Group A, Poster #221, Community Earth Models (CEM)
CFM 7.0: Integration of southern, central, and northern California 3d fault representations into a uniform, statewide Community Fault Model
Poster Image:
Poster Presentation
2024 SCEC Annual Meeting, Poster #221, SCEC Contribution #13870 VIEW PDF
ary Fault & Fold database, precisely relocated earthquake and machine-learning enabled hypocenter catalogs, and new focal mechanism solutions (Lin et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2012; Hauksson et al., 2012 + updates), among other datasets. These updates resulted in fault representations that are more precise, and often more segmented and interconnected, than in previous model versions. CFM 6.1 was peer reviewed and includes preferred representations for each fault system along with alternative fault representations where appropriate. For CFM 7.0, we included 113 new 3d fault representations for the central and northern part of the state which had been constructed using the same type of underlying datasets and methods, and had been iterated through past workshops. Importantly, we then included all of these fault representations in the hierarchical naming system established for CFM 6.1, and to a unified database of metadata which supports the model by providing auxiliary information such as source data, slip sense. This allows us to represent the complete inventory of faults as triangulated surface meshes of varying resolutions and provision CFM 7.0 through a new website with map and 3-D viewer interfaces. The model is intended to support a wide range of applications in seismology, tectonic geodesy, and probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard assessment.
Further, we quantitatively compared CFM 6.1 with CFM 5.0 based on the fault-to-earthquake association method of Evans et al. (2020). The fault representations in CFM 6.1 show an increased correlation with regional seismicity. The faults also show a much higher degree of inter-connectivity, which will have implications for the assessment of potential earthquake ruptures involving multiple, distinct faults.
SHOW MORE
Further, we quantitatively compared CFM 6.1 with CFM 5.0 based on the fault-to-earthquake association method of Evans et al. (2020). The fault representations in CFM 6.1 show an increased correlation with regional seismicity. The faults also show a much higher degree of inter-connectivity, which will have implications for the assessment of potential earthquake ruptures involving multiple, distinct faults.
SHOW MORE