2004 SCEC Annual Meeting



2005 SCEC Annual Meeting

September 11-14, 2005

Proceedings and Abstracts

Volume XV

Riviera Resort and Racquet Club

Palm Springs, California

Table of Contents

Section I.

SCEC Annual Meeting Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3D Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

WGCEP/National Seismic Hazard Map Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section II .

2005 Annual Meeting Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 9

Section III.

SCEC Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

SCEC Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2005 SCEC Planning Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2005 SCEC Advisory Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Section IV.

Tribute to Kei Aki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Section V.

State of SCEC, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2004 Advisory Council Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

CEO Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Draft 2006 SCEC Program Announcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Section VI.

Abstracts for Invited Talks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

ITR Session Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

2005 SCEC Meeting Abstracts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

SECTION I

2005 SCEC ANNUAL MEETING AGENDA

Sunday, September 11

07:00 Continental Breakfast Desert Conference

Conference

08:30 Rupture Dynamics Workshop

(Chairs: Harris/Archuleta) Mesquite A and B

09:00 Teacher Training Workshop

(Chairs: deGroot/Cooper) Mesquite C and D

15:00 Salt Creek Trench Viewing Off Site at Salt Creek

(Gordon Seitz and Pat Williams)

15:00- Poster Session Set–Up Mesquite/Oleander

18:00 Icebreaker Reception Mediterranean

20:00 SCEC Advisory Council Executive Session

(Chair: Solomon) Board Room

20:00 WGCEP/National Seismic Hazard Map Whitewater

(Chair: Chris Wills)

20:00 Poster Session Mesquite and Oleander

Monday, September 12

Session I: Chair: Tom Jordan (Grand Ballroom)

07:00 Continental Breakfast Desert Conference

Center

08:00 Welcome Tom Jordan

08:10 “Report from NSF Earth Sciences” Kaye Shedlock

08:30 "The USGS/SCEC Partnership" David Applegate/

Michael Blanpied

08:50 State of the Center Tom Jordan

(Including SCEC3 proposal submission/review)

09:20 State of the CEO Program Mark Benthien

09:40 Break

10:00 “Recent Discoveries from the Taiwan Kuo-Fong Ma

Chelungpu-Fault Drilling Program”

10:30 "Physical properties and multi-scale seismic Naomi Boness

anisotropy in the San Andreas Fault Observatory

at Depth"

11:05 “The Parkfield/Landers Reference Earthquakes Digital Library” Brad Aagaard

Alexei Czeskis

Jessica Murray

Anupama Venkataraman

Greg Beroza

11:25 Introduction to 2006 Planning Process Ralph Archuleta

11:40 Lunch (Mediterranean Room)

Session II: Chair: Ralph Archuleta (Grand Ballroom)

13:00 Earthquake Source Physics Plenary Ruth Harris

David Oglesby

14:00 Seismology Plenary John Vidale

Peter Shearer

15:00 FARM Plenary Terry Tullis/

Judi Chester

16:00 Geology Plenary Tom Rockwell

Mike Oskin

17:00 Seismic Hazard Analysis Plenary Ned Field

(to include discussion on CSEP) David Jackson

18:30 Cocktails (Mediterranean Room)

18:45 Dinner (Mediterranean Room)

19:30 A Tribute to Kei Aki Tom Jordan

John McRaney

Bill Ellsworth

20:00 Poster Session (Mesquite and Oleander Rooms)

20:00 SCEDC Users Meeting (Grand Ball Room) Rob Clayton

Vikki Appel

Tuesday, September 13

Session III: Chair: Tom Jordan (Grand Ballroom)

07:00 Continental Breakfast Desert

Conference Center

08:00 “Overturning of Slender Blocks: Numerical Matt Purvance

Investigation and Application to Precariously

Balanced Rocks in Southern California”

08:30 “Constraining Extreme Ground Motions in Norm Abrahamson

Seismic Hazard Analyses”

09:00 Ground Motion Plenary Paul Davis

Rob Graves

10:00 Structural Representation Plenary John Shaw

Jeroen Tromp

11:00 Fault Systems Plenary Brad Hager

Sally McGill

Jim Dieterich

12:00 Lunch (Mediterranean Room)

Session IV: Chair: Ralph Archuleta (Grand Ballroom)

13:30 "Imaging of active seismogenic faults with space geodesy" Yuri Fialko

14:00 "Structural versus Nonstructural Seismic

Response to Ground Motion Ensembles" Tara Hutchinson

14:30 Geodesy Plenary Duncan Agnew

Mark Simons

15:30 Implementation Interface Plenary Paul Somerville

Rob Wesson

16:30 SCEC/CME Plenary Phil Maechling

Transforming Seismic Hazard Analysis Ned Field

Robert Graves

– Impact of OpenSHA on SHA

– Building the Next Generation SHA Tools: CyberShake

The TeraShake Earthquake Simulation Platform Bernard Minster

Kim Olsen

– TeraShake 1 Simulations and Results

–TeraShake 2 Simulations and Results

SCEC Scientific Workflow Tools Yolanda Gil

– Using Knowledge Tools to Assist Workflow Planning

– Grid-based Workflow Tools

Next Generation Techniques David O’Hallaron Ralph Archuleta

– Highly Scaleable Simulations: Hercules Tool Chain

– Finite Element Dynamic Rupture Codes

18:30 Cocktails (Mediterranean Room)

19:00 Dinner (Mediterranean Room)

20:00 Poster Session in (Mesquite and Oleander Rooms)

20:00 SCEC AC Meeting (Board Room) Sean Solomon

Tom Jordan

Wednesday, September 14

Session V: Chair: Tom Jordan (Grand Ballroom)

07:00 Continental Breakfast Desert

Conference Center

08:00 CEO/College Earthquake Course Working Group Mark Benthien

09:15 Advisory Council Report Sean Solomon

09:30 Meeting Summary: Group Leaders

Focus and Disciplinary Group Reports and Discussion

(10 minutes each)

11:00 Wrap-Up and Planning for 2006 Tom Jordan

12:00 SCEC Board Meeting (Whitewater)

SCEC PC Meeting (Snow Creek)

13:00 FARM Workshop and Field Trip Jim Evans

Judi Chester

Fred Chester

3D Rupture Dynamics Code Validation Workshop-2005

Conveners: Ruth Harris and Ralph Archuleta

Mesquite A/B

Sunday, September 11

08:30-08:55 Workshop Introduction

(Ruth Harris/Ralph Archuleta)

09:00-09:20 Comparison of Two Spontaneous Rupture Methods

(Steve Day/Luis Dalguer/Nadia Lapusta/Yi Liu)

09:25-09:45 A New Feature in the SEM Code

(Jean Paul Ampuero)

09:45-10:05 Break

10:10-11:30 The Problem Versions 4+5 Comparisons/Discussion

(Harris/Archuleta)

11:30-12:30 Lunch

12:30-12:50 A New SCEC IT Visualization Tool

(Kim Olsen)

12:55-13:15 The Reference Earthquakes Digital Library Rupture Mode Format

(Brad Aagaard)

13:15-14:00 General Discussion and Future Plans

Fault Displacement Parameters Input for the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities

Conveners: Chris Wills and Mark Petersen

Whitewater Room

September 11, 2005

20:00 WGCEP project overview

Funding, management structure, end users

Deadlines and deliverables

Types of modeling to be done

Needed databases and interfaces

Overview of technical implementation of project

Overview of how current data model came to be

21:00 Discussion of fault location information

2002 NSHM model

CFM

Merged California model

Updates needed for the NSHM and WGCEP

21:30 Summaries of current databases and slip rate values.

2002 model

Recent geodetic model

Discussion: New slip rate data since 2002

How to summarize slip data for fault section database

22:00 Summaries of new database for fault displacement.

Need for development of deformation model

Proposed database structure

Proposed input interface

Discussion: How slip data fits in proposed database

How to summarize slip data for fault section database

Section II

2005 SCEC Annual Meeting Participants

|Lastname |Firstname |Organization |Email Address |

|Aagaard |Brad |United States Geological Survey |baagaard@ |

|Abrahamson |Norman |Pacific Gas & Electric |naa3@ |

|Agnew |Duncan |University of California, San Diego |dagnew@ucsd.edu |

|Akciz |Sinan |University of California, Irvine |sakciz@uci.edu |

|Akullian |Kristy |University of Southern California |akullian@usc.edu |

|Allmann |Bettina |University of California, San Diego |ballmann@ucsd.edu |

|Anderson |John |University of Nevada, Reno |jga@seismo.unr.edu |

|Ando |Ryosuke |Columbia University |ando@eps.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp |

|Andrews |D. Joe |United States Geological Survey |jandrews@ |

|Anooshehpoor |Rasool |University of Nevada, Reno |rasool@seismo.unr.edu |

|Appel |Vikki |California Institute of Technology |vikki@gps.caltech.edu |

|Applegate |David |United States Geological Survey |applegate@ |

|Archuleta |Ralph |University of California, Santa Barbara |ralph@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Argus |Donald |Jet Propulsion Laboratory |Donald.F.Argus@jpl. |

|Arrowsmith |Ramon |Arizona State University |ramon.arrowsmith@asu.edu |

|Aspiotes |Aris |Honeywell/USGS |aspiotes@gps.caltech.edu |

|Assimaki |Dominic |Georgia Institute of Technology |dodominic.assimaki@ce.gatech.edu |

|Bailey |Iain |University of Southern California |iwbailey@usc.edu |

|Bakun |William |United States Geological Survey |bakun@ |

|Barseghian |Derik |United States Geological Survey |derik@gps.caltech.edu |

|Bazzurro |Paolo |AIR Worldwide |pbazzurro@air- |

|Beeler |N. M. |United States Geological Survey |nbeeler@ |

|Benesh |Nathan |Harvard University |benesh@fas.harvard.edu |

|Benthien |Mark |Southern California Earthquake Center |benthien@usc.edu |

|Ben-Zion |Yehuda |University of Southern California |benzion@terra.usc.edu |

|Beroza |Greg |Stanford University |beroza@geo.stanford.edu |

|Beseda |Addie |University of Oregon |abeseda@gladstone.uoregon.edu |

|Bhat |Harsha |Harvard University |bhat@esag.harvard.edu |

|Biasi |Glenn |University of Nevada, Reno |glenn@seismo.unr.edu |

|Biegel |Ronald |University of Southern California |biegel@usc.edu |

|Bird |Peter |University of California, Los Angeles |pbird@ess.ucla.edu |

|Black |Natanya |University of California, Los Angeles |nblack@ess.ucla.edu |

|Blanpied |Michael |United States Geological Survey |mblanpied@ |

|Blume |Frederick |UNAVCO |blume@ |

|Bock |Yehuda |University of California, San Diego |ybock@ucsd.edu |

|Boness |Naomi |Stanford University |nboness@stanford.edu |

|Borsa |Adrian |University of California, San Diego |aborsa@ucsd.edu |

|Bowman |David |California State University, Fullerton |dbowman@fullerton.edu |

|Boyd |Oliver |United States Geological Survey |olboyd@ |

|Bozorgnia |Yousef |University of California, Berkeley |yousef@berkeley.edu |

|Branum |Dave |California Geological Survey |dbranum@consrv. |

|Brocher |Tom |United States Geological Survey |brocher@ |

|Brodsky |Emily |University of California, Los Angeles |brodsky@ess.ucla.edu |

|Brune |James |University of Nevada, Reno |brune@seismo.unr.edu |

|Bryant |William |California Geological Survey |bbryant@consrv. |

|Burbank |Douglas |University of California, Santa Barbara |burbank@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Cadena |Ana |Central Washington University |paleo5@ |

|Callaghan |Scott |University of Southern California |scottcal@usc.edu |

|Campbell |Kenneth |EQECAT, Inc. |kcampbell@ |

|Campbell |Cameron |San Diego State University |ccsandiego@ |

|Cao |Tianqing |California Geological Survey |tcao@consrv. |

|Casteel |John |Central Washington University |casteelj@cwu.edu |

|Catchings |Rufus |United States Geological Survey |catching@ |

|Chalupsky |Hans |University of Southern California |hans@isi.edu |

|Chan |Chung-Han |United States Geological Survey |cchan@ |

|Chang |Diana |University of Pennsylvania |burninf1re@ |

|Chen |Po |University of Southern California |pochen@usc.edu |

|Chester |Judith |Texas A&M University |chesterj@geo.tamu.edu |

|Chester |Fred |Texas A&M University |chesterf@geopsun.tamu.edu |

|Clark |Julia |San Diego State University |malichan99@ |

|Clayton |Robert |California Institute of Technology |clay@gps.caltech.edu |

|Cochran |Elizabeth |University of California, Los Angeles |cochran@moho.ess.ucla.edu |

|Coddington |Amy |Macalester College |acoddington@macalester.edu |

|Colella |Harmony |California State University, Fullerton |hcolella@ |

|Conrad |James |United States Geological Survey |jconrad@ |

|Cooke |Michele |University of Massachusetts |cooke@geo.umass.edu |

|Cooper |Ilene |University of Southern California |icooper@usc.edu |

|Coyle |Dana |University of Southern California |coyle@usc.edu |

|Crosby |Christopher |Arizona State University |christopher.crosby@asu.edu |

|Cui |Yifeng |San Diego Supercomputer Center |yfcui@sdsc.edu |

|Custodio |Susana |University of California, Santa Barbara |susana@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Czeskis |Alexei |Purdue University |aczeskis@purdue.edu |

|Dalguer |Luis |San Diego State University |ldalguer@moho.sdsu.edu |

|Davis |Paul |University of California, Los Angeles |pdavis@ess.ucla.edu |

|Day |Steven |San Diego State University |day@moho.sdsu.edu |

|de Groot |Robert |University of Southern California |rdegroot@oxy.edu |

|Delis |Dain |SCIGN / USC |dain@gps.caltech.edu |

|Dieterich |James |University of California, Riverside |dieterichj@ucr.edu |

|Dmowska |Renata |Harvard University |dmowska@seismology.harvard.edu |

|Dolan |James |University of Southern California |dolan@terra.usc.edu |

|Dollar |Robert |United States Geological Survey |dollar@ |

|Dor |Ory |University of Southern California |oridor@ |

|Duan |Benchun |University of California, Riverside |benchun@namazu.ucr.edu |

|Dunham |Eric |Harvard University |edunham@fas.harvard.edu |

|Ellsworth |Bill |United States Geological Survey |ellsworth@ |

|Ely |Geoffrey |University of California, San Diego |gely@ucsd.edu |

|Evangelista |Edgar |University of Southern California |eevangel@usc.edu |

|Evans |James |Utah State University |jpevans@cc.usu.edu |

|Faerman |Marcio |San Diego Supercomputer Center |mfaerman@sdsc.edu |

|Fang |Zijun |University of California, Riverside |zfang@engr.ucr.edu |

|Fay |Noah |University of Oregon |nfay@darkwing,uoreogon.edu |

|Felzer |Karen |United States Geological Survey |kfelzer@gps.caltech.edu |

|Fialko |Yuri |University of California, San Diego |fialko@radar.ucsd.edu |

|Field |Edward |United States Geological Survey |field@ |

|Finzi |Yaron |University of British Columbia |yfinzi@eos.ubc.ca |

|Fischer |Adam |University of Southern California |adfische@usc.edu |

|Fonstad |Rachel |Winona State University |RKFonsta5240@webmail.winona.edu |

|Francoeur |Hunter |University of Southern California |francoeu@usc.edu |

|Frankel |Kurt |University of Southern California |kfrankel@usc.edu |

|Freymueller |Jeffrey |University of Alaska |jeff@giseis.alaska.edu |

|Frost |Erik |University of Southern California |efrost@usc.edu |

|Fuis |Gary |United States Geological Survey |fuis@ |

|Fumal |Thomas |United States Geological Survey |tfumal@ |

|Garcia |Joshua |University of Southern California |joshuaga@usc.edu |

|Gerstenberger |Matt |United States Geological Survey |mattg@gps.caltech.edu |

|Gil |Yolanda |University of Southern California |gil@isi.edu |

|Goldsby |David |Brown University |David_Goldsby@brown.edu |

|Goltz |Christian |University of California, Davis |cgoltz@ucdavis.edu |

|Graizer |Vladimir |California Geological Survey |vgraizer@consrv. |

|Grant |Lisa |University of California, Irvine |lgrant@uci.edu |

|Graves |Robert |URS Corporation |robert_graves@ |

|Gullapalli |Sridhar |University of Southern California |sridhar@isi.edu |

|Gupta |Nitin |University of Southern California |niting@usc.edu |

|Gupta |Vipin |University of Southern California |vgupta@usc.edu |

|Haddadi |Hamid |California Geological Survey |hhaddadi@consrv. |

|Hager |Bradford |Massachusetts Institute of Technology |bhhager@mit.edu |

|Haller |Kathleen |United States Geological Survey |haller@ |

|Hamiel |Yariv |University of California, San Diego |yhamiel@ucsd.edu |

|Hanks |Tom |United States Geological Survey |thanks@ |

|Haqque |Ifrraz |University of Southern California |haqque@usc.edu |

|Hardebeck |Jeanne |United States Geological Survey |jhardebeck@ |

|Harrington |Rebecca |University of California, Los Angeles |rebecca@moho.ess.ucla.edu |

|Harris |Ruth |United States Geological Survey |harris@ |

|Hauksson |Egill |California Institute of Technology |hauksson@gps.caltech.edu |

|Hayes |Tyler |University of Western Ontario |thayes@uwo.ca |

|Hearn |Elizabeth |University of British Columbia |ehearn@eos.ubc.ca |

|Heaton |Thomas |California Institute of Technology |heaton_t@caltech.edu |

|Helmstetter |Agnes |Columbia University |agnes@ldeo.columbia.edu |

|Henyey |Sally |University of Southern California |shenyey@usc.edu |

|Henyey |Thomas |University of Southern California |henyey@usc.edu |

|Herrera |Daniela |University of California, Riverside |dherr003@student.ucr.edu |

|Herring |Thomas |Massachusetts Institute of Technology |tah@mit.edu |

|Holliday |James |University of California, Davis |holliday@cse.ucdavis.edu |

|Hough |Susan |United States Geological Survey |hough@gps.caltech.edu |

|Houston |Heidi |University of California, Los Angeles |hhouston@ess.ucla.edu |

|Hu |Yuanfang |San Diego Supercomputer Center |yhu@sdsc.edu |

|Hudnut |Kenneth |United States Geological Survey |hudnut@ |

|Humphreys |Eugene |University of Oregon |gene@newberry.uoregon.edu |

|Husker |Allen |University of California, Los Angeles |uskerhay@moho.ess.ucla.edu |

|Hutchinson |Tara |University of California, Irvine |thutchin@uci.edu |

|Ichinose |Gene |URS Corporation |gene_ichinose@ |

|Jackson |David |University of California, Los Angeles |djackson@ucla.edu |

|Janecke |Susanne |Utah State University |sjanecke@cc.usu.edu |

|Jennings |Jadd |Temple University |jadd.jennings@temple.edu |

|Ji |Chen |University of California, Santa Barbara |ji@geol.ucsb.edu |

|Jimenez |Rosa |San Diego State University |rjimenez@sciences.sdsu.edu |

|Johanson |Ingrid |University of California, Berkeley |ingrid@seismo.berkeley.edu |

|Johnson |Leonard |National Science Foundation |lejohnso@ |

|Jones |Lucile |United States Geological Survey |jones@ |

|Jordan |Thomas |University of Southern California |tjordan@usc.edu |

|Kane |Deborah |Scripps Institution of Oceanography |dlkane@ucsd.edu |

|Kaneko |Yoshihiro |California Institute of Technology |ykaneko@gps.caltech.edu |

|Kedar |Sharon |Jet Propulsion Laboratory |Sharon.Kedar@jpl. |

|Kendrick |Katherine |United States Geological Survey |kendrick@ |

|Kilb |Debi |University of California, San Diego |dkilb@ucsd.edu |

|King |Nancy |United States Geological Survey |nking@ |

|King |Robert |Massachusetts Institute of Technology |rwk@chandler.mit.edu |

|Kitajima |Hiroko |Texas A&M University |hkitajima@geo.tamu.edu |

|Klein |Bill |Boston University |klein@buphy.bu.edu |

|Klose |Christian |Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory |cklose@ldeo.columbia.edu |

|Kositsky |Aaron |University of Southern California |kositsky@usc.edu |

|Kottke |Albert |University of Texas, Austin |albert.kottke@ |

|Krishnan |Swaminathan |California Institute of Technology |krishnan@caltech.edu |

|Lapusta |Nadia |California Institute of Technology |lapusta@caltech.edu |

|Lavallee |Daniel |University of California, Santa Barbara |daniel@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Lee |Michael |North Carolina State University |mklee@ncsu.edu |

|Legg |Mark |Legg Geophysical |mrlegg@ |

|Leon |Lorraine |University of Southern California |lorrainl@usc.edu |

|Levin |Shoshana |University of Western Ontario |slevin2@uwo.ca |

|Lewis |Michael |University of Southern California |malewis@usc.edu |

|Li |Yong-Gang |University of Southern California |ygli@terra.usc.edu |

|Lin |Guoqing |University of California, San Diego |gulin@ucsd.edu |

|Lindvall |Scott |William Lettis & Associates, Inc. |lindvall@ |

|Lippincott |Caitlin |San Diego State University |caitlin.lippincott@fandm.edu |

|Liu |Yi |California Institute of Technology |yil@caltech.edu |

|Liu |Pengcheng |University of California, Santa Barbara |pcliu@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Liu |Yajing |Harvard University |liu@esag.harvard.edu |

|Liu |Zhen |Stanford University |liuz@pangea.stanford.edu |

|Lopez |Amanda |California State, San Bernardino |alopez1804@ |

|Lopez |Julio |Carnegie Mellon University |jclopez+scec@andrew.cmu.edu |

|Luco |Nicolas |United States Geological Survey |nluco@ |

|Lyzenga |Gregory |Harvey Mudd College |lyzenga@thuban.ac.hmc.edu |

|Ma |Shuo |University of California, Santa Barbara |sma@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Ma |Kuo-Fong |National Central University, Taiwan |fong@earth.ncu.edu.tw |

|Madden |Christopher |Earth Consultants International |madden@ |

|Maechling |Philip |University of Southern California |maechlin@usc.edu |

|Magistrale |Harold |San Diego State University |harold@hal.sdsu.edu |

|Marquis |John |University of Southern California |marquis@usc.edu |

|Marshall |Scott |University of Massachusetts |marshall@geo.umass.edu |

|Martel |Stephen |University of Hawaii |smartel@hawaii.edu |

|Martinez |Lia |Colorado School of Mines |lmartine@mines.edu |

|McGill |Sally |California State, San Bernardino |smcgill@csusb.edu |

|McGuire |Jeff |Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution |jmcguire@whoi.edu |

|McRaney |John |University of Southern California |mcraney@usc.edu |

|Meade |Brendan |Harvard University |meade@fas.harvard.edu |

|Mehringer |John |University of Southern California |jmehring@usc.edu |

|Meigs |Andrew |Oregon State University |meigsa@geo.oregonstate.edu |

|Mellors |Rob |San Diego State University |mellors@geology.sdsu.edu |

|Merriam |Martha |California Dept. of Transportation |martha_merriam@dot. |

|Middleton |Tim |San Diego State University |TJMiddleton_19@ |

|Miller |David |United States Geological Survey |dmiller@ |

|Miller |Kate |University of Texas, El Paso |miller@geo.utep.edu |

|Minster |Bernard |University of California, San Diego |jbminster@ucsd.edu |

|Moore |Diane |United States Geological Survey |dmoore@ |

|Morgan |Julia |Rice University |morganj@rice.edu |

|Mueller |Joachim |Harvard University |jmueller@fas.harvard.edu |

|Muench |Joanna |Inc. Research Insts for Seismology |joanna@iris.washington.edu |

|Murphy |Janice |United States Geological Survey |murphy@ |

|Murray |Jessica |United States Geological Survey |jrmurray@ |

|Murray |Mark |University of California, Berkeley |mhmurray@seismo.berkeley.edu |

|Needy |Sarah |Indiana University-Purdue Indianapolis |sneedy@iupui.edu |

|Nerenberg |Lewis |University of California, Santa Cruz |Lnerenbe@ucsc.edu |

|Nicholson |Craig |University of California, Santa Barbara |nicholson@msi.ucsb.edu |

|Normark |William |United States Geological Survey |wnormark@ |

|Oglesby |David |University of California, Riverside |david.oglesby@ucr.edu |

|O'Hallaron |David |Carnegie Mellon University |droh@cs.cmu.edu |

|Okaya |David |University of Southern California |okaya@usc.edu |

|Olsen |Kim |San Diego State University |kbolsen@sciences.sdsu.edu |

|Olsen |Anna |California Institute of Technology |annao@caltech.edu |

|Ooi |Ee Ling |University of Southern California |ooi@usc.edu |

|Oskin |Michael |University of North Carolina |oskin@email.unc.edu |

|Owen |Susan |University of Southern California |owen@terra.usc.edu |

|Ozbey |Mehmet |University of Texas, Austin |ozbeycem@mail.utexas.edu |

|Page |Morgan |University of California, Santa Barbara |pagem@physics.ucsb.edu |

|Peng |Zhigang |University of California, Los Angeles |zpeng@ess.ucla.edu |

|Perez |Justin |University of Southern California |justinpe@usc.edu |

|Perry |Sue |University of Southern California |perry@gps.caltech.edu |

|Petersen |Mark |United States Geological Survey |mpetersen@ |

|Phillips |Kristin |University of California, San Diego |hopeangel_@ |

|Phillips |David |UNAVCO |phillips@ |

|Pitarka |Arben |URS Corporation |arben_pitarka@ |

|Plenkers |Katrin |University of Southern California |plenkers@usc.edu |

|Plesch |Andreas |Harvard University |andreas_plesch@harvard.edu |

|Podgorski |Joel |University of British Columbia |jpodgorski@eos.ubc.ca |

|Pollitz |Fred |United States Geological Survey |fpollitz@ |

|Ponti |Daniel |United States Geological Survey |dponti@ |

|Porter |Keith |California Institute of Technology |keithp@caltech.edu |

|Powers |Peter |University of Southern California |pmpowers@earth.usc.edu |

|Prakash |Vikas |Case Western Reserve University |prakash@mae.cwru.edu |

|Prescott |William |UNAVCO |prescott@ |

|Prieto |German |University of California San Diego |gprieto@ucsd.edu |

|Prindle |Kenton |University of California, Santa Barbara |kenton_prindle@umail.ucsb.edu |

|Purvance |Matthew |University of Nevada, Reno |mdp@seismo.unr.edu |

|Ragona |Daniel |Scripps Institution of Oceanography |dragona@ucsd.edu |

|Raleigh |David |Ohio State University |davidraleigh@ |

|Ramirez-Guzman |Leonardo |Carnegie Mellon University |lramirez@andrew.cmu.edu |

|Real |Charles |California Geological Survey |creal@consrv. |

|Reissman |Jeff |California State University, Fullerton |jreissman@fullerton.edu |

|Rice |James |Harvard University |rice@esag.harvard.edu |

|Robertson |Randy |University of Southern California |rmrobert@usc.edu |

|Robinson |Thomas |University of Southern California |thomas.robinson@usc.edu |

|Rockwell |Thomas |San Diego State University |trockwel@ |

|Rogers |Garry |Geological Survey of Canada |rogers@pgc.nrcan.gc.ca |

|Rojas |Otilio |San Diego State University |rojas@sciences.sdsu.edu |

|Rousseau |Nick |Pasadena City College |MATRAscholar@ |

|Rowshandel |Badie |California Geological Survey |browshan@consrv. |

|Rubinstein |Justin |Stanford University |jrubinst@stanford.edu |

|Rundle |John |University of California, Davis |rundle@physics.ucdavis.edu |

|Rundle |Paul |Harvey Mudd College |Paul_Rundle@hmc.edu |

|Russ |Thomas |University of Southern California |tar@isi.edu |

|Ryan |Holly |United States Geological Survey |hryan@ |

|Rymer |Michael |United States Geological Survey |mrymer@ |

|Sagy |Amir |University of California, Los Angeles |asagy@moho.ess.ucla.edu |

|Salamon |Amos |San Diego State University |trockwel@ |

|Sammis |Charles |University of Southern California |sammis@earth.usc.edu |

|Schaff |David |Columbia University |dschaff@ldeo.columbia.edu |

|Scharer |Katherine |Appliachian State University |scharerkm@appstate.edu |

|Schiffman |Celia |Oregon State University |schiffmc@geo.oregonstate.edu |

|Schultz |Emily |Oregon State University |eschultz@geo.oregonstate.edu |

|Scott |James |University of Nevada, Reno |jscott@seismo.unr.edu |

|Seitz |Gordon |San Diego State University |seitz3@ |

|Seligson |Hope |ABS Consulting |hseligson@ |

|Shaw |Bruce |Columbia University |shaw@ldeo.columbia.edu |

|Shaw |John |Harvard University |shaw@eps.harvard.edu |

|Shearer |Peter |University of California, San Diego |pshearer@ucsd.edu |

|Shedlock |Kaye |National Science Foundation |kshedloc@ |

|Shen |Zheng-Kang |University of California, Los Angeles |zshen@noah.ess.ucla.edu |

|Shepherd |Lori |Canisius College |shepherl@canisius.edu |

|Shi |Zheqiang |University of Southern California |zheqians@usc.edu |

|Shindle |Wendy |United States Geological Survey |wshindle@ |

|Simila |Gerry |California State University, Northridge |gerry.simila@csun.edu |

|Simons |Mark |California Institute of Technology |simons@caltech.edu |

|Sisk |Matthew |San Diego State University |matthewmb77@ |

|Skalenakis |Adam |Harvey Mudd College |AlmightyNu@ |

|Sleep |Norman |Stanford University |norm@pangea.stanford.edu |

|Smith |Jeremie |University of Southern California |jeremies@usc.edu |

|Smith |Deborah |California Institute of Technology |desmith@gps.caltech.edu |

|Sohn |Marsha |California State University, Fullerton |m_fronterhouse@ |

|Solomon |James |Pasadena City College |javadrinker@ |

|Solomon |Sean |Carnegie Institution of Washington |scs@dtm.ciw.edu |

|Somerville |Paul |URS Corporation |Paul_Somerville@ |

|Sorlien |Christopher |University of California, Santa Barbara |chris@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Spudich |Paul |United States Geological Survey |spudich@ |

|Squibb |Melinda |University of California, Santa Barbara |mindy@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Stark |Keith |Stark Consulting, LLC |stark@ |

|Starke |Emily |University of Tulsa |emily-starke@utulsa.edu |

|Steidl |Jamison |University of California, Santa Barbara |steidl@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Stein |Ross |United States Geological Survey |rstein@ |

