Geology topics

Kevin Milner

Publications and source records attributed to Kevin Milner.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗

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↗

USGS2012

Trimming the UCERF2 hazard logic tree

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2 (UCERF2) is a fully time‐dependent earthquake rupture forecast developed with sponsorship of the California Earthquake Authority (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities [WGCEP], 2007; Field et al., 2009). UCERF2 contains 480 logic‐tree branches reflecting choices among nine modeling uncertainties in the earthquake rate model shown in Figure 1. For seismic hazard analysis, it is also necessary to choose a ground‐motion‐prediction equation (GMPE) and set its parameters. Choosing among four next‐generation attenuation (NGA) relationships results in a total of 1920 hazard calculations per site. The present work is motivated by a desire to reduce the computational effort involved in a hazard analysis without understating uncertainty. We set out to assess which branching points of the UCERF2 logic tree contribute most to overall uncertainty, and which might be safely ignored (set to only one branch) without significantly biasing results or affecting some useful measure of uncertainty. The trimmed logic tree will have all of the original choices from the branching points that contribute significantly to uncertainty, but only one arbitrarily selected choice from the branching points that do not.

Seismological Research Letters↗