A time-dependent probabilistic seismic-hazard model for California

被引:34
作者
Cramer, CH [1 ]
Petersen, MD [1 ]
Cao, TQ [1 ]
Toppozada, TR [1 ]
Reichle, M [1 ]
机构
[1] Calif Dept Conservat, Div Mines & Geol, Sacramento, CA 95814 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1785/0119980087
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
For the purpose of sensitivity testing and illuminating nonconsensus components of time-dependent models, the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) has assembled a time-dependent version of its statewide probabilistic seismic hazard (PSH) model for California. The model incorporates available consensus information from within the earth-science community, except for a few faults or fault segments where consensus information is not available. For these latter faults, published information has been incorporated into the model. As in the 1996 CDMG/U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) model, the time-dependent models incorporate three multisegment ruptures: a 1906, an 1857, and a southern San Andreas earthquake. Sensitivity:tests are presented to show the effect on hazard and expected damage estimates of (1) intrinsic (aleatory) sigma, (2) multisegment (cascade) vs. independent segment (no cascade) ruptures, and (3) time-dependence vs, time-independence. Results indicate that (1) differences in hazard and expected damage estimates between time-dependent and independent models increase with decreasing intrinsic sigma, (2) differences in hazard and expected damage estimates between full cascading and not cascading are insensitive to intrinsic sigma, (3) differences in hazard increase with increasing return period (decreasing probability of occurrence), and (4) differences;in moment-rate budgets increase with decreasing intrinsic sigma and with the degree of cascading, but are within the expected uncertainty in PSH time-dependent modeling and do not always significantly affect hazard and expected damage estimates.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 21
页数:21
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
*APPL TECHN COUNC, 1985, ATC 13 EARTHQ DAM EV
[2]  
BAKUN WH, 1984, J GEOPHYS RES, V89, P3051, DOI 10.1029/JB089iB05p03051
[3]  
Benjamin JR., 1970, PROBABILITY STAT DEC
[4]  
Cao TQ, 1999, B SEISMOL SOC AM, V89, P867
[5]  
Cramer CH, 1996, B SEISMOL SOC AM, V86, P1681
[6]  
ELLSWORTH WL, 1998, P 2 JOINT M US JAP N
[7]  
Frankel A., 1996, NATL SEISMIC HAZARD
[8]  
JACKSON DD, 1995, B SEISMOL SOC AM, V85, P379
[9]  
Jacoby GC, 1997, GEOLOGY, V25, P999, DOI 10.1130/0091-7613(1997)025<0999:TREFAA>2.3.CO
[10]  
2