1 / 27

NeoKinema models for the UCERF3 block-modelling project

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

sanaa
Télécharger la présentation

NeoKinema models for the UCERF3 block-modelling project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. NeoKinema models for the UCERF3 block-modelling project Peter Bird UCLA

  2. 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 of Bird [2009, JGR].

  3. To improve stability of slip-rate estimates, we grouped the provided segments into “faults” of at least 60-km length, where possible. This means that each “fault” spans at least 4 finite-elements. It also means that geologic slip-rates are not point constraints, but apply all along each 60-km “fault.”

  4. Stress directions interpolated from 638 World Stress Map data provide loose constraints on the orientation of strain-rates between faults.

  5. 16 GPS velocities (<1%) were deleted from our input data after they were found to have misfits >14 mm/a, and to be seriously discrepant with neighboring GPS velocities. The “triple bug” near Cholame was the most egregious.

  6. NeoKinema corrects GPS velocities from “interseismic” to “long-term” before using them as constraints on the long-term velocity solution. This can be done in 2 ways: *Iterated geodetic adjustment uses fault slip-rates from the previous iteration. In this project, the “iga” method failed because it always generated at least one local instability. *Conservative geodetic adjustment is based on geologic slip rates (or geologic prior rates, in absence of offset features. This “cga” method was used in the reported models.

  7. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  8. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  9. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  10. Preferred model GCN2008088 of Bird [2009, JGR]

  11. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  12. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  13. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  14. Preferred model GCN2008088 of Bird [2009, JGR]

  15. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  16. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  17. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  18. Preferred model GCN2008088 of Bird [2009, JGR]

  19. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  20. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  21. 3 “satisfactory” models are reported here: *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); uniform locking depth 15 km. *no weight on geologic slip rates (except in cga); variable locking depth per UCERF2 WGCEP Fault Model 2.2. *optimal weight on geologic slip rates, variable locking depths (UCERF2), & cga.

  22. Preferred model GCN2008088 of Bird [2009, JGR]

More Related