|Stirling |Mark |Inst. of Geo. and Nuclear Sciences |m.stirling@gns.cri.nz |

|Stone |Matthew |DePauw University |mdstone@depauw.edu |

|Strane |Michael |University of North Carolina |strane@unc.edu |

|Suess |Peter |Harvard University |suess@rupture.harvard.edu |

|Swift |Jennifer |University of Southern California |jswift@usc.edu |

|Taborda |Ricardo |Carnegie Mellon University |rtaborda@andrew.cmu.edu |

|Templeton |Elizabeth |Harvard University |templet@esag.harvard.edu |

|Teng |Ta-liang |University of Southern California |lteng@terra.usc.edu |

|Thio |Hong Kie |URS Corporation |hong_kie_thio@ |

|Tiampo |Kristy |University of Western Ontario |ktiampo@uwo.ca |

|Tierney |Tim | |tierney@ |

|Toké |Nathan |Arizona State University |nathan.toke@asu.edu |

|Tomic |Jelena |University of California, Los Angeles |tomic@moho.ess.ucla.edu |

|Treiman |Jerry |California Geological Survey |jtreiman@consrv. |

|Tsuda |Kenichi |University of California, Santa Barbara |kenichi@crustal.ucsb.edu |

|Tu |Tiankai |Carnegie Mellon University |tutk@cs.cmu.edu |

|Tullis |Terry |Brown University |Terry_Tullis@brown.edu |

|Turcotte |Donald |University of California, Davis |turcotte@geology.ucdavis.edu |

|Van Buren |Jason |Santa Monica College |mail@ |

|Van Zandt |Afton |San Diego State University |affyvz@ |

|Verdugo |Danielle |San Diego State University |Danie143@ |

|Vidale |John |University of California, Los Angeles |vidale@ucla.edu |

|Vredevoogd |Michael |University of California, Riverside |m_vredevoogd@ |

|Walker |Kris |University of California, San Diego |walker@ucsd.edu |

|Walls |Christian |UNAVCO |walls@ |

|Ward |Steven |University of California, Santa Cruz |ward@es.ucsc.edu |

|WeaverBowman |Kristin |California State University, Fullerton |kweaver-bowman@fullerton.edu |

|Wechsler |Neta |University of Southern California |wechsler@usc.edu |

|Weldon |Ray |University of Oregon |ray@uoregon.edu |

|Werner |Maximilian |University of California, Los Angeles |mwerner@ucla.edu |

|Werner |Shelly |University of Southern California |mwerner@usc.edu |

|Wesnousky |Steven |University of Nevada, Reno |stevew@seismo.unr.edu |

|Wesson |Rob |United States Geological Survey |rwesson@ |

|Williams |Charles |Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |willic3@rpi.edu |

|Williams |Patrick |P. Williams Assoc. |plw3@ |

|Wills |Chris |California Geological Survey |cwills@consrv. |

|Wimmer |Loren |San Diego State University |loren.wimmer@ |

|Yamada |Masumi |California Institute of Technology |masumi@caltech.edu |

|Yan |Zhimei |California Institute of Technology |yanmei@gps.caltech.edu |

|Yang |Wenzheng |University of Southern California |wenzheny@usc.edu |

|Yeats |Robert |Oregon State University |yeatsr@geo.oregonstate.edu |

|Yong |Alan |United States Geological Survey |yong@ |

|Young |William |California Spatial Reference Center |whyoung@ |

|Zaliapin |Ilya |University of California, Los Angeles |zal@ess.ucla.edu |

|Zanzerkia |Eva |National Science Foundation |ezanzerk@ |

|Zebker |Howard |Stanford University |zebker@stanford.edu |

|Zechar |Jeremy |University of Southern California |Zechar@usc.edu |

|Zeng |Yuehua |United States Geological Survey |zeng@ |

|Zhu |Jing |San Diego Supercomputer Center |jzhu@sdsc.edu |

|Zielke |Olaf |Arizona State University |olaf.zielke@asu.edu |

SECTION III

SCEC ORGANIZATION – 2005

Center Director: Thomas H. Jordan

University of Southern California

Deputy Director: Ralph Archuleta

University of California, Santa Barbara

Associate Director for Administration: John K. McRaney

University of Southern California

Associate Director for Communication, Mark Benthien

Education, and Outreach University of Southern California

IT Architect: Phil Maechling

University of Southern California

Project Specialists: Sally Henyey

Shelly Werner

Dana Coyle

Education Specialist: Robert deGroot

Programmer and Webmaster: John Marquis

FIS and UseIT Intern Program Manager: Sue Perry

Programmer Analysts: Nitin Gupta

Vipin Gupta

Hunter Francoeur

Systems Programmer: John Mehringer

2005 SCEC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chair: Thomas H. Jordan, USC

Vice-Chair: Greg Beroza, Stanford

Members: Jim Brune, UNR

Doug Burbank, UCSB*

Steve Day, San Diego State

James Dieterich, UCR

Bill Ellsworth, USGS/Menlo Park

Lisa Grant, UCI

Emily Brodsky, UCLA

Tom Heaton, Caltech

Tom Herring, MIT

Lucy Jones, USGS/Pasadena*

Bernard Minster, UCSD*

Jim Rice, Harvard

Bruce Shaw, Columbia

Terry Tullis, Brown

Rob Wesson, USGS/Golden

*Members of the Executive Committee of the Board

2005 SCEC PLANNING COMMITTEE

Chair: Ralph Archuleta

Earthquake Source Physics Focus Group: Ruth Harris

David Oglesby

Seismic Hazard Analysis Focus Group: Ned Field

David Jackson

Structural Representation Focus Group: John Shaw

Jeroen Tromp

Ground Motion Focus Group: Paul Davis

Robert Graves

Fault Systems Focus Group: Brad Hager

Sally McGill

Jim Dieterich

Charles Sammis

Geology Disciplinary Group: Tom Rockwell

Mike Oskin

Geodesy Disciplinary Group: Duncan Agnew

Mark Simons

Seismology Disciplinary Group: John Vidale

Peter Shearer

Fault and Rock Mechanics Group: Terry Tullis

Judith Chester

Implementation Interface: Paul Somerville

Rob Wesson

ITR: Phil Maechling

Bernard Minster

WinSAR: Mark Simons

Borderlands: Craig Nicholson

2005 SCEC ADVISORY COUNCIL

Sean SOLOMON (Chair), Carnegie Institution of Washington

Dept. of Terrestrial Magnetism

5241 Broad Branch Road, N.W., Washington, DC 20015-1305

scs@dtm.ciw.edu

Gail ATKINSON, Carlton University

2240 Herzberg Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada

gma@ccs.carlton.ca

Lloyd CLUFF, Pacific Gas and Electric,

P.O. Box 770000, MC N4C, San Francisco, CA 94177

lsc2@

Jeffery FREYMUELLER, University of Alaska, Geophysical Institute

P.O. Box 757320, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320

jeff@giseis.alaska.edu

Patti GUATTERI, Swiss Reinsurance,

75 King Street, Armonk, NY, 10504

mariagiovanna_guatteri@

Kate MILLER, University of Texas at El Paso

Department of Geology, 700 W. University Avenue

El Paso, TX 79968 miller@geo.utep.edu

Jack MOEHLE, Pacific Earthquake Eng. Research Center

1301 S. 46th St., Bldg. 451

Richmond, CA 94804-4698

moehle@peer.berkeley.edu

Garry ROGERS, Geological Survey of Canada

Box 6000

Sidney, V8L 4B2, BC, Canada

rogers@pgc.nrcan.gc.ca

Chris ROJAHN, Applied Technology Council

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240

Redwood City, CA 94065

crojahn@

John RUDNICKI, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

A333 Technological Institute

2145 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208

jwrudn@northwestern.edu

Ellis STANLEY, City of Los Angeles, Emergency Preparedness Department

200 N. Main Street, Room 1500

Los Angeles, CA 90012

estanley@mailbox.

SECTION IV

Tribute to Kei Aki

SECTION V

State of SCEC, 2005

Thomas H. Jordan

Director, Southern California Earthquake Center

I welcome you all to the 2005 Annual Meeting in Palm Springs. This will be the fourth community-wide gathering since SCEC was reconfigured as a free-standing center on February 1, 2002. The past year has been exceptionally active, and the meeting agenda is chock full of sessions where the results of your efforts will be presented and discussed. A particularly notable accomplishment was the submission of the SCEC3 proposal to the National Science Foundation and U.S. Geological Survey, which maps out the Center’s plans for 2007-2012. As of this writing, we have not received official word about the status of our proposal, but the site review in early June seemed to go very well, and I am optimistic that our plan will be accepted by both agencies. I will summarize elements of the SCEC3 plan in my report below.

In addition to the working group sessions, the agenda features some outstanding science presentations, an outstanding set of science posters, as well as a variety of IT demonstrations, education & outreach activities, and social gatherings. I look forward to participating with you in all of these events.

[pic]

Figure 1. Registrants at SCEC Annual Meetings, 1991-2004.

Organization and Leadership

SCEC is an institution-based center, governed by a Board of Directors who represent its members. Over the past year, UC Riverside became a core institution, and two new organizations, the University of Utah and the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (New Zealand), joined as participating institutions, raising the membership to 15 core institutions and 40 participating institutions (Table 1). A January, 2005, census indicated that 565 scientists and other experts are involved in active SCEC projects, which makes SCEC one of the largest collaborations in all of geoscience. Another measure of SCEC involvement—registrants at our annual meetings—is shown for the entire history of the Center in Figure 1.

[pic]

Board of Directors. Under the SCEC2 by-laws, each core institution appoints one board member, and two at-large members are elected by the Board from the participating institutions. This year we welcome to the Board Prof. Jim Dieterich, who now represents our newest core institution, UC Riverside. The other 16 members of the Board are Greg Beroza (Vice-Chair/Stanford), Emily Brodsky (UCLA), Jim Brune (UNR), Doug Burbank (UCSB), Steve Day (SDSU), Bill Ellsworth (USGS-Menlo Park), Lisa Grant (At-Large), Tom Heaton (Caltech), Tom Herring (MIT), Lucy Jones (USGS-Pasadena), Bernard Minster (UCSD), Jim Rice (Harvard), Bruce Shaw (Columbia), Terry Tullis (At-Large), Rob Wesson (USGS-Golden), and myself (Chair/USC). John McRaney continues to act with his characteristic efficiency and effectiveness as Executive Secretary to the Board.

Planning Committee. One of our most important organizations is the SCEC Planning Committee, which is chaired by Ralph Archuleta, SCEC’s Deputy Director. The PC has the responsibility for formulating the Center’s science plan, conducting proposal reviews, and recommending projects to the Board for SCEC support. Its membership includes the leaders of the major SCEC working groups—disciplinary committees, focus groups, and special project groups (Table 2).

Table 2. SCEC Working Group Leadership

_____

Disciplinary Committees

Seismology: John Vidale (chair)*

Peter Shearer (co-chair)

Geodesy: Duncan Agnew (chair)*

Mark Simons (co-chair)

Geology: Tom Rockwell (chair)*

Mike Oskin (co-chair)

Fault & Rock Mechanics: Terry Tullis (chair)*

Judith Chester (co-chair)

Focus Groups

Structural Representation: John Shaw (leader)*

Jeroen Tromp (co-leader)

Fault Systems: Brad Hager (leader)*

Sally McGill (co-leader)

James Dieterich (co-leader)

Earthquake Source Physics: Ruth Harris (leader)*

David Oglesby (co-leader)

Ground Motions: Paul Davis (leader)*

Robert Graves (co-leader)

Seismic Hazard Analysis: Ned Field (leader)*

David Jackson (co-leader)

Implementation Interface: Paul Somerville (leader)*

Robert Wesson (co-leader)

Special Project Groups

SCEC/ITR Project: Bernard Minster (liaison)*

Borderland Working Group: Craig Nicholson (chair)*

WInSAR Working Group Mark Simons (chair)*

_____

* Planning Committee members

Advisory Council. The Center’s external Advisory Council is charged with developing an overview of SCEC operations and advising the Director and the Board. Since the inception of SCEC in 1991, the AC has played a major role in maintaining the vitality of the organization and helping its leadership chart new directions.

The AC’s 2004 report focused on several key issues regarding the formulation of the SCEC3 proposal, and its analysis influenced how the proposal was constructed in a very positive way. A verbatim copy of this report is included in this meeting volume. In February, 2005, the Council reviewed an intermediate draft of the SCEC3 proposal, and they rendered advice which proved very valuable in finalizing the document.

AC members serve three-year terms. During this past year, five members rotated off the Council: Raul Madariaga (Ecole Normale Superieure), Farzad Naeim (John A. Martin & Associates), Haresh Shah (RMS, Inc.), Robert Smith (U. Utah,), and Susan Tubbesing (EERI). We thank them for their distinguished service. We note that one of the retiring members, Bob Smith, who served as AC Chair from 2000-2004, will remain involved in SCEC as the representative for one of our new institutions, the University of Utah. (Remember, Bob, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave!)

The current members of the Advisory Council are: Sean Solomon (Carnegie Institution of Washington), who took over as chair of the AC last year, Jeff Freymueller (U. Alaska), Jack Moehle (PEER), Garry Rogers (Geological Survey Of Canada), Chris Rojahn (Applied Technology Council).

Added to their ranks are five new members, whom we welcome to the AC at this meeting: Gail Atkinson, Carlton University), Lloyd Cluff (Pacific Gas and Electric Co.), Patti Guatteri (Swiss Reinsurance), Kate Miller (University of Texas at El Paso), and John Rudnicki (Northwestern University). We are very fortunate to have such an exceptional group of experts providing the Center with advice.

Working Groups. The SCEC organization comprises a number of disciplinary committees, focus groups, and special project teams. These working groups are the engines of its success, and the discussions they organize at the annual meeting provide critical input to our reporting and planning processes.

The Center sustains disciplinary science through its standing committees in Seismology, Tectonic Geodesy, Earthquake Geology, and Fault and Rock Mechanics (a.k.a. the FARMers). These committees are responsible for coordinating disciplinary activities relevant to the SCEC science plan, and they make recommendations to the Planning Committee regarding the support of disciplinary activities and infrastructure.

Interdisciplinary research is organized into five science focus areas: Structural Representation, Fault Systems, Earthquake Source Physics, Ground Motion, and Seismic Hazard Analysis. The focus groups are the crucibles for the interdisciplinary synthesis that lies at the core of SCEC’s mission. For that reason, a substantial fraction of this annual meeting will be devoted to reviewing the focus-group activities and discussing their plans.

SCEC activities classified under special projects include Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN), the WInSAR Consortium, the Borderland Working Group, and the Community Modeling Environment (CME), which is being developed under the SCEC/ITR project.

Following the recommendation of the SCEC Advisory Council in their 2004 report, the SCEC Board of Directors formed a subcommittee to review the future of the SCIGN organization as a standing committee of SCEC.

SCEC's role in oversight of SCIGN began in 1996, primarily to insure that adequate funding could be found to build the array of 250 continuous GPS stations in Southern California and to monitor the construction of the network. With the completion of the SCIGN array in 2002 and a long-term plan in place by 2004 to maintain the stations through a combination of support through PBO/UNAVCO/NSF, the USGS office in Pasadena, and the surveying community through UCSD, SCEC had completed its objectives. In the light of these developments, particularly the initiation of the EarthScope Project, the Board subcommittee recommended that SCEC disband the SCIGN board as a standing committee of SCEC and that all future geodetic activities in SCEC be coordinated by the Tectonic Geodesy disciplinary committee.

The recommendation of the subcommittee was approved by the Board, the director, and by agency officials of NSF and the USGS.  The director notified the SCIGN group of the decision in late June, 2005. The SCEC administration will continue to assist the group in the array maintenance transition.

The WInSAR standing committee is now seeking offers for a new host institution as it hopes to renew itself as a global SAR archive.

Interdisciplinary research in risk assessment and mitigation is a primary subject for collaboration between SCEC scientists and partners from other communities—earthquake engineering, risk analysis, and emergency management. These partnerships are facilitated by an Implementation Interface, a structure based within the CEO program and designed to foster two-way communication and knowledge transfer. Representatives from a number of partnering organizations will be attending this meeting, and we should use this opportunity to discuss how our efforts toward implementing science for public benefit can be improved.

Communication, Education, and Outreach.  Through its CEO Program, SCEC offers a wide range of student research experiences, web-based education tools, classroom curricula, museum displays, public information brochures, online newsletters, and technical workshops and publications.  

    Much progress has been made on the development of the Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes (E3), a collaborative project with CUREE and IRIS. The E3 development system is now fully operational, and a number of encyclopedia entries are in the pipeline. When complete, E3 will include information and resources for over 500 Earth science and engineering topics, with connections to curricular materials useful for teaching Earth science, engineering, physics and mathematics.

    The “Earthquake Country Alliance,” organized to coordinate activities for the 10-year anniversary of the Northridge Earthquake in 2004, has continue to work together. The Alliance presents common messages, shares and promotes existing resources, and develops new activities and joint products, such as the new version of Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country, now in distribution. It can be downloaded from roots/. is a multi-organizational collaboration to inform the public about earthquake hazards and safety, organized and hosted by SCEC. In 2005 SCEC worked with a large group of Bay Area scientists, engineers, and emergency managers, led by the USGS, to create the first Bay Area version of Roots (soon available through the roots/ website also) and a Spanish-language edition is being prepared for printing in late 2005. A new video, Written in Stone: Earthquake Country – Los Angeles, has been produced and will be distributed in curricular kits to schools and community groups. The Los Angeles Unified School District plans to include the video in a new sixth-grade science unit, in every school in the district.

    SCEC’s Summer Intern program has grown to a new level and now has a year-round counterpart with students working on IT projects at USC and other institutions.  Since last summer, 33 students have participated in the program, including 11 students working with scientists throughout SCEC and 22 students enrolled in the USC-based Undergraduate Studies in Earthquake Information Technology (UseIT) program.

Center Budget and Project Funding

The 2005 base funding for the Center is $2,622K from the National Science Foundation and $1,100K from the U.S. Geological Survey. The NSF funding was 9.3% below SCEC’s expected allocation and 5% less than last year, owing to budgetary problems within EAR. The base funding of $3.722M was augmented with $60K from the California Earthquake Authority and $50K held over from 2004 for the NGA-H initiative. 

The base budget approved by the Board of Directors for this year allocated $2,750K for science activities managed by the SCEC Planning Committee; $380K for communication, education, and outreach activities, managed by the CEO Associate Director, Mark Benthien; $142K for information technology, managed by Information Architect, Phil Maechling; $280K for administration and $150K for meetings, managed by the Associate Director for Administration, John McRaney; and $130K for the director's reserve account. In addition, the Center received $2,000K from NSF's Information Technology Research (ITR) Program for continuing development of the SCEC Community Modeling Environment, and $511K from NSF's Engineering program for the SCEC research in seismic risk reduction.  The project managers for the ITR and Engineering grants are Phil Maechling and Paul Somerville, respectively.

I will use the opportunity to review how science projects have been funded as part of the SCEC collaboration, since this ongoing process will be a major concern of the annual meeting. The process of structuring the SCEC program for 2005 began with the working-group discussions at our last annual meeting in September, 2004.  An RFP was issued in October, 2004, and 149 proposals (128 projects, considering collaborations) requesting a total of $4,520K were submitted in November, 2004.  All proposals were independently reviewed by the director and deputy director.  Each proposal was also independently reviewed by the chairs and/or co-chairs of three relevant focus groups or disciplinary committees. (Reviewers were required to recuse themselves when they had a conflict of interest.) The Planning Committee met on January 17-18, 2005, and spent two long days discussing every proposal.  The objective was to formulate a coherent, budget-balanced science program consistent with SCEC's basic mission, short-term objectives, long-term goals, and institutional composition. Proposals were evaluated according to the following criteria:

a. Scientific merit of the proposed research.

b. Competence and performance of the investigators, especially in regard to past SCEC-sponsored research.

c. Priority of the proposed project for short-term SCEC objectives.

d. Promise of the proposed project for contributing to long-term SCEC goals.

e. Commitment of the P.I. and institution to the SCEC mission.

f. Value of the proposed research relative to its cost.

g. The need to achieve a balanced budget while maintaining a reasonable level of scientific continuity given the very limited Center funding.

The recommendations of the PC were reviewed by the SCEC Board of Directors at a meeting on February 7-8.  The Board voted unanimously to accept the PC's recommendations, pending a final review of the program by the Center director, which was completed on February 25.

On June 7, the SCEC Planning Committee met after the SCEC3 site visit and began the processes of formulating the 2005 RFP, and their draft will being put up for scrutiny at this annual meeting. I urge you to participate fully in these discussions. Based on the community input, the PC will modify their draft, and the final RFP will be released in October.

Accomplishments

Many of the scientific results of the SCEC collaboration are detailed in the abstracts of presentations and posters included in this Meeting Volume, and others will be discussed in the working-group sessions throughout the Annual Meeting.

This was an exceptional busy year in terms of SCEC initiatives. For example, we developed a plan in collaboration with the USGS and CGS for a new Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, which has been chartered to produce a time-dependent uniform California earthquake rupture forecast by 2007. WGCEP’07, which is led by Ned Field, will report to a management oversight committee (MOC) chaired by the SCEC director.

The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) has allocated $1.75 million for the project, which will be managed by SCEC through the MOC. The CEA has also funded SCEC projects in ground motion attenuation studies and end-to-end (“ruptures-to-rafters”) simulations.

Plans were also formulated for a set of international collaborations under the new Multinational Partnership in Earthquake System Science (MPRESS), a new Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP), and several other initiatives. These are outlined in the SCEC3 proposal (see the SCEC3 Proposal Summary below).

Rather than attempt a synopsis of the many projects that SCEC is coordinating, I will simply list several documents which you can download from the web to find detailed reports (). Of course, you can find a lot more information about SCEC activities through our main webportal ().

SCEC 2004 Annual Report (December, 2004). This large, comprehensive document (188 pp., 8.1 MB) provides an excellent snapshot of the Center’s 2004 activities. It comprises following sections:

I. Introduction

II. Planning, Organization, and Management of the Center

III. Research Accomplishments

IV. Communication, Education, and Outreach Activities

V. Director's Management Report

VI. Advisory Council Report

VII. Financial Report

VIII. Report on Subawards and Monitoring

IX. Demographics of SCEC Participants

X. Report on International Contacts and Visits

XI. Publications

Appendices: Long-Term Research Goals, By-Laws, and 2005 RFP

SCEC/CME 2004 Annual Report (June, 2005). In 2001, SCEC was funded by NSF's ITR Program for a large project ($10M for 5 yr) to develop a new information infrastructure for earthquake science—the SCEC “Community Modeling Environment” (CME). The fourth annual report on the CME (89 pp., 6.3 MB) can be downloaded from the SCEC document website. Further information, including a wide variety of products, capabilities, and reports can be found on the CME website ().

Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country (2005). The new edition of this widely distributed public-information document was released by SCEC and the USGS on the anniversary of the Northridge earthquake and has been updated twice since. It can be downloaded from the new website (roots/). is a multi-organizational collaboration to inform the public about earthquake hazards and safety, organized and hosted by SCEC. In 2005 SCEC worked with a large group of Bay Area scientists, engineers, and emergency managers, led by the USGS, to create the first Bay Area version of Roots (soon available through the roots/ website also) and a Spanish-language edition is being prepared for printing in late 2005.

The SCEC3 Proposal

The current phase of the Center (SCEC2) extends for five years, until January 31, 2007. In early March, 2005, we submitted the SCEC3 proposal to NSF and the USGS, which lays out our plans to extend Center operations for the 5-year period 2007-2012. The construction of this proposal was a truly collaborative enterprise that stretched over a nine-month period and involved the Board of Directors, Planning Committee, Advisory Council, the entire SCEC staff, and many, many SCEC participants. I want to express my deepest gratitude to all of you for your outstanding efforts on behalf of the Center.

The results were a truly impressive document. I urge all SCEC participants to download it from the SCEC documents webpage () and read it. The proposal was sent out for mail reviews and, in early June, a group of experts assembled by NSF and the USGS convened for a panel review at USC. We hope to receive word on the status of this proposal by the Annual Meeting. Reproduced below is the Proposal Summary.

SCEC3 Proposal Summary

The Southern California Earthquake Center was created as a Science & Technology Center in 1991 by NSF and the USGS. SCEC was renewed in 2002, and its size has since expanded to 54 institutions involving over 560 scientists. The core institutions, currently 15, are committed to SCEC’s mission and offer sustained support for its programs; the participating institutions, currently 40, are self-nominated through their members’ participation.

The Center is open to any credible scientist from any research institution interested in collaborating on the problems of earthquake science. However, its program is structured to achieve prioritized science objectives within the Southern California Natural Laboratory, and resources are allocated accordingly. Research projects are supported on a year-to-year basis by a competitive, collaboration-building process that involves extensive interactions among 14 working groups, a Joint Planning Committee with the USGS, the SCEC Board of Directors, and an External Advisory Council. In 2005, SCEC will sponsor 123 projects by 156 principal investigators at 51 institutions. The overall program includes a number of additional USGS investigators, as well as many collaborators supported by SCEC’s partner organizations.

Science Goal and Mission. SCEC’s basic science goal is to understand the physics of the Southern California fault system and encode this understanding in a system-level model that can predict salient aspects of earthquake behavior. Southern California’s network of several hundred active faults forms a superb natural laboratory for the study of earthquake physics. Its seismic, geodetic, and geologic data are among the best in the world. Moreover, Southern California contains 23 million people, so that high seismic hazard translates to nearly one-half of the national earthquake risk.

The Center’s tripartite mission statement emphasizes the connections between information gathering, knowledge formulation through physics-based modeling, and public communication of hazard and risk. An important part of SCEC’s mission is to increase the diversity of its scientific workforce; it values diversity in all aspects of its activities.

[pic]

Intellectual Merit of the Proposed Research. Earthquakes are one of the great unsolved puzzles of science. The study of earthquakes concerns the two basic geophysical problems: (a) the dynamics of fault rupture—what happens on a time scale of seconds to minutes when a single fault breaks during a given earthquake—and (b) the dynamics of fault systems—what happens within a fault network on a time scale of hours to centuries to generate a sequence of earthquakes. These highly nonlinear problems are coupled to one another through the complex processes of brittle and ductile deformation. No theory adequately describes the basic features of dynamic rupture, nor is one available that fully explains the dynamical interactions among faults, because we do not yet understand the physics of how matter and energy interact during the extreme conditions of rock failure. The major research issues of earthquake science are true system-level problems—they require an interdisciplinary, multi-institutional approach that considers the nonlinear interactions among many fault-system elements. SCEC will advance earthquake science through a comprehensive program of system-specific studies in Southern California.

Broader Implications of the Proposed Research. Earthquakes pose the greatest natural threat to the built environment of California and other seismically active regions. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is the primary methodology used to ensure the public’s seismic safety. SCEC research will incorporate physics-based methods into PSHA, which will provide better earthquake forecasts and better estimates of strong ground motions. The Center will extend this research beyond Southern California through its national and international research collaborations. Through partnerships with earthquake engineers, it will also generalize the natural system under consideration to include built structures, thereby extending its seismic hazard analysis to earthquake risk. Through its Communication, Education & Outreach (CEO) Program, it will provide society at large with useful knowledge for reducing earthquake risk.

Accomplishments. SCEC scientists engaged in data collection have come together with theoreticians and numerical modelers in a collaborative process that has greatly accelerated the understanding of seismic hazards in Southern California and elsewhere. The results have been incorporated into practical products, including the National Seismic Hazard Maps of 2002 and the new seismic attenuation relations developed by the Next Generation Attenuation Project. SCEC’s achievements contributed to the launching of NSF’s EarthScope initiative in 2003. For example, the Center developed the 250-station Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN), the largest outside of Japan, which has served as a prototype for EarthScope’s Plate Boundary Observatory.

This proposal highlights scientific accomplishments in six problem areas central to the earthquake system science.

Fault mechanics. New types of laboratory experiments have elucidated on the frictional resistance during high-speed coseismic slip, and these data have been combined with field studies on exhumed faults to develop better models of dynamic rupture.

Earthquake Rupture Dynamics. Codes for 3D dynamic rupture simulation have been validated by cross-comparison exercises; they are being verified by comparisons with laboratory experiments and real earthquakes and coupled with anelastic wave propagation models to investigate strong ground motions.

Structural Representation. The Community Velocity Model (CVM) has been improved by extending and refining its 3D elastic structure and incorporating attenuation parameters; a new Community Fault Model (CFM) representing more than 140 active faults has been developed and extended to a Community Block Model (CBM), and a prototype Unified Structural Representation (USR) is merging the CVM into the CBM structural framework.

Fault Systems. New deformation signals have been discovered by InSAR and GPS, and new data from SCIGN and GPS campaigns have been incorporated into the Crustal Motion Map (CMM). The geologic record of fault-system behavior has been significantly expanded; tectonic block models have been created for physics-based earthquake forecasting, and finite-element codes have been developed for a new CBM-based deformation model that will assimilate the CMM and geologic data.

Earthquake Forecasting. New paleoseismic data and data-synthesis techniques have been used to constrain earthquake recurrence intervals, event clustering, and interactions among faults. Relocated seismicity has mapped new seismogenic structures and provided better tests of earthquake triggering models. Regional earthquake likelihood models have been formulated for use in PSHA and earthquake predictability experiments, and they are being tested for prediction skill using a rigorous methodology.

Ground Motion Prediction. Earthquake ground motions have been simulated using the CVM, realistic source models, and validated wave-physics codes; high-frequency stochastic methods have been combined with low-frequency deterministic methods to attain a broadband (0-10 Hz) simulation capability; broadband predictions have been tested against precarious-rock data; and simulations have been used to improve attenuation relationships and create realistic earthquake scenarios.

The CEO program has expanded SCEC partnerships in science, engineering, risk management, government, business, and education; increased earthquake knowledge and science literacy at all educational levels; worked with partners to improve earthquake hazard and risk assessments; and promoted earthquake preparedness, mitigation, and planning. An Implementation Interface has been constructed to integrate physics-based SHA into earthquake engineering research and practice through collaborations with PEER, CUREE, and the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Project; it has provided a flexible computational framework for system-level hazard and risk analysis through the OpenSHA platform, and it is developing an interface between SCEC and the NSF Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).

CEO highlights include a very successful new intern program Undergraduate Studies in Earthquake Information Technology (USEIT); the development of the Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes as part of the NSF National Science Digital Library; the establishment of the Earthquake Country Alliance to present consistent earthquake information to the public; and a new edition of Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country in both English and Spanish.

Science Plan. The SCEC3 Science Plan is articulated in terms of four basic science problems that organize the most pressing issues of earthquake system science.

A. Earthquake Source Physics: to discover the physics of fault failure and dynamic rupture that will improve predictions of strong ground motions and the understanding of earthquake predictability.

B. Fault System Dynamics: to develop representations of the postseismic and interseismic evolution of stress, strain, and rheology that can predict fault system behaviors.

C. Earthquake Forecasting and Predictability: to improve earthquake forecasts by understanding the physical basis for earthquake predictability.

D. Ground Motion Prediction: to predict the ground motions using realistic earthquake simulations at frequencies up to 10 Hz for all sites in Southern California.

In each problem area, we state the research issues, identify specific objectives, and assess the requisite research activities and capabilities. Based on this assessment, we formulate a new working-group structure to enact the Science Plan.

