期刊
BULLETIN OF THE SEISMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 105, 期 2A, 页码 511-543出版社
SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0120140093
关键词
-
资金
- California Earthquake Authority
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
- California Geological Survey
- SCEC
- National Science Foundation [EAR-1033462]
- USGS [G12AC20038]
- Directorate For Geosciences [1135455] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
- Directorate For Geosciences
- Division Of Earth Sciences [1447094] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
- Division Of Earth Sciences [1135455] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
- Division Of Earth Sciences
- Directorate For Geosciences [1045876] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
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 unsegmented 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 5760 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 yr 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 multifault ruptures being particularly influential. In fact, some UCERF2 faults were simply too long to produce M 6.7 size 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.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据