Geology topics

Edward H. Field

Publications and source records attributed to Edward H. Field.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2017

A synoptic view of the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)

Probabilistic forecasting of earthquake‐producing fault ruptures informs all major decisions aimed at reducing seismic risk and improving earthquake resilience. Earthquake forecasting models rely on two scales of hazard evolution: long‐term (decades to centuries) probabilities of fault rupture, constrained by stress renewal statistics, and short‐term (hours to years) probabilities of distributed seismicity, constrained by earthquake‐clustering statistics. Comprehensive datasets on both hazard scales have been integrated into the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3). UCERF3 is the first model to provide self‐consistent rupture probabilities over forecasting intervals from less than an hour to more than a century, and it is the first capable of evaluating the short‐term hazards that result from multievent sequences of complex faulting. This article gives an overview of UCERF3, illustrates the short‐term probabilities with aftershock scenarios, and draws some valuable scientific conclusions from the modeling results. In particular, seismic, geologic, and geodetic data, when combined in the UCERF3 framework, reject two types of fault‐based models: long‐term forecasts constrained to have local Gutenberg–Richter scaling, and short‐term forecasts that lack stress relaxation by elastic rebound.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2017

A spatiotemporal clustering model for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3‐ETAS): Toward an operational earthquake forecast

We, the ongoing Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, present a spatiotemporal clustering model for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), with the goal being to represent aftershocks, induced seismicity, and otherwise triggered events as a potential basis for operational earthquake forecasting (OEF). Specifically, we add an epidemic‐type aftershock sequence (ETAS) component to the previously published time‐independent and long‐term time‐dependent forecasts. This combined model, referred to as UCERF3‐ETAS, collectively represents a relaxation of segmentation assumptions, the inclusion of multifault ruptures, an elastic‐rebound model for fault‐based ruptures, and a state‐of‐the‐art spatiotemporal clustering component. It also represents an attempt to merge fault‐based forecasts with statistical seismology models, such that information on fault proximity, activity rate, and time since last event are considered in OEF. We describe several unanticipated challenges that were encountered, including a need for elastic rebound and characteristic magnitude–frequency distributions (MFDs) on faults, both of which are required to get realistic triggering behavior. UCERF3‐ETAS produces synthetic catalogs of M ≥2.5 events, conditioned on any prior M ≥2.5 events that are input to the model. We evaluate results with respect to both long‐term (1000 year) simulations as well as for 10‐year time periods following a variety of hypothetical scenario mainshocks. Although the results are very plausible, they are not always consistent with the simple notion that triggering probabilities should be greater if a mainshock is located near a fault. Important factors include whether the MFD near faults includes a significant characteristic earthquake component, as well as whether large triggered events can nucleate from within the rupture zone of the mainshock. Because UCERF3‐ETAS has many sources of uncertainty, as will any subsequent version or competing model, potential usefulness needs to be considered in the context of actual applications.

California↗

USGS2016

The potential uses of operational earthquake forecasting

This article reports on a workshop held to explore the potential uses of operational earthquake forecasting (OEF). We discuss the current status of OEF in the United States and elsewhere, the types of products that could be generated, the various potential users and uses of OEF, and the need for carefully crafted communication protocols. Although operationalization challenges remain, there was clear consensus among the stakeholders at the workshop that OEF could be useful.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2015

The 2014 update to the National Seismic Hazard Model in California

The 2014 update to the U. S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model in California introduces a new earthquake rate model and new ground motion models (GMMs) that give rise to numerous changes to seismic hazard throughout the state. The updated earthquake rate model is the third version of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), wherein the rates of all ruptures are determined via a self-consistent inverse methodology. This approach accommodates multifault ruptures and reduces the overprediction of moderate earthquake rates exhibited by the previous model (UCERF2). UCERF3 introduces new faults, changes to slip or moment rates on existing faults, and adaptively smoothed gridded seismicity source models, all of which contribute to significant changes in hazard. New GMMs increase ground motion near large strike-slip faults and reduce hazard over dip-slip faults. The addition of very large strike-slip ruptures and decreased reverse fault rupture rates in UCERF3 further enhances these effects.

