Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Ray J. Weldon

Publications and source records attributed to Ray J. Weldon.

23 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
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

Compilation of surface creep on California faults and comparison of WGCEP 2007 deformation model to Pacific-North American plate Mmtion

This Appendix contains 3 sections that 1) documents published observations of surface creep on California faults, 2) constructs line integrals across the WG-07 deformation model to compare to the Pacific - North America plate motion, and 3) constructs strain tensors of volumes across the WG-07 deformation model to compare to the Pacific - North America plate motion. Observation of creep on faults is a critical part of our earthquake rupture model because if a fault is observed to creep the moment released as earthquakes is reduced from what would be inferred directly from the fault's slip rate. There is considerable debate about how representative creep measured at the surface during a short time period is of the whole fault surface through the entire seismic cycle (e.g. Hudnut and Clark, 1989). Observationally, it is clear that the amount of creep varies spatially and temporally on a fault. However, from a practical point of view a single creep rate is associated with a fault section and the reduction in seismic moment generated by the fault is accommodated in seismic hazard models by reducing the surface area that generates earthquakes or by reducing the slip rate that is converted into seismic energy. WG-07 decided to follow the practice of past Working Groups and the National Seismic Hazard Map and used creep rate (where it was judged to be interseismic, see Table P1) to reduce the area of the fault surface that generates seismic events. In addition to following past practice, this decision allowed the Working Group to use a reduction of slip rate as a separate factor to accommodate aftershocks, post seismic slip, possible aseismic permanent deformation along fault zones and other processes that are inferred to affect the entire surface area of a fault, and thus are better modeled as a reduction in slip rate. C-zones are also handled by a reduction in slip rate, because they are inferred to include regions of widely distributed shear that is not completely expressed as earthquakes large enough to model. Because the ratio of the rate of creep relative to the total slip rate is often used to infer the average depth of creep, the depth of creep can be calculated and used to reduce the surface area of a fault that generates earthquakes in our model. This reduction of surface area of rupture is described by an aseismicity factor, assigned to each creeping fault in Appendix A. An aseismicity factor of less than 1 is only assigned to faults that are inferred to creep during the entire interseismic period. A single aseismicity factor was chosen for each section of the fault that creeps by expert opinion from the observations documented here. Uncertainties were not determined for the aseismicity factor, and thus it represents an unmodeled (and difficult to model) source of error. This Appendix simply provides the documentation of known creep, the type and precision of its measurement, and attempts to characterize the creep as interseismic, afterslip, transient or triggered. Parts 2 and 3 of this Appendix compare the WG-07 deformation model and the seismic source model it generates to the strain generated by the Pacific - North American plate motion. The concept is that plate motion generates essentially all of the elastic strain in the vicinity of the plate boundary that can be released as earthquakes. Adding up the slip rates on faults and all others sources of deformation (such as C-zones and distributed background seismicity) should approximately yield the plate motion. This addition is usually accomplished by one of four approaches: 1) line integrals that sum deformation along discrete paths through the deforming zone between the two plates, 2) seismic moment tensors that add up seismic moment of a representative set of earthquakes generated by a crustal volume spanning the plate boundary, 3) strain tensors generated by adding up the strain associated with all of the faults in a crustal volume spanning the plate

Open-File Report↗
USGS2002

An update of Quaternary faults of central and eastern Oregon

This is the online version of a CD-ROM publication. We have updated the eastern portion of our previous active fault map of Oregon (Pezzopane, Nakata, and Weldon, 1992) as a contribution to the larger USGS effort to produce digital maps of active faults in the Pacific Northwest region. The 1992 fault map has seen wide distribution and has been reproduced in essentially all subsequent compilations of active faults of Oregon. The new map provides a substantial update of known active or suspected active faults east of the Cascades. Improvements in the new map include (1) many newly recognized active faults, (2) a linked ArcInfo map and reference database, (3) more precise locations for previously recognized faults on shaded relief quadrangles generated from USGS 30-m digital elevations models (DEM), (4) more uniform coverage resulting in more consistent grouping of the ages of active faults, and (5) a new category of 'possibly' active faults that share characteristics with known active faults, but have not been studied adequately to assess their activity. The distribution of active faults has not changed substantially from the original Pezzopane, Nakata and Weldon map. Most faults occur in the south-central Basin and Range tectonic province that is located in the backarc portion of the Cascadia subduction margin. These faults occur in zones consisting of numerous short faults with similar rates, ages, and styles of movement. Many active faults strongly correlate with the most active volcanic centers of Oregon, including Newberry Craters and Crater Lake.

Open-File Report↗