The SCEC3 Science Plan motivates eight initiatives that will augment the basic research program.

1. Networks as Research Tools: to foster innovations in network deployments and data collection that can provide researchers with new information on earthquake phenomena. Plans include a real-time demonstration project in seismic early warning in partnership with CISN.

2. Southern San Andreas Fault: to mobilize a major effort on the collection and interpretation of geologic data to understand the earthquake history of the SSAF system.

3. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities: to develop in partnership with the USGS and CGS a uniform California earthquake rupture forecast by combining new information with the best available methodologies for time-dependent forecasting.

4. Next Generation Attenuation Program: to produce in partnership with PEER-Lifeline and the USGS more reliable ground motion attenuation models that are based on physics as well as data.

5. “Rupture to Rafters”: to develop in partnership with earthquake engineers a capability for the end-to-end simulation of earthquake processes, including embedding built structures in geologic models. This analysis will be used in new types of risk assessment.

6. Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability: to provide a stable environment for registering earthquake predictions and conducting long-term predictability experiments that are properly characterized and can be properly evaluated.

7. National Collaborations Through EarthScope: to apply SCEC’s system-level approach to other fault systems in the United States and collaborate on a national scale in comparative studies of fault system dynamics and earthquake behavior.

8. International Collaborations: to develop multinational partnerships that will promote comparative studies of fault systems and international cooperation in earthquake system science.

We outline the objectives of each initiative, its resource requirements, the participants and organizational partners, and the mechanisms that we will pursue to obtain additional resources. The latter is critical, because the ambitious research program proposed for SCEC3, particularly in the realm of applied studies, will require other sources of funding than the Center base budget proposed here.

The CEO program is an essential component of the Science Plan through its management of external partnerships that foster new research opportunities and its delivery of research and educational products to society at large.

In SCEC3, the Center will expand its CEO activities through partnerships with new groups, such as the EarthScope Education & Outreach Program and the NEES Education, Outreach & Training Program. The CEO focus areas will include partnerships in seismic hazard & risk analysis, primarily with research engineers; knowledge transfer partnerships and programs for technical professionals and government officials; education programs and products for students and educators; and public outreach to the general public, civic and preparedness groups, and the news media. As in SCEC2, CEO will organize community development programs for SCEC participants.

Management Plan. SCEC3 will continue to operate under the lean, flexible, and very successful management structure developed for SCEC2. However, to implement the Science Plan, we will make significant changes in the organization of the working groups, as shown on the SCEC3 organization chart.

[pic]

Recognizing that diversity is a long-term issue that requires continuing assessments and constant attention by the leadership, the Center has taken a number of concrete steps to assess the diversity of its workforce and to develop policies for increasing diversity. Tangible progress has been made in populating SCEC leadership positions with outstanding women and minority scientists, and a long-term plan has been enacted to make further improvements. A key pipeline strategy is to recruit minority students into the SCEC intern programs and encourage them to pursue research careers at SCEC institutions. These recruitment and retention activities will be expanded in SCEC3.

In closing, I want to express my thanks to all of you for your attendance at the meeting and your sustained commitment to the SCEC collaboration. Please do not hesitate to contact me personally if you have questions or comments about our activities, accomplishments, and plans.

Report of the Advisory Council

Southern California Earthquake Center

September 2004 Meeting

Introduction

The Advisory Council of the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) met during the 2004 SCEC Annual Meeting, held in Palm Springs, California, on 19-23 September 2004. The principal meeting of the Council was during the evening of 22 September; an earlier executive session of the Council was held prior to the start of the Annual Meeting on 19 September to outline areas of focus. A report of the principal findings and recommendations was made orally to those attending the Annual Meeting during the closing session on the morning of 23 September.

Prior to the Annual Meeting the SCEC Director circulated to Advisory Council members a three-page list of issues warranting Council attention. Those issues included assessments of SCEC’s system-level approach to earthquake science; SCEC’s partnership activities; the geographic scope of SCEC’s focus; the goals and objectives for the next proposed phase of the Center (so-called SCEC3); and the membership, agenda, and meeting schedule of the Council. For each major issue, the SCEC Director posed a series of specific subsidiary questions.

After some general comments, we group the bulk of our discussion and recommendations below in line with those five issues and the corresponding subsidiary questions.

General Impressions and Recommendations

Because the members of the Advisory Council are not also members of SCEC, the Annual Meeting is of particular importance as a measure of annual progress on the goals and programs of the Center. One metric on that progress is meeting attendance, which continues to grow and reached an all-time high at this year’s meeting. Another is the range of topics on which new results were presented and engaging discussions ensued. Even compared with one year earlier, the diversity of subjects treated and the maturity of much of the Center’s highest-priority work have advanced noticeably.

Presentations on two topics made particularly positive impressions on Advisory Council members. The first is the Community Modeling Environment, the managed computational facility for validating and inter-comparing numerical codes for fault rupture, wave propagation, and other elements of the seismic hazard analysis problem. The combination of state-of-the-art information technology tools for computation and visualization together with the integrative, open approach promises to provide a critical resource both to seismologists and to the engineering and management user communities.

The second is the TerraShake simulation of ground motions from a specified model of fault rupture within a three-dimensional representation of the fault system and seismic velocity structure of Southern California. This computational tour de force, with its compelling visualization of wave propagation and ground accelerations, provided dramatically graphical lessons concerning the effects of rupture directivity and the focusing of energy by sediment-filled basins and other structures. The promise of such simulations for understanding seismic hazards, and for pointing in directions where improved observations or better models would be most worthwhile, is enormous.

On the basis of all of the presentations and discussions at the Annual Meeting, the Advisory Council has several general recommendations to offer.

SCEC should enhance the communication of its activities, accomplishments, and plans to the greater Earth science and earthquake engineering communities and to the public. There is an enormous body of very exciting scientific work being carried out by SCEC members and through SCEC’s partnerships with other organizations. It is the impression of Advisory Council members, however, that the broader community of Earth scientists and earthquake engineers are unfamiliar with much of this effort. SCEC should do more to publicize its work, through organized sets of presentations at professional meetings, publications in professional journals, targeted articles in the lay media, and internet-based materials. Presentations and publications of SCEC-sponsored research should consistently give explicit credit to such sponsorship. Regular updates to SCEC’s web site (including pages currently “under construction”) would also serve to enhance the Center’s visibility as a focus of community-directed activity.

SCEC should develop a plan for how it will coordinate, in partnership with relevant federal and state agencies, a science community response to a large earthquake in southern California. The need for such a plan was underscored by the Parkfield, California, earthquake of 28 September, just one week after the Annual Meeting. As a multi-institutional Center for earthquake science, society will look to SCEC to provide scientific leadership in the immediate aftermath of any large seismic event in the southern California region. SCEC should have a clear protocol for how it will provide that leadership.

SCEC has set out ambitious goals and several milestones to be attained in the pursuit of those goals. Building on those plans, SCEC should develop clear metrics for the successful achievement of its goals. These “success criteria” should be applied both to past activities — in the development of a rationale for continuing SCEC into its next phase — and to activities proposed by the SCEC3 era. The feasibility of satisfying those success criteria for planned efforts will enhance the case for SCEC3.

SCEC’s System-level Approach

A primary goal of SCEC during its second phase as a Center (so-called SCEC2) has been to develop a system-level approach to earthquake science that can improve seismic hazard analysis and contribute to a reduction in earthquake risk. The Advisory Council was specifically asked:

a. Has this approach been successful in advancing earthquake science? Will it lead to substantial improvements in seismic hazard analysis?

b. Is it an appropriate basis for continuing the SCEC collaboration?

c. Do [SCEC’s] accomplishments on this problem warrant the continuation of the program into the next 5-year phase (SCEC3)?

In response to these queries, the Advisory Council affirms that the system-level approach to earthquake science that SCEC has pioneered is novel, appears to be demonstrating substantial progress, and is the type of integrative effort most appropriate for a multi-institutional, mission-focused Center. The approach that SCEC has taken in its system-level representation of tectonic elements and seismic structure in Southern California — including the Community Velocity Model, the Community Fault Model, the Community Crustal Motion Map, the Community Block Model, and the Unified Structural Representation — integrates all available observations through an open process that involves all interested members of the community. In parallel with the development of regional models, through the Community Modeling Environment SCEC has developed a system-level approach to the management of simulations and visualizations and the curation of data products. Most importantly, the well-documented SCEC approach stands as an exemplary model on which similar efforts for other earthquake-prone regions can build.

As noted above, end-to-end simulations of ground motion from specific fault rupture scenarios presented at the Annual Meeting constitute compelling evidence that SCEC’s system-level approach promises to provide a capability for substantial improvements to ground motion estimation and seismic hazard analysis. Whether that capability will modify current methods for such analysis is less clear at present. In large measure, the success of SCEC’s effort to improve the state of seismic hazard analysis will depend on the extent to which the user community adapts SCEC’s tools and methodology into standard practice.

SCEC’s system-level approach to earthquake science is nonetheless a clearly appropriate basis for continuing the SCEC collaboration. The community models and modeling environment are just now reaching levels of maturity to test diverse scenarios for Southern California fault behavior. Further, as mentioned earlier, these models should provide a clear basis for deciding where new observations and observational approaches are needed to fill gaps in knowledge or to foster new monitoring tools. Finding an optimum balance between system-level and observational approaches will be a high priority for SCEC throughout the lifetime of the Center.

The answer to the final question above should be obvious. SCEC’s accomplishments to date readily warrant continuation of the Center’s programs into another 5-year phase (SCEC3). Proposals to federal, state, and private organizations for support of such an endeavor should be prepared as opportunity permits.

SCEC’s Partnership Activities

To accomplish its goal of reducing earthquake risk, SCEC has sought a range of partnerships in earthquake engineering, emergency management, and public outreach and education. The Advisory Council has been asked:

a. How effective has SCEC been in creating and managing its partnerships?

b. In particular, how would [the Council] evaluate SCEC’s Implementation Interface activities?

c. What new partnerships should be considered for SCEC3 to improve [the Center’s] impact on risk reduction?

d. Is there too much or too little emphasis on practical products for seismic hazard analysis and risk reduction?

SCEC has entered into a number of promising partnerships. The new Implementation Interface provides a focus for collaborations with the earthquake engineering community, exemplified by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)-Lifelines/SCEC/U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) New Generation Attenuation Project and the end-to-end (“Rupture to Rafters/Rivets”) simulation initiative. As part of SCEC’s Communication, Education, and Outreach Program, partnered activities include the SCEC/CUREE/IRIS Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes and the web portal managed by the Earthquake Country Alliance. In general, these partnerships provide an effective means for engaging the user community and for leveraging SCEC efforts.

Nonetheless, there is more that can be done, particularly through partnerships with organizations that are now applying earthquake information. In particular, SCEC should enhance its awareness of current directions being taken by the engineering community to develop next-generation methods for performance-based design and to address the Los Angeles community’s most pressing concerns regarding seismically hazardous structures. Open synergistic partnerships with organizations whose goals include the advancement of these causes are encouraged. The partnership with PEER is a laudable example of this type of collaboration, but others should be pursued as well.

SCEC’s Geographic Scope

SCEC has a natural and appropriate focus on Southern California as a laboratory for earthquake science and hazards. Nonetheless, seismology is informed by insight gained from earthquakes throughout the globe. The Advisory Council was therefore asked:

a. What is the appropriate geographic scale for SCEC science? Should it remain a regional Center?

b. Are [SCEC’s] initiatives to form other regional partnerships an appropriate way to diversify the study of earthquake systems?

c. Would [the Council] encourage [SCEC] to put forward an international Center-based initiative to the NSF Office of International Science and Engineering? What are the pace and selection issues associated with such an initiative?

For several reasons, the regional scale adopted by SCEC to date is still highly appropriate. Southern California remains one of the best — arguably the best — natural laboratory for earthquake science because of the spatial and temporal coverage of diverse instrumentation, the variety of fault geometries and tectonic settings, and the large population of area residents for whom improved hazard analysis will enhance safety and reduce economic vulnerability. A large fraction of SCEC members are from institutions within Southern California, which can most readily maintain local geological and seismological field programs. The enormous investment by SCEC to date in understanding the tectonics and structure of Southern California provides additional rationale to continue such a focus.

That said, ongoing SCEC initiatives to form regional partnerships are appropriate mechanisms to export SCEC products and to expand the suite of natural laboratories from which to gather information on earthquake physics. The Basin and Range working group sponsored by SCEC and the acceptance as SCEC Participating Institutions of seven foreign universities and research organizations to date are noteworthy examples of these initiatives. There are nonetheless real limits to the number and diversity of regional partnerships in which SCEC can maintain an active role at any one time. SCEC should therefore select its partnerships carefully, emphasizing those that can best advance overall SCEC goals.

Goals and Objectives for SCEC3

Plans for the next 5-year phase of SCEC received an understandably large share of attention during the Annual Meeting, as SCEC leadership and membership wrestle with the question of how best to prioritize goals for SCEC3. The Advisory Council was specifically asked to comment on the following questions:

a. What will be the goals and objectives of SCEC3? Basic science goals? New product goals (e.g., system-level models of the Southern California laboratory; hazard and risk models)? Time-dependent earthquake forecasting (earthquake prediction)? End-to-end (“rupture to rafters”) simulation? SCEC collaboratory (Community Modeling Environment)?

b. What structural changes should be made to prepare for SCEC3? How to transition WInSAR and SCIGN to the PBO era? New working groups for EarthScope and/or Tectonophysics? Move forward on international collaborations? Major new partnerships and/or other organizations? Leadership transitions?

By the end of SCEC2, several of the Center’s activities will still be underway, and some will have considerable scientific momentum. Activities during SCEC3 that harvest such momentum can therefore be anticipated. Nonetheless, to present a compelling vision for continued funding, SCEC3 should offer several new initiatives — directions in earthquake science beyond those now being pursued by the community.

Without prejudging the selection of what those initiatives should be, the Advisory Council recommends that those initiatives should satisfy several criteria. They should be sharply focused. They should be based firmly on fundamental questions in basic science. They should address goals that are achievable only by a multi-institutional Center. And those goals should be attainable within a 5-year time frame.

Several structural changes are appropriate in preparation for a transition from SCEC2 to SCEC3. SCEC’s stewardship of SCIGN and WInSAR has been critical to date, but with the onset of the EarthScope program it is now timely to transfer these activities to appropriate alternative organizations. At the same time, explicit links with EarthScope should be strengthened through one or more SCEC organizational units.

Within SCEC, a Tectonophysics Focus Group is warranted on scientific grounds; some rebalancing of assignments among working groups may be needed as a consequence. As noted above, carefully selected international collaborations make sense as a means to broaden the sweep of natural laboratories and enhance the opportunity for important lesson-forming events.

SCEC has made visible effort to promote early-career scientists to leadership positions within Center activities. This laudable effort takes optimum advantages of the energy and ideas of younger members of the community, offers opportunities to enhance the diversity of SCEC leadership, and builds a cadre of younger leaders to whom the Center and the community can turn when transitions in senior leadership are needed.

Advisory Council Issues

The structure and charter for the Advisory Council should be devised so as to provide the most effective and constructive feedback for the Center on a regular basis. Specific questions posted to the Council included the following:

a. Should [SCEC] consider new appointments or rotations, especially given the difficulty some members have had in attending AC meetings? Should [SCEC] add expertise in other areas, such as IT?

b. What should be the focus of the AC during the SCEC3 planning process? A SCEC3 proposal will require external assessments, probably at several levels. Should the AC configure a formal assessment process?

c. What should be the AC’s meeting schedule? Thus far in SCEC2, the AC has met yearly at the Annual Meeting. Should a mid-year meeting be added, which was the tradition in the early days of SCEC1?

To provide the continued infusion of fresh ideas to SCEC planning efforts, the Center should consider instituting a formal rotation of Advisory Council members. The earliest rotations should be for those members whose schedules make it difficult for them to participate in SCEC Annual Meetings.

As new appointments are made to the Advisory Council, the expertise represented should be broadened over that of the current Council membership. Adding an expert in Information Technology should be a top priority.

The Advisory Council will assist in the preparation of the proposal for SCEC3 by providing a review of a pre-submission proposal draft. The Council is willing to add a mid-year meeting to enable such a review.

Concluding Comments

The Advisory Council is pleased to provide continued assistance to SCEC in its efforts to formulate and accomplish its major goals. The Council invites comments, criticism, and advice from the seismological community, including those both inside and outside SCEC membership, on how best to provide that assistance.

The Advisory Council looks forward to working with SCEC leadership to craft a compelling scientific and societal rationale for the continuation and expansion of SCEC activities.

2 February 2005

SCEC Advisory Council

Sean C. Solomon, Carnegie Institution of Washington (Chair)*

Jeffrey T. Freymueller, University of Alaska*

Raul Madariaga, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris

Jack P. Moehle, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center*

Farzad Naeim, John A. Martin & Associates

Garry C. Rogers, Geological Survey of Canada*

Chris Rojahn, Applied Technology Council*

Haresh Shah, Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

Robert B. Smith, University of Utah*

Ellis M. Stanley, Sr., City of Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Department

Susan Tubbesing, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

*Participated in the Advisory Council meetings of 19-21 September 20

2005 SCEC Communication, Education and Outreach (CEO) Program

The SCEC2 Communication, Education, and Outreach (CEO) program is built upon the methods, achievements, and experience of SCEC’s eleven years as an NSF Science and Technology Center, and a series of community planning workshops prior to SCEC2. These workshops led program with four long-term goals that have been pursued during SCEC2:

• Coordinate productive interactions among a diverse community of SCEC scientists and with partners in science, engineering, risk management, government, business, and education (see Figure 1.A.4).

• Increase earthquake knowledge and science literacy at all educational levels, including students and the general public.

• Improve earthquake hazard and risk assessments

• Promote earthquake preparedness, mitigation, and planning for response and recovery.

CEO is well integrated within the SCEC science planning process. This includes participation of CEO staff in the development of short-term research objectives and evaluation of proposals received each year in order to develop products and services needed by our various audiences (Figure II.C.1). SCEC scientists in turn are involved in developing and fulfilling CEO short-term objectives, which are organized within four CEO focus areas: education programs and resources for students, educators, and learners of all ages; public outreach activities and products for the general public, civic and preparedness groups, and the news media; knowledge transfer activities with practicing professionals, government officials, scientists and engineers (with research partnerships coordinated within the SCEC implementation interface); and SCEC Community development activities and resources for SCEC scientists and students.

The list of activities is long and SCEC’s organizational relationships are often complex, but we emphasize that the Center’s resources, including its staff time, are carefully allocated through a prioritizationprocess that maintains good alignment between the CEO and science objectives. For example, the yearly revisions to the CEO plan are articulated within the revised SCEC Science Plan, published each October, which solicits annual proposals from the SCEC Community; the proposals that respond to the CEO solicitation are evaluated along side the science proposals in the collaboration-building process managed by the Planning Committee. This mechanism involves scientists in setting and achieving the CEO objectives.

SCEC Activity Development and Assessment process relative to the SCEC Mission. Both initial data gathering activities and integrated research results create or support a broad range of products and services. Assessments of these products and services

SCEC CEO Activities, showing how many activities span more than one CEO focus area. Activities within the SCEC Community Development focus area are shown outside the three circles, though have connections to many of the activities shown.

SCEC CEO Team

Staff

Mark Benthien, director

John Marquis, digital products manager

Bob de Groot, education specialist

Sue Perry, earthquake information technology student programs manager

Student Employees

Ilene Cooper, education specialist

Brion Vibber, web specialist

Monica Maynard, education specialist and Spanish translator

Consultant

Paul Somerville, Implementation Interface project manager

Education Activities

SCEC and its expanding network of education partners are committed to fostering increasing earthquake knowledge and science literacy at all educational levels, especially K-12 and college-level education in Earth science. In addition to activities described below, SCEC CEO also is developing an undergraduate earthquake course with new visuals and online interactive modules, revising the Seismic Sleuths earthquake curricula, supporting activities at the SCEC-developed ShakeZone museum exhibit, and working with the Los Angeles Unified School District on a sixth grade earth sciences unit which will include SCEC images and videos.

Objectives

The SCEC2 objectives for the Education focus area are to (1) interest, involve and retain students in earthquake science, (2) develop innovative earth-science education resources, (3) offer effective professional development for K-12 educators.

Results

SCEC Undergraduate Internship Program. SCEC has supported over 160 students to date (including over 70 women and over 50 minority students) to work alongside over 65 SCEC scientists since 1994. The program has expanded in recent years: in 2004, SCEC supported 34 undergraduate students. SCEC interns are paid a stipend of $5000 over the summer with support from the NSF REU program. SCEC offers two summer internship programs, SCEC/SURE, and SCEC/USEIT. These programs are the principal SCEC framework for undergraduate student participation in SCEC, and have common goals of increasing diversity and retention. In addition to their research projects, participants come together several times during their internship for orientations, field trips, and to present posters at the SCEC Annual meeting. Students apply for both programs at .

Each summer since 1994, the SCEC Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SCEC/SURE) has supported students to work one-on-one as student interns with SCEC scientists. The goals of SCEC/SURE are (1) to provide hands-on experiences for undergraduates and expand student participation in the earth sciences and related disciplines, (2) to encourage students to consider careers in research and education, and (3) to interest, train, and retain talented students, including women, members of underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities, and students outside the earth sciences. SCEC/SURE has supported students to work on numerous issues related to earthquake science including the history of earthquakes on faults, risk mitigation, seismic velocity modeling, science education, and earthquake engineering.

The SCEC Undergraduate Studies in Earthquake Information Technology (SCEC/USEIT) program, unites undergraduates from across the country in an NSF REU Site at USC. 64 students in computer science, engineering, geoscience, cinema, economics, mathematics, architecture, communications and pre-law majors have participated since Summer 2002. SCEC/USEIT interns interact in a team-oriented research environment with some of the nation's most distinguished geoscience and computer science researchers. The goals of the program are: (1) to allow undergraduates to use advanced tools of information technology to solve important problems in interdisciplinary earthquake research; (2) to close the gap between two fields of undergraduate study--computer science and geoscience; and (3) to engage non-geoscience majors in the application of earth science to the practical problems of reducing earthquake risk.

SCEC/USEIT interns have developed the "LA3D" and “SCEC-VDO” (Visual Display of Objects) visualization platforms, object-oriented, open source, and Internet-enabled systems. These tools are being used by SCEC researchers interested in displaying objects that represent the complex subsurface structure of Southern California. The interns are encoding visualization objects, creating a visual vocabulary comprising earthquake-related objects that are interconnected into a new visual ontology. In addition, the interns have built scripting capabilities into the tools, to allow the creation of visual stories that communicate the results of SCEC system-level research.

Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes (E3). SCEC is developing this digital library of educational resources and information with CUREE and IRIS, with funding from the NSF National Science Digital Library (NSDL) initiative. When complete, information and resources for over 500 earth science and engineering topics will be included, with links to curricular materials useful for teaching and learning about earth science, engineering, physics and mathematics. E3 is also a valuable portal to anyone seeking up-to-date earthquake information and authoritative technical sources, and is a platform for cross-training scientists and engineers and will provide a basis for sustained communication and resource building between major education and outreach activities. Scientists, engineers, and educators who have suggestions for content can visit e3 now to complete the "Suggest a Web Page" form.

E3 is now the primary SCEC framework for presenting extensive earthquake science and engineering information, including curricular materials and technical information organized by topical areas. E3 is used to organize materials for SCEC teacher workshops, field trips, exhibits, and other SCEC activities. A sophisticated information system for building and displaying the E3 collection and web pages has been developed, now called the SCEC Community Organized Resource Environment (SCEC/CORE). This content development and management system has now been used to create many other web and print resources, such as the main SCEC website and the new version of the Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country brochure.

SCEC's Regional Seismicity and Geodesy Online Education Modules. These interactive online learning resources are based on seismic data from the SCEC data center, and geodetic data from the Southern California Integrated GPS Network (SCIGN). The modules are used by high school and undergraduate students and teachers, and will be integrated with the Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes) ( and ). A new project is underway with Lisa Grant (UCI), Ralph Archuleta (UCSB) and Debi Kilb (Scripps) to work with SCEC staff to update functionality and content of several activities within the Seismicity module.

Seismic Sleuths Revision. SCEC is revising the AGU/FEMA Seismic Sleuths middle school earthquake curriculum to reflect advances in science and technology since the last update in 1995. The objectives are to promote and improve natural hazard education for students; to foster preparedness for natural hazards through empowerment and encouraging personal responsibility; to provide an updated and redesigned learning tool that can be easily integrated into a curriculum based on national standards; and to provide constant updates in science content, pedagogy, and resource information through an interactive website. Each unit has been streamlined and can stand-alone in print or on the Internet in order to be used in a variety of environments. In addition, a television special (Earthquakes: Seismic Sleuths) based on the series has been created and aired worldwide, made possible by funding from the California Department of Insurance, the Institute for Business and Home Safety, and SCEC. The hour-long video was first broadcast on “Assignment Discovery” in spring, 2001. The video can be used by teachers as an excellent advance organizer, or viewed by interested citizens who want to learn more about earthquakes, the destruction they can cause, the scientists and engineers who study them, and what they can do to prepare.

()

ShakeZone. In partnership with the Riverside County Children's Museum (“KidZone”), the CUREE-Caltech Woodframe Project and UC Riverside, SCEC created an educational, family-oriented exhibit on earthquakes ("ShakeZone") that opened in January 2002. The mission of the exhibit is to reach the local community, particularly the 20,000 elementary school children who visit KidZone each year, with positive messages about studying the Earth and preparing for earthquakes. The exhibit presents information about science, engineering, safety and mitigation. A shake table, an interactive computer display, and wall displays teach the visitors about the tools and techniques of earth scientists, engineers and emergency services personnel. ()

Teacher Workshops. SCEC offers teachers 2-3 full-day professional development workshops each year. The workshops provide a connection between developers of earthquake education resources and those who use these resources in the classroom. The workshops include: content and pedagogical instruction; ties to national and state science education standards; and materials teachers can take back to their classrooms. Activities include: the Dynamic Plate Puzzle; Seismic Waves with Slinkys; Brick and Sandpaper Earthquake Machine; and a Shake Table Contest. At the end of the day teachers receive an assortment of free materials provided by IRIS, including posters, maps, books, slinkys, and the binders with all the lessons from the workshop included.

In 2003 SCEC began a partnership with the SIO Visualization Center to develop teacher workshops. Facilities at the Visualization Center include a wall-sized curved panorama screen (over 10m wide). This allows the workshop participants to be literally immersed in the images being discussed. For example, when the traditional 2D maps of earthquake epicenter data were viewed in 3D, the teachers immediately understood that the faults depicted by the earthquake locations were 3D planes, not 2D lines. Two workshops have now been held with SIO, and a third is planned for summer 2005. (education)

USC Science Education Collaborative. Since 2003, SCEC has greatly increased engagement with the inner-city neighborhoods around USC to form various partnerships in order to improve science education and increase earthquake awareness in the local community:

• One of these partnerships is with USC's Joint Education Project (JEP), which sends USC students into local schools to teach eight one-hour lessons pertaining to what they are learning in their classes. SCEC now provides educational resources to JEP students in several earth-science courses, and trains the students how to use the resources in their lessons.

• Another USC-area related partnership is with the Education Consortium of Central Los Angeles (ECCLA), which funds three-week intersession programs in inner-city Los Angeles. SCEC revised and added additional materials to their existing earthquake curriculum, which was renamed “Earthquake Explorers.” SCEC also provided educational materials, and arranged guest speakers and field trips.

• SCEC has also partnered with JEP, USC Mission Science, USC Sea Grants and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to create hands-on workshops for teachers at schools in the neighborhoods surrounding USC.

National Association of Geoscience Teachers Far Western Section 2004 Annual Meeting. SCEC hosted this meeting with the USC Earth Science Department the last weekend of February 2004. The teachers in attendance ranged from elementary school teachers up through community college professors. A reception for the teachers began the meeting on Friday evening, which was followed by talks given by Tom Henyey and Tom Jordan, past and present directors of SCEC. On Saturday, teachers chose one of three all day field trips: Faults of Los Angeles, led by James Dolan, The Geology of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, led by Tom Henyey, and Oceanography and Coastal Geography led by Steve Lund. The meeting banquet was held Saturday evening with Lucy Jones as keynote speaker. Dr. Jones spoke about earthquake prediction, followed by a question and answer session for the teachers. On Sunday the teachers had a choice of an all day earthquake education workshop or one of three half day field trips: The La Brea Tar Pits, Southern California Integrated GPS Network, or the California Institute of Technology Seismology Lab.

Teaching Aids for University and College Level Classes: Visual Objects and QuickTime Movies [managed by Debi Kilb, UCSD/IGPP] As proposed teaching modules have been specifically designed to meet the needs of faculty members at SCEC based institutions that can be used in undergraduate and graduate classes and provide an introduction to 3D interactive exploration of data. At the 2003 SCEC meeting many of the visual objects were previewed and netted a favorable response (12 people asked for follow up information). To date Kilb has either discussed and/or ported products to 28 people from ~20 different institutions and discussions to improve and augment these teaching tools are ongoing. Due to current space limitations only some of the end products (e.g., QuickTime movies, interactive 3D data sets, image galleries) are currently accessible through a web-based digital library interface () at the Visualization Center at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. There have been 550 unique visitors to these pages within the last 6 months. Plans are also in place to integrate many of the images and visual objects that we developed into the Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes website ()

Teaching Aids for University and College Level Classes: Online Course development. This project is developing resources for undergraduate general education earthquake courses. Materials will include online PowerPoint files for lectures, portable demonstrations, and interactive online exercises for use in the classroom or by students at home. The online materials will be freely available to instructors at any school. The project may lead to the development of a consensus-based course that could allow interaction between students and faculty at separate institutions, with the ultimate goal of wide dissemination to the SCEC community, college and university teachers, and others.

Assessment

Education programs in SCEC2 have greatly expanded the Center’s ability to provide earthquake information and resources for students and teachers. By the beginning of SCEC3, these activities will be even further developed, especially the Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes.

The SCEC2 Intern programs have grown each year, and with the advent of the SCEC/UseIT program, SCEC2 has brought students to research and/or the earth sciences who had no previous interest. Also, of the 73 SCEC2 interns (SURE and USEIT combined): 29 were female; 7 were Hispanic, 1 was African American, and 1 was Pacific Islander. Of the 2004 interns, 7 were first-generation college students and 6 were from schools without research opportunities (this is the first year this information was tracked). In terms of attracting more students to the earth sciences, one student changed from an astrophysics major to a geology major, and two computer science undergraduates are now pursuing graduate degrees in geophysics. Through extensive recruitment activities in 2005 and beyond, we hope to continue to offer research opportunities to well-qualified and diverse students from around the country.

However, due to a focus on public outreach activities during the past few years (see next section), less time has been available to offer additional teacher workshops, develop as many curricular materials as originally planned, and establish partnerships with educational organizations on the same scale as our partnerships in other CEO focus areas. Building upon the resources developed in SCEC2, and expanding their geographic reach, must be a priority of the SCEC3 education effort.