California↗

USGS2015

Seismic source characterization for the 2014 update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

We present the updated seismic source characterization (SSC) for the 2014 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. Construction of the seismic source models employs the methodology that was developed for the 1996 NSHM but includes new and updated data, data types, source models, and source parameters that reflect the current state of knowledge of earthquake occurrence and state of practice for seismic hazard analyses. We review the SSC parameterization and describe the methods used to estimate earthquake rates, magnitudes, locations, and geometries for all seismic source models, with an emphasis on new source model components. We highlight the effects that two new model components—incorporation of slip rates from combined geodetic-geologic inversions and the incorporation of adaptively smoothed seismicity models—have on probabilistic ground motions, because these sources span multiple regions of the conterminous United States and provide important additional epistemic uncertainty for the 2014 NSHM.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2015

The 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model

New seismic hazard maps have been developed for the conterminous United States using the latest data, models, and methods available for assessing earthquake hazard. The hazard models incorporate new information on earthquake rupture behavior observed in recent earthquakes; fault studies that use both geologic and geodetic strain rate data; earthquake catalogs through 2012 that include new assessments of locations and magnitudes; earthquake adaptive smoothing models that more fully account for the spatial clustering of earthquakes; and 22 ground motion models, some of which consider more than double the shaking data applied previously. Alternative input models account for larger earthquakes, more complicated ruptures, and more varied ground shaking estimates than assumed in earlier models. The ground motions, for levels applied in building codes, differ from the previous version by less than ±10% over 60% of the country, but can differ by ±50% in localized areas. The models are incorporated in insurance rates, risk assessments, and as input into the U.S. building code provisions for earthquake ground shaking.

Earthquake Spectra↗

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

“All Models Are Wrong, but Some Are Useful”

Building a new model, especially one used for policy purposes, takes considerable time, effort, and resources. In justifying such expenditures, one inevitably spends a lot of time denigrating previous models. For example, in pitching the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) ( http://www.WGCEP.org/UCERF3 ), criticisms of the previous model included fault‐segmentation assumptions and the lack of multifault ruptures. In the context of including spatiotemporal clustering for operational earthquake forecasting (e.g., Jordan et al. , 2011 ), another criticism has been that previous candidate models not only ignore elastic rebound but also produce results that are antithetical to that theory. For instance, the short‐term earthquake probabilities model ( Gerstenberger et al. , 2005 ), which provided California aftershock hazard maps at the U.S. Geological Survey web site between 2005 and 2010, implies that the time of highest likelihood for any rupture will be the moment after it occurs, even for a big one on the San Andreas fault. Furthermore, Monte Carlo simulations imply that excluding elastic rebound in such models also produces unrealistic triggering statistics ( Field, 2012 ).

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2015

Computing elastic‐rebound‐motivated rarthquake probabilities in unsegmented fault models: a new methodology supported by physics‐based simulators

A methodology is presented for computing elastic‐rebound‐based probabilities in an unsegmented fault or fault system, which involves computing along‐fault averages of renewal‐model parameters. The approach is less biased and more self‐consistent than a logical extension of that applied most recently for multisegment ruptures in California. It also enables the application of magnitude‐dependent aperiodicity values, which the previous approach does not. Monte Carlo simulations are used to analyze long‐term system behavior, which is generally found to be consistent with that of physics‐based earthquake simulators. Results cast doubt that recurrence‐interval distributions at points on faults look anything like traditionally applied renewal models, a fact that should be considered when interpreting paleoseismic data. We avoid such assumptions by changing the "probability of what" question (from offset at a point to the occurrence of a rupture, assuming it is the next event to occur). The new methodology is simple, although not perfect in terms of recovering long‐term rates in Monte Carlo simulations. It represents a reasonable, improved way to represent first‐order elastic‐rebound predictability, assuming it is there in the first place, and for a system that clearly exhibits other unmodeled complexities, such as aftershock triggering.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2015

