Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

G. Juve

Publications and source records attributed to G. Juve.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

The ShakeOut earthquake scenario: Verification of three simulation sets

This paper presents a verification of three simulations of the ShakeOut scenario, an M w 7.8 earthquake on a portion of the San Andreas fault in southern California, conducted by three different groups at the Southern California Earthquake Center using the SCEC Community Velocity Model for this region. We conducted two simulations using the finite difference method, and one by the finite element method, and performed qualitative and quantitative comparisons between the corresponding results. The results are in good agreement with each other; only small differences occur both in amplitude and phase between the various synthetics at ten observation points located near and away from the fault-as far as 150 km away from the fault. Using an available goodness-of-fit criterion all the comparisons scored above 8, with most above 9.2. This score would be regarded as excellent if the measurements were between recorded and synthetic seismograms. We also report results of comparisons based on time-frequency misfit criteria. Results from these two criteria can be used for calibrating the two methods for comparing seismograms. In those cases in which noticeable discrepancies occurred between the seismograms generated by the three groups, we found that they were the product of inherent characteristics of the various numerical methods used and their implementations. In particular, we found that the major source of discrepancy lies in the difference between mesh and grid representations of the same material model. Overall, however, even the largest differences in the synthetic seismograms are small. Thus, given the complexity of the simulations used in this verification, it appears that the three schemes are consistent, reliable and sufficiently accurate and robust for use in future large-scale simulations. ?? 2009 The Authors Journal compilation ?? 2009 RAS.

Geophysical Journal International↗