Public Outreach Activities

This Focus Area involves activities and products for media reporters and writers, civic groups and the general public, and has been a high priority during SCEC2. Much of 2003 was focused on planning activities and developing products for the 10-year anniversary of the Northridge earthquake in January 2004. These activities have continued into 2005 with product revisions and continue interactions with public outreach partners.

Objectives

The SCEC2 objectives for the Public Outreach Focus Area are to (1) provide useful general earthquake information, (2) develop information for the Spanish-speaking community, (3) facilitate effective media relations, and (4) promote SCEC activities.

Results

SCEC Webservice and SCEC News. SCEC's webservice presents the research of SCEC scientists, provides links to SCEC institutions, research facilities, and databases, and serves as a resource for earthquake information, educational products, and links to other earthquake organizations. In 2000 SCEC introduced SCEC News to provide a source of information in all matters relevant to the SCEC community – to disseminate news, announcements, earthquake information, and in-depth coverage of earthquake research, in a timely manner via the World Wide Web. Since its inception in March 2000, over 1500 people have subscribed to e-mailed news "bytes" which announce new articles. ()

Earthquake Country Alliance. To coordinate activities for the 10-year anniversary of the Northridge Earthquake in January 2004 (and beyond), SCEC led the development of the "Earthquake Country Alliance" (ECA). This group has been organized to present common messages, to share or promote existing resources, and to develop new activities and products. The ECA includes earthquake scientists and engineers, preparedness experts, response and recovery officials, news media representatives, community leaders, and education specialists. The ECA is now the primary SCEC framework for maintaining partnerships and developing new products and services for the general public.

The ECA first met in June 2003 to begin making plans for the Northridge earthquake anniversary. This planning resulted in a complementary set of activities (planned by the ECA or by individual organizations). The ECA will continue to coordinate public awareness efforts in southern California through these and additional products and activities over the next year and beyond. In 2006, the centennial anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake will be commemorated and the Alliance will participate in educational activities and events with partners in the Bay Area.

Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country. In 1995 SCEC, USGS, and a large group of partners developed a 32-page color handbook on earthquake science, mitigation and preparedness. For the 10-year anniversary of the Northridge earthquake, a new version was produced by SCEC and the newly-formed ECA. The updated handbook features current understanding of when and where earthquakes will occur in Southern California, how the ground will shake as a result, and descriptions of what information will be available online. The preparedness section has been completely reworked and is now organized according to the “Seven Steps on the Road to Earthquake Safety.” These steps provide a simple set of guidelines for preparing and protecting people and property. 200,000 copies were printed in January 2004, with funding from the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) and FEMA, and another 150,000 copies were printed in September 2004, with funding from CEA, USGS, Edison, Amgen, Quakehold, and others. In Spring 2005 a further revision was printed (60,000 copies) with coupons for home mitigation products. Copies of the document have been distributed at home improvement centers (on tables with preparedness products), by the American Red Cross (at neighborhood safety trainings), and by many others. The updated handbook is now at .

Putting Down Roots is the principal SCEC framework for providing earthquake science, mitigation, and preparedness information to the public. The “Roots” framework extends beyond the distribution of a printed brochure and the online version. For example, the Birch Aquarium in San Diego has a new earthquake exhibit which features a “Seven Steps” display, and the Emergency Survival Program (managed by LA County) will be basing it's 2006 campaign around the “Seven Steps.” In October 2004 over 15,000 copies were included in the Earth Science Week packets distributed to science teachers and others nationwide.

The new version of Putting Down Roots was designed to allow other regions to adopt its structure and create additional versions. The first will be a Northern California version currently in development. The document will also be produced in Spanish, and versions for other regions may be created.

Earthquake Country Alliance Website. SCEC hosts this new web portal (.), which provides answers to frequently asked questions and descriptions of other resources and services that ECA members provide. The portal uses technology developed for the E3 project (see above). Each ECA member can suggest links to their organization’s resources as answers to questions listed on the site. The structure is set up very similarly to the new Putting Down Roots: sections include “what should I know?” “why should I care?” “what should I do before?” and “what should I do during and after?”

The site is set up separately from the main SCEC web pages (though has attribution to SCEC) so that all members of the ECA see the site as their own and are willing to provide content. The site features the online version of Putting Down Roots and special information pages that all groups can promote, such as a special page about the “10.5” miniseries and a page about the “Triangle of Life” theory (see assessments below).

Earthquake Country- Los Angeles. This video was produced by Dr. Pat Abbott of SDSU as the second in his “Written in Stone” series. The video tells the story of how the mountains and valleys of the Los Angeles area formed, including the important role of earthquakes. The video features aerial photography, stunning computer animations, and interviews with well-known experts. The video features 3D fault animations produced by SCEC’s “LA3D” visualization system. In addition to conducting several focus groups with teachers and preparedness experts where the video was evaluated, SCEC is also developing curricular kits for school and community groups to accompany the video. These kits will be duplicated in large quantities with funding from the California Earthquake Authority. The Los Angeles Unified School District has asked SCEC to train teachers how to use these curricular kits, and may include the video in a new sixth-grade Earth science curricula soon to be adopted district wide.

EqIP. CEO participates in the EqIP (Earthquake Information Providers) group, which connects information specialists from most earthquake-related organizations. EqIP's mission is to facilitate and improve access to earthquake information through collaboration, minimize duplication of effort by sharing information through individual personal contact, joint activities and projects, group annual meetings and biennial forums, and electronic communication. SCEC’s former CEO director was among the founding group members and managed the initial development of EqIP's website which provides a database of descriptions of over 250 organizations with links to their websites. SCEC’s current director for CEO is now the Chair of this group. ()

Media Relations. SCEC engages local, regional and national media organizations (print, radio and television) to jointly educate and inform the public about earthquake-related issuesThe goal has been to communicate clear, consistent messages to the public–both to educate and inform and to minimize misunderstandings or the perpetuation of myths. . For example, in May 2005, CEO organized a major press briefing to announce the results of a study of losses expected from a range of earthquakes on the Puente Hills fault (puentehills) which received broad regional, national, and international coverage. SCEC CEO encourages scientists who are interested in conducting interviews with media reporters and writers to take advantage of short courses designed and taught by public information professionals.

Wallace Creek Interpretive Trail. In partnership with The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCEC designed an interpretive trail along a particularly spectacular and accessible 2 km long stretch of the San Andreas Fault near Wallace Creek. Wallace Creek is located on the Carrizo Plain, a 3-4 hour drive north from Los Angeles. The trail opened in January 2001. The area is replete with the classic landforms produced by strike-slip faults: shutter ridges, sag ponds, simple offset stream channels, mole tracks and scarps. SCEC created the infrastructure and interpretive materials (durable signage, brochure content, and a website with additional information and directions to the trail). BLM has agreed to maintain the site and print the brochure into the foreseeable future. (wallacecreek)

SCEC Publication Distribution. Copies of SCEC's field trip guides, technical reports (Phase I & II reprints, Liquefaction and Landslide Mitigation Guidelines reports, etc.), and Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country general public handbook (see below) are widely distributed at workshops, earthquake preparedness fairs, and through the SCEC website. (resources/catalog)

Assessment

The public outreach products developed, updated, and maintained during SCEC2 represent a new capacity for providing earthquake-related information and services. Over the next few years and into SCEC3, these resources will allow SCEC and our partners to provide continually updated information in a broad assortment of venues and mechanisms. For example, because of the ECA, a coordinated response was possible during 2004 to several public awareness threats: a mini-series about a “10.5” magnitude earthquake, a widely-reported prediction for an a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in southern California, and a mass-email campaign promoting a (dangerous) alternative to the “drop, cover, and hold on” position all preparedness groups endorse. ECA members were able to direct their audiences to a common webpage for information, rather than creating their own response. The ECA e-mail list has provided a way for members to communicate with a larger group of their peers, and meetings have brought together existing partners and new allies.

During SCEC2 the news media has become increasingly aware and interested in SCEC research and now look to SCEC as an international source of information about earthquakes. After significant earthquakes and major earthquake-related news stories, reporters from around the world call SCEC for interviews. It is essential to carefully manage SCEC’s media presence and we plan to continue to build awareness of SCEC as a media resource.

Knowledge Transfer Activities

There is a widely perceived gap between basic earthquake science and its implementation in risk mitigation (OTA, 1995). SCEC’s mission dictates that it work to close this implementation gap with engineers, emergency managers, public officials, and other users of earthquake science. The Knowledge Transfer focus area coordinates these activities.

Objectives

The SCEC2 objectives for the Knowledge Transfer focus area are to (1) Engage in collaborations with earthquake engineering researchers and practitioners, (2) develop useful products and activities for practicing professionals, (3) support improved hazard and risk assessment by local government and private industry, and (4) promote effective mitigation techniques and seismic policies.

Results.

Implementation Interface. A goal of SCEC2 has been to establish a closer working relationship with the earthquake engineering community that would be more effective in implementing physics-based hazard and risk analysis. We therefore established a new working group, the SCEC Implementation Interface (P. Somerville, leader; R. Wesson, co-leader), as a funded component of the Center's program to promote these partnerships. It coordinates activities with all other SCEC working groups, particularly the Seismic Hazard Analysis focus group (N. Field, leader; D. Jackson, co-leader), which is responsible for developing earthquake forecasting models (with the ESP and Fault Systems groups) and intensitymeasure relationships (with the Ground Motions

group).

The objectives of the Implementation Interface are to (1) integrate physics-based seismic hazard analysis (SHA) developed by SCEC into earthquake engineering research and practicethrough two-way knowledge transfer and collaborative research, (2) provide a flexible computational framework for system-level hazard and risk analysis through the OpenSHA platform and the Community Modeling Environment, and (3) interface SCEC research with major initiatives in earthquake engineering, such as the Next Generation Attenuation project and the NSF-sponsored George E. Brown Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES).

The first initiative was to set up a research partnership with the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center and its companion PEER-Lifelines Program. Several efforts were jointly funded by SCEC and PEER, including a large collaboration to study basin effects through wavefield modeling, led by S. Day (see Fig. 2.16), and a collaboration between A. Cornell and P. Somerville to develop vector-valued probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (VPSHA; Bazzuro and Cornell, 2002). The latter led to a novel application of VPSHA to the use of precariously balanced rocks in PSHA by Purvance et al. (2004) (see Fig. 2.20).

The partnership with PEER continues to develop through the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Project, a major collaboration involving SCEC, the PEER-Lifelines Program, and USGS, which has been sponsored by the California Department of Transportation, the California Energy Commission, and PG&E. In its current phase, NGA-E (for empirical), SCEC scientists have used validated broadband ground motion simulation techniques to investigate features of attenuation models poorly constrained by currently available strong motion data, including rupture directivity effects, footwall vs. hanging wall effects for dipping faults, depth of faulting effects (buried vs. surface rupture), static stress drop effects, and depth to basement and basin effects. SCEC work has involved the use of results from dynamic rupture models and foam experiments to shed light on the physics of rupture directivity and shallow/deep faulting effects on strong ground motion; the development of pseudodynamic models to facilitate the representation of the physics of these phenomena in earthquake source models; and kinematic ground-motion simulations of these effects using pseudodynamic source models to guide the development of functional forms of ground-motion models representing these effects. The new set of attenuation models produced by the NGA-E project will be finalized in Spring, 2005. These models will significant change hazard estimates at short distances from seismic sources and how such estimates depend on magnitude.

The activities of the Implementation Interface were broadened through a workshop held in October 2003, which identified end-to-end simulation from the earthquake source through to structural response (“rupture-to-rafters”) as a key area for SCEC collaborations with the engineering community. This idea is the focus of a major SCEC3 initiative that will involve partnerships with PEER and CUREE (§III.C.5).

A collaboration between SCEC and the USGS has developed OpenSHA (Field et al., 2003), an open-source, object-oriented, web-enabled software integrated into the SCEC Community Modeling Environment that provides a very flexible platform for seismic hazard analysis. OpenSHA allows investigators to easily perform strong motion simulations and seismic hazard analyses, accounting for multiple earthquake potential models and multiple approaches to ground motion prediction, including physics-based simulation approaches as well as conventional attenuation relation approaches. The OpenSHA group has participated in the formal PSHA-validation exercises sponsored by the PEER-Lifelines Program, and the software is gaining wide acceptance as the platform-of-choice for PSHA calculations.

Landslide Report and Workshops. In 1998, a group of geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists with academic, practicing, and regulatory backgrounds was assembled under SCEC auspices as a committee (chaired by Thomas Blake) to develop specific slope stability analysis implementation procedures to aid local southern California city and county agencies in their compliance with review requirements of the State’s Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. The work of that committee resulted in the development of a relatively detailed set of procedures for analyzing and mitigating landslide hazards in California (edited by T. Blake, R. Hollingsworth, and J. Stewart), which SCEC published in 2002 and is available on SCEC’s web site (resources/catalog/hazardmitigation.html). In June 2002, over 200 geotechnical engineers, practicing geologists, government regulators and others attended a two-day SCEC workshop that explained the Landslide document. Because of the outstanding response to the sold-out workshop, a second workshop was held in February 2003 for those who were unable to attend the first. The course materials (now available for order) include extensive printed materials including all PowerPoint presentations, and two CDs with software tools and PDF files of all presentations and printed materials. As a bonus, the CD includes PDF files of the presentations given at the 1999 SCEC Liquefaction workshop and both the Landslide and Liquefaction Procedures documents. Plans are now being discussed to offer these workshops in Northern California in 2005.

HAZUS Activities. SCEC is coordinating the development and activities of the Southern California HAZUS Users Group (SoCalHUG) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). HAZUS () is FEMA's earthquake loss estimation software program. SoCalHUG brings together current and potential HAZUS users from industry, government, universities, and other organizations to (a) train GIS professionals in HAZUS earthquake loss estimation software, (b) improve earthquake databases and inventories, and (c) develop and exercise emergency management protocol. SCEC is considering how it can improve the data and models that HAZUS uses in its calculations, and sees this community as an important audience for SCEC research results. SCEC CEO has organized four general meetings of the user group and several HAZUS trainings. The most recent was held in June, 2005, at SCEC headquarters at USC, with ten participants trained to be HAZUS “vendors” in the region. The training was preceeded by a User Group meeting, and will be repeated in Fall, 2005. ()

EERI Southern California Chapter. Since 2003, SCEC has hosted the bi-monthly meetings of the southern California chapter of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. These meetings include a speaker on a particular topic of interest to the attendees, typically civil, structural, and geotechnical practicing engineers. For example, on November 19, 2003, over 40 people attended a meeting with a speaker addressing new research on “Assessment and Repair of Earthquake Damage in Woodframe Construction,” and on January 19, 2005, 20 EERI members attended a briefing on the recent Sumatran earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami.

Assessment

Much of the SCEC2 knowledge transfer effort to date has been focused on developing partnerships with research and practicing engineers, and educating the users of technical products. By the end of SCEC2, new resources such as OpenSHA and the SCEC Community Modeling Environment will greatly expand the services SCEC can provide. SCEC partnerships with earthquake engineering organizations are now very strong, and we expect will continue to develop significant results through joint research projects. These results may lead to safer buildings through improved modeling of ground motions and improved engineering design to accommodate these ground motions. However, such improvements will only become implemented if building codes are updated and local governments regulate construction accordingly. To truly achieve its mission of reducing earthquake risk, SCEC must work at all levels of implementation, from basic research to enforcement of building codes at the local level.

To identify how to strengthen risk communication between SCEC and local governments, L. Grant and E. Runnerstrom of UC Irvine were supported by CEO to study the utilization of seismic hazard data and research products by cities in Orange County, CA. The study focused on evaluating the effectiveness of previous SCEC activities and products in communicating seismic risk at the municipal level. Orange County is well suited for this study because it contains diverse sociologic, geologic, and seismic conditions. In particular, the study looked at the direct use of SCEC products by local-level policy-makers and staff. By understanding the variation in the use of SCEC products, effective areas or targets within cities for risk communication should emerge. Preliminary analyses of the data suggest that SCEC products are underutilized for local planning and seismic hazard mitigation. This may be partly because of nested references within other resources that are non-exclusive to SCEC, and other use of SCEC products without direct citation. The study focused on Safety Elements and related documents (including Technical Background Reports) for Orange County’s 34 cities and found that nearly all cities in Orange County relied on planning and/or geotechnical firms to prepare technical reports or Safety Elements. Therefore, these consultants would be excellent targets for seismic risk and hazard communication by SCEC.

SCEC Community Development

The foundation of SCEC CEO is our partnerships and participation in many communities in each of the previous focus areas. Supporting the SCEC community from within is a parallel activity that bolsters our ability to reach out effectively to others. This focus area includes activities and resources relevant to SCEC scientists and students.

Objectives

The SCEC2 objectives for the SCEC Community Development focus area are to (1) increase the diversity of SCEC leadership, scientists, and students, (2) facilitate communication within the SCEC Community, and (3) increase utilization of products from individual research projects.

Results

SCEC Diversity Issues and Possible Activities for a Diversity Task Force. SCEC is committed to supporting the participation of a diverse community of scientists, students, and staff and others. At the beginning of SCEC2, a Diversity Task Force of the Board of Directors was established to identify policies for increasing diversity. This Task Force began by identifying several issues:

• The leadership of SCEC, including the Officers and the Board, is predominantly white and male.

• The Planning Committee has significant power in SCEC2 and serves as a stepping-stone to leadership. It would be desirable for the planning committee to be significantly diverse.

• Although many women and minority students are involved in intern and other programs at the undergraduate level, successively smaller numbers of women and minorities are involved at the graduate student, post doctoral, junior faculty and senior faculty levels.

• SCEC is a consortium of institutions and as an organization has very little control in hiring scientists and staff, and in admitting students. Diversity goals can be encouraged but not mandated.

• The current situation is not unique to SCEC, but reflects historical trends in the earth and physical science communities.

Several activities to address these issues have been identified, including improved demographic assessments of SCEC participants (for a baseline understanding of diversity in SCEC), establishing goals for increasing the numbers of women and under-represented minorities at all levels of SCEC leadership (Board, Planning Committee, etc.), and establishing policy guidelines for the selection of individuals for "stepping stone" opportunities, including speaking at SCEC meetings, and membership on SCEC committees. These activities have been implemented. For 12 years, the SCEC intern program has given research opportunities to studens with diversity as a goal, and long-term tracking shows that many of the under-represented students that participated are still in science careers.

Of the 580 participants throughout SCEC2 (some of which no longer are involved), diversity at various levels seems to reflect historical trends, with much greater diversity among students than senior faculty. In terms of gender, women account for 42% of SCEC undergraduates, 36% of graduate students, 27% of non-faculty researchers, 42% of administrative staff, and 15% of faculty researchers. SCEC has increased the representation of women on its Board of Directors (2 of 15), though board members are appointed by institutions and not selected by SCEC leadership. Three women now participate in the SCEC Planning committee, and SCEC hopes to continue to identify women within each working group willing to take on leadership roles.

Participation of under-represented minorities in SCEC also reflects general Earth science levels, and is generally much lower than preferred at this time. Overall, of the 580 SCEC2 participants, 25 are latino, 10 are Native American, 3 are black, 2 are Pacific Islander, 105 are asian, 413 are white, and 32 are unknown.

Other plans that have been discussed include the establishment of a “sounding board” (a committee of SCEC participants who could serve as informal counselors), holding an evening session at the annual meeting where diversity issues could be aired, developing a mentoring program at a variety of scales (especially at the graduate student, post doc and junior faculty levels), and identifying successful diversity practices of other large science organizations. These and other activities are being considered to continue to support the career trajectories of all members–and potential members– of the SCEC community

SCEC Community Information System (SCEC/CIS). SCEC has developed a new online database system, using technology developed as part of the Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes project. This system was first implemented to facilitate registration for the 2002 SCEC Annual Meeting, and has since been used for registration for most SCEC workshops and meetings, for tracking SCEC publications, for submitting and reviewing SCEC proposals each year, maintaining demographic information, managing e-mail lists, and for providing access to contact information for each of the 750+ members of the SCEC Community. This system also allows SCEC CEO to better track research projects with potential CEO applications.

As a service for other communities associated with SCEC, similar interfaces have been developed using the same system. Such communities include the California Post Earthquake Information Clearinghouse, the Earthquake Country Alliance, the Earthquake Information Providers (EqIP), and soon others. Members of multiple communities only need to remember a single password and update their information in one location, to keep their information current for all communities.

Assessment

This is a new area of organized attention in SCEC2, and the structures and mechanisms for achieving the objectives listed above are still in development. Still, SCEC has made progress already in increasing diversity in the community, such as improved representation of women in SCEC leadership positions. The issue of diversity in the sciences extends far beyond SCEC, however since SCEC is a sufficiently large community with significant representation at the nation’s leading research institutions, there is an opportunity for SCEC to make a difference.

The objective of increasing the utilization of products from individual research projects (as opposed to products developed from overall SCEC system-level results) has not yet been sufficiently addressed. One new mechanism for promoting awareness of these projects is “SCEC Nuggets,” 1-2 page summaries basic research results that were requested for the first time in late 2004. These summaries will also allow SCEC CEO to better identify research projects with potential educational or technical products.

CEO Management Activities

Recruit CEO Advisory Panel. To expand participation by partners and recipients of SCEC CEO activities, a small advisory panel will be recruited to help review progress and provide suggestions for opportunities that might otherwise be unknown.

Develop strategic plan. Continue development of long-term strategic plan, with a focus on evaluation strategies. The CEO advisory panel will be instrumental in providing guidance for evaluation priorities. Careful assessment must be conducted at every stage of program development in order to ensure that the program can be responsive to audience needs and effective in achieving its goals:

1) Stakeholder needs assessment will determine a base level of knowledge among various audiences and identify specific needs to be addressed. This information will be gathered through document reviews and interviews with representatives of the key targets audience groups.

2) Evaluation design will consider the types of evaluation methodologies and logic models SCEC CEO will employ, based on decisions of what should be evaluated (quality and/or quantity of products? Usefulness of services? Cost-effectiveness?) and why the evaluation is needed (improve the discipline of E&O? Accountability to agency management and stakeholders? Improve service delivery and program effectiveness?)

3) Performance measurement of product development and implementation will involve collecting accountability information for stakeholders, tracking intended and unintended outcomes of the program, and providing information vital to program improvement in order to achieve pre-established goals. This information can be useful for management of activities, resources, and partnerships.

4) Programmatic assessment of the overall success in achieving SCEC’s stated goals and identification of what was successful, what failed, and why. This step is broader than performance measurement as it addresses the long-term, overall affect of the CEO program as a whole, and has implications for other large-scale E&O programs.

Represent SCEC as Member of:

1. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) E&O Committee

2. Earthquake Information Providers (EqIP) group (Benthien is Chair)

3. Earthquakes and Mega Cities Initiative (Los Angeles representative)

4. Western States Seismic Policy Council

5. California Post-Earthquake Technical Information Clearinghouse (Benthien is chair of Information Technology workgroup)

6. Emergency Survival Program Coordinating Council

7. Southern California HAZUS Users Group (Benthien is project lead)

8. EERI Southern California Chapter (SCEC hosts bimonthly meetings)

9. EERI Mitigation Center So. Cal. Planning Committee

10. City of Los Angeles Local Hazard Mitigation Grant Advisory Committee

11. County of Los Angeles Local Hazard Mitigation Grant Advisory Committee

Document and Report on CEO activities. Each year many presentations and reports are prepared to describe the activities of the CEO program. In 2003 a paper was published in a special issue of Seismological Research Letters focused on education and outreach.

DRAFT 2006 Program Announcement

for the Southern California Earthquake Center

I. Introduction

On February 1, 2002, the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) changed from an entity within the NSF/STC program to a free-standing center, funded by NSF/EAR and the U. S. Geological Survey. This document solicits proposals from individuals and groups to participate in the fourth year of the program.

II. Guidelines For Proposal Submission

A. Due Date: November 11, 2005, 5:00 pm PST. Late proposals will not be accepted.

B. Delivery Instructions. Proposals and annual reports must be submitted as separate PDF documents via the SCEC Proposal web site at . Submission procedures, including requirements for how to name your PDF files, will be found at this web site. Please note the separate instructions for submitting science nuggets.

C. Formatting Instructions.

• Cover Page: Should begin with the words “2006 SCEC Proposal,” the project title, Principal Investigator, institution, proposal categories (from types listed in Section IV, including the new SCEC Intern Support category), and the disciplinary committee(s) and focus group(s) that should consider your proposal. Indicate if the proposal should also be identified with one or more of the SCEC special projects (see Section VII) or advanced Implementation Interface projects (see Section VIII for examples). Collaborative proposals involving multiple investigators and/or institutions should list all principal investigators. Proposals do not need to be formally signed by institutional representatives, and should be for one year, with a start date of February 1, 2006.

• Technical Description: Describe in five pages or fewer (including figures) the technical details of the project and how it relates to the short-term objectives outlined in the SCEC Science Plan (Section VII).

• Budget Page: Budgets and budget explanations should be constructed using NSF categories. Under guidelines of the SCEC Cooperative Agreements and A-21 regulations, secretarial support and office supplies are not allowable as direct expenses. Budgeted matching funds for SCEC interns will only be awarded if a PI for the project is paired with a student intern.

• Current Support: Statements of current support, following NSF guidelines, should be included for each Principal Investigator.

• 2004 Annual Report: Scientists funded by SCEC in 2005 must submit a report of their progress with the 2006 proposals. 2006 proposals lacking 2005 reports (which may cover 2004 to mid-year 2005 results) will neither be reviewed nor will they be considered for 2006 funding. Reports should be up to five pages of text and figures.

D. Investigator Responsibilities. Investigators are expected to interact with other SCEC scientists on a regular basis (e.g., by attending workshops and working group meetings), and contribute data, analysis results, and/or models to the appropriate SCEC data center (e.g., Southern California Earthquake Data Center—SCEDC), database (e.g., Fault Activity Database—FAD), or community model (e.g., Community Velocity Model—CVM). Publications resulting entirely or partially from SCEC funding must include a publication number available at . By submitting a proposal, investigators are agreeing to these conditions.

E. Eligibility. Proposals can be submitted by eligible Principal Investigators from:

• U.S. Academic institutions

• U.S. Private corporations

• International Institutions (funding will mainly be for travel)

F. Collaboration. Collaborative proposals with investigators from the USGS are encouraged. USGS employees should submit their requests for support through USGS channels. Collaborative proposals involving multiple investigators and/or institutions are strongly encouraged; these can be submitted with the same text, but with different institutional budgets if more than one institution is involved.

G. Award Procedures. All awards will be funded by subcontract from the University of Southern California. The Southern California Earthquake Center is funded by the National Science Foundation and the U. S. Geological Survey.

III. SCEC Organization

A. Mission and Science Goal. SCEC is an interdisciplinary, regionally focused organization with a mission to:

• Gather new information about earthquakes in Southern California;

• Integrate this information into a comprehensive and predictive understanding of earthquake phenomena; and

• Communicate this understanding to end-users and the general public in order to increase earthquake awareness, reduce economic losses, and save lives.

SCEC’s primary science goal is to develop a comprehensive, physics-based understanding of earthquake phenomena in Southern California through integrative, multidisciplinary studies of plate-boundary tectonics, active fault systems, fault-zone processes, dynamics of fault ruptures, ground motions, and seismic hazard analysis. The long-term science goals are summarized in Appendix A.

B. Disciplinary Activities. The Center sustains disciplinary science through standing committees in seismology, geodesy, geology, and fault and rock mechanics. These committees will be responsible for planning and coordinating disciplinary activities relevant to the SCEC science plan, and they will make recommendations to the SCEC Planning Committee regarding support of disciplinary research and infrastructure. High-priority disciplinary activities are summarized in Section VII.A.

C. Interdisciplinary Focus Areas. Interdisciplinary research is organized into five science focus areas: 1) unified structural representation, 2) fault systems, 3) earthquake source physics, 4) ground motion, and 5) seismic hazard analysis. In addition, interdisciplinary research in risk assessment and mitigation will be the subject for collaborative activities between SCEC scientists and partners from other communities including earthquake engineering, risk analysis, and emergency management. High-priority activities are listed for each of these interdisciplinary focus areas in Section VII.B.

D. Special Projects. SCEC encourages and supports several special projects including the Southern California Continental Borderland initiative and the development of an advanced IT infrastructure for system-level earthquake science in Southern California. High-priority activities are listed for each of these interdisciplinary focus areas in Section VII.C.

E. Communication, Education, and Outreach. SCEC maintains a strong Communication, Education, and Outreach (CEO) program with four principal goals: 1) coordinate productive interactions among SCEC scientists and with partners in science, engineering, risk management, government, business, and education; 2) increase earthquake knowledge and science literacy at all educational levels; 3) improve earthquake hazard and risk assessments; 4) promote earthquake preparedness, mitigation, and planning for response and recovery. Opportunities for participating in the CEO program are described in Section VIII. Current activities are described online at .

IV. Proposal Categories

A. Data Gathering and Products. SCEC coordinates an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional study of earthquakes in Southern California, which requires data and derived products pertinent to the region. Proposals in this category should address the collection, archiving and distribution of data, including the production of SCEC community models that are on-line, maintained, and documented resources for making data and data products available to the scientific community.

B. Integration and Theory. SCEC supports and coordinates interpretive and theoretical investigations on earthquake problems related to the Center’s mission. Proposals in this category should be for the integration of data or data products from Category A, or for general or theoretical studies. Proposals in Categories A and B should address one or more of the goals in Section VII, and may include a brief description (3.0, and all regional events with Ml>=3.5 identified by the SCSN real-time system. The distributed solution automatically creates links from all USGS Simpson Maps to a text e-mail summary solution, creates a .gif image of the solution, and updates the moment tensor database tables at the SCEDC. The solution can also be modified using an interactive web interface, and re-distributed. The SCSN Moment Tensor Real Time Solution is based on the method developed by Doug Dreger at UC Berkeley.

Searchable Scanned Waveforms Site

The Caltech Seismological Lab has made available 12,223 scanned images of pre-digital analog recordings of major earthquakes recorded in Southern California between 1962 and 1992 at . The SCEDC has developed a searchable web interface that allows users to search the available files, select multiple files for download and then retrieve a zipped file containing the results. Scanned images of paper records for M>3.5 southern California earthquakes and several significant teleseisms are available for download via the SCEDC through this search tool.

The COSMOS Strong-Motion Virtual Data Center

Archuleta, Ralph (UCSB), Jamison Steidl (UCSB), and Melinda Squibb (UCSB)

The COSMOS Virtual Data Center (VDC) is an unrestricted web portal to strong-motion seismic data records of the United States and 14 contributing countries for use by the engineering and scientific communities. A flexible, full range of search methods, including map-based, parameter-entry, and earthquake- and station-based searches enable the web user to quickly find records of interest; and a range of display and download options allow users to view data in multiple contexts, extract and download data parameters, and download data files in convenient formats. Although the portal provides the web user a consistent set of tools for discovery and retrieval, the data files continue to be acquired, processed and managed by the data providers to ensure the currency and integrity of the data. The Consortium of Organizations for Strong-Motion Observation Systems (COSMOS) oversees the development of the VDC through a working group comprised of representatives from government agencies, engineering firms and academic institutions. New developments include a more powerful and informative interactive map interface, configurable design spectra overlays on response spectra plots and enhanced download and conversion options.

