Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Karen R. Felzer

Publications and source records attributed to Karen R. Felzer.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2015

Long‐term time‐dependent probabilities for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)

The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 2014) presents time-dependent earthquake probabilities for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Building on the UCERF3 time-independent model, published previously, renewal models are utilized to represent elastic-rebound-implied probabilities. A new methodology has been developed that solves applicability issues in the previous approach for un-segmented models. The new methodology also supports magnitude-dependent aperiodicity and accounts for the historic open interval on faults that lack a date-of-last-event constraint. Epistemic uncertainties are represented with a logic tree, producing 5,760 different forecasts. Results for a variety of evaluation metrics are presented, including logic-tree sensitivity analyses and comparisons to the previous model (UCERF2). For 30-year M≥6.7 probabilities, the most significant changes from UCERF2 are a threefold increase on the Calaveras fault and a threefold decrease on the San Jacinto fault. Such changes are due mostly to differences in the time-independent models (e.g., fault slip rates), with relaxation of segmentation and inclusion of multi-fault ruptures being particularly influential. In fact, some UCERF2 faults were simply too long to produce M 6.7 sized events given the segmentation assumptions in that study. Probability model differences are also influential, with the implied gains (relative to a Poisson model) being generally higher in UCERF3. Accounting for the historic open interval is one reason. Another is an effective 27% increase in the total elastic-rebound-model weight. The exact factors influencing differences between UCERF2 and UCERF3, as well as the relative importance of logic-tree branches, vary throughout the region, and depend on the evaluation metric of interest. For example, M≥6.7 probabilities may not be a good proxy for other hazard or loss measures. This sensitivity, coupled with the approximate nature of the model and known limitations, means the applicability of UCERF3 should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗
USGS2015

Artificial seismic acceleration

In their 2013 paper, Bouchon, Durand, Marsan, Karabulut, 3 and Schmittbuhl (BDMKS) claim to see significant accelerating seismicity before M 6.5 interplate mainshocks, but not before intraplate mainshocks, reflecting a preparatory process before large events. We concur with the finding of BDMKS that their interplate dataset has significantly more fore- shocks than their intraplate dataset; however, we disagree that the foreshocks are predictive of large events in particular. Acceleration in stacked foreshock sequences has been seen before and has been explained by the cascade model, in which earthquakes occasionally trigger aftershocks larger than themselves4. In this model, the time lags between the smaller mainshocks and larger aftershocks follow the inverse power law common to all aftershock sequences, creating an apparent acceleration when stacked (see Supplementary Information).

Nature Geoscience↗
USGS2014

Pulverization provides a mechanism for the nucleation of earthquakes at low stress on strong faults

An earthquake occurs when rock that has been deformed under stress rebounds elastically along a fault plane ( Gilbert, 1884 ; Reid, 1911 ), radiating seismic waves through the surrounding earth. Rupture along the entire fault surface does not spontaneously occur at the same time, however. Rather the rupture starts in one tiny area, the rupture nucleation zone, and spreads sequentially along the fault. Like a row of dominoes, one bit of rebounding fault triggers the next. This triggering is understood to occur because of the large dynamic stresses at the tip of an active seismic rupture. The importance of these crack tip stresses is a central question in earthquake physics. The crack tip stresses are minimally important, for example, in the time predictable earthquake model ( Shimazaki and Nakata, 1980 ), which holds that prior to rupture stresses are comparable to fault strength in many locations on the future rupture plane, with bits of variation. The stress/strength ratio is highest at some point, which is where the earthquake nucleates. This model does not require any special conditions or processes at the nucleation site; the whole fault is essentially ready for rupture at the same time. The fault tip stresses ensure that the rupture occurs as a single rapid earthquake, but the fact that fault tip stresses are high is not particularly relevant since the stress at most points does not need to be raised by much. Under this model it should technically be possible to forecast earthquakes based on the stress-renewaql concept, or estimates of when the fault as a whole will reach the critical stress level, a practice used in official hazard mapping ( Field, 2008 ). This model also indicates that physical precursors may be present and detectable, since stresses are unusually high over a significant area before a large earthquake.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗
USGS2013

Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3): the time-independent model

