Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Rui Chen

Publications and source records attributed to Rui Chen.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

Fault displacement model for surface principal rupture of strike-slip faults

The probability distribution model for principal displacement accommodated on the surface main trace is a critical input to the fault displacement hazard analysis. This article presents a new model for strike-slip ruptures in the moment magnitude ( M ) range of 6 to 8.3. The new model is the outcome of a multi-year research effort to update the widely used model developed by Petersen and others in 2011. Updates include the adoption of the Fault Displacement Hazard Initiative database and enhancements to rupture and displacement data preparation. Statistical formulation and estimation have also been updated substantially. A three-parameter modified normal distribution that we refer to as the negative Exponentially Modified Gaussian distribution is adopted to model the probability distribution of the natural logarithm of principal displacement. Formulation for the mean parameter of the modified normal includes a random earthquake term, a nonlinear scaling relation with M , and an ellipse function for along-main-trace variation. The aleatory variability of the updated model now depends on M as well as site’s along-main-trace position. These updates not only significantly improve the fit to the distribution of the observed displacements but also yield reasonable 95th percentile predictions for M > 7.5 events. Alternative models representing the estimation uncertainty of the M -scaling relation are also developed. These new models are compared to the previous model in terms of percentile predictions and the calculated hazard curves. The steeper hazard curves from the new models yield a lower exceedance rate than the normal-distribution based model developed previously by Petersen and others.

Earthquake Spectra↗

Least cost path analysis as an objective and automatic method to define the main fault trace for probabilistic fault displacement hazard analyses

A main goal of probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA) is to quantify displacement along and across an identified active fault that poses a hazard to nearby infrastructure such as roads, bridges, pipelines, and telecommunications. PFDHA relies on empirical models developed using data sets of displacement measurements and mapped surface rupture traces compiled from past global surface rupturing earthquakes by field surveys or remote sensing. However, current approaches to determine the location of the main rupture trace are subjective and lack repeatability due to different geological interpretations of the often complex network of mapped rupture traces. This subjectivity makes it difficult to compile and analyze displacement measurements and ruptures from multiple events in a consistent manner. This study provides an objective and repeatable approach to define a main rupture trace that can be applied to either field or remote sensing data. The new approach defined here can be used in developing rupture trace connectivity and geometry for use in displacement model developments and for use in objectively defining the input fault trace for assessing fault displacement hazard.

Earthquake Spectra↗

Surface fault displacement models for strike-slip faults

Fault displacement models (FDMs) are an essential component of the probabilistic fault displacement hazard analyses (PFDHA), much like ground motion models in the probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for ground motion hazards. In this study, we develop several principal surface FDMs for strike-slip earthquakes. The model development is based on analyses of the new and comprehensive fault displacement database developed as part of the Fault Displacement Hazard Initiative project led by the University of California, Los Angeles. The main objective of our study is to update the FDMs that were developed over a decade ago by the U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, in which a reference trace was drawn manually, FDMs are fixed-effect models for lateral displacement, displacement on multiple subparallel ruptures is not aggregated, magnitude (M) scaling is linear, and natural logarithm of displacement is assumed to be normally distributed.

Report GIRS↗

Probabilistic fault displacement hazard assessment (PFDHA) for nuclear installations according to IAEA safety standards

In the last 10 yr, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revised its safety standards for site evaluations of nuclear installations in response to emerging fault displacement hazard evaluation practices developed in Member States. New amendments in the revised safety guidance (DS507) explicitly recommend fault displacement hazard assessment, including separate approaches for candidate new sites versus existing sites. If there is insufficient basis to conclusively determine that a fault is not capable of surface displacement at an existing site, then a probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis (PFDHA) is recommended to better characterize the hazard. This new recommendation has generated the need for the IAEA to provide its Member States with guidance on performing PFDHA, including its formulation and implementation. This article provides an overview of current PFDHA state‐of‐practice for nuclear installations that is consistent with the new IAEA safety standards. We also summarize progress in an ongoing international PFDHA benchmark project that will ultimately provide technical guidance to Member States for conducting site‐specific fault displacement hazard assessments.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

Improved implementation of rupture location uncertainty in fault displacement hazard assessment

This short note proposes an improvement to the implementation of uncertainty associated with rupture location from future earthquakes in probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis. Location uncertainty leads to nonzero primary fault displacement near a mapped fault. With the improved implementation of location uncertainty, estimated fault displacement hazard at a given site is affected strongly by the dimension of the area considered (or the footprint size of the structure). A larger area near a mapped fault has greater potential of exhibiting primary fault displacement than does a smaller area at the same location. In addition, fault displacement hazard is affected by fault‐map quality and fault‐trace complexity. For a more accurately mapped fault with simpler geometry, larger fault displacement is expected directly over and in close proximity of the mapped fault. If fault location is highly uncertain and fault traces are complex, expected displacement is spread out in a wider zone along the mapped fault.

