cascadia subduction zone interface earthquakes major issues for ucerf3 and nshm

24
Updating Models of Earthquake Recurrence and Rupture Geometry of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for UCERF3 and the National Seismic Hazard Maps Art Frankel U.S. Geological Survey Seattle presentation for UCERF3 SRP meeting Nov. 11-12, 2010

Upload: eshe

Post on 01-Feb-2016

59 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Updating Models of Earthquake Recurrence and Rupture Geometry of the Cascadia Subduction Zone for UCERF3 and the National Seismic Hazard Maps Art Frankel U.S. Geological Survey Seattle presentation for UCERF3 SRP meeting Nov. 11-12, 2010. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Updating Models of Earthquake Recurrence and Rupture Geometry of the Cascadia

Subduction Zone for UCERF3 and the National Seismic Hazard

Maps

Art FrankelU.S. Geological Survey

Seattle

presentation for UCERF3 SRP meeting Nov. 11-12, 2010

Page 2: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface EarthquakesMajor Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

• What is the magnitude-frequency distribution? (rate of M9’s that rupture entire CSZ; rates of M8’s that rupture part of CSZ)

• Does southern CSZ produce more M8’s than northern portion?

• Is the CSZ segmented along strike?• Can some of the “M9” quakes be series of M8s over

< 20 years or so?• Where is the eastern edge of the locked zone?

geometry of CSZ

Page 3: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

PacNW Plans for UCERF 3 and next update of National Seismic Hazard Maps

• Focused meeting on turbidite evidence for CSZ great earthquakes, Nov 18-19 in Corvallis; evaluate 230 yr recurrence for M8’s on southern CSZ from turbidite and compare dates from turbidites to onshore data; compare turbidite and onshore data in northern CSZ; discuss M8 cluster possibility; discuss possible segmentation; mag-freq distributions

• Pacific Northwest regional workshop Fall 2011 (eastern edge of CSZ, source models, faults, attenuation relations); possible separate workshop on eastern edge of locked portion of CSZ

Page 4: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From 2008 NSHM Documentation

Page 5: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Two Sets of Scenarios for CSZ revised for 2008 Update

• M8.8-9.2 rupturing entire CSZ; 500 year average recurrence time from paleoevent dates (probability of 0.67)

• M8.0-M8.7 floating rupture zones; rupture under any location along coast with rate of 1/500, on average (probability of 0.33)

equal probabilities assigned to 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7 scenarios; 8.0,8.1,8.2 assigned half probability of others

Page 6: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From 2008 NSHM Documentation

Page 7: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Goldfinger et al. (in press); results from turbidites

This will be evaluated in Nov 18-19 meeting

Page 8: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Goldfinger et al. (in press)

Page 9: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Goldfinger et al. (in press)

Page 10: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM
Page 11: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Nelson et al. (2006)

Compilation of on landpaleoseismic data

Page 12: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Figure from Goldfinger et al. (in press)

Page 13: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Where is the eastern edge of the locked zone?

• Thermal models• Global analogs • GPS data (e.g., McCaffrey; Chapman and

Melbourne)• Uplift data (e.g., Burgette, Weldon et al.,

2009); historic and from paleoseismic• Updip limit of ETS

Page 14: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Chapman and Melbourne (2009): ETS and Locked Zone

Page 15: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

0.5 wt

0.2 wt

0.2 wt

0.1 wt

Page 16: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Nonvolcanic tremor locationsFrom Aaron Wech, UW

Page 17: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Figure from Liu et al (2010)

For Nankai Trough

Comparing locked zonederived from GPS withlocation of LFE’s

Page 18: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

• Develop new magnitude-frequency distribution(s) for CSZ; possibly varying along CSZ

• Assess possibility that some “M9” quakes are series of M8s over < 20 years or so

• Evaluate possibility of temporal clustering of whole rupture CSZ proposed by Goldfinger et al. (in press)

• Revisit time-dependent model for CSZ. Do we include southern CSZ ruptures with short return times?

• Update location of plate interface using compilation of McCrory and other work

• PacNW workshop to discuss CSZ recurrence and geometry, crustal faults, atten relations (possible separate workshop on geometry of CSZ)

Page 19: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM
Page 20: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

Possible configurations for rupture zone of great Cascadia Earthquakes

From Fluck et al. (1997)

Page 21: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Goldfinger et al. (in press)

Page 22: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM

From Brian Atwater (2010)

Page 23: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM
Page 24: Cascadia Subduction Zone Interface Earthquakes Major Issues for UCERF3 and NSHM