In this report we present the time-independent component of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3), which provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and time-averaged frequency of potentially damaging earthquakes in California. The primary achievements have been to relax fault segmentation assumptions and to include multifault ruptures, both limitations of the previous model (UCERF2). The rates of all earthquakes are solved for simultaneously, and from a broader range of data, using a system-level "grand inversion" that is both conceptually simple and extensible. The inverse problem is large and underdetermined, so a range of models is sampled using an efficient simulated annealing algorithm. The approach is more derivative than prescriptive (for example, magnitude-frequency distributions are no longer assumed), so new analysis tools were developed for exploring solutions. Epistemic uncertainties were also accounted for using 1,440 alternative logic tree branches, necessitating access to supercomputers. The most influential uncertainties include alternative deformation models (fault slip rates), a new smoothed seismicity algorithm, alternative values for the total rate of M≥5 events, and different scaling relationships, virtually all of which are new. As a notable first, three deformation models are based on kinematically consistent inversions of geodetic and geologic data, also providing slip-rate constraints on faults previously excluded because of lack of geologic data. The grand inversion constitutes a system-level framework for testing hypotheses and balancing the influence of different experts. For example, we demonstrate serious challenges with the Gutenberg-Richter hypothesis for individual faults. UCERF3 is still an approximation of the system, however, and the range of models is limited (for example, constrained to stay close to UCERF2). Nevertheless, UCERF3 removes the apparent UCERF2 overprediction of M6.5–7 earthquake rates and also includes types of multifault ruptures seen in nature. Although UCERF3 fits the data better than UCERF2 overall, there may be areas that warrant further site-specific investigation. Supporting products may be of general interest, and we list key assumptions and avenues for future model improvements.

California↗
USGS2008

WGCEP historical California earthquake catalog

This appendix provides an earthquake catalog for California and the surrounding area. Our goal is to provide a listing for all known M > 5.5 earthquakes that occurred from 1850-1932 and all known M > 4.0 earthquakes that occurred from 1932-2006 within the region of 31.0 to 43.0 degrees North and -126.0 to -114.0 degrees West. Some pre-1932 earthquakes 4 < M < 5.5 are also listed. The completeness of the catalog varies strongly in time and space, in accordance with the locations of population centers and seismic instrumentation. The issue of catalog completeness is covered in depth in Appendix I, where seismicity rates are calculated for the state. The state of California was sparsely populated until the gold rush began attracting waves of migrants in 1848. The regular publication of newspapers did not begin in many locations until 1849 and 1850. Consequently, while the historic occurrence of earthquakes in California has been documented back to the 1700s, the pre-1850 catalog is quite incomplete and most of the earthquakes are poorly constrained. Thus we list the pre-1850 earthquakes in this catalog, but for all seismicity rate calculations performed in Appendix I only the 1850-2006 part of the catalog is used. One known and significant pre-1850 earthquake that is not listed in this catalog is the MW9.0 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake of January 26, 1700 (Satake et al. 2003). This earthquake was primarily off the coast of Oregon and Washington, and we do not list it here because its epicenter may very well have been outside of the California region. Yet the southern tip of this earthquake did extend to Eureka. A repeat of this event could create both a substantial shaking and tsunami hazard in California. Other significant pre-1850 earthquakes, which are listed in the catalog below, include two earthquakes in December of 1812 in Southern California of roughly M 7; at least the first of the pair occurred on the San Andreas Fault (Toppozada et al. 2002), and a June 1838 earthquake that occurred on the San Andreas near San Francisco. Data on the 1838 earthquake is particularily sparse ? we do not even know the day on which it occurred - and magnitude estimates range from M 6.8 (Bakun 1999) to M 7.4 (Toppozada et al. 2002). Earthquake listings from 1850-1932 are generally solved for from historical data sources, with magnitudes and locations determined from felt and damage reports rather than from instrumentation. Most earthquake listings from 1932-2006 are based on instrumental recordings, at least in Southern California. The Northern California seismic network did not produce a full instrumental catalog until 1942 and did not begin routine calculation of magnitudes until late in the 1940s (Uhrhammer et al. 1996). Southern California processed some Northern California events, however, particularly with M > 5, before the Northern California network was online. Some earthquakes from 1900-1932, and particularly from 1910-1932 are also based on instrumental readings, but the quality of the instrumental record and the resulting analysis are much less precise than for later listings. A partial exception is for some of the largest earthquakes, such as the San Francisco earthquake of April 18, 1906, for which global teleseismic records (Wald et al. 1993) and geodetic measurements (Thatcher et al. 1906) have been used to help determine magnitudes.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Calculating California seismicity rates

Empirically the rate of earthquakes = magnitude M is well fit by the Gutenberg-Richter relationship, logN=a-bM (1) where N is the number of earthquakes = M over a given time period, a is the number of M = 0 earthquakes over the same period, and b is a parameter that determines the ratio of larger to smaller earthquakes (Ishimoto and Iida 1939; Gutenberg and Richter 1944). Thus to characterize the seismicity rate, N, and risk in a given region we need to solve for the values of a and b. Here we are concerned with solving for the long term average values of these parameters for the state of California. My primary data source is a catalog of 1850-2006 M = 4.0 seismicity compiled with Tianqing Cao (Appendix H). Because earthquakes outside of the state can influence California I consider both earthquakes within the state and within 100 km of the state border (Figure 1).

Open-File Report↗