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America↗

Fault displacement hazard for strike-slip faults

In this paper we summarize data, methods, and models developed for a probabilistic assessment of fault displacement hazards across the U.S. We compare earthquake displacement data and empirical fault displacement models that have been developed for normal faults, strike-slip faults, and reverse faults. In general, the data and models are similar near the center of the fault for the three faulting types, but differ near the ends with the strike-slip data being lower than the reverse and normal faulting data. We also compare these U.S. models with data and equations developed using Japanese fault displacement data. The Japan model is also similar to the U.S. models near the center of the fault but decays less rapidly near the ends of the fault. In addition, we discuss impacts of models developed to analyze off-fault strain on secondary faults, multi-strand displacement hazard, and various mapping quality factors. For our study, we show example fault displacements for a M 7 fault with recurrence of 800 and 1600 years. We conclude that a deterministic assessment of fault displacements is often higher than the probabilistic displacements for less active faults with earthquake rupture recurrence that is longer than the hazard return period of interest. Fault displacement hazard is applied in engineering applications for buildings, bridges, pipelines, and nuclear facilities. We present three applications for fault displacement hazard at nuclear facilities and important structures.

Conference Paper↗

Annualized earthquake loss estimates for California and their sensitivity to site amplification

Input datasets for annualized earthquake loss (AEL) estimation for California were updated recently by the scientific community, and include the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM), site‐response model, and estimates of shear‐wave velocity. Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s loss estimation tool, Hazus, was updated to include the most recent census and economic exposure data. These enhancements necessitated a revisit to our previous AEL estimates and a study of the sensitivity of AEL estimates subjected to alternate inputs for site amplification. The NSHM ground motions for a uniform site condition are modified to account for the effect of local near‐surface geology. The site conditions are approximated in three ways: (1) by VS30 (time‐averaged shear‐wave velocity in the upper 30 m) value obtained from a geology‐ and topography‐based map consisting of 15 VS30 groups, (2) by site classes categorized according to National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) site classification, and (3) by a uniform NEHRP site class D. In case 1, ground motions are amplified using the Seyhan and Stewart (2014) semiempirical nonlinear amplification model. In cases 2 and 3, ground motions are amplified using the 2014 version of the NEHRP site amplification factors, which are also based on the Seyhan and Stewart model but are approximated to facilitate their use for building code applications. Estimated AELs are presented at multiple resolutions, starting with the state level assessment and followed by detailed assessments for counties, metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and cities. AEL estimate at the state level is ∼$3.7 billion, 70% of which is contributed from Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont, and Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario MSAs. The statewide AEL estimate is insensitive to alternate assumptions of site amplification. However, we note significant differences in AEL estimates among the three sensitivity cases for smaller geographic units.

California↗

Estimating annualized earthquake losses for the conterminous United States

We make use of the most recent National Seismic Hazard Maps (the years 2008 and 2014 cycles), updated census data on population, and economic exposure estimates of general building stock to quantify annualized earthquake loss (AEL) for the conterminous United States. The AEL analyses were performed using the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazus software, which facilitated a systematic comparison of the influence of the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Maps in terms of annualized loss estimates in different parts of the country. The losses from an individual earthquake could easily exceed many tens of billions of dollars, and the long-term averaged value of losses from all earthquakes within the conterminous U.S. has been estimated to be a few billion dollars per year. This study estimated nationwide losses to be approximately $4.5 billion per year (in 2012$), roughly 80% of which can be attributed to the States of California, Oregon and Washington. We document the change in estimated AELs arising solely from the change in the assumed hazard map. The change from the 2008 map to the 2014 map results in a 10 to 20% reduction in AELs for the highly seismic States of the Western United States, whereas the reduction is even more significant for Central and Eastern United States.

Earthquake Spectra↗

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↗

2014 Update of the Pacific Northwest portion of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Maps

Several aspects of the earthquake characterization were changed for the Pacific Northwest portion of the 2014 update of the national seismic hazard maps, reflecting recent scientific findings. New logic trees were developed for the recurrence parameters of M8-9 earthquakes on the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) and for the eastern edge of their rupture zones. These logic trees reflect recent findings of additional M8 CSZ earthquakes using offshore deposits of turbidity flows and onshore tsunami deposits and subsidence. These M8 earthquakes each rupture a portion of the CSZ and occur in the time periods between M9 earthquakes that have an average recurrence interval of about 500 years. The maximum magnitude was increased for deep intraslab earthquakes. An areal source zone to account for the possibility of deep earthquakes under western Oregon was expanded. The western portion of the Tacoma fault was added to the hazard maps.

