USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70025926

An empirical model for earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region, California, 2002-2031

Abstract

The moment magnitude M 7.8 earthquake in 1906 profoundly changed the rate of seismic activity over much of northern California. The low rate of seismic activity in the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR) since 1906, relative to that of the preceding 55 yr, is often explained as a stress-shadow effect of the 1906 earthquake. However, existing elastic and visco-elastic models of stress change fail to fully account for the duration of the lowered rate of earthquake activity. We use variations in the rate of earthquakes as a basis for a simple empirical model for estimating the probability of M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the SFBR. The model preserves the relative magnitude distribution of sources predicted by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities' ( WGCEP, 1999 ; WGCEP, 2002 ) model of characterized ruptures on SFBR faults and is consistent with the occurrence of the four M ≥6.7 earthquakes in the region since 1838. When the empirical model is extrapolated 30 yr forward from 2002, it gives a probability of 0.42 for one or more M ≥6.7 in the SFBR. This result is lower than the probability of 0.5 estimated by WGCEP ( 1988 ), lower than the 30-yr Poisson probability of 0.60 obtained by WGCEP ( 1999 ) and WGCEP ( 2002 ), and lower than the 30-yr time-dependent probabilities of 0.67, 0.70, and 0.63 obtained by WGCEP ( 1990 ), WGCEP ( 1999 ), and WGCEP ( 2002 ), respectively, for the occurrence of one or more large earthquakes. This lower probability is consistent with the lack of adequate accounting for the 1906 stress-shadow in these earlier reports. The empirical model represents one possible approach toward accounting for the stress-shadow effect of the 1906 earthquake. However, the discrepancy between our result and those obtained with other modeling methods underscores the fact that the physics controlling the timing of earthquakes is not well understood. Hence, we advise against using the empirical model alone (or any other single probability model) for estimating the earthquake hazard and endorse the use of all credible earthquake probability models for the region, including the empirical model, with appropriate weighting, as was done in WGCEP ( 2002 ).

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.19245747594486° to 38.61405233189544° latitude; -123.5100832532152° to -121.44465356571513° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P.A. Reasenberg, Thomas C. Hanks, W. H. Bakun. 2003. An empirical model for earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region, California, 2002-2031. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020014

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