1 / 30

UCERF3 Statewide Fault-Model & Paleoseismic Data Workshop (SoCal)

UCERF3 Statewide Fault-Model & Paleoseismic Data Workshop (SoCal). Scott Lindvall Fugro Consultants, Inc. April 6, 2011. Recent Modifications to UCERF2 Fault Sources for Seismic Hazard Evaluation of LADWP Van Norman Complex San Fernando Valley and Transverse Ranges.

misty
Download Presentation

UCERF3 Statewide Fault-Model & Paleoseismic Data Workshop (SoCal)

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 Statewide Fault-Model & Paleoseismic Data Workshop (SoCal) Scott Lindvall Fugro Consultants, Inc. April 6, 2011 Recent Modifications to UCERF2 Fault Sources for Seismic Hazard Evaluation of LADWP Van Norman ComplexSan Fernando Valley and Transverse Ranges

  2. Geologic Map of the Northern San Fernando Valley

  3. Fault Model 2.1 from UCERF2 Source Model

  4. Fault Model 2.2 from UCERF2 Source Model Santa Susana and Holser not included in FM 2.2

  5. UCERF2 – missing sources along 3 range fronts

  6. Reverse Faults Interpreted from 9 Reprocessed Oil Industry Seismic Reflection Profiles

  7. Tectonic Geomorphic Features from DEM Created from 1920’s 5-foot Topographic Maps Surface deformation corresponds to underlying faults and suggests continuity of Mission Hills and Northridge Hills faults with Verdugo fault

  8. Addition of Mission Hills (MH) which is allowed to combine with Verdugo Addition of Santa Susana East (SSE) which is allowed to combine with San Fernando East (SFE) and Santa Susana (SS) Modified trace of San Fernando (SF) to follow more closely to 1971 rupture and is separated into SF East and SF West to allow the connection with Santa Susana East (SSE) Santa Susana (SS) assigned full weight (1.0) with slip rate of 5 mm/yr Holser (H) assigned full weight (1.0) and decreased lower seismogenic depth Split Northridge into Northridge 1994 (N94) and Northridge West (NW) sources; lower seismogenic depth increased to include 1994 EQ focus Multi-fault (combined) ruptures allowed on: Santa Susana (SS), Santa Susana East (SSE), San Fernando (SF), Sierra Madre (SM), and Cucamonga (C) – with various weights for each 1, 2, or 3 fault scenario Mission Hills (MH) and Verdugo (V) – weighting: single = 0.7; combined = 0.3 Northridge 1994 (N94) and Northridge West (NW) – weighting: single = 0.7; combined = 0.3 Modifications to UCERF2

  9. Revised Mission Hills and Verdugo Seismic Sources

  10. Revised Geometry of Northridge West and Northridge 1994 Seismic Sources

  11. Revised Sierra Madre, San Fernando, and Santa Susana Seismic Sources

  12. Weighting of Multi-fault Ruptures on Santa Susana-Sierra Madre System C SSE SS SM SF

  13. Summary of Single-Fault Parameter Revisions Notes: Changes from UCERF2 Source Model In Red 1Measured orthogonal to strike of source end-points 2Mag 1 = Average of Hanks and Bakun (2008) and Ellsworth B (2003) rutpure area relations used in UCERF2 and USGS2008 3Mag 2 = Average of Hanks and Bakun (2008) and Somerville (2006) rutpure area relations 4In USGS08 model, Holser and Santa Susana were effectively given a weight of 0.5 since they were excluded from F2.2

  14. Summary of Combined Fault Parameters Notes: MH = Mission Hills, V = Verdugo, N94 = Northridge 1994, NW = Northridge West, SS = Santa Susana, SSE = Santa Susana East, SF = San Fernando, SM = Sierra Madre, C = Cucamonga 1Mag 1 = Average of Hanks and Bakun (2008) and Ellsworth B (2003) rupture area relations used in UCERF2 and USGS2008 2Mag 2 = Average of Hanks and Bakun (2008) and Somerville (2006) rupture area relations 3The east-west striking portion of the San Fernando fault source west of Pacoima Wash is eliminated in combined-fault ruptures involving the Santa Susana East fault source