Earthquake Spectra↗

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↗

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↗

Scenario earthquake hazards for the Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area, east-central California (ver. 2.0, January 2018)

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) multi-hazards project in the Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area, the California Geological Survey (CGS) developed several earthquake scenarios and evaluated potential seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslide hazards associated with these earthquake scenarios. The results of these analyses can be useful in estimating the extent of potential damage and economic losses because of potential earthquakes and also for preparing emergency response plans. The Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area has numerous active faults. Five of these faults or fault zones are considered capable of producing magnitude ≥6.7 earthquakes according to the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) developed by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) and the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program. These five faults are the Fish Slough, Hartley Springs, Hilton Creek, Mono Lake, and Round Valley Faults. CGS developed earthquake scenarios for these five faults in the study area and for the White Mountains Fault Zone to the east of the study area. In this report, an earthquake scenario is intended to depict the potential consequences of significant earthquakes. A scenario earthquake is not necessarily the largest or most damaging earthquake possible on a recognized fault. Rather it is both large enough and likely enough that emergency planners should consider it in regional emergency response plans. In particular, the ground motion predicted for a given scenario earthquake does not represent a full probabilistic hazard assessment, and thus it does not provide the basis for hazard zoning and earthquake-resistant building design. Earthquake scenarios presented here are based on fault geometry and activity data developed by the WGCEP, and are consistent with the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM). Alternatives to the NSHM scenario were developed for the Hilton Creek and Hartley Springs Faults to account for different opinions in how far these two faults extend into Long Valley Caldera. For each scenario, ground motions were calculated using the current standard practice: the deterministic seismic hazard analysis program developed by Art Frankel of USGS and three Next Generation Ground Motion Attenuation (NGA) models. Ground motion calculations incorporated the potential amplification of seismic shaking by near-surface soils defined by a map of the average shear wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m ( V S30 ) developed by CGS. In addition to ground shaking and shaking-related ground failure such as liquefaction and earthquake induced landslides, earthquakes cause surface rupture displacement, which can lead to severe damage of buildings and lifelines. For each earthquake scenario, potential surface fault displacements are estimated using deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Liquefaction occurs when saturated sediments lose their strength because of ground shaking. Zones of potential liquefaction are mapped by incorporating areas where loose sandy sediments, shallow groundwater, and strong earthquake shaking coincide in the earthquake scenario. The process for defining zones of potential landslide and rockfall incorporates rock strength, surface slope, and existing landslides, with ground motions caused by the scenario earthquake. Each scenario is illustrated with maps of seismic shaking potential and fault displacement, liquefaction, and landslide potential. Seismic shaking is depicted by the distribution of shaking intensity, peak ground acceleration, and 1.0-second spectral acceleration. One-second spectral acceleration correlates well with structural damage to surface facilities. Acceleration greater than 0.2 g is often associated with strong ground shaking and may cause moderate to heavy damage. The extent of strong shaking is influenced by subsurface fault dip and near surface materials. Strong shaking is more widespread in the hanging wall regions of a normal fault. Larger ground motions also occur where young alluvial sediments amplify the shaking. Both of these effects can lead to strong shaking that extends farther from the fault on the valley side than on the hill side. The effect of fault rupture displacements may be localized along the surface trace of the mapped earthquake fault if fault geometry is simple and the fault traces are accurately located. However, surface displacement hazards can spread over a few hundred meters to a few kilometers if the earthquake fault has numerous splays or branches, such as the Hilton Creek Fault. Faulting displacements are estimated to be about 1 meter along normal faults in the study area and close to 2 meters along the White Mountains Fault Zone. All scenarios show the possibility of widespread ground failure. Liquefaction damage would likely occur in the areas of higher ground shaking near the faults where there are sandy/silty sediments and the depth to groundwater is 6.1 meters (20 feet) or less. Generally, this means damage is most common near lakes and streams in the areas of strongest shaking. Landslide potential exists throughout the study region. All steep slopes (>30 degrees) present a potential hazard at any level of shaking. Lesser slopes may have landslides within the areas of the higher ground shaking. The landslide hazard zones also are likely sources for snow avalanches during winter months and for large boulders that can be shaken loose and roll hundreds of feet down hill, which happened during the 1980 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes. Whereas methodologies used in estimating ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides are well developed and have been applied in published hazard maps; methodologies used in estimating surface fault displacement are still being developed. Therefore, this report provides a more in-depth and detailed discussion of methodologies used for deterministic and probabilistic fault displacement hazard analyses for this project.

California↗

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↗