neokinema models for the ucerf3 block-modelling project
If you can't read please download the document
DESCRIPTION
NeoKinema models for the UCERF3 block-modelling project. Peter Bird UCLA. Our F-E grid is 2-D, and mainly composed of 15-km equilateral triangles. We use thin (4-km) strips of narrower elements to outline each block. Boundary velocities were taken from the preferred model - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
-
NeoKinema models for the UCERF3 block-modelling projectPeter BirdUCLA
-
Our F-E grid is 2-D,and mainly composedof 15-km equilateraltriangles.We use thin (4-km)strips of narrowerelements to outline each block.
Boundary velocitieswere taken from thepreferred modelof Bird [2009, JGR].
-
To improve stability ofslip-rate estimates,we grouped the providedsegments into faultsof at least 60-km length,where possible.This means that eachfault spans at least 4finite-elements.
It also means that geologicslip-rates are not pointconstraints, but apply all along each 60-kmfault.
-
Stress directions interpolated from 638 World Stress Map dataprovide loose constraints on the orientation of strain-rates between faults.
-
16 GPS velocities(14 mm/a,and to be seriouslydiscrepant withneighboring GPSvelocities.
The triple bugnear Cholame was the mostegregious.
-
NeoKinema corrects GPSvelocities from interseismicto long-term before usingthem as constraints on thelong-term velocity solution.This can be done in 2 ways:
*Iterated geodetic adjustmentuses fault slip-rates from theprevious iteration. In this project, the iga method failedbecause it always generatedat least one local instability.
*Conservative geodeticadjustment is based on geologic slip rates (or geologicprior rates, in absence of offset features. This cgamethod was used in the reported models.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
Preferred modelGCN2008088of Bird [2009, JGR]
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
Preferred modelGCN2008088of Bird [2009, JGR]
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
Preferred modelGCN2008088of Bird [2009, JGR]
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
3 satisfactory modelsare reported here:
*no weight on geologicslip rates (except in cga);uniform locking depth 15 km.
*no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga);variable locking depthper UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2.
*optimal weight on geologicslip rates, variable lockingdepths (UCERF2), & cga.
-
Preferred modelGCN2008088of Bird [2009, JGR]