slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Oct 18 th Discussion … PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Oct 18 th Discussion …

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 22

Oct 18 th Discussion … - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on

Oct 18 th Discussion …. Decision time for NSHMP (& possible predicaments) Suggested steps forward Review logic tree options & evaluation criteria. Decision time for NSHMP. Present Situation Possibilities UCERF3 is reviewed in short order and everyone is happy with methodology and results

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Oct 18 th Discussion …' - huey


Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Oct 18th Discussion …

  • Decision time for NSHMP (& possible predicaments)
  • Suggested steps forward
  • Review logic tree options & evaluation criteria
slide2

Decision time for NSHMP

Present Situation Possibilities

UCERF3 is reviewed in short order and everyone is happy with methodology and results

UCERF3 is deemed technically flawed and not fixable in time for 2014 NSHM.

Given complexity, there is not enough time for adequate review & vetting of UCERF3 for NSHM

UCERF3 is found to be technically sound (with inevitable adjustments), but mean hazard changes are up to factors of 10 in many areas (and only understood to some level of specificity)

Probability

10%

20%

30%

50%

NSHMP options here?...

slide3

Decision time for NSHMP

NSHMP Options if there is no UCERF3:

Do not update CA ERF for 2014 NSHMs

Only update non fault-based sources (with alternative regional rates and spatial PDFs)

Do (b) and add some of the new faults as type-B sources (bulge will increase) using geologic slip rates

Update everything including Type-A faults in a “UCERF2-like” way

  • Issues:
  • What exactly is “UCERF2-like”?
  • Who would do this (WGCEP is already near burnout & would be demoralized)?
  • This could take as long as fixing UCERF3
  • Given La Quila, would anyone sign off on amodel that lacks multi-fault ruptures?
slide4

Decision time for NSHMP

Given:

El Mayor-Cucapah (Mmax)

Darfield-Christchurch (Mmax & triggering)

Tahoku (segmentation)

M8.6 Sumatra (“weird one”)

does anyone believe we know mean hazard within 10%?

Are we reluctant to put these out because it implies we’ve misled user communities (or didn’t push the epistemic uncertainties hard enough)?

Is looking at hazard implications before finalizing weights cheating?

Present Situation Possibilities

UCERF3 is reviewed in short order and everyone is happy with methodology and results

UCERF3 is deemed technically flawed and not fixable in time for 2014 NSHM.

Given complexity, there is not enough time for adequate review & vetting of UCERF3 for NSHM

UCERF3 is found to be technically sound (with inevitable adjustments), but mean hazard changes are up to factors of 10 in many areas (and only understood to some level of specificity)

Probability

10%

20%

30%

50%

slide5

Oct 18th Discussion …

  • Decision time for NSHMP (& possible predicaments)
  • Suggested steps forward
  • Review logic tree options & evaluation criteria
slide6

The WGCEP Path Forward

(the only one, in my opinion)

Wrap it up (finish and publish ASAP)

in part, to satisfy contractual obligation to CEA

Let others decide what to use in 2014 NSHMs

e.g., some weighted average of old and new hazard curves at each grid node

slide7

The WGCEP Path Forward

(the only one, in my opinion)

Specific steps:

Get feedback here on final branches (& weights)

Decide how to handle convergence and equation set weights

Decide on any a posteriori weighting scheme (what to add to Morgan’s data-fits table?)

Finalize calculations & document for review (by Nov 1st if all goes well?)

Activate review (hands on, aggressive, back and forth in terms of answering questions); how long will this take? Finish by year end?

Finalize & publish in 2013

slide8

Oct 18th Discussion …

  • Decision time for NSHMP (& possible predicaments)
  • Suggested steps forward
  • Review logic tree options & evaluation criteria
slide10

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Two Fault Models
  • Same number as in UCERF2
  • Weighted equally
slide11

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Four Deformation Models
  • Much broader range than in UCERF2
  • Off-fault moment rates provided (UCERF2 Type-C zones gone!)
  • A priori weights represent an average among those of a special review panel
slide12

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Scaling Relationships
  • Only HB08 & EllB used in UCERF2
  • Equal a priori weights
slide13

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Slip Along Rupture (Dsr)
  • Added Boxcar option
  • Equal a priori weights

Weldon et al. (2007) Average of 13 large events

???

Characteristic Slip?

???

slide14

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Total M≥5 Event Rate
  • Per year, inside RELM region
  • From Felzer (Appendix L)
  • UCERF2 had single value of 7.5, which is at the low end here (new best estimate of 8.7 represents a 16% increase)
slide15

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

Inversion Model

(Fault-Section Nucleation MFD)

CharacteristicUCERF2 Constrained:

1/3 GR and 2/3 Char

UCERF2 type MFD

* if Type-A in UCERF2, use UCERF2 nucleation MFD instead.

Gutenberg-Richter Constrained:

b=1

slide16

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

Inversion Model

(Fault-Section Nucleation MFD)

???

Use only

Characteristic

???

???

IfGutenberg-Richterrequires reducing slip rates by ~40%, how many would give it a relative weight > 10%?

???

slide17

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Mmax Off Fault
  • UCERF2 had “off-fault” values of either 7.0 or 7.6
  • El Mayor-Cucapah exceeded 7.0; so we’ve increased to 7.2 at the low end
  • The value of 8.0 is new
  • Weights are different for CharvsGR branches

UCERF2 Mmax

slide18

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Off-Fault Spatial Seis PDF
  • Three options, with two new ones:
    • UCERF3 Smoothed Seis
    • Deformation Model Ave
  • 3 more could be added (1 for each deformation model)
  • Weights are different for CharvsGRbranches
  • Exactly how these are used shortly…
slide19

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

Log10(Prob) for Each Grid Cell

(values sum to 1.0)

  • Off-Fault Spatial Seis PDF

Average Deformation Model

UCERF2 Smoothed Seismicity

UCERF3 Smoothed Seismicity

???

Use deformation-model-specific off-fault spatial PDFs

???

NeoKinema

Zeng

ABM

slide20

Proposed Logic-Tree Branches:

  • Fault Moment-Rate Fixes
  • This deals with cases where fault moment rates are too high to satisfy all data
  • Currently only an issues for GR branches?
  • More on this shortly
slide21

Grand Inversion Results

Evaluation Metrics:

Data Fits: - Regional MFDs

- Slip-rate fits

- Paleoevent-rate & ave-slip fits

- Tabulation of equation-set fits and

other metrics (e.g., implied CC)

Implications Plots:- Participation rate maps

- Parent-section MFDs (also tabulated)

- Correlation between paleo sites

- Implied segmentation (e.g., on SAF)

- Fault-jumping statistics

- Slip COVs (e.g., Hecker et al.)

- Lots of stuff in SCEC VDO

ERF-Based Plots:- MFDs in LA and SF Boxes

- Hazard curves at sites

- Hazard Maps

- RTGM at sites

- Statewide Losses

We currently have these (and more) implemented, although we haven’t yet had time to examine everything

slide22

Mean, Min, and Max from all logic-tree branches

UCERF3 Mean

UCERF3 Mean Cumulative

UCERF2