As of August 2005, the VDC contains the searchable metadata for 507 earthquakes, 3,074 stations, and 25,718 traces. In the last few years substantial data sets representing earthquakes with magnitude greater than 5.0 have been added from the ChiChi, Taiwan earthquake, all New Zealand records from 1966-1999 and a array on the Pacific coast of Mexico, as well as smaller but seismically important data sets from Central Asia, Turkey, Peru and India and legacy data from California. The VDC incorporates all data available from the USGS and CISN with magnitude greater than 5.0 in highly seismic areas and greater than 4.5 in areas of low seismicity. Recent data sets from these sources include the 2004 Parkfield, CA Mw 6.0, the 2005 Northern California, Mw 7.2 and the 2005 Dillon, MT Mw 5.6 earthquakes. We are currently in the process of adding new data for UNR’s Guerrero array. The VDC also incorporates all data from the KNet and KikNet Japanese networks with magnitude greater than 5.0, depth less than 100km and with a pga of at least 0.1g.

The VDC has been funded by the National Science Foundation, under the Civil and Mechanical Systems Division (CMS-0201264), and COSMOS. The core members of COSMOS, the U.S. Geological Survey, the California Geological Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, as well as contributing members, make their data available for redistribution by the VDC. COSMOS members, including representatives of the core members and members of the professional engineering community, provide ongoing operations and development support through an advisory working group.

Interseismic Strain Accumulation Across the Puente Hills Thrust and the Mojave Segment of the San Andreas Fault

Argus, Donald F. (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

Integrating GPS observations of SCIGN from 1994 to 2005, trilateration observations from 1971 to 1992, SCEC campaign observations from 1984 to 1992, VLBI data from 1979 to 2000, and SLR data from 1976 to 2000, we find the following:

SAN ANDREAS FAULT

The Mojave segment of the San Andreas fault is slipping at 20 +-4 mm/yr beneath a locking depth of 15 +-5 km [95% confidence limits]. The slip rate is significantly slower [marginally] than the 30 +-8 mm/yr consensus estimate from paleoseismology [Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 1995]. The locking depth is consistent with the 13-18 km seismogenic depth inferred from the maximum depth of earthquakes. The slip rate and locking depth are, respectively, slower and shallower than the 34 mm/yr and 25 km found by Eberhart-Phillips [1990] and Savage and Lisowski [1998]. Our values fit trilateration line length rates at distance 5 to 50 km from the fault whereas their values predict lines to lengthen or shorten more quickly than observed.

PUENTE HILLS THRUST, METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES

The observation that northern metropolitan Los Angeles is shortening from north to south at 4.5 mm/yr tightly constrains elastic edge dislocation models of interseismic strain accumulation. Along a profile running NNE across downtown Los Angeles, the position at which a north-dipping thrust fault stops being locked and begins creeping must be 8 +-8 km north of downtown and 6 +-2 km deep, and the horizontal component of deep slip must be 9 +-2 mm/yr [95% confidence limits]. This suggests that the shallow segments of the [upper] Elysian Park Thrust and the [Los Angeles segment of] the Puente Hills thrust are locked in place and will slip in a future earthquake. The 6 km locking depth we find is inconsistent with the 15 km seismogenic depth inferred from the maximum depth of earthquakes. Differences between the rheology of sedimentary basin and crystalline basement must next be taken into account in the models of interseismic strain accumulation. The observations nevertheless suggest that a thrust beneath northern metropolitan Los Angeles is accumulating strain quickly, not a thrust at the southern front of the San Gabriel mountains.

ANGULAR VELOCITIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MICROPLATES

We present angular velocities describing the velocity among the North American plate, the Pacific plate, the Sierra Nevada-Great Valley, the west Mojave desert, the San Gabriel mountains, and the Santa Monica mountains. The 4 entities inside the Pacific-North America plate boundary zone are assumed to be elastic microplates, that is, the entities are assumed to deform only elastically in response to locking of the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults, and the predictions of screw dislocation models of interseismic strain accumulation is subtracted away from the observations before the angular velocities are estimated. The angular velocities bring predictions against which paleoseismic observations of fault slip and earthquake movements in the belts separating the microplates can be compared.

Inverse Analysis of Weak and Strong Motion Downhole Array Data:

Theory and Applications

Assimaki, Dominic (GATech) and Jamison Steidl (UC Santa Barbara)

Current state-of-practice site response methodologies primarily rely on geot- echnical and geophysical investigation for the necessary impedance information, whereas attenuation, a mechanism of energy dissipation and redistribution, is typically approximated by means of empirical correlations. For nonlinear site response analyses, the cyclic stiffness degradation and energy dissipation are usually based on published data. The scarcity of geotechnical information, the error propagation of measurement techniques, and the limited resolution of the continuum, usually result in predictions of surface ground motion that poorly compare with low amplitude observations, a discrepancy even further aggravated for strong ground motion.

Site seismic response records may be a valuable complement to geophysical and geotechnical investigation procedures, providing information on the true material behavior and site response over a wide range of loading conditions. We here present a downhole seismogram inversion algorithm for the estimation of low-strain dynamic soil properties. Comprising a genetic algorithm in the wavelet domain, complemented by a local least-square fit operator in the frequency domain, the hybrid scheme can efficiently identify the optimal solution vicinity in the stochastic search space and provide robust estimates of the low-strain impedance and attenuation structures, which can be successively used for evaluation of approximate nonlinear site response methodologies. Results are illustrated for

selected aftershocks and the mainshock of the Mw 7.0 Sanriku-Minami earthquake in Japan.

Inversion of low-amplitude waveforms is first employed for the estimation of low-strain dynamic soil properties at five stations. Successively, the frequency-dependent equivalent linear algorithm is used to predict the mainshock site response at these stations, by subjecting the best-fit elastic profiles to the downhole recorded strong motion. Finally, inversion of the mainshock empirical site response is employed to extract the equivalent linear dynamic soil properties at the same locations. The inversion algorithm is shown to provide robust estimates of the linear and equivalent linear impedance profiles, while the attenuation structures are strongly affected by scattering effects in the near-surficial heterogeneous layers. The forward and inversely estimated equivalent linear shear wave velocity structures are found to be in very good agreement, illustrating that inversion of strong motion site response data may be used for the approximate assessment of nonlinear effects experienced by soil formations during strong motion events.

Patterns of Crustal Coseismic Strain Release Associated with Different Earthquake Sizes as Imaged by a Tensor Summation Method

Bailey, Iain (USC), Thorsten Becker (USC), and Yehuda Ben-Zion (USC)

We use a method of summing potency tensors to study the temporal and spatial patterns of coseismic strain release in southern California. Tensors are calculated for individual earthquakes from catalog data, and we specifically target small events. By focusing directly on the smaller events and not performing any inversions, we are able to analyze a large data set, while minimizing assumptions that may affect the results and obscure finer details. We can then examine the case for or against existence of fixed finite length scales related to the strain release patterns. In this study, we focus on effects of earthquake and binning sizes with regards to the results of the summing process. A summation that takes into account the scalar potency of each event will lead to a dominance of large events on the final results, while neglecting this information will be less correct physically and lead to a dominance of the more numerous smaller events. Concentrating on five spatially defined “bins”, chosen to contain a sufficient number of data and come from a range of tectonic regions in southern California (e.g. the Eastern California Shear Zone and the San Jacinto Fault zone), we observe how the summation process can be affected by constraints imposed with regard to the size of events. We show how the results can fluctuate as a function of (i) number of events summed, (ii) region of spatial averaging (i.e., bin size), (iii) restricting the upper and lower magnitude for events summed, and (iv) whether we weight the events by their scalar potency or not. A similar degree of heterogeneity is observed at all scales, concurring with previous studies and implying a scale-invariant behavior. However, we can not yet conclude that this is indeed the case without further study of errors in the catalog data and possible artifacts associated with the analysis procedure.

Historical Earthquakes in Eastern Southern California

Bakun, William (USGS)

Richter (1958) listed the Mojave Desert region as one of several structural provinces of California but concluded that it is almost non-seismic. The 1992 M7.3 Landers and 1999 M7.1 Hector Mine earthquakes showed how large earthquakes could link and rupture multiple short faults in the Eastern California Shear Zone (ECSZ). Historical seismicity should be reexamined knowing that large earthquakes can occur in the ECSZ. Here I discuss large earthquakes that occurred in southern California on 9 February 1890 and 28 May 1892 that are usually assumed to have occurred near the south end on the San Jacinto fault.

There is little control on the locations of these earthquakes. However, MMI intensity assignments for the Landers and Hector Mine earthquakes at common sites are comparable to those available for the 1890 event. Townley and Allen (1939) noted that “this shock was felt also at places along the railroad between Pomona and Yuma with intensities about the same as at Pomona, probably VII.” The MMI assignment at Pomona is VI. MMI is V or VI for the Landers and the Hector Mine earthquakes at towns along the Southern Pacific railway between Pomona and Yuma. The MMI assignments are consistent with a location of the 1890 event in the ECSZ near the Landers and Hector Mine earthquakes. For an 1890 source located along the south end of the San Jacinto fault, an MMI of V at Pomona (rather than VI) and an MMI VI-VII at San Diego (rather than V) would be expected. Although the uncertainty in MMI assignments is about one MMI unit, there are more discrepancies in the MMI assignments for a source near the south end of the San Jacinto fault than in the ECSZ.

If on the Calico fault, where there is evidence of displacement 100 to a few thousand years ago, The intensity magnitude is 7.2 for the 1890 and 6.6 for the 1892 earthquakes. Langenheim and Jachens (2002) used gravity and magnetic anomalies to identify a mafic crustal heterogeneity, named the Emerson Lake Body (ELB), which apparently affects strain distribution and the slip in the 1992 Landers and 1999 Hector Mine earthquake sequences to the west and east of the Calico fault, respectively. The Calico fault, aligned along the east edge of the ELB, is situated where stress transferred from the Landers event would be concentrated. The failure of the Landers earthquake to trigger earthquakes on the Calico fault can be rationalized if large earthquakes occurred there in 1890 and 1892. These events suggest that the ECSZ has been seismically active since the end of the 19th century and that the earthquake catalog completeness level in the ECSZ is ~M6.5 at least until the early 20th century.

Some New and Old Laboratory Constraints on Earthquake Nucleation

Beeler, N. M. (USGS) and B. Kilgore (USGS)

A simple view of time dependent earthquake nucleation from laboratory experiments is there are minimum and characteristic nucleation patch sizes, controlled by the rate dependence of the fault surface and the asperity contact dimension. Direct observations of nucleation (Okubo and Dieterich, 1984; 1986), 1D elastic analysis with lab-based constitutive equations (Dieterich, 1986), and some plane strain simulations support the simple view (Dieterich, 1992; Beeler, 2004). Based on extrapolations to natural stressing rates, laboratory measured parameters suggest that while the duration of nucleation is very long (typically months, or years), it would be impossible to resolve using surface and space-based strain sensors, and would be extremely difficult to detect in the subsurface using the most sophisticated borehole strain meters.

However, recent plane strain simulations using rate and state constitutive relations [Rubin and Ampuero, in press, JGR and unpublished] show that only for relatively large negative rate dependence is the nucleation patch size characteristic (stationary in time), and that different empirical lab-based evolution relations predict dramatically different behaviors. Rubin and Ampuero show that the key fault property controlling nucleation patch growth is the effective shear fracture energy- a parameter that unfortunately was not explicitly considered during the development of these relations. For fracture energy that increases with slip rate, under certain circumstances the nucleation patch size grows in time and produces detectable precursory slip.

In this study we review the experimental constraints on nucleation size, time dependent growth and the effective shear fracture energy from previous experiments conducted on a 2 m long fault, principally by Okubo and Dieterich (1984; 1986). We have conducted new experiments specifically for the purpose of studying nucleation, and constraining fracture energy. We have also developed new tests to better characterize slip and energy dissipation during nucleation. These tests can be used to develop better constitutive relations for nucleation and earthquake occurrence.

Discrete Element Modeling of Dynamic Rupture Interaction

Between Parallel Strike-Slip Faults

Benesh, Nathan (Harvard), James Rice (Harvard), and John Shaw (Harvard)

The study of rupture propagation and initiation on parallel faults or fault segments by dynamic stress transfer is of great interest to the earthquake community. Small to moderate earthquakes can quickly become large, damaging earthquakes if rupture successfully steps from one fault segment to other adjacent, but not necessarily connected, fault segments. The 1992 Landers earthquake sequence and recent modeling and damage assessments of hypothetical Puente Hills fault ruptures illustrate the importance of understanding this interaction.

We adapted the Particle Flow Code in 2 Dimensions (PFC2D), a commercial discrete element code distributed by the Itasca Consulting Group and based on the DEM as developed by Cundall [1971], to dynamically model rupture propagation along two non-coplanar fault segments in a setup similar to that of Harris and Day [1993]. Harris and Day approached the problem with a finite difference code that invoked a slip-weakening friction law. Others have examined similar problems using boundary integral equation formulations (Fliss et al. [2005]), and we have also examined them with finite element methods (ABAQUS); however, an examination of fault-stepping ruptures has not yet been undertaken in a discrete element framework.

For the PFC2D analysis, we created a map view area comprised of tens of thousands of 2-dimensional disks and containing two straight, parallel faults. Zero-thickness walls were positioned among the discrete disks to create the faults in order to make them asperity-free and promote possible slip. The slip-weakening failure model was implemented through use of the imbedded FISH programming language to calculate slip of the individual particles along the faults and adjust individual friction coefficients accordingly.

Though this discrete element study still makes use of the constitutive slip-weakening friction/failure law, it provides a needed comparison of the appropriateness of the discrete element framework for this type of problem as compared to the methods (FD, BIE, FE) mentioned previously. The successful application of DEM in this study would simply be the first step, as the advantages of the DEM method lie in its ability to go beyond a postulated constitutive law, assuming that the physics has been properly represented at the level of particle interactions. We hope to continue working with PFC2D to model earthquake ruptures governed not by a constitutive slip-weakening friction law, but by more realistic fault-zone processes such as fluid pressurization and thermal weakening. We also aim to represent inelastic off-fault deformation, comparing predictions to FE results and to natural observations.

SCEC/UseIT: Smarter Navigation, Smarter Software

Beseda, Addie (University of Oregon)

The SCEC/UseIT intern program has engineered the SCEC-VDO software to meet its summer grand challenge of creating an earthquake monitoring system that allows scientists to quickly visualize important earthquake-related datasets and create movies which explain seismological details of the events. The software uses a 3D engine (based upon Java and the Java3D extension) to model data on regional and global scales. Summer 2005 UseIT interns have added and improved upon functionality for SCEC-VDO, leaving an end product of a powerful earthquake visualization tool.

My interest as anintern and programmer has been in making the software "smarter" so that users can take advantage of the program with a minimal learning curve. Companies such as Apple and Google are thriving on their mastery of user interfaces that are simple and straight-forward, yet carry an amazing amount of power. My emphasis has been improving navigation in a 3D environment. I’ve created a "navigation-by-clicking" interface, in which a user can zoom and re-focus on a point by double-clicking on it. As simple as this task seems, it saves the user many of the additional mouse movements that would otherwise be needed to focus on the point. Making the software perform a simple, intuitive task requires a mastery of many fundamental concepts within Java3D and extensive brainwork to understand the details of camera position, interpolators, and other computer graphics “essentials”.

I've also undertaken a handful of small projects, all with the intention of making the SCEC-VDO software more user-friendly and intuitive.

The B4 Project: Scanning the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zones

Bevis, Michael (OSU), Ken Hudnut (USGS), Ric Sanchez (USGS),

Charles Toth (OSU), Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska (OSU), Eric Kendrick (OSU), Dana Caccamise (OSU), David Raleigh (OSU), Hao Zhou (OSU),

Shan Shan (OSU), Wendy Shindle (USGS), Janet Harvey (UCLA),

Adrian Borsa (UCSD), Francois Ayoub (Caltech), Bill Elliot (Volunteer),

Ramesh Shrestha (NCALM), Bill Carter (NCALM), Mike Sartori (NCALM),

David Phillips (UNAVCO), Fran Coloma (UNAVCO),

Keith Stark (Stark Consulting), and the B4 Team

We performed a high-resolution topographic survey of the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones in southern California, in order to obtain pre-earthquake imagery necessary to determine near-field ground deformation after a future large event (hence the name B4), and to support tectonic and paleoseismic research. We imaged the faults in unprecedented detail using Airborne Laser Swath Mapping (ALSM) and all-digital navigational photogrammetry.

The scientific purpose of such spatially detailed imaging is to establish actual slip and afterslip heterogeneity so as to help resolve classic ‘great debates’ in earthquake source physics. We also

expect to be able to characterize near-field deformation associated with the along-strike transition from continuously creeping to fully locked sections of the San Andreas fault with these data.

In order to ensure that the data are extraordinarily well georeferenced, an abnormally intensive array of GPS ground control was employed throughout the project. For calibration and validation purposes, numerous areas along the fault zones were blanketed with kinematic GPS profiles. For redundant determination of the airborne platform trajectory, the OSU independent inertial measurement unit and GPS system were included in the flight payload along with the NCALM equipment. Studies using the ground control are being conducted to estimate true accuracy of the airborne data, and the redundant flight trajectory data are being used to study and correct for errors in the airborne data as well. All of this work is directed at overall improvement in airborne imaging capabilities, with the intent of refining procedures that may then be used in the large-scale GeoEarthScope project over the next few years, led by UNAVCO. More generally, we also intend to improve airborne imaging to the point of geodetic quality.

The present NSF-funded project, led by Ohio State University and the U. S. Geological Survey, was supported in all aspects of the airborne data acquisition and laser data processing by the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM), in continuous GPS station high-rate acquisition by SCIGN, and in GPS ground control by UNAVCO. A group of volunteers from USGS, UCSD, UCLA, Caltech and private industry, as well as gracious landowners along the fault zones, also made the project possible. Optech contributed use of their latest scanner system, a model 5100, for the laser data acquisition along all of the faults scanned. The data set will be made openly available to all researchers as promptly as possible, but currently OSU and NCALM are still working on the data processing.

Supershear Slip Pulse and Off-Fault Damage

Bhat, Harsha (Harvard), Renata Dmowska (Harvard), and

James R. Rice (Harvard)

We extend a model of a two-dimensional self-healing slip pulse, propagating dynamically in steady-state with a slip-weakening failure criterion, to the supershear regime, in order to study the off-fault stressing induced by such a slip pulse and investigate features unique to the supershear range. Specifically, we show that there exists a non-attenuating stress field behind the Mach front which radiates high stresses arbitrarily far from the fault (practically this would be limited to distances comparable to the depth of the seismogenic zone), thus being capable of creating fresh damage or inducing Coulomb failure in known structures at large distances away from the main fault. We use this particular feature to explain anomalous ground cracking at several kilometers from the main fault during the 2001 Kokoxili (Kunlun) event in Tibet, in collaboration with Y. Klinger and G.C.P King of IPGP Paris, for which it has been suggested that much of the rupture was supershear.

We allow for both strike-slip and dip-slip failure induced by such a slip pulse by evaluating Coulomb stress changes on both known and optimally oriented structures. In particular we look for features of supershear slip pulse that could nucleate a slip-partitioning event at places where reverse faults exist near a major strike-slip feature. Such a configuration exists in Southern California near the big bend segment of the San Andreas Fault where there is active thrust faulting nearby. The most vulnerable locations would be those for which part of the presumably seismogenic thrust surface is within ~15-20 km of the SAF, which (considering dip directions) may include the Pleito, Wheeler Ridge, Cucamonga, Clearwater, Frazier Mountain, Alamo, Dry Creek, Arrowhead, Santa Ana, Waterman Canyon, and San Gorgonio faults, and reverse or minor right-reverse sections of the Banning and San Jacinto fault systems. Of course, many nearby strike slip segments could be vulnerable to the distant stressing too, at least if not oriented to close to perpendicular or parallel to the SAF. The degree of vulnerability has a strong dependence, to be documented, on directivity of the rupture on the SAF and orientation of the considered fault segment.

We also compare the damage induced by supershear slip pulse with their sub-Rayleigh analogues to look for unique signature left behind by such slip pulses in terms of off-fault damage. We show that off-fault damage is controlled by the speed of the slip-pulse, scaled stress drop and principal stress orientation of the pre-stress field. We also make some estimates of fracture energy which, for a given net slip and dynamic stress drop, is lower than for a sub-Rayleigh slip pulse, because part of the energy fed by the far-field stress is radiated back along the Mach fronts.

Rupture Scenario Development From Paleoseismic Earthquake Evidences

Biasi, Glenn (UN Reno), Ray Weldon (U. Oregon), and Tom Fumal (USGS)

We present progress in developing rupture scenarios for the most recent ~1400 years of the San Andreas fault based on published paleoseismic event evidence and fault displacement constraints. Scenarios presently employ records from eight sites from the Carrizo Plain to Indio and 46 total paleoquakes. The approach includes several novel aspects. First, the approach is consciously inclusive in regard to how known paleoquakes may or may not be part of multi-site ruptures. That is, the method recognizes that a rupture might consist of an individual paleoquake, or combine with one or more adjoining sites to form a multi-site rupture. Second, ruptures explicitly allow the case where there is no reported rupture at a neighboring site. If the center earthquake overlaps with the date distribution of a neighbor, that pairing is selected. If more than one overlap exists, both are recognized and carried forward. If there is no temporal overlap with a neighbor, the rupture is still allowed, with the interpretation that the evidence at the neighbor was not preserved or somehow not recognized. This strategy prevents missing evidence or incorrect dating of an earthquake at one site from trumping otherwise good evidence for correlation at sites on either side. Ruptures “missing” at several neighbor sites are, of course, less likely to be correct. Third, “missing” events are only included if the investigation should have seen a rupture if it was there. For example, the base of the reported Pitman Canyon record dates to ~900 AD, while nearby Burro Flat and Wrightwood records cover over 300 years more. Ruptures older than ~900 AD are not penalized for lack of evidence at Pitman Canyon. Constructed in this manner, several thousand unique ruptures are constructed. The exact number depends somewhat on rules for recognizing temporal overlap and the number of misses allowed before removing a rupture from the pool.

Scenarios consist of a selection of ruptures that together include all individual earthquakes from the record. This is done by selecting at random from the rupture list, removing other ruptures that also include any paleoquake in the chosen rupture, and selecting again. The pool of candidate ruptures shrinks, until ultimately every paleoquake is chosen. Together the selected set of ruptures comprises one scenario for the San Andreas fault. An unlikely scenario could include 46 prehistoric ruptures, none of which correlate with a neighbor. Scenarios with a large number of short ruptures are less likely to account for the total slip. On the opposite end, in 100,000 scenarios we find a few cases that include all earthquakes in as few as 14 ruptures. This is similar to scenarios drawn by hand where the preponderance of slip on the fault occurs during longer ruptures. We will present scoring mechanisms to assign probabilities to scenarios, including slip total, displacement correlations where available, and other considerations. Scenarios with some chance of representing the actual 1400 year history of the San Andreas fault can then be evaluated for their hazard implications using tools of Open SHA.

A Laboratory Investigation of Off-Fault Damage Effects on Rupture Velocity

Biegel, Ronald L., Charles G. Sammis (USC), and Ares J. Rosakis (Caltech)

Rice et al. (2005) formulated an analytical model for dynamic propagation of a slip-pulse on a fault plane. Using earthquake parameters analyzed by Heaton (1990), they found that stress concentration at the rupture front should produce granulation of fault rock to a distance of a few meters and wall rock fracture damage to 10s of meters. This off-fault damage contributes to the fracture energy and therefore affects rupture velocity; an effect not addressed by the Rice et al. model. Our challenge is to quantify this feedback for incorporation into the rupture model.

To this end we conducted 35 experiments using photoactive Homalite samples(Xie et al., 2004. We measured rupture velocities in samples having off-fault "damage elements" introduced in the form of small slits of different lengths that intersected the fault plane over a range of angles.

Most experiments with longer damage elements oriented at low angle (30 degress) to the fault plane decreased the rupture velocity in the area of the element but did not nucleate new damage. We attribute this transient decrease in rupture velocity to the effect of crack blunting from the presence of the slit. In these cases the rupture velocity increased for a short distance beyond the damage element until the rupture displacement matched that expected for linear propagation in the absence of the damage element. In those experiments with shorter slits oriented at higher angles to the fault plane (60 degrees to 70 degrees) the damage element nucleated additional damage in the form of a tensile wing crack. In these cases, the higher fracture energy produced a permanent delay in rupture propagation.

Fault Length and Some Implications for Seismic Hazard

Black, Natanya M. (UCLA), David D. Jackson (UCLA), and

Lalliana Mualchin (Caltrans)

We examine two questions: what is mx, the largest earthquake magnitude that can occur on a fault; and what is mp, the largest magnitude that should be expected during the planned lifetime of a particular structure. Most approaches to these questions rely on an estimate of the Maximum Credible Earthquake, obtained by regression (e.g. Wells and Coppersmith, 1994) of fault length (or area) and magnitude. Our work differs in two ways. First, we modify the traditional approach to measuring fault length, to allow for hidden fault complexity and multi-fault rupture. Second, we use a magnitude-frequency relationship to calculate the largest magnitude expected to occur within a given time interval.

Often fault length is poorly defined and multiple faults rupture together in a single event. Therefore, we need to expand the definition of a mapped fault length to obtain a more accurate estimate of the maximum magnitude. In previous work, we compared fault length vs. rupture length for post-1975 earthquakes in Southern California. In this study, we found that mapped fault length and rupture length are often unequal, and in several cases rupture broke beyond the previously mapped fault traces. To expand the geologic definition of fault length we outlined several guidelines: 1) if a fault truncates at young Quaternary alluvium, the fault line should be inferred underneath the younger sediments 2) along-strike faults within 45˚ of one another should be treated as a continuous fault line and 3) a step-over can link together faults at least 5 km apart.

These definitions were applied to fault lines in Southern California. For example, many of the along-strike faults lines in the Mojave Desert are treated as a single fault trending from the Pinto Mountain to the Garlock fault. In addition, the Rose Canyon and Newport-Inglewood faults are treated as a single fault line. We used these more generous fault lengths, and the Wells and Coppersmith regression, to estimate the maximum magnitude (mx) for the major faults in southern California. We will show a comparison of our mx values with those proposed by CALTRANS and those assumed in the 2002 USGS/CGS hazard model.

To calculate the planning magnitude mp we assumed a truncated Gutenberg-Richter magnitude distribution with parameters a, b, and mx. We fixed b and solved for the a-value in terms of mx, b, and the tectonic moment rate. For many faults, mp is relatively insensitive to mx and typically falls off at higher magnitudes because the a-value decreases with increasing mx when the moment rate is constrained. Since we have an assumed magnitude-frequency distribution for each fault, we will sum the values, and compare this to the catalog.

PBO Nucleus: Support for an Integrated Existing Geodetic Network

in the Western U.S.

Blume, Frederick (UNAVCO), Greg Anderson (UNAVCO), Nicole Feldl (UNAVCO), Jeff Freymueller (U. of Alaska), Tom Herring (MIT), Tim Melbourne (CWU),

Mark Murray (UC Berkeley), WIll Prescott (UNAVCO),

Bob Smith (U. of Utah), and Brian Wernicke (Caltech)

Tectonic and earthquake research in the US has experienced a quiet revolution over the last decade precipitated by the recognition that slow-motion faulting events can both trigger and be triggered by regular earthquakes. Transient motion has now been found in essentially all tectonic environments, and the detection and analysis of such events is the first-order science target of the EarthScope Project. Because of this and a host of other fundamental tectonics questions that can be answered only with long-duration geodetic time series, the incipient 1400-station EarthScope Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) network has been designed to leverage 432 existing continuous GPS stations whose measurements extend back over a decade. The irreplaceable recording history of these stations is accelerating EarthScope scientific return by providing the highest possible resolution. This resolution will be used to detect and understand transients, to determine the three-dimensional velocity field (particularly vertical motion), and to improve measurement precision by understanding the complex noise sources inherent in GPS.

The PBO Nucleus project supports the operation, maintenance and hardware upgrades of a subset of the six western U.S. geodetic networks until they are subsumed by PBO. Uninterrupted data flow from these stations will effectively double the time-series length of PBO over the expected life of EarthScope, and has created, for the first time, a single GPS-based geodetic network in the US. The other existing sites remain in operation under support from non-NSF sources (e.g. the USGS), and EarthScope continues to benefit from their continued operation.

On the grounds of relevance to EarthScope science goals, geographic distribution and data quality, 209 of the 432 existing stations were selected as the nucleus upon which to build PBO. Conversion of these stations to a PBO-compatible mode of operation was begun under previous funding, and as a result data now flow directly to PBO archives and processing centers while maintenance, operations, and meta-data requirements are continue to be upgraded to PBO standards. At the end of this project all 209 stations will be fully incorporated into PBO, meeting all standards for new PBO construction including data communications and land use permits. Funds for operation of these stations have been included in planned budgets for PBO after the construction phase ends and PBO begins an operational phase in 2008.

The research community has only begun to understand the pervasive effects of transient creep, and its societal consequences remained largely unexplored. For example, one open question is whether slow faulting pervasively moderates earthquake nucleation. The existence of slow earthquakes will impact seismic hazards estimation, since these transients are now known to ‘absorb’ a significant component of total slip in some regions and trigger earthquakes in others. The data from these stations serve a much larger audience than just the few people who work to keep them operating. This project is now collecting the data that will be used by the next generation of solid-earth researchers for at least two decades. Educational modules are being developed by a team of researchers, educators, and curriculum development professionals, and are being disseminated through regional and national workshops. An interactive website provides the newest developments in tectonics research to K-16 classrooms.

Fault-Based Accelerating Moment Release Observations in

Southern California

Bowman, Dave (CSUF) and

Lia Martinez (SCEC/SURE Intern, Colorado School of Mines)

Many large earthquakes are preceded by a regional increase in seismic energy release. This phenomenon, called “accelerating moment release”(AMR), is due primarily to an increase in the number of intermediate-size events in a region surrounding the mainshock. Bowman and King (GRL, 2001) and King and Bowman (JGR, 2003) have described a technique for calculating an approximate geologically-constrained loading model that can be used to define regions of AMR before a large earthquake. While this method has been used to search for AMR before large earthquakes in many locations, most of these observations are “postdictions” in the sense that the time, location, and magnitude of the main event were known and used as parameters in determining the region of precursory activity. With sufficient knowledge of the regional tectonics, it should be possible to estimate the likelihood of earthquake rupture scenarios by searching for AMR related to stress accumulation on specific faults. Here we show a preliminary attempt to use AMR to forecast strike-slip earthquakes on specific faults in southern California. We observe significant AMR associated with scenario events along the "Big Bend" section of the San Andreas fault, suggesting that this section of the fault is in the final stages of its loading cycle. Earthquake scenarios on the San Jacinto fault do not show significant AMR, with the exception of the "Anza Gap". No significant AMR is found associated with the Elsinore fault.

