利用不稳定平衡岩石对美国南加州地震地震动模型的验证

GSA Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-12-20 DOI:10.1130/b36484.1
A. H. Rood, D. Rood, G. Balco, P. Stafford, L. G. Ludwig, K. Kendrick, K. Wilcken
{"title":"利用不稳定平衡岩石对美国南加州地震地震动模型的验证","authors":"A. H. Rood, D. Rood, G. Balco, P. Stafford, L. G. Ludwig, K. Kendrick, K. Wilcken","doi":"10.1130/b36484.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accurate estimates of earthquake ground shaking rely on uncertain ground-motion models derived from limited instrumental recordings of historical earthquakes. A critical issue is that there is currently no method to empirically validate the resultant ground-motion estimates of these models at the timescale of rare, large earthquakes; this lack of validation causes great uncertainty in ground-motion estimates. Here, we address this issue and validate ground-motion estimates for southern California utilizing the unexceeded ground motions recorded by 20 precariously balanced rocks. We used cosmogenic 10Be exposure dating to model the age of the precariously balanced rocks, which ranged from ca. 1 ka to ca. 50 ka, and calculated their probability of toppling at different ground-motion levels. With this rock data, we then validated the earthquake ground motions estimated by the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) seismic-source characterization and the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 ground-motion models. We found that no ground-motion model estimated levels of earthquake ground shaking consistent with the observed continued existence of all 20 precariously balanced rocks. The ground-motion model I14 estimated ground-motion levels that were inconsistent with the most rocks; therefore, I14 was invalidated and removed. At a 2475 year mean return period, the removal of this invalid ground-motion model resulted in a 2−7% reduction in the mean and a 10−36% reduction in the 5th−95th fractile uncertainty of the ground-motion estimates. Our findings demonstrate the value of empirical data from precariously balanced rocks as a validation tool for removing invalid ground-motion models and, in turn, reducing the uncertainty in earthquake ground-motion estimates.","PeriodicalId":242264,"journal":{"name":"GSA Bulletin","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of earthquake ground-motion models in southern California, USA, using precariously balanced rocks\",\"authors\":\"A. H. Rood, D. Rood, G. Balco, P. Stafford, L. G. Ludwig, K. Kendrick, K. Wilcken\",\"doi\":\"10.1130/b36484.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Accurate estimates of earthquake ground shaking rely on uncertain ground-motion models derived from limited instrumental recordings of historical earthquakes. A critical issue is that there is currently no method to empirically validate the resultant ground-motion estimates of these models at the timescale of rare, large earthquakes; this lack of validation causes great uncertainty in ground-motion estimates. Here, we address this issue and validate ground-motion estimates for southern California utilizing the unexceeded ground motions recorded by 20 precariously balanced rocks. We used cosmogenic 10Be exposure dating to model the age of the precariously balanced rocks, which ranged from ca. 1 ka to ca. 50 ka, and calculated their probability of toppling at different ground-motion levels. With this rock data, we then validated the earthquake ground motions estimated by the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) seismic-source characterization and the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 ground-motion models. We found that no ground-motion model estimated levels of earthquake ground shaking consistent with the observed continued existence of all 20 precariously balanced rocks. The ground-motion model I14 estimated ground-motion levels that were inconsistent with the most rocks; therefore, I14 was invalidated and removed. At a 2475 year mean return period, the removal of this invalid ground-motion model resulted in a 2−7% reduction in the mean and a 10−36% reduction in the 5th−95th fractile uncertainty of the ground-motion estimates. Our findings demonstrate the value of empirical data from precariously balanced rocks as a validation tool for removing invalid ground-motion models and, in turn, reducing the uncertainty in earthquake ground-motion estimates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":242264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GSA Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GSA Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1130/b36484.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GSA Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1130/b36484.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对地震地面震动的准确估计依赖于从有限的历史地震仪器记录中得出的不确定的地面运动模型。一个关键的问题是,目前还没有办法在罕见的大地震的时间尺度上对这些模型的地面运动估计进行经验验证;由于缺乏验证,地面运动估计存在很大的不确定性。在这里,我们解决了这个问题,并利用20块不稳定平衡岩石记录的未超过地面运动来验证南加州的地面运动估计。我们使用宇宙成因的10Be暴露年代法来模拟不稳定平衡岩石的年龄,范围从约1 ka到约50 ka,并计算了它们在不同地面运动水平下倾倒的概率。利用这些岩石数据,我们验证了由统一加利福尼亚地震破裂预报版本3 (UCERF3)地震源特征和下一代衰减(NGA)-West2地面运动模型估计的地震地面运动。我们发现,没有一个地面运动模型估计的地震地面震动水平与观测到的所有20个不稳定平衡岩石的持续存在相一致。地面运动模型I14估计的地面运动水平与大多数岩石不一致;因此,I14无效并被移除。在2475年的平均回归期,去除这种无效的地面运动模型导致地面运动估计的平均值降低了2 - 7%,第5 - 95分位不确定性降低了10 - 36%。我们的研究结果证明了来自不稳定平衡岩石的经验数据作为消除无效地震动模型的验证工具的价值,从而减少了地震地震动估计的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of earthquake ground-motion models in southern California, USA, using precariously balanced rocks
Accurate estimates of earthquake ground shaking rely on uncertain ground-motion models derived from limited instrumental recordings of historical earthquakes. A critical issue is that there is currently no method to empirically validate the resultant ground-motion estimates of these models at the timescale of rare, large earthquakes; this lack of validation causes great uncertainty in ground-motion estimates. Here, we address this issue and validate ground-motion estimates for southern California utilizing the unexceeded ground motions recorded by 20 precariously balanced rocks. We used cosmogenic 10Be exposure dating to model the age of the precariously balanced rocks, which ranged from ca. 1 ka to ca. 50 ka, and calculated their probability of toppling at different ground-motion levels. With this rock data, we then validated the earthquake ground motions estimated by the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) seismic-source characterization and the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-West2 ground-motion models. We found that no ground-motion model estimated levels of earthquake ground shaking consistent with the observed continued existence of all 20 precariously balanced rocks. The ground-motion model I14 estimated ground-motion levels that were inconsistent with the most rocks; therefore, I14 was invalidated and removed. At a 2475 year mean return period, the removal of this invalid ground-motion model resulted in a 2−7% reduction in the mean and a 10−36% reduction in the 5th−95th fractile uncertainty of the ground-motion estimates. Our findings demonstrate the value of empirical data from precariously balanced rocks as a validation tool for removing invalid ground-motion models and, in turn, reducing the uncertainty in earthquake ground-motion estimates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信