Geology topics

Thomas H. Jordan

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas H. Jordan.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

Toward physics-based nonergodic PSHA: A prototype fully-deterministic seismic hazard model for southern California

We present a nonergodic framework for probabilistic seismic‐hazard analysis (PSHA) that is constructed entirely of deterministic, physical models. The use of deterministic ground‐motion simulations in PSHA calculations is not new (e.g., CyberShake), but prior studies relied on kinematic rupture generators to extend empirical earthquake rupture forecasts. Fully dynamic models, which simulate rupture nucleation and propagation of static and dynamic stresses, are still computationally intractable for the large simulation domains and many seismic cycles required to perform PSHA. Instead, we employ the Rate‐State earthquake simulator (RSQSim) to efficiently simulate hundreds of thousands of years of M ≥ 6.5 earthquake sequences on the California fault system. RSQSim produces full slip‐time histories for each rupture, which, unlike kinematic models, emerge from frictional properties, fault geometry, and stress transfer; all intrinsic variability is deterministic. We use these slip‐time histories directly as input to a 3D wave‐propagation code within the CyberShake platform to obtain simulated F max = 0.5 Hz ground motions. The resulting 3 s spectral acceleration ground motions closely match empirical ground‐motion model (GMM) estimates of median and variability of shaking. When computed over a range of sources and sites, the variability is similar to that of ergodic GMMs. Variability is reduced for individual pairs of sources and sites that repeatedly sample a single path, which is expected for a nonergodic model. This results in increased exceedance probabilities for certain characteristic ground motions for a source–site pair, while decreasing probabilities at the extreme tails of the ergodic GMM predictions. We present these comparisons and preliminary fully deterministic physics‐based RSQSim–CyberShake hazard curves, as well as a new technique for estimating within‐ and between‐event variability through simulation.

California↗

USGS2018

A physics-based earthquake simulator replicates seismic hazard statistics across California

Seismic hazard models are important for society, feeding into building codes and hazard mitigation efforts. These models, however, rest on many uncertain assumptions and are difficult to test observationally because of the long recurrence times of large earthquakes. Physics-based earthquake simulators offer a potentially helpful tool, but they face a vast range of fundamental scientific uncertainties. We compare a physics-based earthquake simulator against the latest seismic hazard model for California. Using only uniform parameters in the simulator, we find strikingly good agreement of the long-term shaking hazard compared with the California model. This ability to replicate statistically based seismic hazard estimates by a physics-based model cross-validates standard methods and provides a new alternative approach needing fewer inputs and assumptions for estimating hazard.

California↗

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↗

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

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↗

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↗