1 / 26

A New Approach To Paleoseismic Event Correlation

A New Approach To Paleoseismic Event Correlation. Glenn Biasi and Ray Weldon University of Nevada Reno Acknowledgments: Tom Fumal, Kate Scharer, SCEC and the USGS. Big Question. How do we estimate seismic hazard when we can’t prove events correlate between paleoseismic sites?

magee
Download Presentation

A New Approach To Paleoseismic Event Correlation

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. A New Approach To Paleoseismic Event Correlation Glenn Biasi and Ray Weldon University of Nevada Reno Acknowledgments: Tom Fumal, Kate Scharer, SCEC and the USGS.

  2. Big Question • How do we estimate seismic hazard when we can’t prove events correlate between paleoseismic sites? • Why it matters (1): • If they correlate: longer, less frequent ruptures • If not: shorter, more frequent ruptures. • Why it matters (2): • Support for future paleoseismic investigations.

  3. 0 2000 Calendar Year The Data: Paleoseismic event date pdf’s.

  4. Correlating Events Between Paleoseismic Sites • Time correlation is not likely to ever be entirely convincing. • Example: two exactly overlapping uniform date pdf’s six years wide give 1/6 chance that the events are in the sameyear. • Probabilities of correlation based on displacement fall off with site separation (ask me later what can be done).

  5. Ways to build a rupture history (1) N. Bend/ S. Bend No pattern Big events Example from Weldon et al. (2004) Science

  6. Ways (2) Pearls to Scenarios • Find all ruptures consistent at some level with the data • Build a large suite of rupture scenarios • Select likely histories using other constraints (slip rate, dating consistency, etc.) • Study the properties of likely histories for recurrence, segmentation, etc.

  7. Linking involves some rules for overlap. Rules don’t seem to dominate results. Pair-wise joint probability range: ~3e-2 to 3e-3; -> absolute likelihoods are all small

  8. Example ruptures.

  9. Building Scenarios from Ruptures • Draw from all possible ruptures until each paleoquake is included exactly once. • Scenario is one possible history of rupture on the fault. Construct 10,000 scenarios. • Core rupture lengths set by sites in rupture. • Tails added by drawing around the average per-event displacement d, then tapering by 9900*d. Use measured d where available. • Tail truncated if rupture would cross a neighboring site. • Tails can extend into creeping zone and Bombay Beach.

  10. Scoring Scenarios • Degree of time agreement in ruptures • Total displacement compared to rupture prediction in some time. • Recurrence rate in light of hiatus since 1857 (number of ruptures)

  11. The lack of a southern SAF earthquake since 1857 constrains the probable number of ruptures in viable scenarios. E.g., 15 rupture scenarios are twice as likely as 22 rupture scenarios.

  12. Segment bounds (WGCEP) - frequency of single- and multiple segment ruptures fall out directly. Fewest ruptures case. Two wall-to-wall (W2W) ruptures since AD 900. Displacement scales with length. W2W cause serious over- prediction of total displace- ment. (14.7 m mean). How much misfit is too much?

  13. WW: several short events - un- correlated. No wall-to-wall events; 2 pre-1857 north-bend events, one bigger. Best case: 1.43 m. avg. misfit. Max age of complete record. predicted from slip rate Coachella misfit maximum displacement among all ruptures.

  14. Time overlap score Displ. score vs. rupture number Product time score vs. displace- ment fit. Best time scores Fewest ruptures, okay displ. scores Time Score Best displ. scores Product score vs. # of ruptures Displ. vs. # of ruptures; trend below 21 ruptures is too few. Displ. Score No. Ruptures No. Ruptures

  15. Applications of Rupture Scenarios (2) segs 1, 2 no segs L1 L2 seg 2, but L1>L2 Ensembles of scenarios => probabilities of single and multiple-segment ruptures. 20 scenarios - ~450 ruptures. Rules for counting segments are required.

  16. Conclusions for Data Collection • Complete count and rough event dates are most valuable • Don’t need great dating precision (but don’t stop trying to get it) • Slip-per event measurements are valuable • New sites are most valuable in large spatial gaps. • Do need geologic or geodetic slip rates

  17. Conclusions for Hazard Estimation • Scenarios include earthquake location, magnitude, and frequency: essentials for seismic hazard estimation • Ensembles of likely scenarios support hazard calculations without having to resolve the per-event correlation issues • Scenarios are data-based - the paleoseismic record. • Can quantify single- and multi-segment rupture frequency for the whole fault (or use it to question segmentation!)

  18. Surface Slip versus Rupture Length Relationship for reverse and normal may be linear but may NOT for strike-slip Rate of increase of strike-slip decreases with length for strike-slip without apparently reaching a plateau.

  19. Having rupture displacements helps. Even with displacement measurements, P(correl) is often small. This case: all magnitudes equally likely: Pallett Cr. - Wrightwood Pallett Cr. - Carrizo

More Related