  15. Slip Rate Issues – Transverse Ranges • Many reverse and oblique faults in Transverse Ranges have slip rates based on offset Plio-Pliestocene strata or no data at all, such as the Verdugo • These long-term geologic rate estimates may not represent Holocene rates • Late Pliestocene and Holocene rates are not available for many faults • Reverse faults produce broad, diffuse zones of deformation and are therefore difficult capture slip across entire zone (e.g., Mission Hills + Northridge Hills) – Are we capturing all tectonic slip or summing correctly? Tectonic slip vs secondary hanging wall or flexural slip? • GPS rates – can they reliably be used to help constrain rates for individual faults or groups of faults? • Santa Susana and Cucamonga faults assigned slip rates of 5 ± 2 mm/yr in UCERF2 – are these too high?

  16. Quaternary Faults and Belt of North-South Contraction (~5mm/yr)

  17. Shortening Rates from Cross Sections

  18. Cross Section 2

  19. Santa Susana Fault • UCERF2 rate of 5 ± 2 mm/yr • Dip slip rate of 2.1 to 9.8 mm/yr based on 4.9 to 5.9 offset of Pliocene Fernando Fm and age of initiation 0.5 to 2.3 Ma during Saugus Fm deposition (Huftile and Yeats, 1996) • The 2.1 to 9.8 mm/yr is a broad range (lots of uncertainty). Could it be near the low end? • Yeats (2001) prefers rate of 7 to 9.8 mm/yr by assuming slip occurred in last 0.6 to 0.7 Ma • Where is the geomorphic signature? • Lack of strong geomorph would argue for a lower slip rate, but no data to refute long term geologic rates.

  20. Topography and geomorphology define multiple range fronts LiDAR

  21. Santa Susana fault on LiDAR-based hillshade AlisoCyn Limekiln Cyn

  22. Is there a 5 or 10 mm/yr reverse fault in this image?

  23. Cucamonga Fault Zone Results from Horner et al. (2007)

  24. Day Canyon Fan Study Site Modified from Morton and Matti (1987)

  25. Oblique Aerial Photograph of Day Canyon Fan Surface

  26. Three profiles across strand C One profile across strand A and B All profiles were constructed from total station surveys Topographic Profile Analysis

  27. Topographic Profile Analysis • Uplift across scarps A and B (Qyf1a)= 20 ± 0.5 m • Total uplift of Qyf1a surface across A, B, and C = 34 ± 0.7 m

  28. Sample Ages of Qyf1a Surface (West) Weighted mean model surface age = 33,395 ± 332 years • Excluding samples that plot outside the yellow box

  29. Results - Day Canyon Fan • Total uplift = 34 ± 0.7 m (across 3 scarps) • 10Be Model surface age = 33,395 ± 332 yr • Weighted mean age corrected for depth/latitude/altitude • Assumes zero erosion and zero inheritance • Uplift rate = 1.1 ± 0.1 mm/yr • Horizontal Shortening rate = 1.6 ± 0.3 mm/yr • Dip Slip rate = 1.9 ± 0.35 mm/yr • Using measured fault dip of 32.5 ± 5° from Matti et al. (1982)

  30. Comparison with Morton and Matti (1987) Slip Rate • Geomorphic and soil chronologic study • 36 m of uplift of surface Qyf1a across 3 strands • Surface age of ~13 ka estimated using soil comparisons with radiometrically dated soil at Cajon Pass • Morton and Matti (1987) dip-slip rate of ~4.5 - 5.5 mm/yr is significantly greater than our estimate of ~1.9 mm/yr using cosmogenic ages of fan surface

More Related