A New Community 3D Seismic Velocity Model for the San Francisco Bay Area: USGS Bay Area Velocity Model 05.0.0

Brocher, Thomas M., Robert C. Jachens, Russell W. Graymer, Carl M. Wentworth, Brad Aagaard, and Robert W. Simpson (USGS)

We present a new regional 3D seismic velocity model for the greater San Francisco Bay Area for use in strong motion simulations of the 1906 San Francisco and other Bay Area earthquakes. A detailed description of the model, USGS Bay Area Velocity Model 05.0.0, is available online []. The model includes compressional-wave velocity (Vp), shear-wave velocity (Vs), density, and intrinsic attenuation (Qp, Qs). The model dimensions are 290 km (along the coast) x 140 km (perpendicular to the coast) x 31 km (in depth).

As with the 1997 USGS Bay Area Velocity Model, the new model was first constructed as a 3D structural and geologic model with unit boundaries defined by crustal faults, differences in rock type, and stratigraphic boundaries. Fault geometries are based on double difference relocations of the seismicity, geologic mapping, and geophysical modeling of seismic and potential field data. Basin geometries are largely based on the inversion of gravity data. The model incorporates topography, bathymetry, and seawater. One of the advantages of this model, over smoothed models derived from seismic tomography alone, is that it offers sharper, and more realistic, interfaces and structural boundaries for wave propagation studies. The sharpness of boundaries is limited only by the discretization specified by the user.

To populate the structural model with physical properties, Vp versus depth curves were developed for each of the rock types in the Bay Area. These curves were developed from compilations of wireline borehole logs, vertical seismic profiles (conducted using surface sources and downhole receivers), density models, laboratory or field measurements on hand samples, and in situ estimates from seismic tomography and refraction studies. We developed empirical curves relating Vp and Vs, by compiling measurements of these properties for a wide-variety of common rock types under a variety of conditions (Brocher, 2005). To calculate density from Vp, we use Gardner’s rule for unmetamorphosed sedimentary units and equations proposed by Christensen and Mooney (1995), modified slightly in the upper 2.5 to 3 km, for other units. We use Qs versus Vs and Qs versus Qp relations developed for the Los Angeles basin by Olsen et al. (2003).

The model is distributed in a discretized form with routines to query the model using C++, C, and Fortran 77 programming languages. To minimize aliasing, the geologic model was discretized at higher resolution near the surface (maximum of 100m horizontal and 25m vertical) compared with depth (minimum of 800m horizontal and 200m vertical). The model contains material properties at nearly 190 million locations and is stored as an Etree database (Tu et al., 2003). The query routines provide a simple interface to the database, returning the material properties for a

given latitude, longitude, and elevation. The surfaces, including faults, stratigraphic boundaries, and other interfaces, used in the model are also available.

The new model should have a number of seismic and geodetic applications. Our hope is that feedback from users will eventually help us refine the model and point to regions and volumes where problems and inconsistencies exist.

Constraints on Extreme Ground Motions from Unfractured Precipitous Sandstone Cliffs along the San Andreas Fault

Brune, James N. (UNR)

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is based on statistical assumptions that are very questionable when extrapolated to very low probabilities,-- giving ground motions of the order of 10 g acceleration and 5 m/s velocity at 10-8 annual probabilities. The short historical database for instrumental recordings is not sufficient to constrain the extrapolations. This suggests that we look for geomorphic and geologic evidence constraining ground motions over long periods in the past.

Similar high ground motions from NTS nuclear explosions (ground accelerations of several g, and ground velocities of a few meters/sec) created spectacular mega-breccia rock avalanches in welded tuffs. Cliff faces were shattered and very large blocks of rock, several meters in dimensions, were moved horizontally and thrown downhill to form very impressive mega-breccia rubble piles.

Large sandstone outcrops occur at several locations along the San Andreas fault between Tejon Pass and Cajon Pass. These sandstones are as old as or older than the San Andreas fault and thus have been exposed to San Andreas earthquakes for about 5 million years. At the current inferred rate of occurrence of large earthquakes this might translate into about 20,000 M~ 8 events, with about 200 occurring in the last 50 ka, - enough to provide statistical constraints at very low probabilities. Preliminary measurements of tensile strength of surface samples of the San Andreas sandstones indicate values of less than 10 bars. If these values correspond to the true tensile strength of rocks in bulk at depth, over the history of the rocks, they provide constraints on very rare ground motions. Internally, if the particle velocities exceeded about 1 m/s at about 1/4_ wavelength depth, the internal strains would fracture the rocks in tension. There is no evidence of such tension fracturing.

At several sites there are near vertical sandstone cliffs several tens of meters high. Since the sandstones are considerably weaker than the welded tuffs at NTS, we would certainly expect mega-breccia rock avalanches of the type observed at NTS if similar extreme ground motions were to occur. There is no evidence of such avalanches. Although the precise erosion rate of the sandstones is not known, probably no such avalanches have been created in the last 10 ka to 100ka, if ever. The suggested upper limits on ground motion are consistent with the current rock instrumental strong motion data set (covering only about 50 yrs), and suggest that the large NTS-type ground motions have not occurred over the much longer history of the San Andreas Fault.

Response of Seismicity to Coulomb Stress Triggers and Shadows of the 1999 Mw = 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake

Chan, Chung-Han (USGS and NCU), Kuo-Fong Ma (NCU), and

Ross S. Stein (USGS)

The correlation between static Coulomb stress increases and aftershocks has thus far provided the strongest evidence that stress changes promote seismicity, a correlation that the Chi-Chi earthquake well exhibits. Several studies have deepened the argument by resolving stress change on aftershock focal mechanisms, which removes the assumption that the aftershocks are optimally oriented for failure. Here one compares the percentage of planes on which failure is promoted after the main shock relative to the percentage beforehand. For Chi-Chi we find a 28% increase for thrust and an 18% increase for strike-slip mechanisms, commensurate with increases reported for other large main shocks. However, perhaps the chief criticism of static stress triggering is the difficulty in observing predicted seismicity rate decreases in the stress shadows, or sites of Coulomb stress decrease. Detection of sustained drops in seismicity rate demands a long catalog with a low magnitude of completeness and a high seismicity rate, conditions that are met at Chi-Chi. We find four lobes with statistically significant seismicity rate declines of 40–90% for 50 months, and they coincide with the stress shadows calculated for strike-slip faults, the dominant faulting mechanism. The rate drops are evident in uniform cell calculations, 100-month time series, and by visual inspection of the M>3 seismicity. An additional reason why detection of such declines has proven so rare emerges from this study: there is a widespread increase in seismicity rate during the first 3 months after Chi-Chi, and perhaps many other main shocks, that might be associated with a different mechanism.

SCEC/UseIT: Integrating Graphics

Chang, Diana (University of Pennsylvania)

The SCEC/UseIT program provides a collection of undergraduates a team oriented research environment to enhance a 3d visualization platform for research and media use. SCEC-VDO (SCEC Virtual Display of Objects) has the ability to display earthquake-related objects and record animated movies. Our goal was to build upon this software, developing its earthquake monitoring capabilities. Taking a graphics approach, several distinct contributions to the software included extending navigation controls, making structural changes to the scripting plugin, and implementing the Source Rupture Model plugin. By adding the ability to switch between third person and first person controls, we have simplified user navigation allowing for more precision. The movie making process has also been improved through camera path configuration modification, rebuilding the camera speed adjustment functionality, structural reorganization allowing for real time playback and smooth camera transitions between key frame selection and user navigation. Finally, we implemented a new interactive plugin displaying a database of finite source rupture models allowing for visualization of the rupture process of individual earthquakes.

Resolving Fault Plane Ambiguity Using 3D Synthetic Seismograms

Chen, Po (USC), Li Zhao (USC), and Thomas H. Jordan (USC)

We present an automated procedure to invert waveform data for the centroid moment tensor (CMT) and the finite moment tensor (FMT) using 3D synthetic seismograms. The FMT extends the CMT to include the characteristic space-time dimensions, orientation of the source, and source directivity (Chen, et al. BSSA, 95, 1170, 2005). Our approach is based on the use of receiver-side strain Green tensors (RSGTs) and seismic reciprocity (Zhao et. al, this meeting). We have constructed a RSGT database for 64 broadband stations in the Los Angeles region using the SCEC CVM and K. Olsen’s finite-difference code. 3D synthetic seismograms can be easily computed by retrieving RSGT on a small source-centered grid and applying the reciprocity principle. At the same time, we calculate the higher-order gradients needed to invert waveform data for CMT and FMT. We have applied this procedure on 40 small earthquakes (ML < 4.8) in the Los Angeles region. Our CMT solutions are generally consistent with the solutions determined by Hauksson’s (2000) first-motion method, although they often show significant differences and provide better fits to the waveforms. For most small events, the low-frequency data that can be recovered using 3D synthetics (< 1 Hz) are usually insufficient for precise determination of all FMT parameters. However, we show the data can be used to establish the probability that one of the CMT nodal planes is the fault plane. For 85% of the events, we resolved fault plane ambiguity of our CMT solutions at 70% or higher probability. As discussed by Zhao et al. (this meeting), for the RSGTs can also be used to compute Fréchet kernels for the inversion of the same waveform data to obtain improved 3D models of regional Earth structure. This unified methodology for waveform analysis and inversion is being implemented under Pathway 4 of the SCEC Community Modeling Environment (Maechling et al., this meeting).

Visualization of Large Scale Seismic Data

Chourasia, Amit (SDSC) and Steve M. Cutchin (SDSC)

Large scale data visualization is a challenging task involving many issues with visualization technique, computation, storage and workflow. We present the use of three visualization techniques for creating high quality visualizations of seismic simulation data. Interactive techniques offer a good exploratory paradigm for visualization, the size and volume of this seismic simulation data makes general interactive visualization tools impractical. The use of non-interactive techniques, utilizing HPC and non-HPC resources enable us to create dramatic and informative scientific visualizations of seismic simulations. The combination of three techniques - volume rendering, topography displacement and 2d image overlaying can help scientists to quickly and intuitively understand the results of these seismic simulations.

We present a working pipeline utilizing batch rendering on a HPC cluster combined with a standard PC using commodity and in-house software. Proposed additions to the pipeline of co-located rendering and web based monitoring are also discussed.

SCEC/UseIT: Adding New Functionality to SCEC-VDO

Coddington, Amy (Macalester College)

This summer the Use-IT intern program created an earthquake monitoring system out of the intern-made software from last summer, SCEC-VDO, a 3D visualization software developed to show earthquakes and faults in Southern California and throughout the world. I added three new plug-ins to the program, a highways plug-in, an Anza Gap plug-in, and a plug-in showing Martin Mai’s collection of slip rupture fault models. The highways plug-in in its previous state showed all the highways together; I worked on separating these so that the user can show them individually. Near Anza, California, is a place along the San Jacinto fault where the seismicity is very low in comparison to the rest of the fault. This seismically inactive place is where scientists believe the next big earthquake could occur. The Anza Gap plug-in helps scientists visualize where the gap in seismicity is by drawing a 3D box around the gap, allowing them to see if an earthquake has occurred in this zone. My final project was displaying a set of faults which show Mai’s slip function models on them, so scientists are able to visualize where the most movement has occurred along any given fault.

Dynamics of an Oblique-Branched Fault System

Colella, Harmony (CSUF) and David Ogelsby (UCR)

We use a dynamic 3-D finite element analysis to investigate rupture propagation and slip partitioning on a branched oblique fault system. Oblique slip on a dipping basal fault propagates onto vertical and dipping faults near the Earth’s surface. When the slip on the basal fault includes a normal component, the preferred rupture propagation is upward to the vertical surface fault. Conversely, a thrust component of slip on the base fault results in preferred propagation upward to the dipping surface fault. We also find that oblique slip on the basal fault results in partitioned slip on the near-surface faults, with more strike-slip motion at the surface trace of the vertical fault, and more dip-slip motion at the surface trace of the dipping fault. This result is in agreement with the static predictions of Bowman et al. (2003). The results also indicate that the stress interactions that exist in geometrically complex fault systems can lead to complexity in rupture propagation, including a crucial dependence on the direction of slip.

Seismic Hazard Assessment from Validated CFM-Based BEM Models

Cooke, Michele (UMass), Scott Marshall (UMass), and Andrew Meigs (OSU)

We have developed CFM-based three-dimensional Boundary Element Method (BEM) models that can be used to simulate deformation on either geologic or interseismic time scales. Meigs, Cooke, Graham and Marshall (this meeting) present a validation of the CFM-based three-dimensional fault configuration in the Los Angeles basin. This study supports this validation by showing that the geologic vertical uplift data set better delineates between the alternative fault systems than slip rate or slip directions on active faults. While variations in fault geometry do alter the slip rates, these effects are smaller than the range of certainty of paleosiesmic slip rates estimates. The horizontal interseismic velocities from the best fitting BEM model are also compared to geodetic results of Argus et al 2005. Using the best-fitting model to the geologic vertical uplift pattern (Meigs and others, this meeting) we assess possible earthquake recurrence and magnitude. Shear stress drops of earthquakes are invariant to magnitude and range from 1-3 MPa. From the three-dimensional BEM model we calculate the total stress drop over 5000 years on faults in the Los Angeles basin and, assuming a stress drop of 1 or 3 MPa per earthquake, determine recurrence intervals for moderate/large events on these faults. The magnitude of those earthquakes can be determined from the fault area and slip per event. Average earthquake recurrence rates on individual faults in the best-fitting model are 1000-3000 years with magnitudes 6-7 events. The stressing rates produced by this model may be used in seismic forecasting model such as RELM.

A Geoinformatics Approach to LiDAR / ALSM Data Distribution, Interpolation, and Analysis

Crosby, Christopher J. (ASU), Jeffrey Conner (ASU), Efrat Frank (SDSC),

J. Ramón Arrowsmith (ASU), Ashraf Memon (SDSC),

Viswanath Nandigam (SDSC), Gilead Wurman (ASU), and Chaitan Baru (SDSC)

Distribution, interpolation and analysis of large LiDAR (Light Distance And Ranging, also known as ALSM (Airborne Laser Swath Mapping)) datasets pushes the computational limits of typical data distribution and processing systems. The high point-density of LiDAR datasets makes grid interpolation difficult for most geoscience users who lack the computing and software resources necessary to handle these massive data volumes. We are using a geoinformatics approach to the distribution, interpolation and analysis of LiDAR data that capitalizes on cyberinfrastructure being developed as part of the GEON project (). Our approach utilizes a comprehensive workflow-based solution that begins with user-defined selection of a subset of raw data and ends with download and visualization of interpolated surfaces and derived products. The workflow environment allows us to modularize and generalize the procedure. It provides the freedom to easily plug-in any applicable process, to utilize existing sub workflows within an analysis, and easily extend or modify the analysis using drag-and-drop functionality through a graphical user interface.

In this GEON-based workflow, the billions of points within a LiDAR dataset point cloud are hosted in an IBM DB2 spatial database running on the DataStar terascale computer at San Diego Supercomputer Center; a machine designed specifically for data intensive computations. Data selection is performed via an ArcIMS-based interface that allows users to execute spatial and attribute subset queries on the larger dataset. The subset of data is then passed to a GRASS Open Source GIS-based web service, “lservice”, that handles interpolation to grid and analysis of the data. Lservice was developed entirely within the open source domain and offers spline and inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation to grid with user-defined resolution and parameters. We also compute geomorphic metrics such as slope, curvature, and aspect. Users may choose to download their results in ESRI or ascii grid formats as well as geo tiff. Additionally, our workflow feeds into GEON web services in development that will allow visualization of Lservice outputs in either a web browser window or in 3D through Fledermaus’ free viewer iView3D.

This geoinformatics-based system will allow GEON to host LiDAR point cloud data for the greater geoscience community, including data collected by the National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping (NCALM). In addition, most of the functions within this workflow are not limited to LiDAR data and may be used for distributing, interpolating and visualizing any computationally intensive point dataset. By utilizing the computational infrastructure developed by GEON, this system can democratize LiDAR data access for the geoscience community.

SDSC's Strategic Applications Collaborations Program Helps SCEC Researchers With Terascale Earthquake Simulation

Cui, Yifeng (SDSC), Giridhar Chukkapalli (SDSC), Leesa Brieger (SDSC), and

Amitava Majumdar (SDSC)

The large-scale TeraShake simulation stretched SDSC resources across the board with unique computational as well as data challenges. SDSC computational experts in the Scientific Computing Applications Group worked closely with Anelastic Wave Model (AWM) developer Kim Olsen and others to port the code to Datastar, SDSC's IBM Power4 platform, and enhance the code to scale up to many hundreds of processors for a very large mesh size requiring large amount of memory. The integrated AWM resolves parallel computing issues related to the large simulation. These issues include MPI and MPI I/O performance improvement, single-processor tuning and optimization. Special techniques were introduced that reduced the code's memory requirements, making possible the largest and most detailed earthquake simulation of the southern San Andreas Fault in California of its time. The significant effort of testing, code validation, and performance scaling analysis took 30,000 allocation hours on DataStar to prepare for the final production run. The SDSC computational staff helped peform the final production run, which used 240 processors for 4 days and produced 43 TB of data on the GPFS parallel file system of Datastar. This final run, made possible by the enhancements to the code, dealt with a mesh of size 3000X1500X400 with 1.8 billion points at 200m resolution, ten times larger than previous case.

SDSC's computational collaboration effort was supported through the NSF-funded SDSC Strategic Applications Collaborations (SAC) and Strategic Community Collaborations (SCC) programs. The mission of the SAC/SCC programs is to enhance the effectiveness of computational science and engineering research conducted by nationwide academic users. The goal of the collaboration is to develop a synergy between the academic researchers and SDSC staff that accelerates the researchers' efforts by using SDSC resources most effectively and enables new science like TeraShake on relatively short timescales. Researchers are selected from diverse academic disciplines, including both traditional HPC application fields and new communities. TeraShake is a great example of this kind of collaboration. With the enhanced code that gives increased scalability, performance, and portability, Terashake SAC/SCC work also provides lasting value. This optimized code has been available to the earthquake community for future large-scale simulations.

In 2005, the SAC group expands its support to SCEC/CME community by enhancing TeraShake2 Rupture Dynamics features, porting CyberShake code for seismic hazard analysis, as well as providing the Advanced Support for Teragrid Application (ASTA). The collaboration is leading to resource allocation grants for SCEC of a million CPU hours on NSF Terascale facilities.

2004 Parkfield Kinematic Inversion Using Strong-Motion Data Corrected by Site Effects

Custodio, Susana (UCSB), Pengcheng Liu (UCSB), and

Ralph J. Archuleta (UCSB)

The Parkfield section of the San Andreas Fault is one of the most well studied fault zones in the world. A vast network of geophysical instruments monitors the region permanently. Short-term surveys complement our knowledge of the structure of the fault-zone. The 2004 Mw6.0 Parkfield earthquake was extensively recorded in the near-source region. We invert strong-motion data recorded within 32 km of the epicenter to find a kinematic slip model for this event. Because the Parkfield fault r

egion is very heterogeneous (Thurber et al., 2003; Eberhart-Phillips and Michael, 1993; Unsworth and Bedrosian, 2004), we account for site effects.

The kinematic inversion is based on a global inversion method (Liu and Archuleta, 2004) where the fault is divided into several subfaults and the source parameters (slip amplitude, rake angle, rise time and rupture velocity) are computed at the nodes (corners) of each subfault. We invert data in the range 0.16Hz-1.0Hz. We use two different 1D layered models for the velocity structure, one for each side of the fault. The bilateral 1D velocity model is interpolated from the 3D velocity models of Thurber et al. (2003) and Eberhart-Phillips and Michael (1993).

One of the most interesting features of the 2004 Parkfield earthquake was the large peak ground velocities (PGV) recorded on both ends of the rupture area. We use data from the Coalinga earthquake to infer site effects on the Parkfield array. The stations more affected by resonances (enhancement of certain frequencies) and local amplifications (general amplification of ground-motion at all frequencies) are close to the fault zone, often coincident with the large PGVs. The stations that most amplify ground-motion below 1.0Hz are FZ2 and FZ1, followed by FZ14, FZ10, FZ7, FZ6, GH1W and FZ3. Stations FZ14, FZ3, and CH1E, followed by FZ6, GH1W and FZ2 present the largest resonances. Of these, only FZ3 recorded a relatively low PGV during the Parkfield earthquake. On the other hand, only station FZ12 recorded an extremely high PGV and is not strongly affected by site effects.

After taking site effects into account, we obtain a slip model characterized by maximum slip amplitude about 65 cm, confined to a region directly below and to the SE of the hypocenter. A secondary region of large slip is located to the NW of the hypocenter, at a shallower depth (2-8km). Little or no slip occurs below 10km.

Reference Earthquake Digital Library -- Structure and Technology

Czeskis, Alexei (SCEC/SURE Intern, Purdue), Brad Aagaard (USGS Menlo Park), Jessica Murray (USGS Menlo Park), Anupama Venkataraman (Stanford), and

Greg Beroza (Stanford)

Understanding earthquake processes involves integration of a wide variety of data and models from seismology, geodesy, and geology. While the geophysics community has established data centers to archive and distribute data in standard formats, earthquake models lack a similar facility. This often dramatically reduces their lifespan, because the models lack sufficient documentation and file format information to render them useful. The objective of the Reference Earthquakes Digital Library is to create the infrastructure to preserve the models in a central facility and to extend their lifespan for use in other studies.

A critical part of the digital library infrastructure for reference earthquakes is the ability for the modeling community to submit and update models. Additionally, the metadata and model data files must be checked to insure that they conform to the standards established for the digital library. I designed and implemented browser based submission and update interfaces by extending the digital library developed by the San Diego Supercomputer Center. The interfaces use a combination of JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Java, and C to process and validate the submission information. I also adapted the data retrieval interfaces for Reference Earthquake use. These interfaces are part of a fully functional prototype Reference Earthquakes Digital Library for the 1992 Landers and 2004 Parkfield earthquakes. The digital library provides curation and ready access to archived models in standard formats with associated metadata in a common, permanent repository.

Faults Interaction through Off-Fault Open Cracks Induced by 3D Dynamic Shear Rupture Propagation

Dalguer, Luis A. (SDSU) and Steven M. Day (SDSU)

We developed 3D dynamic rupture models of parallel strike slip faults to study the interaction between step over faults considering off-fault open crack induced by the dynamic stress generated during shear rupture. The off-fault open cracks produce inelastic deformation in the surrounding volume of the faults. This off-fault dissipation mechanism results in distortion of the fault slip profilea and reduction of the shear rupture velocity due to energy loss during open crack propagation. However, these open cracks that take place in the tensional side of the fault, also produce fault linkage and coalescence and promote fault nucleation and growth of shear rupture on the neighbor step over faults. This second fault may coalesces with a third step over fault as well, and so on. The interaction between the step over faults occur when abrupt stopping of the shear rupture cause tensile crack propagation. In addition, the interaction of parallel faults results in a heterogeneity shear stress distribution on the neighbor faults, forming barriers and asperity patches naturally.

Analogies Related to the Public Understanding of Earthquake Science: Their Identification, Characterization, and Use in Educational Settings

de Groot, Robert (USC)

The use of analogies, similes, and metaphors is pervasive in communication. Robert Oppenheimer (1956) stated that analogy was an indispensable and inevitable tool for scientific progress. Use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in educational environments has long been used as a way to help people make connections between what is known and what is not known (Harrison & Treagust, 1994). This poster will explore the major themes and study areas for analogies, similes, and metaphors in earthquake science along with the pros and cons associated with their use. In addition to defining each word and providing examples of each, the history, efficacy, and the blurriness of the boundaries between these three “tools of thought” (Oppenheimer, 1956; Sutton, 1993; Lawson, 1993; Dreistadt, 1969) will be discussed. Shawn Glynn et al (1991) refers to analogies as double-edged swords because although they can be beneficial, they can also be detrimental. Challenges and problems associated with analogy use in science communication will be considered. The presenter will propose a framework for categorizing analogies and the creation of analogy catalogs that will aid in analogy selection and use in instructional materials and communication. Communicating concepts related to earthquake science in educational materials, in classroom instruction, and during media events is a challenging task for earth scientists. The difficulty of earthquake communication is often greatly amplified if the explanations are prepared and presented in the midst of a post-earthquake response. Information about earthquakes must be explained carefully otherwise misinformation and misconceptions can run rampant. It is clear that more insight should be shed upon the tools of language employed to convey concepts related to earthquake science for the public. Conference attendees are encouraged to contribute their favorite earthquake science analogy to the “earthquake analogy collection box” adjacent to this poster.

Geological Signals for Preferred Propagation Direction of Earthquake Ruptures on Large Strike-Slip Faults in Southern CA

Dor, Ory (USC), Yehuda Ben-Zion (USC), Tom Rockwell (SDSU), and

Jim Brune (UNR)

Theoretical studies of mode II ruptures on a material interface indicate that: 1) Ruptures tend to evolve to wrinkle-like pulses that propagate preferentially in the direction of motion of the slower velocity block. 2) More damage is expected on the side of the fault with higher seismic velocity, which for the preferred propagation direction is the side that is persistently in the tensional quadrant of the radiated seismic field. Here we present systematic in-situ tests of these theoretical predictions. Observations made along sections of the San Andreas Fault (SAF), San Jacinto Fault (SJF) and the Punchbowl Fault (PF) in southern California indicate that these faults have asymmetric structure, with more damage on their northeastern side. The structural asymmetry that we observe has manifestations in the gouge scale (cm to meters), in the fault-zone scale (meters to 10s of meters) and in the damage-zone scale (10s to 100s of meters).

In three exposures of the SJF near Anza, heavily sheared gouge northeast of the principal slip surface (PSS) has up to 91% higher fracture density compare to a massive, inactive gouge on the southwest. South of Anza, inversion of seismic trapped waves shows that most of the 100 m wide damage-zone is also on the northeast side. Tomographic studies indicate that the more damaged northeast side has higher seismic velocity. On the SAF in two sites near Littlerock, the gouge scale damage is concentrated on the northeast side of the PSS. In Palmdale, a ~60m wide bedrock fault-zone shows considerably more SAF-related damage northeast of the PSS. Mapping of pulverized basement rocks along 140 km stretch of the SAF in the Mojave shows that pulverization on a 100 m scale is more common and more intense on the northeast side of the fault. Seismic imaging in this area indicates that the northeast side has higher seismic velocity. In the PF, highly fractured to pulverized sandstone on the northeast is juxtaposed against moderately damaged basement rocks to the southwest as indicated in gouge and fault-zone scales in two sites 1.5 km apart.

The correlation between the sense of damage asymmetry and the velocity structure on the SAF and on the SJF is compatible with a northwestward preferred propagation direction of ruptures along these faults, as predicted by the theory of rupture along a material interface. As for the PF, the excess in damage on the northeast side requires that the tensional quadrant of the radiated seismic field during paleoearthquakes was preferentially on the northeastern side, implying northwestward preferred propagation direction. These inferences could apply to other large strike-slip faults, where geological studies of symmetry properties may be utilized to infer on possible preferred propagation directions of earthquake ruptures. The observed correlation between symmetry properties of fault-zone damage with the local velocity structure suggests that the operating mechanism during large earthquakes in bi-material systems is rupture along a material interface. This can have important implications for improved understanding of earthquakes interaction and mechanism, and for refined estimates of seismic shaking hazard.

Multicycle Dynamics of Two Parallel Strike-Slip Faults with a Step-Over

Duan, Benchun (UCR) and David D. Oglesby (UCR)

We combine a 2D elastodynamic model for the coseismic process and a 2D viscoelastic model for the interseismic process to study the dynamics of two parallel offset strike slip faults over multiple earthquake cycles. The elastodynamic model is simulated numerically by a new explicit finite element code. The viscoelastic model with an analytical solution approximates the stress loading and relaxation on faults during the interseismic period. We find that fault stresses become highly heterogeneous after multiple cycles near the step-over region. This heterogeneity in fault stresses can have significant effects on rupture initiation, event patterns, and the ability of rupture to jump the segment offset.The fault system tends to develop a steady state in which the fault stress and event patterns are stable. We find that rupture tends to initiate near the step-over. Depending on nature of the step-over (compressional or dilational), width and overlap length, in the steady state we typically see one of two patterns: ) rupture alternates between the two faults in two consecutive events, and 2) the two faults rupture together in all events.The heterogeneous stress pattern that develops over multiple earthquake cycles results in rupture being able to jump larger fault offsets than has been observed in studies with homogeneous initial stresses.

Observing Supershear Ruptures in the Far-Field

Dunham, Eric (Harvard)

The dynamics of the supershear transition suggests the coexistence of two slip pulses, one propagating at a supershear speed and the other propagating around the Rayleigh wave speed. Evidence for this comes from both seismic observation of the two pulses during the 2002 Denali Fault earthquake and from laboratory experiments. The far-field radiation from such a rupture process (containing an initial sub-Rayleigh segment followed by a segment in which the two slip pulses described above simultaneously exist) is examined. P and S waves from the sub-Rayleigh segment arrive in the order in which they are emitted from the fault, with the signal appropriately compressed or stretched to account for directivity effects. For the supershear segment, a far-field S-wave Mach cone is defined. Outside of the Mach cone, S waves arrive in the order in which they were emitted from the source, as for the sub-Rayleigh segment. Inside the Mach cone, S waves arrive in the opposite order, with the first arrival having been emitted from the end of the supershear segment. On the Mach cone, waves from each point of the supershear segment arrive simultaneously, and the directivity pattern reaches its maximum here, rather than in the forward direction.

Overlap of arrivals from the supershear and sub-Rayleigh segments, which will occur within the Mach cone, complicates matters. Depending on the superposition of the waveforms, the maximum amplitudes may return to the forward direction. Consequently, standard techniques to estimate rupture velocity (e.g., plots of amplitude vs. azimuth, or finding a best-fitting constant rupture velocity model) could interpret this as a sub-Rayleigh directivity pattern. A potential solution involves examining properties of the waves in the spectral domain. These ideas are illustrated by generating synthetic seismograms of direct S waves and surface waves from a model of the Denali Fault event.

SORD: A New Rupture Dynamics Modeling Code

Ely, Geoffrey (UCSD), Bernard Minster (UCSD), and Steven Day (SDSU)

We report on our progress in validating our rupture dynamics modeling code, capable of dealing with nonplanar faults and surface topography.

The method use a “mimetic” approach to model spontaneous rupture on a fault within a 3D isotropic anelastic solid, wherein the equations of motion are approximated with a second order Support-Operator method on a logically rectangular mesh. Grid cells are not required to be parallelepipeds, however, so that non-rectangular meshes can be supported to model complex regions. However, the for areas in the mesh which are in fact rectangular, the code uses a streamlined version of the algorithm that takes advantage of the simplifications of the operators in such areas.