Time‐dependent renewal‐model probabilities when date of last earthquake is unknown

We derive time-dependent, renewal-model earthquake probabilities for the case in which the date of the last event is completely unknown, and compare these with the time-independent Poisson probabilities that are customarily used as an approximation in this situation. For typical parameter values, the renewal-model probabilities exceed Poisson results by more than 10% when the forecast duration exceeds ~20% of the mean recurrence interval. We also derive probabilities for the case in which the last event is further constrained to have occurred before historical record keeping began (the historic open interval), which can only serve to increase earthquake probabilities for typically applied renewal models.We conclude that accounting for the historic open interval can improve long-term earthquake rupture forecasts for California and elsewhere.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2015

UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California's complex fault system

With innovations, fresh data, and lessons learned from recent earthquakes, scientists have developed a new earthquake forecast model for California, a region under constant threat from potentially damaging events. The new model, referred to as the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, or "UCERF" ( http://www.WGCEP.org/UCERF3 ), provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and likelihood of earthquake fault rupture throughout the state. Overall the results confirm previous findings, but with some significant changes because of model improvements. For example, compared to the previous forecast (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2), the likelihood of moderate-sized earthquakes (magnitude 6.5 to 7.5) is lower, whereas that of larger events is higher. This is because of the inclusion of multifault ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate, individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults simultaneously. The public-safety implications of this and other model improvements depend on several factors, including site location and type of structure (for example, family dwelling compared to a long-span bridge). Building codes, earthquake insurance products, emergency plans, and other risk-mitigation efforts will be updated accordingly. This model also serves as a reminder that damaging earthquakes are inevitable for California. Fortunately, there are many simple steps residents can take to protect lives and property.

California↗

USGS2015

Seismic-hazard maps for the conterminous United States, 2014

The maps presented here provide an update to the 2008 data contained in U.S Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3195 ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3195/ ).Probabilistic seismic-hazard maps were prepared for the conterminous United States for 2014 portraying peak horizontal acceleration and horizontal spectral response acceleration for 0.2- and 1.0-second periods with probabilities of exceedance of 10 percent in 50 years and 2 percent in 50 years. All of the maps were prepared by combining the hazard derived from spatially smoothed historical seismicity with the hazard from fault-specific sources. The acceleration values contoured are the random horizontal component. The reference site condition is firm rock, defined as having an average shear-wave velocity of 760 m/s in the top 30 meters corresponding to the boundary between NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction program) site classes B and C. This data set represents the results of calculations of hazard curves for a grid of points with a spacing of 0.05 degrees in latitude and longitude. The grid of points was contoured to produce the final representation of the seismic hazard. These maps are intended to summarize the available quantitative information about seismic ground motion hazard for the conterminous United States from geologic and geophysical sources.

Scientific Investigations Map↗

USGS2014

Stress-based aftershock forecasts made within 24h post mainshock: Expected north San Francisco Bay area seismicity changes after the 2014 M=6.0 West Napa earthquake

We calculate stress changes resulting from the M = 6.0 West Napa earthquake on north San Francisco Bay area faults. The earthquake ruptured within a series of long faults that pose significant hazard to the Bay area, and we are thus concerned with potential increases in the probability of a large earthquake through stress transfer. We conduct this exercise as a prospective test because the skill of stress‐based aftershock forecasting methodology is inconclusive. We apply three methods: (1) generalized mapping of regional Coulomb stress change, (2) stress changes resolved on Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast faults, and (3) a mapped rate/state aftershock forecast. All calculations were completed within 24 h after the main shock and were made without benefit of known aftershocks, which will be used to evaluative the prospective forecast. All methods suggest that we should expect heightened seismicity on parts of the southern Rodgers Creek, northern Hayward, and Green Valley faults.

