for the site of interest using the SCEC Community Velocity Model, Version 4 (CVM4), and then, using reciprocity, we calculate synthetic seismograms for each rupture variation. Peak intensity measures are then extracted from these synthetics and combined with the original rupture probabilities to produce probabilistic seismic hazard curves for the site. Being explicitly site-based, CyberShake directly samples the ground motion variability at that site over many earthquake cycles (i.e., rupture scenarios) and alleviates the need for the ergodic assumption that is implicitly included in traditional empirically based calculations. Thus far, we have simulated ruptures at over 200 sites in the Los Angeles region for ground shaking periods of 2 s and longer, providing the basis for the first generation CyberShake hazard maps. Our results indicate that the combination of rupture directivity and basin response effects can lead to an increase in the hazard level for some sites, relative to that given by a conventional Ground Motion Prediction Equation (GMPE). Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we find that the physics-based hazard results are much more sensitive to the assumed magnitude-area relations and magnitude uncertainty estimates used in the definition of the ruptures than is found in the traditional GMPE approach. This reinforces the need for continued development of a better understanding of earthquake source characterization and the constitutive relations that govern the earthquake rupture process.

California↗
USGS2008

Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps

The 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps display earthquake ground motions for various probability levels across the United States and are applied in seismic provisions of building codes, insurance rate structures, risk assessments, and other public policy. This update of the maps incorporates new findings on earthquake ground shaking, faults, seismicity, and geodesy. The resulting maps are derived from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of sites across the United States that describe the frequency of exceeding a set of ground motions. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project developed these maps by incorporating information on potential earthquakes and associated ground shaking obtained from interaction in science and engineering workshops involving hundreds of participants, review by several science organizations and State surveys, and advice from two expert panels. The new probabilistic hazard maps represent an update of the 2002 seismic hazard maps developed by Frankel and others (2002), which used the methodology developed for the 1996 version of the maps (Frankel and others, 1996). Algermissen and Perkins (1976) published the first probabilistic seismic hazard map of the United States which was updated in Algermissen and others (1990). The National Seismic Hazard Maps represent our assessment of the “best available science” in earthquake hazards estimation for the United States (maps of Alaska and Hawaii as well as further information on hazard across the United States are available on our Web site at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/ ).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Forecasting California's earthquakes— What can we expect in the next 30 years?

In a new comprehensive study, scientists have determined that the chance of having one or more magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquakes in the California area over the next 30 years is greater than 99%. Such quakes can be deadly, as shown by the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta and the 1994 magnitude 6.7 Northridge earthquakes. The likelihood of at least one even more powerful quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the next 30 years is 46%?such a quake is most likely to occur in the southern half of the State. Building codes, earthquake insurance, and emergency planning will be affected by these new results, which highlight the urgency to prepare now for the powerful quakes that are inevitable in California?s future.

California↗
USGS2008

Development of final a-fault rupture models for WGCEP/ NSHMP Earthquake Rate Model 2

This appendix discusses how we compute the magnitude and rate of earthquake ruptures for the seven Type-A faults (Elsinore, Garlock, San Jacinto, S. San Andreas, N. San Andreas, Hayward-Rodgers Creek, and Calaveras) in the WGCEP/NSHMP Earthquake Rate Model 2 (referred to as ERM 2. hereafter). By definition, Type-A faults are those that have relatively abundant paleoseismic information (e.g., mean recurrence-interval estimates). The first section below discusses segmentation-based models, where ruptures are assumed be confined to one or more identifiable segments. The second section discusses an un-segmented-model option, the third section discusses results and implications, and we end with a discussion of possible future improvements. General background information can be found in the main report.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

A-priori rupture models for Northern California Type-A faults

This appendix describes how a-priori rupture models were developed for the northern California Type-A faults. As described in the main body of this report, and in Appendix G, “a-priori” models represent an initial estimate of the rate of single and multi-segment surface ruptures on each fault. Whether or not a given model is moment balanced (i.e., satisfies section slip-rate data) depends on assumptions made regarding the average slip on each segment in each rupture (which in turn depends on the chosen magnitude-area relationship). Therefore, for a given set of assumptions, or branch on the logic tree, the methodology of the present Working Group (WGCEP-2007) is to find a final model that is as close as possible to the a-priori model, in the least squares sense, but that also satisfies slip rate and perhaps other data. This is analogous the WGCEP- 2002 approach of effectively voting on the relative rate of each possible rupture, and then finding the closest moment-balance model (under a more limiting set of assumptions than adopted by the present WGCEP, as described in detail in Appendix G). The 2002 Working Group Report (WCCEP, 2003, referred to here as WGCEP-2002), created segmented earthquake rupture forecast models for all faults in the region, including some that had been designated as Type B faults in the NSHMP, 1996, and one that had not previously been considered. The 2002 National Seismic Hazard Maps used the values from WGCEP-2002 for all the faults in the region, essentially treating all the listed faults as Type A faults. As discussed in Appendix A, the current WGCEP found that there are a number of faults with little or no data on slip-per-event, or dates of previous earthquakes. As a result, the WGCEP recommends that faults with minimal available earthquake recurrence data: the Greenville, Mount Diablo, San Gregorio, Monte Vista-Shannon and Concord-Green Valley be modeled as Type B faults to be consistent with similarly poorly-known faults statewide. As a result, the modified segmented models discussed here only concern the San Andreas, Hayward-Rodgers Creek, and Calaveras faults.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Conditional, time-dependent probabilities for segmented Type-A faults in the WGCEP UCERF 2