The fault itself is modeled using a double node technique, and the rheology on the fault surface is modeled through a slip-weakening, frictional, internal boundary condition. The Support Operator Rupture Dynamics (SORD) code, was prototyped in MATLAB, and all algorithms have been validated against known (analytical, eg Kostrov) solutions or previously validated solutions. This validation effort is conducted in the context of the SCEC Dynamic Rupture model validation effort led by R. Archuleta and R. Harris. Absorbing boundaries at the model edges are handled using the perfectly matched layers method (PML) (Marcinkovich & Olsen, 2003). PML is shown to work extremely well on rectangular meshes. We show that

our implementation is also effective on non-rectangular meshes under the restriction that the boundary be planar.

SORD has now been ported to Fortran 95 for multi-processor execution, with parallelization implemented using MPI. This provides a modeling capability on large scale platforms such as the SDSC DataStar machine, the various Teragrid platforms, or the SCEC High-performance computing facility. We will report on progress in validating that version of the code.

SORD —including both the MATLAB prototype and the FORTRAN parallel version— is intended to be contributed to the Community Modeling environment (CME).

SCEC/UseIT: Intuitive Exploration of Faults and Earthquakes

Evangelista, Edgar (USC)

Within the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), the Undergraduate Studies in Earthquake Information Technology (UseIT) program gathers multiple undergraduate students from various colleges to manage and expand SCEC-Virtual Display of Objects (SCEC-VDO). After last summer’s interns’ initial development of SCEC-VDO, this summer, we added numerous functionalities and serviced existing parts of the software. We created an earthquake monitoring system that visualizes and analyzes earthquakes and fault systems in 3D for earthquake scientists, emergency response teams, media, and the general public. In order to create a more intuitive package, I worked on several projects including navigation, orientation, fault mapping, and the general design of the software.

Within navigation, I added on two modes of navigation in which the user feels either within the world or controlling the world in his/her hands by using the mouse and/or keyboard. Furthermore, I created a navigational axes system and a more “natural” lighting system to aid the users in orienting themselves within the scene. Additionally, I created features for the USGS’96 faults to aid in user visualization. Finally, by adding background and grid customizability, the program can become easier to view. Through these additional features, the user can interact with their research more intuitively.

The SCEC Community Modeling Environment Digital Library

Faerman, Marcio (SDSC), Reagan Moore (SDSC), Yuanfang Hu (SDSC),

Yi Li (SDSC), Jing Zhu (SDSC), Jean Bernard Minster (UCSD),

Steven Day (SDSU), Kim Bak Olsen (SDSU), Phil Maechling (USC),

Amit Chourasia (SDSC), George Kremenek (SDSC), Sheau-Yen Chen (SDSC), Arcot Rajasekar (SDSC), Mike Wan (SDSC), and Antoine de Torcy (SDSC)

The SCEC Community Modeling Environment (SCEC/CME) collaboration generates a wide variety of data products derived from diverse earthquake simulations. The datasets are archived in the SCEC Community Digital Library, which is supported by the San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC)

Storage Resource Broker (SRB), for access by the earthquake community. The digital library provides multiple access mechanisms needed by geophysicists and earthquake engineers.

Efforts conducted by the SCEC/CME collaboration include TeraShake, a set of large scale earthquake simulations occurring on the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault. TeraShake has generated more than 50 TB of surface and volume output data. The data has been registered into the SCEC Community Digital Library. Derived data products of interest include the surface velocity magnitude, peak ground velocity, displacement vector field and spectra information. Data collections are annotated with simulation metadata to allow data discovery operations on metadata-based queries. High resolution 3D visualization renderings and seismogram analysis tools have been used as part of the data analysis process.

Another collaboration effort between the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) and the SCEC project, called "3D Ground Motion Project for the Los Angeles Basin", has produced 60 earthquake simulation scenarios. The earthquake scenarios comprise 10 LA Basin fault models, each associated with 6 source models. The surface output data of these simulations is registered at the SCEC Digital Library supported by the SDSC Storage Resource Broker.

The Digital Library will also hold the data produced by the recent CyberShake SCEC/CME project, calculating Probabilistic Seismic Hazard curves for several sites in the Los Angeles area using 3D ground motion simulations.

Seismologists and earthquake engineers can access both the TeraShake and the Los Angeles Basin collections using a Scenario-Oriented Interface developed by the SCEC/CME project. An interactive web application allows users to select an earthquake scenario from a graphical interface, choosing earthquake source models, and then use the WebSim seismogram plotting application and a metadata extraction tool. Users can click on a location and obtain seismogram plots from the synthetic data remotely archived at the digital library. A metadata extraction tool provides users a pull-down menu, with metadata categories describing the selected earthquake scenario. In the case of TeraShake, for example, users can interact with the full resolution 1 TB surface online data, generated for each simulation scenario. Other interfaces integrated with the SCEC/CME Digital Library include the Data Discovery and Distribution System (DDDS), a metadata-driven discovery tool for synthetic seismograms developed at USC and the Synthetic and Observed Seismogram Analysis (SOSA) application, developed at IRIS.

We are currently investigating the potential of integrating the SCEC data analysis services with the GEON GIS environments. SCEC users are interested in interactively selecting layers of map and geo based data to be accessed from seismic oriented applications. HDF5 (Hierarchical Data Format 5) will be used to describe binary file contents containing multi-dimensional objects. The SCEC Community Digital Library currently manages more than 100 Terabytes of data and over 2 million files.

References:

SCEC Community Library:

SCEC/CME:

Storage Resource Broker:

Earthquake Nucleation on Bended Dip-Slip Faults

Fang, Zijun (UC Riverside) and Guanshui Xu (UC Riverside)

Many studies have indicated that fault geometry plays a significant role in the earthquake nucleation process. Our previous parametric study of earthquake nucleation on planar dip-slip faults with depth-dependent friction laws shows that fault geometry and friction play equally important role in the location of earthquake nucleation and the time it takes for such nucleation to occur. Therefore, it seems to be rational to speculate that for non-planar dip-slip faults, commonly existing in nature, fault geometry may play a more dominant role in the earthquake nucleation process. Using a slip-strengthening and weakening friction law in a quasi-static model based on the variational boundary integral method, we have investigated the effect of the bend angle on the earthquake nucleation process on both bended thrust and normal dip-slip faults. The detailed results of the nucleation location and time as a function of the bend angle will be presented.

Validation of Community Fault Model Alternatives From

Subsurface Maps of Structural Uplift

Fawcett, Della (Oregon State), Andrew Meigs (Oregon State), Michele Cooke (UMass, Amherst), and Scott Marshall (UMass, Amherst)

In tectonically active regions characterized by blind thrust faults, there is potential to produce large scale earthquakes. Folds in overriding rock units are the primary indicator of these faults, both in size and displacement. Competing models of three-dimensional fault topology, starting from the SCEC Community Fault Model (CFM), were tested for viability using numerical Boundary Element Method (BEM) models and patterns of rock uplift by folds along the Northern LA Basin shelf, from Santa Monica east to the Coyote Hills. Well data and cross sections were used to construct surfaces in the ArcInfo GIS of the depth to three marker beds. Structure contour maps of the Quaternary (1.8 Ma), Pico (2.9 Ma) and Repetto (4.95 Ma) units were created. Contouring issues revolve around the frame of reference used to constrain differential structural relief across the region. Artifacts are introduced when structural relief is based on fold form on individual cross sections. Using the central trough as a frame of reference for measuring the amount of relief regionally results in more robust accurate structure contours. These maps constrain location and orientation of structural highs, which are indicative of fault location at depth. Rock uplift rate maps were constructed from these data and compared with rates generated by BEM models of 3D fault topology (North-South contraction at 100 nanostrain/year). BEM models investigate the sensitivity of uplift patterns to 1) dip of blind thrust faults (e.g. Las Cienegas and Elysian Park), 2) presence of a low-angle (~20 degree) thrust ramp below 10 km depths and 3) regional extent of this low-angle ramp. Contours of misfit represent model uplift subtracted from measured uplift, which test model-data compatibility in terms of structural trend, spatial variation in rates and location of major structures (i.e. key near surface folds). Alternative models to the CFM in the region of downtown LA in which the Los Angeles/Las Cienegas and Elysian Park blind thrust faults dip 60 degrees and sole into a regionally extensive low-angle ramp below 10 km depth improves model and geologic uplift compatibility.

Weak Faults in a Strong Crust: Geodynamic Constraints on Fault Strength, Stress in the Crust, and the Vertical Distribution of

Strength in the Lithosphere

Fay, Noah and Gene Humphreys (University of Oregon)

We present results of steady-state dynamic finite element numerical models for the state of stress and strain rate in the crust and upper mantle in the vicinity of a transform fault. Model rheology is elastic-viscous-plastic where plastic mechanical behavior is used as a proxy for pressure-dependent friction of the seismogenic crust. Viscous flow is incorporated as temperature dependent, power-law creep. We assume that the crust outside the fault zone is at or near its Byerlee’s law-predicted frictional yield strength (i.e., “strong”, e.g., Townend and Zoback, 2001) and aim to determine the acceptable range of fault strength and viscosity distributions that satisfy the observations that seismic faulting extends to typically 15 km and that the tectonic strain rate of fault-bounding blocks is small. Assuming the traditional “christmas-tree” strength distribution of the lithosphere (e.g., Brace and Kohlstedt, 1980), our primary results are the following: The upper limit of fault strength is approximately 20-25 MPa (avg. over 15 km). The majority (>50%) of the vertically integrated strength of the lithosphere resides in the uppermost mantle. The depth to which the fault-bounding crust obeys Byerlee’s law depends on the strength of nearby faults and viscosity of the lower crust and should not exceed approximately 6-8 km, below which relatively low strain rate viscous creep is the dominant deformation mechanism.

The June 2005 Anza/Yucaipa Southern California Earthquake Sequence

Felzer, Karen (USGS)

On June 12, 2005, a M_W 5.2 earthquake occurred on the San Jacinto fault system near the town of Anza and was felt throughout Southern California. Two subsequent events appeared unusual. The first was an elongated cluster of aftershocks along the San Jacinto Fault zone. The mainshock fault length was on the order of several km, as was the length of the most densely clustered part of the aftershock sequence, but a clear scattering of (mostly small) aftershocks also extended from 30 km to the north to at least 20 km to the south of the mainshock hypocenter. This raised early speculation that aftershocks were being triggered by a creep event along the San Jacinto. A creep event at depth has now been observed, with an estimated moment equivalent to that of an M 5.0 (Agnew and Wyatt, 2005). Whether or not this creep event is unusual, and thus whether it could have created an unusual aftershock sequence, is not possible to say as a lack of instrumentation elsewhere has prevented similar observation. Aseismic afterslip at the surface is routinely observed, and aseismic slip below the surface on both the mainshock and surrounding faults was inferred after the Loma Prieta earthquake from GPS measurements (Segall et al. 2000).

An alternative explanation for the elongated sequence is that aftershock sequences are always this long -- we just usually can't tell because we usually don't record at the completeness provided by the densely instrumented Anza seismic array. To test this hypothesis we plot the Anza aftershock sequence with different lower magnitude cutoffs; only when we include magnitudes below the normal completeness threshold does the sequence appear to be long. We also use the Felzer and Brodsky (2005) relationships to simulate what the aftershock sequence of an M_W 5.2 earthquake should look like with very small magnitudes included. The simulations agree well with observation if we restrict most of the aftershocks to the trend of the San Jacinto fault zone.

The other potentially unusual event was the occurrence of a M_W 4.9 earthquake 4 days after the Anza mainshock, 72 km away. There is less than a 2% probability that this earthquake was random chance; over the past five years (2000-2005) there have been only 8 M > 4.9 earthquakes in Southern California. Is it plausible that a M_W 5.2 earthquake could have triggered another earthquake over 70 km away? Static stress changes are negligible at such distances, but dynamic stress changes are not. Using M 5-6 mainshocks from throughout California we demonstrate that triggering can occur out to several hundred kilometers at high statistical significance, corroborating statistics by Ebel and Kafka (2002). On average, at distances over 50 km, within a time period of 7 days, we expect an M 5.2 earthquake to trigger a M > 4 earthquake about 10% of the time and to trigger a M > 5 earthquake about 1% of the time.

A Closer Look at High Frequency Bursts Observed During the

1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake

Fischer, Adam (USC) and Charles Sammis (USC)

High frequency, band-pass filtered waveforms from the 1999 Mw = 7.6 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake show a multitude of distinct, short duration energy bursts. Chen et al. (B.S.S.A., 2005, accepted for publication) assumed the sources of these bursts were slip patches on or near the Chelungpu fault

plane and devised a location algorithm that resolved about 500 unique events. Based on these locations and the relative sizes of the bursts they reached the following conclusions:

1) The earliest bursts occur directly up-dip from the hypocenter and appear to have been triggered by the P wave.

2) The first bursts at greater distances from the epicenter appear to be triggered by the propagating rupture front.

3) Later events at all distances follow Omori’s law if time is measured from the arrival of the rupture front at each distance.

4) The size distribution of the bursts is described by the Gutenberg-Richter distribution over a range of two magnitude units.

5) Most shallow events are small. All deep events are large.

In this study, we test the hypothesis that the high frequency bursts originate on the fault plane, and are not path or site effects. For several events, the vector displacements were measured at a number of 3-component stations and compared with the predicted radiation pattern from double-couple point source at the observed hypocenter in a homogeneous half-space. We also show that small events occurring at depth would be resolved by the array, and hence conclusion (5) above is not an artifact of attenuation. We present further evidence that the events are not site effects by showing they are not correlated with the amplitude of direct P and S. Because the time and magnitudes of the bursts appear to obey both Gutenberg-Richter and Omori laws, we further investigate their relationship with the normal aftershock sequence following the mainshock.

Direct Observation of Earthquake Rupture Propagation in the

2004 Parkfield, California, Earthquake

Fletcher, Jon (USGS), Paul Spudich (USGS), and Lawrence Baker (USGS)

Using a short-baseline seismic array (UPSAR) about 12 km west of the rupture initiation of the September, 2004 M6 Parkfield, CA earthquake, we have observed the movement of the rupture front of this earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. Apparent velocity and back azimuth of seismic arrivals are used to map the location of the sources of these arrivals. We infer that the rupture velocity was initially supershear to the northwest then slowing near the town of Parkfield after 2s. The observed direction of supershear propagation agrees with numerical predictions of rupture on bimaterial interfaces. The last well correlated pulse, 4s after S, is the largest at UPSAR and its source is near the region of large accelerations recorded by strong motion accelerographs. Coincidence of sources with pre-shock and aftershock distributions suggests fault material properties control rupture behavior. Small seismic arrays may be useful for rapid assessment of earthquake source extent.

SCEC/UseIT: Integration of Earthquake Analysis into SCEC-VDO

Fonstad, Rachel (Winona State)

I was inspired after Lucy Jones came to give us a presentation about how scientists monitor earthquakes and the ways that earthquake statistics are used, and I wanted to add the option of creating a magnitude-frequency plot in SCEC-VDO. I created a new plug-in that allows the user to choose and load a catalog of earthquakes and then plot magnitude versus log(frequency). The plot displays in a new window with a regression line and equation. This helps us to understand how smaller magnitude earthquakes are much more common and how the change in occurrence of larger and larger magnitude earthquakes is quite relative. We look at the plot of the logarithm of frequency rather than frequency itself because the slope decreases exponentially and is difficult to visualize without this adjustment.

This plug-in was put under a new menu titled “Analysis” as it is intended to be the first among other plug-ins that will help to analyze earthquakes. Now, for the first time, SCEC-VDO is more than just a visualization tool. Before the implementation of these new plug-ins, we could only opt to display groups of earthquakes on the map. Beyond my plug-in, there will eventually be more plug-ins to help users better understand earthquakes.

Determination of Slip Rates on the Death Valley-Furnace Creek Fault System: Towards an Understanding of the Spatial and Temporal Extent of

Strain Transients -- A Progress Report

Frankel, Kurt L., James F. Dolan (USC), Robert C. Finkel (LLNL),

Lewis A. Owen (Univ. of Cincinnati), and Jeffrey S. Hoeft (USC)

There has recently been great interest within both SCEC and the broader geodynamics community in the occurrence (or absence) of strain transients at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Of particular interest are comparisons of geodetic and geologic rate data across the Mojave section of the eastern California shear zone (ECSZ), which suggest that the rapid geodetic rates measured in the region (~10-12 mm/yr) may be much faster than longer-term geologic rates. The possible strain transient revealed by these data contrasts markedly with rate data from the Big Bend section of the San Andreas fault (SAF) and the central Garlock fault, where geologic and geodetic data indicate that these structures are storing elastic strain energy at rates that are slower than their long-term fault slip rates. These comparisons of geologic and geodetic rate data raise a basic question: Are strain transients local features of only limited extent, perhaps tied to the geometric complexity (e.g. the Big Bend section of the SAF)? Alternatively, are strain transients such as in the Mojave more regionally extensive phenomenon that characterize loading of large sections of the plate boundary? The answers to these questions have fundamental implications for our understanding of the geodynamics of fault loading, and hence, for the occurrence of earthquakes. We are using cosmogenic nuclide geochronology coupled with airborne laser swatch mapping (ALSM) high-resolution digital topographic data (LiDAR) to generate slip rates from the Death Valley fault system in order to fill in one of the last major missing pieces of the slip rate “puzzle” in the ECSZ. We have collected ALSM data from two, 2 X 10 km swaths along the northern Death Valley fault zone. These data reveal numerous alluvial fan offsets, ranging from 82 - 390 m. In addition, we have access to ALSM data from the normal fault system in central Death Valley (in collaboration with T. Wasklewicz). We are currently processing cosmogenic nuclide samples from five sites to establish slip rates at a variety of time scales along the central and northern Death Valley fault zone. The proposed data, in combination with published rates, will provide a synoptic view of the cumulative slip rates of the major faults of the ECSZ north of the Garlock fault. Comparison of these longer-term rate data with short-term geodetic data will allow us to determine whether strain storage and release have been constant over the Holocene-late Pleistocene time scales of interest, or whether the current strain transient observed in the Mojave section of the ECSZ extends away from the zone of structural complexity associated with the Big Bend of the San Andreas fault.

Slip Rates, Recurrence Intervals and Earthquake Magnitudes for the Southern Black Mountain Fault Zone, Southern Death Valley, California

Fronterhouse Sohn, Marsha (CSUF), Jeffrey Knott (CSUF), and

David Bowman (CSUF)

The normal-oblique Black Mountain Fault zone (BMFZ) is part of the Death Valley fault system. Strong ground-motion generated by earthquakes on the BMFZ poses a serious threat to the Las Vegas, NV area (pop. ~1,428,690), the Death Valley National Park (max. pop. ~20,000) and Pahrump, NV (pop. 30,000). Fault scarps offset Holocene alluvial-fan deposits along most of the 80-km length of the BMFZ. However, slip rates, recurrence intervals, and event magnitudes for the BMFZ are poorly constrained due to a lack of age control. Also, Holocene scarp heights along the BMFZ range from 6 m suggesting that geomorphic sections have different earthquake histories.

Along the southernmost section, the BMFZ steps basinward preserving three post-late Pleistocene fault scarps. Regression plots of vertical offset versus maximum scarp angle suggest event ages of < 10 – 2 ka with a post-late Pleistocene slip rate of 0.1 mm/yr – 0.3 mm/yr and recurrence of < 3300 years/event. Regression equations for the estimated geomorphically constrained rupture length of the southernmost section and surveyed event displacements provides estimated moment magnitudes (Mw) between 6.6 and 7.3 for the BMFZ.

A Full-Crustal Refraction/Reflection Model of LARSE Line 2: Thrusting of the Santa Monica Mountains-San Fernando Valley Block Beneath the Central Transverse Ranges, Southern California

Fuis, Gary S. (USGS), Janice M. Murphy (USGS), Shirley Baher (USGS),

David A. Okaya (USC), and Trond Ryberg (GFZ-Potsdam)

LARSE line 2, an explosion refraction/reflection line, extended from the coast at Santa Monica, California, northward to the Sierra Nevada, passing through or near the epicenters of the 1971 and 1994 M 6.7 San Fernando and Northridge earthquakes. Tomographic models of Lutter et al. (BSSA, 2004) contain tantalizing hints of geologic structure, but are necessarily smoothed and extend no deeper than about 8 km depth. Vertical-incidence reflection data (Fuis et al., Geology, 2003) reveal some important deep structures, but are low-fold and produce the best images below the upper-crustal region modeled by tomography. To sharpen the velocity image and to extend it to the Moho, we have forward-modeled both refraction and wide-angle reflection data and have incorporated surface geologic and sparse drillhole constraints into the model. The resulting image reveals the shapes of sedimentary basins underlying the San Fernando, Santa Clarita, and Antelope (western Mojave) Valleys as well as many active and inactive faults in the upper crust. Importantly, it also reveals a major north-dipping wide-angle-reflective zone extending downward from the 1971 San Fernando hypocenter toward the San Andreas fault (SAF). This zone, coincident with a vertical-incidence-reflective zone, is interpreted as a shear zone separating rocks of the Santa Monica Mountains and San Fernando Valley (SMM-SFV) from rocks of the Central Transverse Ranges (CTR). The SMM-SFV represents a block of the Peninsular Ranges terrane that is currently underthrusting the CTR, presumably as it continues to rotate clockwise. There is a symmetrical south-dipping wide-angle-/vertical-incidence-reflective zone on the north side of the San Andreas fault, but it is not clear if this structure is currently active. Moho is depressed to a maximum depth of 36 km beneath the CTR, defining a crustal root similar to that on LARSE line 1, 70 km to the east, but with smaller relief (3-5 km vs. 5-8 km), and it is centered ~5 km south of the SAF. The SAF appears to offset all layers above the Moho.

SCEC/UseIT: Focal Mechanism Evolution and Smarter Text

Garcia, Joshua (USC)

The UseIT program combines undergraduates among a variety of majors to create information technology products for use in understanding and studying earthquakes. This UseIT summer grand challenge involved creating an earthquake monitoring system using the software project, SCEC-VDO, started by last years intern group. My contribution to the program this summer was two-fold. The first part of my contribution involved creating a new representation for focal mechanisms in SCEC-VDO. These focal mechanisms are represented using orthogonal intersecting discs. These discs representations allow easier identification of the plane on the focal mechanism that may lie on an actual fault. A new graphical user interface (GUI) was implemented to allow easy and intuitive use of this new focal mechanism representation. An additional GUI was created to allow users to select any colors they wish for compression or extension.

The second part of my contribution involved updating the text plug-in of SCEC-VDO to allow smarter and more flexible placement of text at any point defined by latitude, longitude and altitude on the SCEC-VDO display screen. New features for the text plug-in include file format flexibility, master list searching, and a text table. A new GUI was created for this feature as well.

Complexity as a Practical Measure for Seismicity Pattern Evolution

Goltz, Christian (UCD)

Earthquakes are a "complex" phenomenon. There is, however, no clear definition of what complexity actually is. Yet, it is important to distinguish between what is merely complicated and what is complex in the sense that simple rules can give rise to very rich behaviour. Seismicity is certainly a complicated phenomenon (difficult to understand) but simple models such as cellular automata indicate that earthquakes are truly complex. From the observational point of view, there exists the problem of quantification of complexity in real world seismicity patterns. Such a measurement is desirable, not only for fundamental understanding but also for monitoring and possibly for forecasting. Maybe the most workable definitions of complexity exist in informatics, summarised under the topic of algorithmic complexity. Here, after introducing the concepts, I apply such a measure of complexity to temporally evolving real-world seismicity patterns. Finally, I discuss the usefulness of the approach and regard the results in view of the occurrence of large earthquakes.

Attenuation of Peak Ground Motion from June 2005 Anza and Yucaipa California Earthquakes

Graizer, Vladimir (CGS) and Anthony Shakal (CGS)

A large amount of strong motion data was recorded during the two recent earthquakes in Southern California: Mw 5.2 (ML 5.6) event of 6/12/2005 near Anza, and Mw 4.9 (ML 5.3) event near Yucaipa. The Anza earthquake occurred within the San Jacinto fault zone and had strike-slip fault mechanism. The Yucaipa earthquake occurred within the San Andreas fault zone and had dip-slip mechanism (predominantly thrust motion with a small left-lateral component).

The two data sets include strong-motion data recorded by the California Strong Motion Instrumentation program, USGS National Strong Motion Program, Southern California Network and Anza Regional Network. Anza earthquake data set includes 279 data points, and Yucaipa data set includes 388 points. The data sets were limited by the triggering level of strong-motion accelerographs (0.005 g), to assure

uniform and complete representation. We don’t recommend merging these data sets with data of lower amplitude (mostly recorded by velocity sensors) at this time.

Comparison was made of the five existing attenuation relationships (Abrahamson & Silva, 1997; Boore, Joyner, Fumal, 1997; Campbell, 1997; Idriss, 1991; Sadigh et al., 1997) with the recorded data for the distances of up to 150-200 km (all those attenuation relationships were designed for distances of up to 80 km). For Anza and Yucaipa earthquakes attenuation curves generally under predict recorded peak ground motions.

Kinematic Rupture Model Generator

Graves, Robert (URS) and Arben Pitarka (URS)

There are several ongoing efforts within SCEC that involve the use of ground motion simulations for scenario earthquakes. These include the NSF Project on Implementation Interface (NGA-H, structural response simulations) and Pathway II components of CME. Additionally, developments are underway within the Seismic Hazard Analysis focus group to implement time history generation capabilities (e.g., CyberShake). A key component that these projects all depend upon is the ability to generate physically plausible earthquake rupture models, and to disseminate these models in an efficient, reliable and self-consistent manner. The work presented here takes the first step in addressing this need by developing a computation module to specify and generate kinematic rupture models for use in numerical earthquake simulations. The computational module is built using pre-existing models of the earthquake source (e.g., pseudo-dynamic, K(-2) wavenumber decay, etc…). In the initial implementation, we have employed simple rules to compute rupture initiation time based on scaling of the local shear wave velocity. The slip velocity function is a simplified Kostrov-like pulse, with the rise time given by a magnitude scaling relation. However, the module is not restricted to accept only these parameterizations, but is instead constructed to allow alternative parameterizations to be added in a straightforward manner. One of the most important features of the module is the use of a Standard Rupture Format (SRF) for the specification of kinematic rupture parameters. This will help ensure consistent and accurate representation of source rupture models and allow the exchange of information between various research groups to occur in a more seamless manner.

Grid Activities in SCEC/CME

Gullapalli, Sridhar, Ewa Deelman, Carl Kesselman, Gaurang Mehta,

Karan Vahi, and Marcus Thiebaux (USC/ISI)

The Center for Grid Technologies Group at USC/ISI is an integral part of the SCEC/CME effort, software and services.

Cybershake:

The purpose of this critical activity is to create Probabilistic Seismic Hazard curves for several sites in the Los Angeles area. The SCEC/CME Project brings all the elements necessary to perform this work including the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA), the geophysical models, the validated wave propagation tools, the scientific workflow capabilities, and the data management capabilities. CGT contributed towards all aspects of the planning, development and execution of the workplan for the Cybershake activity.

Gridbased Workflow Tools:

CGT staff have been working to develop, customize and integrate Grid-based Workflow tools including Pegasus, VDS, Condor-G, DAGMAN etc. into SCEC/CME to enable SCEC scientists to focus on geophysics problems, automating and abstracting the details of execution of these large simulations. In the coming year, CGT will develop a production quality set of tools for use by SCEC earthquake scientists to ease the task of performing repetitive and similar tasks.

Integrated workflow solutions with AI based Knowledge and Semantic Tools:

CGT will continue to work as part of a close team with our expert colleagues in the Artificial Intelligence discipline to design, develop and harden an integrated workflow solution, coupling Grid-based Workflow tools with Knowledge and Semantic tools to meet requirements of the SCEC proposal.

Visualization tools and Services:

The visualization efforts at ISI have been focused on developing an interactive browsing framework for large SCEC datasets like Terashake, LA 3D and Cybershake.

Distributed SCEC Testbed deployment and operation:

The Grid Group works closely with our colleagues at SCEC, USC, ISI and the TeraGrid to build and customize the distributed computational and data storage infrastructure for the SCEC scientist required for SCEC Pathway executions under the Community Modeling Environment and the SCEC Virtual Organization. Computational resources, software and an integrated environment to solve seismic modeling problems of interest to the SCEC scientists span multiple organizations including SCEC, USC, ISI and the distributed TeraGrid infrastructure.

Discrete Element Simulations of Elasto-Plastic Fault Block Interactions

Guo, Yonggui (Rice University) and Julia K. Morgan (Rice University)

In order to gain a better understanding of earthquake distributions, we carry out Distinct Element simulations in 2D to simulate the brittle failure and deformation within and between two interacting fault blocks. Fault blocks composed of bonded particles are sheared along a linear fault surface, allowing for block fracture and fragmentation. Deformation within fault blocks are driven either by lateral boundary displacement or by basal boundary displacement, coupled by elastic springs to interacting particles at the surface. Our preliminary results show that the early phase of fault deformation is accommodated by development of asymmetric tensile fractures and wear of the fault surface. When the gouge zone is sufficiently thick to completely separate the opposing fault surfaces, shear strain is accommodated mainly by shearing of interlocking gouge grains along locally developed shear surfaces, resulting in much lower shear stress within the gouge zone. The results suggest that except for boundary condition and physical properties of fault blocks, internal structures evolving from fault-fault interaction configuration to fault-gouge interaction configuration, also has a significant effect on fault zone dynamic process.

Poroelastic Damage Rheology: Dilation, Compaction and Failure of Rocks

Hamiel, Yariv (SIO, UCSD), Vladimir Lyakhovsky (Geological Survey of Israel), and Amotz Agnon (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

We present a formulation for mechanical modeling of interaction between fracture and fluid flow. The new model combines the classical Biot's poroelastic theory with a damage rheology model. The theoretical analysis based on the thermodynamic principles, leads to a system of coupled kinetic equations for the evolution of damage and porosity. Competition between two thermodynamic forces, one related to porosity change and one to microcraking, defines the mode of macroscopic rock failure. At low confining pressures rock fails in a brittle mode, with strong damage localization in a narrow deformation zone. The thermodynamic force related to microcraking is dominant and the yield stress increases with confining pressure (positive slope for yield curve). The role of porosity related thermodynamic force increases with increasing confining pressure, eventually leading to decrease of yield stress with confining pressure (negative slope for yield curve). At high confining pressures damage is non-localized and the macroscopic deformation of the model corresponds to experimentally observed cataclastic flow. In addition, the model correctly predicts different modes of strain localization such as dilating shear bands and compacting shear bands. We present numerical simulations in 3D that demonstrate rock-sample deformation at different modes of failure. The simulations reproduce the gradual transition from brittle fracture to cataclastic flow. The development provides an internally consistent framework for simulating coupled evolution of fracturing and fluid flow in a variety of practical geological and engineering problems such as nucleation of deformation features in poroelastic media and fluid flow during seismic cycle.

