Ground-Motion Modeling of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, Part II: Ground-Motion Estimates for the 1906 Earthquake and Scenario Events

Abstract We estimate the ground motions produced by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake making use of the recently developed Song et al. (2008) source model that combines the available geodetic and seismic observations and recently constructed 3D geologic and seismic velocity models. Our estimates of the ground motions for the 1906 earthquake are consistent across five ground-motion modeling groups employing different wave propagation codes and simulation domains. The simulations successfully reproduce the main features of the Boatwright and Bundock (2005) ShakeMap, but tend to over predict the intensity of shaking by 0.1–0.5 modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) units. Velocity waveforms at sites throughout the San Francisco Bay Area exhibit characteristics consistent with rupture directivity, local geologic conditions (e.g., sedimentary basins), and the large size of the event (e.g., durations of strong shaking lasting tens of seconds). We also compute ground motions for seven hypothetical scenarios rupturing the same extent of the northern San Andreas fault, considering three additional hypocenters and an additional, random distribution of slip. Rupture directivity exerts the strongest influence on the variations in shaking, although sedimentary basins do consistently contribute to the response in some locations, such as Santa Rosa, Livermore, and San Jose. These scenarios suggest that future large earthquakes on the northern San Andreas fault may subject the current San Francisco Bay urban area to stronger shaking than a repeat of the 1906 earthquake. Ruptures propagating southward towards San Francisco appear to expose more of the urban area to a given intensity level than do ruptures propagating northward.

[1]  Walter H. F. Smith,et al.  New, improved version of generic mapping tools released , 1998 .

[2]  Harry Fielding Reid,et al.  The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission ... , 2010 .

[3]  Roger D. Borcherdt,et al.  Effects of local geological conditions in the San Francisco Bay region on ground motions and the intensities of the 1906 earthquake , 1976, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[4]  Gregory C. Beroza,et al.  Strong Ground-Motion Prediction from Stochastic-Dynamic Source Models , 2003 .

[5]  Anthony Lomax,et al.  A Reanalysis of the Hypocentral Location and Related Observations for the Great 1906 California Earthquake , 2005 .

[6]  Arthur Frankel,et al.  A three-dimensional simulation of seismic waves in the Santa Clara Valley, California, from a Loma Prieta aftershock , 1992 .

[7]  Stefan Nilsson,et al.  Stable Difference Approximations for the Elastic Wave Equation in Second Order Formulation , 2007, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[8]  S. Day Three-dimensional simulation of spontaneous rupture: The effect of nonuniform prestress , 1982 .

[9]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Rupture model of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake from the inversion of strong-motion and broadband teleseismic data , 1991, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[10]  Gregory C. Beroza,et al.  Near-source modeling of the Loma Prieta earthquake: Evidence for heterogeneous slip and implications for earthquake hazard , 1991 .

[11]  N. Abrahamson,et al.  Characterizing Crustal Earthquake Slip Models for the Prediction of Strong Ground Motion , 1999 .

[12]  B. Bolt The focus of the 1906 California earthquake , 1968 .

[13]  Robert W. Graves,et al.  Simulating seismic wave propagation in 3D elastic media using staggered-grid finite differences , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[14]  Gregory C. Beroza,et al.  A Unified Source Model for the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake , 2008 .

[15]  T. Brocher Compressional and Shear-Wave Velocity versus Depth Relations for Common Rock Types in Northern California , 2008 .

[16]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Source study of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake , 1993, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[17]  Y. Hisada A Theoretical Omega-Square Model Considering Spatial Variation in Slip and Rupture Velocity. Part 2: Case for a Two-Dimensional Source Model , 2001 .

[18]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Estimates of the ground accelerations at Point Reyes Station during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake , 1999, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[19]  S. Hartzell,et al.  Basin Structure beneath the Santa Rosa Plain, Northern California: Implications for Damage Caused by the 1969 Santa Rosa and 1906 San Francisco Earthquakes , 2007 .

[20]  E. Tinti,et al.  The dependence of traction evolution on the earthquake source time function adopted in kinematic rupture models , 2004 .

[21]  G. Atkinson,et al.  Subevent structure of large earthquakes—A ground‐motion perspective , 2001 .

[22]  William A. Bryant,et al.  A Site-Conditions Map for California Based on Geology and Shear-Wave Velocity , 2000 .

[23]  David Carver,et al.  Modeling and Validation of a 3D Velocity Structure for the Santa Clara Valley, California, for Seismic-Wave Simulations , 2006 .

[24]  K. Campbell Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters , 2007 .

[25]  J. Brune Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes , 1970 .

[26]  David M. Boore,et al.  Strong-motion recordings of the California earthquake of April 18, 1906 , 1977 .

[27]  Yuji Yagi,et al.  Source rupture process of the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake determined by joint inversion of teleseismic body wave and strong ground motion data , 2004 .

[28]  G. Beroza,et al.  A spatial random field model to characterize complexity in earthquake slip , 2002 .

[29]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Characterization of Near-Source Ground Motions with Earthquake Simulations , 2001 .

[30]  Hope A. Seligson,et al.  When the Big One Strikes Again—Estimated Losses due to a Repeat of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake , 2006 .

[31]  Peter Goldstein,et al.  85.5 SAC2000: Signal processing and analysis tools for seismologists and engineers , 2003 .

[32]  Thomas M. Brocher,et al.  Ground-Motion Modeling of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, Part I: Validation Using the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake , 2008 .

[33]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  TriNet “ShakeMaps”: Rapid Generation of Peak Ground Motion and Intensity Maps for Earthquakes in Southern California , 1999 .

[34]  P. Somerville Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture directivity pulse , 2003 .

[35]  The Distribution of Modified Mercalli Intensity in the 18 April 1906 San Francisco Earthquake , 2008 .

[36]  J. Boatwright,et al.  Modified mercalli intensity maps for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake plotted in ShakeMap format , 2005 .

[37]  Thomas H. Heaton,et al.  Near-Source Ground Motions from Simulations of Sustained Intersonic and Supersonic Fault Ruptures , 2004 .

[38]  Wayne Thatcher,et al.  Resolution of fault slip along the 470‐km‐long rupture of the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake and its implications , 1997 .

[39]  Takao Kagawa,et al.  Differences in ground motion and fault rupture process between the surface and buried rupture earthquakes , 2004 .

[40]  M. Zoback The 1906 earthquake and a century of progress in understanding earthquakes and their hazards , 2006 .

[41]  S. Ward San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake Simulations: A Step Toward a Standard Physical Earthquake Model , 2000 .

[42]  R. Jachens,et al.  The surface of crystalline basement, Great Valley and Sierra Nevada, California: A digital map database , 1995 .

[43]  Using Modified Mercalli Intensities to Estimate Acceleration Response Spectra for the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake , 2006 .

[44]  E. Hauksson,et al.  The Seismogenic Thickness of the Southern California Crust , 2004 .

[45]  T. Brocher Empirical relations between elastic wavespeeds and density in the Earth's crust , 2005 .