This appendix presents elastic-rebound-theory (ERT) motivated time-dependent probabilities, conditioned on the date of last earthquake, for the segmented type-A fault models of the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). These probabilities are included as one option in the WGCEP?s Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2 (UCERF 2), with the other options being time-independent Poisson probabilities and an ?Empirical? model based on observed seismicity rate changes. A more general discussion of the pros and cons of all methods for computing time-dependent probabilities, as well as the justification of those chosen for UCERF 2, are given in the main body of this report (and the 'Empirical' model is also discussed in Appendix M). What this appendix addresses is the computation of conditional, time-dependent probabilities when both single- and multi-segment ruptures are included in the model. Computing conditional probabilities is relatively straightforward when a fault is assumed to obey strict segmentation in the sense that no multi-segment ruptures occur (e.g., WGCEP (1988, 1990) or see Field (2007) for a review of all previous WGCEPs; from here we assume basic familiarity with conditional probability calculations). However, and as we?ll see below, the calculation is not straightforward when multi-segment ruptures are included, in essence because we are attempting to apply a point-process model to a non point process. The next section gives a review and evaluation of the single- and multi-segment rupture probability-calculation methods used in the most recent statewide forecast for California (WGCEP UCERF 1; Petersen et al., 2007). We then present results for the methodology adopted here for UCERF 2. We finish with a discussion of issues and possible alternative approaches that could be explored and perhaps applied in the future. A fault-by-fault comparison of UCERF 2 probabilities with those of previous studies is given in the main part of this report.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2005

Hazard calculations for the WGCEP-2002 earthquake forecast using OpenSHA and distributed object technologies

We present seismic-hazard calculations for what is arguably the most sophisticated earthquake forecast ever developed—the model by the 2002 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003), or WGCEP-2002 as referred to hereafter. These calculations have been made possible by developments in both OpenSHA ( Field et al. , 2003 ) and the Information Technology Research (ITR) Collaboration of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) ( Jordan et al. , 2003 ). In particular, we demonstrate the use of a freely available, platform-independent, and graphical-user-interface-based application for computing hazard curves. This application utilizes distributed-object technologies, meaning the code running on the client's computer communicates over the Internet with code hosted elsewhere on server computers. This interoperability, which is invisible to the user, makes the application fast and executable without heavy installation requirements. Instructions on how to reproduce the calculations presented here are available under “Publications” at the Web site http://www.OpenSHA.org/ .

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS2001

Earthquake shaking — Finding the "hot spots"

A new Southern California Earthquake Center study has quantified how local geologic conditions affect the shaking experienced in an earthquake. The important geologic factors at a site are softness of the rock or soil near the surface and thickness of the sediments above hard bedrock. Even when these 'site effects' are taken into account, however, each earthquake exhibits unique 'hotspots' of anomalously strong shaking. Better predictions of strong ground shaking will therefore require additional geologic data and more comprehensive computer simulations of individual earthquakes.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2000

Accounting for site effects in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses of southern California: Overview of the SCEC Phase III Report

This article presents an overview of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Phase-III effort to determine the extent to which probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) can be improved by accounting for site effects. The contributions made in this endeavor are represented in the various articles that compose this special issue of BSSA. Given the somewhat arbitrary nature of the site-effect distinction, it must be carefully defined in any given context. With respect to PSHA, we define the site effect as the response, relative to an attenuation relationship, averaged over all damaging earthquakes in the region. A diligent effort has been made to identify any attributes that predispose a site to greater or lower levels of shaking. The most detailed maps of Quaternary geology are not found to be helpful; either they are overly detailed in terms of distinguishing different amplification factors or present southern California strong-motion observations are inadequate to reveal their superiority. A map based on the average shear-wave velocity in the upper 30 m, however, is found to delineate significantly different amplification factors. A correlation of amplification with basin depth is also found to be significant, implying up to a factor of two difference between the shallowest and deepest parts of the Los Angeles basin. In fact, for peak acceleration the basin-depth correction is more influential than the 30-m shear-wave velocity. Questions remain, however, as to whether basin depth is a proxy for some other site attribute. In spite of these significant and important site effects, the standard deviation of an attenuation relationship (the prediction error) is not significantly reduced by making such corrections. That is, given the influence of basin-edge-induced waves, subsurface focusing, and scattering in general, any model that attempts to predict ground motion with only a few parameters will have a substantial intrinsic variability. Our best hope for reducing such uncertainties is via waveform modeling based on first principals of physics. Finally, questions remain with respect to the overall reliability of attenuation relationships at large magnitudes and short distances. Current discrepancies between viable models produce up to a factor of 3 difference among predicted 10% in 50-yr exceedance levels, part of which results from the uncertain influence of sediment nonlinearity.

California↗
USGS1997

The variability of PSV response spectra across a dense array deployed during the Northridge aftershock sequence

This study addresses the variability of pseudo-velocity response spectra across an array deployed on stiff soil in the San Fernando Valley during the Northridge (M w 6.7) aftershock sequence. The separation between stations ranged from 0.5 to 5 km, and the aftershock magnitudes ranged from 2.3 to 4.0. We find that 95-percent of observed response spectra are within a factor of 1.9 to 2.6 of the network average. Statistically significant relative amplification factors were found for some of the sites, but the variability of observed response spectra is not significantly reduced by correcting for these effects. This implies that microzonation efforts on less than 5-km distance scales are not warranted at these types of sites. We also found a distance dependence for the response-spectral variability between neighboring sites. 95-percent are within a factor of ∼2.3 at 0.5 km, increasing to 95-percent within a factor of ∼4.2 at 5 km. No frequency dependence in these values could be resolved. Additional work is needed to examine the influence of other factors such as earthquake magnitude.

California↗