USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70216391

Improved implementation of rupture location uncertainty in fault displacement hazard assessment

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rui Chen, Mark D. Petersen. 2019-07-16. Improved implementation of rupture location uncertainty in fault displacement hazard assessment. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120180305

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↗