Discrepancy between Earthquake Rates Implied by Historic Earthquakes and a Consensus Geologic Source Model for California

We examine the difference between expected earthquake rates inferred from the historical earthquake catalog and the geologic data that was used to develop the consensus seismic source characterization for the state of California [California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Petersen et al., 1996; Frankel et al., 1996]. On average the historic earthquake catalog and the seismic source model both indicate about one M 6 or greater earthquake per year in the state of California. However, the overall earthquake rates of earthquakes with magnitudes ( M ) between 6 and 7 in this seismic source model are higher, by at least a factor of 2, than the mean historic earthquake rates for both southern and northern California. The earthquake rate discrepancy results from a seismic source model that includes earthquakes with characteristic (maximum) magnitudes that are primarily between M 6.4 and 7.1. Many of these faults are interpreted to accommodate high strain rates from geologic and geodetic data but have not ruptured in large earthquakes during historic time. Our sensitivity study indicates that the rate differences between magnitudes 6 and 7 can be reduced by adjusting the magnitude-frequency distribution of the source model to reflect more characteristic behavior, by decreasing the moment rate available for seismogenic slip along faults, by increasing the maximum magnitude of the earthquake on a fault, or by decreasing the maximum magnitude of the background seismicity. However, no single parameter can be adjusted, consistent with scientific consensus, to eliminate the earthquake rate discrepancy. Applying a combination of these parametric adjustments yields an alternative earthquake source model that is more compatible with the historic data. The 475-year return period hazard for peak ground and 1-sec spectral acceleration resulting from this alternative source model differs from the hazard resulting from the standard CDMG–USGS model by less than 10% across most of California but is higher (generally about 10% to 30%) within 20 km from some faults.

[1]  J. Vermilye,et al.  Evidence for aseismic deformation in the western Transverse Ranges, southern California: Implications for seismic risk assessment , 1998 .

[2]  Lucile M. Jones,et al.  Local magnitudes and apparent variations in seismicity rates in Southern California , 1993 .

[3]  David D. Jackson,et al.  A mutually consistent seismic-hazard source model for southern California , 1999 .

[4]  David D. Jackson,et al.  Seismic hazards in southern California: probable earthquakes, 1994 to 2024 , 1996 .

[5]  C. Cramer,et al.  Preliminary seismic hazard assessment for Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties, California, affected by the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake , 1996 .

[6]  Mark D. Petersen,et al.  A Monte Carlo approach in estimating uncertainty for a seismic hazard assessment of Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties, California , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[7]  B. Gutenberg,et al.  Frequency of Earthquakes in California , 1944, Nature.

[8]  T. Hanks,et al.  M ≧ 6 earthquakes in southern California during the twentieth century: No evidence for a seismicity or moment deficit , 1998, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[9]  T. Toppozada,et al.  Preparation of isoseismal maps and summaries of reported effects for pre-1900 California earthquakes , 1981 .

[10]  K. Sieh,et al.  Prospects for Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region , 1995, Science.

[11]  D. P. Schwartz,et al.  Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Fault Zones , 1984 .

[12]  William A. Bryant,et al.  Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California , 1996 .

[13]  Andrea Donnellan,et al.  GPS observations of fault afterslip and upper crustal deformation following the Northridge earthquake , 1998 .

[14]  T. Heaton,et al.  Estimating ground motions using recorded accelerograms , 1986 .

[15]  Mark D. Petersen,et al.  Seismic hazard estimate from background seismicity in southern California , 1996, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[16]  H. Kanamori,et al.  A seismotectonic analysis of the Anza Seismic Gap, San Jacinto Fault Zone, southern California , 1984 .

[17]  D. Wells,et al.  New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement , 1994, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[18]  William L. Ellsworth,et al.  Earthquake history, 1769-1989 , 1990 .

[19]  H. Kanamori,et al.  A moment magnitude scale , 1979 .

[20]  William H. Press,et al.  The Art of Scientific Computing Second Edition , 1998 .

[21]  Mark D. Petersen,et al.  A Time-Dependent Probabilistic Seismic-Hazard Model for California , 2000 .

[22]  S. Wesnousky,et al.  Do historical rates of seismicity in southern California require the occurrence of earthquake magnitudes greater than would be predicted from fault length? , 1997, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.

[23]  Steven G. Wesnousky,et al.  The Gutenberg-Richter or characteristic earthquake distribution, which is it? , 1994 .