California↗

USGS2014

The UCERF3 grand inversion: Solving for the long‐term rate of ruptures in a fault system

We present implementation details, testing, and results from a new inversion‐based methodology, known colloquially as the “grand inversion,” developed for the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). We employ a parallel simulated annealing algorithm to solve for the long‐term rate of all ruptures that extend through the seismogenic thickness on major mapped faults in California while simultaneously satisfying available slip‐rate, paleoseismic event‐rate, and magnitude‐distribution constraints. The inversion methodology enables the relaxation of fault segmentation and allows for the incorporation of multifault ruptures, which are needed to remove magnitude‐distribution misfits that were present in the previous model, UCERF2. The grand inversion is more objective than past methodologies, as it eliminates the need to prescriptively assign rupture rates. It also provides a means to easily update the model as new data become available. In addition to UCERF3 model results, we present verification of the grand inversion, including sensitivity tests, tuning of equation set weights, convergence metrics, and a synthetic test. These tests demonstrate that while individual rupture rates are poorly resolved by the data, integrated quantities such as magnitude–frequency distributions and, most importantly, hazard metrics, are much more robust.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

USGS2014

Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps

The national seismic hazard maps for the conterminous United States have been updated to account for new methods, models, and data that have been obtained since the 2008 maps were released (Petersen and others, 2008). The input models are improved from those implemented in 2008 by using new ground motion models that have incorporated about twice as many earthquake strong ground shaking data and by incorporating many additional scientific studies that indicate broader ranges of earthquake source and ground motion models. These time-independent maps are shown for 2-percent and 10-percent probability of exceedance in 50 years for peak horizontal ground acceleration as well as 5-hertz and 1-hertz spectral accelerations with 5-percent damping on a uniform firm rock site condition (760 meters per second shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m, V S30 ). In this report, the 2014 updated maps are compared with the 2008 version of the maps and indicate changes of plus or minus 20 percent over wide areas, with larger changes locally, caused by the modifications to the seismic source and ground motion inputs.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

2014 update of the U.S. national seismic hazard maps

We held 8 regional and topical workshops across the U.S. to gather information for these maps. The maps were available to the public for comment during a 60-day period. A Steering Committee (9 experts) was assembled to review the inputs and results and provide additional insights. The maps have been presented at several professional meetings. In this talk we discuss: (1) CEUS, (2) WUS (outside California), (3) California, (4) Ground motion models We discuss the hazard maps and hazard curves used in the building code. The maps in this presentation are for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years on a uniform firm rock site condition (V S30 =760 m/s). Maps are for 0.2 s (5 Hz) spectral acceleration with 5% damping. We consider difference maps (2014-2008) and ratio maps (2014/2008).

Book↗

USGS2014

Aftershock risks such as those demonstrated by the recent events in New Zealand and Japan

Recent earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan show that it is important to consider the spatial and temporal distribution of aftershocks following large magnitude events since the probability of high intensity ground motions from aftershocks, which are capable of causing significant societal impact, can be considerable. This is due to the fact that a mainshock will have many aftershocks, some of which may occur closer to populated areas and may be large enough to cause damage. When a large magnitude event strikes a region, the chance that aftershocks will cause damage can be significant as was observed after the 2011 Tohoku and 2010 Canterbury earthquakes (e.g., damage caused by M w 6.6 April 11, 2011 Fukushima-Hamadori earthquake following Tohoku earthquake or by M w 6.3 February 22, 2011 Christchurch earthquake following Canterbury earthquake). Aftershock events may further damage already damaged buildings, thereby further complicating assessments of risk to the built environment. In this paper, the issue of aftershock risk is addressed by summarizing current research regarding: (1) aftershock hazard, (2) structural fragility/vulnerability before and after the mainshock, and (3) change in risk due to aftershocks.

Conference Paper↗

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↗