1 / 50

UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications

UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications. Hazard comparison metrics Inversion testing C onvergence and eqn. set weighting Hazard maps Influence of logic tree branches Contributions to changes in hazard Hazard curves at sites. Hazard Evaluation: Metrics. Ground motion values:

amiel
Download Presentation

UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UCERF3.2: Hazard Implications • Hazard comparison metrics • Inversion testing • Convergence and eqn. set weighting • Hazard maps • Influence of logic tree branches • Contributions to changes in hazard • Hazard curves at sites 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  2. Hazard Evaluation: Metrics • Ground motion values: • 2% in 50 years (Prob. Exceed.) • 10% in 50 years (Prob. Exceed.) • RTGM (1% Prob. Collapse in 50 yr.) • Frequencies • PGA • 5Hz • 1Hz • Curves: NEHRP (2009) Test Cities Other WGCEP, PBR • Maps: Full logic-tree for PGA (1440 branches) Partial tree for 1Hz (40 branches) 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  3. Hazard Metrics: RTGM • Risk Targeted Ground Motion (RTGM) • Adopted by BSSC in conjunction with 2009 NEHRP provisions • Ground motion for 1% probability of collapse in 50 years • Computed at frequencies: 5Hz and 1Hz • Scalar valued • Considers entire hazard curve 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  4. Hazard Curves: Inversion Convergence • Examine variation over repeated inversion runs • Single “reference” branch • 100 runs San Diego PGA San Francisco 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  5. Hazard Curves: Inversion Eqn. Weights • Examine effect of varying inversion equation weights • 11 weight variants San Diego PGA San Francisco 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  6. Hazard Maps: UC2 vs. UC3 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  7. Hazard Ratios: Grid vs. Fault Sources 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  8. Hazard Ratios: Grid Source Comparison 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  9. Hazard Ratios: Smooth Seis. Comparison 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  10. Branch Ratios: Fault Models 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  11. Branch Ratios: Deformation Models 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  12. Branch Ratios: Magnitude Scaling Rel. 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  13. Branch Ratios: Dsr (slip along rupture) 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  14. Branch Ratios: M≥5 rate 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  15. Branch Ratios: Off-fault Mmax 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  16. Branch Ratios: Smoothed Seis. models 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  17. Hazard Ratio: Sources of Change • Explain all non-yellow areas • Smoothed seismicity model • New faults, slip changes, or Mo rate changes • Methodological changes

  18. Sources of Change: Mmax & M≥5 rate UCERF 3.2 / NSHMP08 Grid Sources Only (and using only U2 Smoothed Seis.) Shows influence of Mmax & total M≥5 rate increase for gridded seismicity

  19. Sources of Change: Artifacts UCERF 3.2 / NSHMP08 Grid Sources Only (using both U2 & U3 Smoothed Seis.) Artifact of “Deep seismicity” being excluded from denominator map Shows influence of tighter U3 Smoothed Seis. Model

  20. Sources of Change: Grid Sources UCERF 3.2 / NSHMP08 Grid Sources Only (using both U2 & U3 Smoothed Seis Map) Influenced by UCERF3 smoothed- seismicity branch Shows influence of tighter U3 Smoothed Seis. Model

  21. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Big Lagoon-Bald Mtn: Extended N ~60 km, and moment rate ~8 times higher on ABM Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  22. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate New faults: Klamath Falls Lake E & W Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  23. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Gillem and Cedar Mtn.faults have lower slip rates Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  24. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Four new faults Likely Fault (moment rate doubled) Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  25. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Maacama(20% increase in moment rate) 8 new faults (ABM rates high due to block boundary) West Napa (factor of 3.5 increase in Mo rate, ABM about 4 times higher than others) Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  26. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Great Valley 07 (Orestimba) moment rate went down by ~60% New Great Valley faults Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  27. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Calaveras (So) - Paicinesextension Complex combination of new faults and geometric and rate changes Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  28. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate New fault: Oceanic – West Hausna (NeoKinema rate more than 4 times higher than others) 3 new faults Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  29. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Mix ofnew faults & gridded sources New fault: Lost Hills New faults in Mojave Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  30. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate New Fault: Cerro Prieto New faults: San Clemente San Diego Trough Santa Cruz Catalina Ridge San Pedro Basin Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  31. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Death Valley Faults (North, South, and Black Mtn. Frontal): moment rates went down ~40% Cucamonga:biggest methodological change Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  32. Sources of Change: Fault Sources UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate AnacapaDume:moment rate down by factor of 3 Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  33. UCERF3/UCERF2 Mo Rate Addition of, or moment rate change on faults Log10(Mo ratio); new faults are black

  34. Hazard Analysis Sites 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  35. Hazard Analysis Sites 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  36. Hazard Curves: • Blue: Logic tree weighted mean hazard curve (UC3) • Light Blue: Logic tree min max hazard curve range • Red:UC2 logic tree weighted mean(solid), min and max (dashed) hazard curves • Green: NSHMP reference value • Ground motion histogram of logic tree branches summed over weights • Tornado diagram 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  37. Hazard Curves: Los Angeles PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  38. Hazard Curves: San Francisco PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  39. Sites with changes > 10% 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  40. Hazard Curves: Redding (x3) PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  41. Grid & Fault Conributions: Redding 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  42. Hazard Curves: San Diego (140%) PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  43. Hazard Curves: Vallejo (120%) PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  44. Hazard Curves: San Bernardino (88%) PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  45. Hazard Curves: Oakland(82%) PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  46. Hazard Curves: Cucamonga (50%) PGA 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  47. Hazard Ratios: PGA vs. 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  48. Hazard Ratios: PGA vs. 1Hz 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  49. Hazard Ratios: Logic-Tree Weight Variation 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

  50. Continued UCERF3 analysis… • Branch averaged solutions • Deaggregation • Stacked histograms of ground motion distribution at sites for each logic tree node (branch correlations) • Repeat convergence and equation weight tests • Higher resolution maps around San Francisco and Los Angeles • Hazard analyses online: • http://opensha.usc.edu/ftp/pmpowers/UCERF3.2/ 2013 USGS NSHMP CA Workshop II

More Related