SCEC/UseIT: Animation in SCEC-VDO

Haqque, Ifraz (USC)

UseIT is an intern program organized by SCEC annually to provide college students with an opportunity to conduct research in information technology related to geoscience.

This summer’s grand challenge for the SCEC IT interns involved expanding SCEC-VDO, the current earthquake visualization software developed over the previous year so that it may be used as a real time earthquake monitoring system. Our team was broken down into several groups each involved in some aspect of developing the software to meet our goals. As part of the Earthquake Analysts group, my primary contribution to the software was to provide the ability to animate earthquakes. This functionality enables scientists to look at sequences of earthquakes and how they occurred relative to each other with respect to time and it brought the software as a whole towards being a true earthquake monitoring system. Integrating the animation code with the code that already existed proved to be a difficult task to begin with. However, it was easily overcome as I spent more time analyzing and familiarizing myself with the existing code. All in all, my time at SCEC has vastly improved my software development skills as well as provided me with the valuable experience of working as a team.

A New Focal Mechanism Catalog for Southern California

Hardebeck, Jeanne (USGS), Peter Shearer (Scripps, UCSD), and

Egill Hauksson (Caltech)

We present a new focal mechanism catalog for southern California, 1984-2003, based on S-wave/P-wave amplitude ratios and catalog P-wave first motion polarities. The S/P ratios were computed during the SCEC-sponsored Caltech/UCSD analysis of the entire waveform catalog (Hauksson and Shearer, BSSA 95, 896-903, 2005; Shearer et al., BSSA 95, 904-915, 2005) and form the most complete set of S/P ratios available for southern California. The focal mechanisms were computed with the technique of Hardebeck and Shearer (BSSA 92, 2264-2276, 2002; BSSA 93, 2434-2444, 2003), which estimates mechanism quality from the solution stability with respect to input parameter perturbations. The dataset includes more than 24,000 focal mechanisms, and highest-quality solutions were found for 6380 earthquakes, most having M1.5-3.5. The focal mechanism catalog is available from the Southern California Earthquake Data Center alternate catalogs web page: .

Homogeneity of Small-Scale Earthquake Faulting, Stress and Fault Strength

Hardebeck, Jeanne (USGS)

Small-scale faulting at seismogenic depths in the crust appears to be more homogeneous than previously thought. For example, Rivera & Kanamori [GRL 29, 2002] found focal mechanisms oriented "in all directions" in southern California, implying a heterogeneous stress field and/or heterogeneous fault strength. Surprisingly, I obtain very different results for three new high-quality focal mechanism datasets of small (M 0.7, with at least one other event recorded at four or more stations. Large numbers of correlated events occur in different tectonic regions, including the San Andreas Fault, the Long Valley caldera, Geysers geothermal field and the Mendocino triple junction. We present double-difference relocations for about 80,000 earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault system, from north of San Francisco to Parkfield, covering a region that includes simple strike slip faults (creeping and locked) and complex structures such as fault segmentations and step overs. A much sharper picture of the seismicity emerges from the relocated data, indicating that the degree of resolution obtained in recent, small scale relocation studies can be obtained for large areas and across complex tectonic regions. We are also comparing our results with others from recent relocation work by Hauksson and Shearer (H&S), who are also using cross-correlation and multi-event location techniques. Comparing our differential time measurements with those obtained by H&S for identical earthquake pairs recorded near Mendocino, CA, for example, we find that about 80% of the measurements agree within 10 ms (Note: 10 ms is also the sampling rate of the stations we compared). Both studies employ time domain cross correlation techniques, but use different interpolation functions, window lengths and outlier detection methods.

The 2001 and 2005 Anza Earthquakes: Aftershock Focal Mechanisms

Walker, Kris (IGPP/SIO), Debi Kilb (IGPP/SIO), and Guoqing Lin (IGPP/SIO)

Two M ~5 earthquakes occurred generally within the Anza seismic gap along the San Jacinto Fault zone during the last 4 years (M 5.1, October 31, 2001; M 5.2, June 12, 2005). The 2005 event occurred ~9 km southeast of the town of Anza, and the 2001 event was ~6 km farther southeast. These events have significantly different focal mechanisms, and it is unclear if they occurred on a northwest-striking fault parallel to the San Jacinto Fault or a conjugate northeast-striking fault. Both events were followed by productive aftershock sequences (Feltzer, and Shearer et al., this meeting). Significant post-seismic creep was recorded several days following the mainshock by strain meters near Anza (Agnew and Wyatt, this meeting). In light of these observations, several questions arise regarding the focal mechanisms and spatial/temporal behavior of the mainshocks and associated aftershocks: (1) how similar are the two sequences; (2) does the data define a well-delineated fault system consistent with surface observations; and (3) is there a spatial/temporal evolution or clustering of the aftershock focal mechanisms? To investigate these questions we calculate focal mechanisms using polarity information from the SCEC catalog, relocate aftershocks using a waveform cross-correlation technique, and explore the data using 3D visualizations (Kilb et al., this meeting). We use a clustering algorithm to identify similar focal mechanism types, and search for trends in the occurrences of these events as a function of space and time. The spatial distribution of the relocated aftershocks appear ‘cloud like’, not aligning with a narrow fault core. Similarly, the aftershock focal mechanisms are heterogeneous, in that the 2001 and 2005 sequences are only comprised of 42% and 64% strike-slip events, respectively. These values are reduced to 25% and 46% when we consider only strike-slip mechanisms that are consistent with the strike of the San Jacinto Fault. In addition, there is a relatively large proportion of normal-faulting aftershocks in the 2001 sequence (18%) relative to the 2005 sequence (7%). These results suggest that both aftershock zones are highly fractured and heterogeneous volumes.

GPS Installation Progress in the Southern California Region of the Plate Boundary Observatory

Walls, Chris, Ed Arnitz, Scott Bick, Shawn Lawrence, Karl Feaux, and

Mike Jackson (UNAVCO-PBO)

One of the roles the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO), part of the larger NSF-funded EarthScope project, is the rapid deployment of permanent GPS units following large earthquakes to capture postseismic transients and the longer-term viscoelastic-response to an earthquake. Beginning the day of the September 28th, 2004, Parkfield earthquake, the PBO Transform Site Selection Working Group elevated the priority of two pre-planned GPS stations (P539 and P532) that lie to the south of the earthquake epicenter, allowing for reconnaissance and installation procedures to begin ahead of schedule. Reconnaissance for five sites in both the Southern and Northern California offices began the day following the earthquake and two permits were secured within three days of the earthquake. Materials and equipment for construction were brought along with the response team and within 4 days the first monument (P539) was installed.

Of the 875 total PBO GPS stations, 212 proposed sites are distributed throughout the Southern California region. These stations will be installed over the next 3 years in priority areas recommended by the PBO Transform, Extension and Magmatic working groups. Volunteers from the California Spatial Reference Center and others within the survey community have aided in the siting and permitting process. Currently the production status is: 59 stations built (23 short braced monuments, 36 deep drilled braced monuments), 72 permits signed, 105 permits submitted and 114 station reconnaissance reports. To date, Year 1 and 2 production goals are on schedule and under budget.

Combined and Validated GPS Data Products for the Western US

Webb, Frank (JPL), Yehuda Bock (UC San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography), Dong Danan (JPL), Brian Newport (JPL), Paul Jamason (SIO), Michael Scharber (SIO), Sharon Kedar (JPL), Susan Owen (JPL),

Linette Prawirodirjo (SIO), Peng Fang (SIO), Ruey-Juin Chang (SIO),

George Wadsworth (SIO), Nancy King (USGS), Keith Stark (USGS),

Robert Granat (JPL) and Donald Argus (JPL)

The purpose of this project is to produce and deliver high quality GPS time series and higher-level data products derived from multiple GPS networks along the western US plate boundary, and to use modern IT methodology to make these products easily accessible to the community.

This multi-year NASA funded project, "GPS DATA PRODUCTS FOR SOLID EARTH SCIENCE" (GDPSES), has completed the product development phase and automation of Level-1 Data products. The project processes and posts a daily solution generated by a combination of two independent GPS station position solutions, generated at SIO and JPL using GAMIT and GIPSY respectively. A combination algorithm 'st_filter' (formerly known as QOCA) has been implemented. A combined ~10-year long time-series for over 450 western US GPS sites is available for viewing and download for the scientific community via the project's web portal at . In addition to ongoing product generation GDPSES has a capability to reprocess and combine over a decade of data from the entire western US within a few days, which enables a quick update of the Level-1 products and their derivatives, when new models are tested and implemented.

To achieve the project goals and support current data products, several ongoing IT developments are taking place. In the forefront is an Adaptive Seamless Archive System, which uses web services for GPS data discovery, exchange and storage. GDPSES has unified the station data and metadata inputs into the processing procedures at the independent analysis centers. The project has developed XML schemas for GPS time series, and is developing and implementing an array of data quality tools, to ensure a high-quality combined solution, and to detect anomalies in the time series. Event leveraging will alert users to tectonic, anthropogenic and processing 'events'. In the next few months the project, through its new data portal called GPS Explorer, will enable users to zoom in and access subsets of the data via web services. As part of its IT effort the project is participating in NASA's Earth Science Data Systems Working Groups (ESDSWG), and contributing to the Standards working group.

Slip Rate of the San Andreas Fault near Littlerock, California

Weldon, Ray (U Oregon) and Tom Fumal (USGS)

Two offsets, 18+/-2 and ~130 m, across the Mojave portion of the San Andreas fault yield slip rates of ~36 mm/yr (uncertainties associated with the two groups of offsets will be discussed separately below). These data are consistent with the slip rate inferred at Pallett Creek [8.5 kms to the SE (Salyards et al., 1992)], the local long-term rate [averaged over ~2 Ma, (Weldon et al., 1993) and over ~400 ka (Matmon et al. 2005)], and kinematic modeling of the San Andreas system (Humphreys and Weldon, 1994). These results, combined with the earlier work, suggest that the rate has been constant at the resolution of geologic offsets, despite the observation that the decadal geodetic rate is interpreted to be 5-15 mm/yr lower.

Two small streams and a terrace riser are each offset 18+/-2 m by the two active traces of the San Andreas fault at the site. Evidence from trenches at one of the 18 m offsets are interpreted to show that it was caused by 3 earthquakes; the first of which closed a small depression into which pond sediments were subsequently deposited. The youngest C-14 sample below the pond is dated at 372+/-31 C-14 yr BP (dates are reported in C-14 years, but slip rates are calculated using calibrated years), and the oldest consistent sample in the pond sediments is 292+/-35 BP. These dates are consistent with the 3rd earthquake back (Event V) at the nearby Pallett Creek paleoseismic site. If one makes simplifying assumptions, including a time or slip predictable model to relate dated offsets to slip rate, and use the better-constrained ages of the paleoquakes at Pallett Creek, one can calculate a slip rate of 36 +/- 5 mm/yr. A more conservative interpretation, using the variability in recurrence intervals and offsets seen on this part of the fault to allow for the possibility that the recent 3 events are just one realization of a range of possible 3 event sequences, yields a slip rate of 36 +24/-16 mm/yr.

A 3520 +/-220 BP channel deposit offset by 130 +/-70 m may also yield a slip rate of ~36 mm/yr. It is difficult to assess the uncertainty associated with this best estimate because the range includes 3 different interpretations (~200, ~130, and ~65 m) that are mutually exclusive. Our preferred interpretation requires that the canyon on the NE side of the fault captured the broad valley to the SW when the two lows in the fault parallel ridges were first juxtaposed by RL slip, not when the largest drainages on each side were aligned. Following at least 50 m of RL offset and 15-20 m of incision, alluviation deposited the 3520 BP channel and subsequent incision set the major drainage on the SW side across that on the NE side, isolating and preserving the dated deposit. Efforts are underway to better constrain the geometry of the ~130 m offset, and to determine the offset of 900 to 1200 BP deposits to provide an intermediate slip rate estimate.

Revision of Time-Independent Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps for Alaska

Wesson, Rob, Oliver Boyd, Chuck Bufe, Chuck Mueller, Art Frankel, and

Mark Petersen (USGS Golden)

We are currently revising the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of Alaska and the Aleutians. Although analysis of the seismic hazard in Alaska differs from Southern California in that a subduction zone is present, both Alaska and Southern California face large seismic hazard from crustal strike-slip and thrust faults. In addition to preparing time-independent hazard maps, we are also preparing experimental maps including time-dependent earthquake probability estimates. Modifications to the previous version of the time-independent maps, following workshops held in Alaska, include

1) splitting the 1964 zone into a 1964 segment and Kodiak Island segment to account for the evidence that the Kodiak Island segment appears to have a recurrence interval one-half that of a 1964-type event,

2) adding a segment southwest of Kodiak Island that accounts for geodetic evidence suggesting that the overriding plate is not coupled to the subducting plate,

3) reducing the depth to the subduction zone beneath Anchorage,

4) accounting for recent work that suggests that the slip rate along the Castle Mountain fault may be as high as 2 mm/yr as opposed to the value of 0.5 mm/yr used in 1999,

5) reducing the slip rate along the Totschunda to 6 mm/yr , previously 11.5 mm/yr, and increasing the slip rate along the Eastern Denali to near 7 mm/yr, previously 2 mm/yr,

6) including a subduction zone segment at the far western end of the Aleutian arc.

We have also modified the hazard programs to allow for position dependent probabilities. This has allowed us to very the probability for large earthquakes along the eastern Denali, from a value that reflects 7 mm/yr of right lateral slip where it meets the central Denali to one that reflects 2 mm/yr at its southern end. This modification has also allowed us to cascade earthquakes between the central and eastern Denali and the central Denali and Totschunda faults.

Development Roadmap for the PyLith/LithoMop/EqSim Finite Element Code for Fault-Related Modeling in Southern California

Williams, Charles (RPI), Brad Aagaard (USGS-Menlo Park), and

Matt Knepley (ANL/CIG)

The Fault Systems Crustal Deformation Working Group plans to produce high-resolution models of coseismic and interseismic deformation in southern California using the Community Block Model as a basis. As part of this effort we are developing a finite element code capable of modeling both quasi-static and dynamic behavior in the solid earth. The quasi-static code, presently known as LithoMop, has evolved from our previous version of the TECTON finite element code. We plan to combine this code with the EqSim dynamic rupture propagation code to provide a new package known as PyLith. This combined package will be able to simulate crustal behavior over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. For example, it will be possible to simulate stress evolution over numerous earthquake cycles (a quasi-static problem) as well as the rapid stress changes occurring during each earthquake in the series (a dynamic problem).

We describe here the current development status of the PyLith components, and provide a roadmap for code development. The PyLith package will make use of the Pyre simulation framework, and will use PETSc for code parallelization. The package will also make use of a powerful and flexible new method of representing computational meshes, Sieve, presently being developed as a part of PETSc. Sieve will greatly simplify the task of parallelizing the code, and will make it much easier to generalize the code to different dimensions and element types. A version of LithoMop using the Pyre framework is presently available. It uses PETSc serial solvers for solution of the linear system of equations, and we plan to have a fully parallel version of the code available within the next month or two. A version of EqSim that uses the Pyre framework, PETSc, and Sieve is currently under development with a planned release in the Spring of 2006. An initial version of PyLith is planned for the Summer of 2006.

Southernmost San Andreas Fault Rupture History:

Investigations at Salt Creek

Williams, Patrick (Williams Assoc.) and Gordon Seitz (SDSU)

The earthquake history of the southernmost San Andreas fault (SSAF) has implications for the timing and magnitude of future ruptures of the southern portion of the fault, and for fundamental properties of the transform boundary. The SSAF terminates against the “weak” transtensional Brawley seismic zone, and conjunction of the fault against this ~35-km-wide extensional step isolates the SSAF from transform faults to the south. SSAF ruptures are therefore likely to be relatively independent indicators of elastic loading rate and local fault properties. Knowledge of whether SSAF ruptures are independent of, or participate in ruptures of the bordering San Bernardino Mountain segment of the San Andreas fault is essential for full modeling of the southern San Andreas.

To recover long-term slip parameters and rupture history for the SSAF, geological evidence of its past motion has been investigated at Salt Creek California, about 15 km from the SSAF’s transition to the Brawley seismic zone. Sediments dated at AD1540±100 are offset 6.75±0.7m across the SSAF at Salt Creek. Beds with an age of AD1675±35 are offset 3.15±0.1m. Williams (1989), and Sieh and Williams (1990) showed that near Salt Creek, ~1.15m of dextral slip accumulated aseismically over the 315-year AD1703-1987 period, yielding a creep rate of 4±0.7 mm/yr. If similar creep behavior held through the shorter AD1540-1675 interval (135±105yr), net seismic surface displacement at Salt Creek was ~2m in the latest event, and ~3m in the prior event. Slip rate in the single closed interval is not well constrained due its large radiocarbon calibration uncertainty.

The hiatus between ultimate and penultimate ruptures was at least 100 years shorter than the modern quiescent period of 335±35 years. This indicates a very high contemporary rupture hazard, and given the long waiting time, suggests that the fault’s next rupture will produce a significantly larger displacement than the two prior events.

Paleoseismic and neotectonic studies of the Salton Trough benefit from repeated flooding of the Trough’s closed topographic basin by the Colorado River. Ancient “Lake Cahuilla” reached an elevation of 13m, the spillpoint of the basin, at least five times during the past ~1200 years (Waters, 1983; Sieh, 1986; data of K. Sieh in Williams, 1989). Flood heights were controlled by stability of the Colorado River delta during this interval.

Ongoing studies show excellent promise for recovery of the relationship between lake chronology and the San Andreas earthquake record. We have recovered sediment evidence at a new Salt Creek site (Salt Creek South) of five flood cycles in the modern 1200 year period. The lake record contains conditional evidence of six paleoearthquakes, potentially a more complete record than that developed for the adjoining Mission Creek branch of the SSAF by Fumal, Rymer and Seitz (2002). Continuing and planned work includes (i) high resolution age dating of lake and interlake record, (ii) establishment of more robust field evidence for all the interpreted events, and (iii) recovery of a slip-per-event history for the latest 3-4 events.

Loss Estimates for San Diego County due to an Earthquake along

the Rose Canyon Fault

Wimmer, Loren (SCEC/SURE Intern, SDSU), Ned Field (USGS),

Robert J. Mellors (SDSU), and Hope Seligson (ABS Consulting Inc.)

A study was done to examine possible losses to San Diego County should a full-fault earthquake-rupture occur along the Rose Canyon fault, which runs directly through portions of San Diego and is evidenced by Mt. Soledad and the San Diego Bay. The total length of the fault is ~70 km (including the Silver Strand fault). Following the 2002 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program, we consider a full fault rupture to be between magnitude 6.7 and 7.5, with the most likely magnitude being 7.0. Using this range of magnitudes, sampled at every 0.1 units, and six different attenuation relationships, 54 different shaking scenarios were computed using OpenSHA (). Loss estimates were made by importing each scenario into the FEMA program HAZUS-MH MR1. The total economic loss is estimated to be between $7.4 and $35 billion. The analysis also provides the following estimates: 109 – 2,514 fatalities, 8,067 – 76,908 displaced households, 2,157 – 20,395 in need of short term public shelter, and 2 - 13 million tons of debris generated. As in a previous study done on the effect of a Puente Hills earthquake in Los Angeles, this study shows the effect of attenuation relationship choice to have a greater effect on predicted ground motion then the choice of magnitude, thus leading to larger uncertainty in the loss estimates. A full fault rupture along the Rose Canyon fault zone would be a rare event, but due to the proximity of the fault to the City of San Diego, the possibility is worth consideration for possible mitigation efforts.

Extending the Virtual Seismologist to Finite Ruptures: An Example from the Chi-Chi Earthquake

Yamada, Masumi (Caltech) and Thomas Heaton (Caltech)

Earthquake early warning systems collect seismic data from an occurring event, analyze them quickly, and provide estimates for location and magnitude of the event. Recently, according to advances in data analysis and an increased public perception of seismic hazards, the topic of early warning has attracted more research attention from seismologists and engineers. Cua and Heaton developed the Virtual Seismologist (VS) method (2004 Cua); it is a Bayesian approach to seismic early warning designed for modern seismic networks. The algorithm of the VS method uses the envelope attenuation relationship and the predominant frequency content

of the initial 3 seconds of the P-wave at a station. It gives us the best estimate of the earthquake property in terms of the probability function.

We extend this VS method to large earthquakes where the fault finiteness is important. The general VS method is proposed for small earthquakes whose rupture can be modeled with a point source. It does not account for radiation pattern, directivity, or fault finiteness. Currently, the VS method uses the acceleration, velocity, and 3 second high-pass filtered displacement for data analysis. However, for larger earthquakes, we need to consider the finite rupture area and lower frequency ground motion.

We introduce the multiple source model to express the fault finiteness. A fault surface is divided into subfaults and each subfault is represented by a single point source. The ground motion at a site is expressed by combination of the responses corresponding to each point source. This idea was developed by Kikuchi and Kanamori (1982), they deconvolve complex body waves into multiple shock waves. We find that the square root of the sum of the squares of the envelope amplitudes of the multiple point sources provides a good estimation for an acceleration envelope.

Low frequency motions are important to understand the size of the slip along the fault. Since the peak ground acceleration (PGA) tends to saturate with respect to magnitude, the displacement records are more useful to get information on slip, which controls the ultimate magnitude of the event. A methodology to estimate the size of the slip from the displacement envelopes is being developed by Yamada and Heaton. Records at the stations near the fault surface include information on the size of the slip, so we first classify near-field records and far-field records by using linear discriminant analysis (LDA). In general, LDA requires placing observations in predefined groups, and finding a function for discriminating between groups. We use this function to classify future observations into the predefined groups. We found that the higher frequency components (e.g. acceleration) have high correlation with the distance from the fault and the LDA with PGA and the peak of the derivative of the acceleration classifies the data with 85% accuracy.

Regional Mapping of Crustal Structure in Southern California

Using Receiver Functions

Yan, Zhimei and Robert W. Clayton (Caltech)

Lateral variations of crustal structure in Southern California are determined from receiver function studies using data from the broadband stations of the Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) and LARSE surveys. The results include crustal thickness estimates at the stations themselves, and where possible, cross-sections are presented. Large rapid variations in the crustal structure are observed beneath the San Gabriel Mountains and a root where the Moho ramps in depth from neighboring 30-33 km to 36-39 km is imaged beneath the central part of the San Gabriel Mountains. A negative impedance, similar in depth to the bright spot imaged by Ryberg and Fuis is also commonly, but not consistently observed in the San Gabriel Mountain stations. Relatively flat Moho of about 28-30 km is observed in the western Mojave Desert, but a shallow Moho of about 23-27 km is observed in the eastern Mojave Desert. A sudden Moho depth jump of about 8 km occurs beneath the Fenner Valley, east of Amboy, CA (station DAN) over a lateral distance of no more than 12 km. Unusual receiver functions, including Pms arrivals, are observed for some stations in the trans-tensional zones of Dokka’s kinematical model, such as the station beneath Barstow (RRX). This indicates that openings between different blocks and thus rotation of the blocks in this type of model might extend to the Moho. A negative impedance directly beneath the Moho, corresponding to a low-velocity zone, is observed in several eastern Mojave Desert stations, which could be related to the weak upper mantle lithosphere in that area. Asymmetric extension of Salton Sea is observed --- gradual thinning to the west, and sharp transition to the east. Crustal thickening and local variations are also observed under central Sierra and nearby central Basin and Ranges.

Analysis of Earthquake Source Spectra from Similar Events in the Aftershock Sequences of the 1999 M7.4 Izmit and M7.1 Duzce Earthquakes

Yang, Wenzheng (USC), Zhigang Peng (UCLA), and Yehuda Ben-Zion (USC)

We use an iterative stacking method (Prieto et al., 2004) to study the relative source spectra of similar earthquakes in the aftershocks of the 1999 Mw7.4 Izmit and Mw7.1 Duzce earthquake sequences. The initial study was done using a tight cluster of 160 events along the Karadere segment and recorded by 10 short-period stations. We compute the P-wave spectra using a multitaper technique, and separate the stacked source and receiver-path spectra terms iteratively from the observed spectra. The relative log potency computed from the low-frequency amplitude of the source spectra term scales with the local magnitude with a slope close to 1. An empirical Green's function (EGF) is used to correct the attenuation and derive the relative spectra shapes of events in different potency/moment bins. The receiver-path spectra term for stations inside or close to the fault zone are larger than those of other stations. This may be related to the fault-zone trapping structure and related site effects in the area discussed by Ben-Zion et al. (2003). The continuing work will focus on estimating the corner frequency, stress drop, and radiated seismic energy from the relative source spectra. The same method will be applied to other similar earthquake clusters identified by Peng and Ben-Zion (2005), and larger events (M3-5) recorded by the strong ground motion instruments. Updated results will be presented in the meeting.

Significance of Focal Depth in Primary Surface Rupture Accompanying Large Reverse-fault Earthquakes

Yeats, Robert S. (Oregon State University),

Manuel Berberian (Najarian Associates),and

Xu Xiwei (China Earthquake Administration)

We are creating a worldwide database of historical reverse-fault earthquakes (see table in poster) because empirical relations between surface rupture and magnitude are less clear for earthquakes on reverse faults than for earthquakes on normal or strike-slip faults. Only a few historical earthquakes (Zenkoji, Rikuu, Tabas-e-Golshan, Bo'in Zahra, Chi-Chi, El Asnam, San Fernando, Susitna Glacier, Latur, Ungava, and several in Australia) are fully expressed by surface rupture, mostly (and probably entirely) due to shallow focal depth. The Meckering, Australia, earthquake nucleated at a depth of only 3 km. Some earthquakes (Suusamyr, Hongyazi, Gulang, Manas, Bhuj, Inangahua, Spitak, and Chengkung) are only partially expressed as surface rupture, and still others (Coalinga, Northridge, Gazli, Racha, Limón, Niigata-ken Chuetsu, Sirch, Kangra, and Nepal-Bihar) are blind-thrust earthquakes. Suusamyr, Bhuj, Loma Prieta, Northridge, and Inangahua nucleated near the brittle-ductile transition. Coalinga, Racha, and Kangra ruptured at shallow depths on low-angle thrusts that did not reach the surface.

Many reverse-fault earthquakes, probably including all with extensive surface rupture, nucleated within rather than at the base of seismogenic crust. The shallow depth of these earthquakes may be because the maximum compressive stress is horizontal, and the overburden stress is the minimum compressive stress. Toward the surface at shallow depths, overburden stress should decrease more rapidly than horizontal stress, resulting in an increase in the shear stress as the surface is approached. Historical earthquakes at the Himalayan front with no surface rupture are shown by paleoseismic trenching to be preceded by earthquakes with extensive surface displacement that were not documented in historical records. Rather than being larger than the historical earthquakes, the earlier surface-rupturing earthquakes, if they ruptured rocks of lower rigidity near the surface, might have been of lower magnitude with less strong ground motion. They might also have been slow earthquakes and in part aseismic. This is illustrated by two thrust-fault events on the Gowk fault zone in central Iran, the 1981 Sirch earthquake of Mw 7.1 with focal depth 17-18 km and the 1998 Fandoqa earthquake of Mw 6.6 with a focal depth of 5 km. The larger earthquake had limited surface rupture on the Gowk strike-slip fault in its hanging wall; the smaller Fandoqa earthquake had much more extensive surface rupture on the Gowk fault and aseismic slip on the Shahdad thrust, the near-surface equivalent of the Sirch source fault.

Trench excavations document surface-rupturing earthquakes but only rarely earthquakes nucleating near the base of the seismogenic zone. For this reason, recurrence intervals of reverse-fault earthquakes based on trenching are maxima. Paleoseismic evidence for deeper crustal earthquakes is difficult to find, although some progress has been made.

Sliding Resistance Rocks and Analog Materials at

Seismic Slip Rates and Higher

Yuan, Fuping (CWRU) and Vikas Prakash (CWRU)

Determining the shear resistance on faults during earthquakes is a high priority concern for researchers involved with fault and rock mechanics. Knowledge of shear resistance and how it depends on slip velocity, slip distance, normal stress, etc. is required fundamental information for understanding earthquake source physics. In the present poster, results of two relatively new experimental techniques that have been recently developed at CWRU to investigate high-speed friction in analog materials and rocks are presented. These experimental techniques are (a) plate impact pressure-shear friction experiment, and (b) the modified torsional Kolsky bar friction experiment. The plate impact experiments were employed to study a variety of friction states with normal stress varying from 0.5 to 1 GPa and slip speeds ranging from 1 to 25 m/s. The torsional Kolsky bar experiments were employed to study interfacial friction at normal stress ranging from 20 to 100 MPa and slip velocities of up to 5 m/s. Using these techniques plate impact pressure-shear friction experiments were conducted on soda-lime glass and fine grained novaculite rock, while the modified torsional Kolsky bar was used to conduct experiments on quartz, glass specimens. The results of these experiments provide time resolved history of interfacial tractions, i.e. the friction stress and the normal stress, and an estimate of the interfacial slip velocity and temperature. The glass-on-glass experiments conducted using the pressure-shear plate impact friction configuration shows a wide range of friction coefficients (from 0.2 to 1.3) can result during the high speed slip; the interface shows no-slip initially, followed by slip weakening, strengthening, and then seizure. For the novaculite rock the initial no-slip and the final seizure conditions are absent. Moreover, the results of the Torsional Kolsky bar experiments indicate that despite high friction coefficients (~ 0.5 - 0.75) during slow frictional slip, strong rate-weakening of localized frictional slip at seismic slip rates can occur leading to friction coefficients in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, at least before macroscopic melting of the interface can occur.

Evaluating the Rate of Seismic Moment Release: A Curse of Heavy Tails

Zaliapin, Ilya (UCLA), Yan Kagan (UCLA), and Rick Schoenberg (UCLA)

Applied statistical data analysis is commonly led by the intuition of researchers trained to think in terms of "averages", "means", and "standard deviations". Curiously, such a taxonomy might be misleading for an essential part of relevant natural processes.

Seismology presents a superb example of such a situation: One of its fundamental laws that describes the distribution of the seismic moment release has (in its simplest form) both infinite mean and standard deviation, which, formally, makes the notions like "moment rate" ill defined. Different types of natural taper (truncation) have been suggested to "tame" the moment distribution, but the dramatic discrepancies between the observed seismic moment release and its geodetic predictions are still reported.

We show how the reported discrepancies between observed and predicted seismic moment release can be explained by the heavy-tailed part of the moment distribution. We also discuss some statistical paradoxes of the heavy-tailed sums that affect approximations for the cumulative seismic moment release. Several analytical and numerical aproaches to the problem are presented. We report several very precise methods to approximate the distribution of the cumulative moment release from arbitrary number of earthquakes and illustrate these methods using Californian seismicity.

An Earthquake Source Ontology for Seismic Hazard Analysis and

Ground Motion Simulation

Zechar, Jeremy D. (USC), Thomas H. Jordan (USC), Yolanda Gil (USC/ISI), and Varun Ratnakar (USC/ISI)

Representation of the earthquake source is an important element in seismic hazard analysis and earthquake simulations. Source models span a range of conceptual complexity - from simple time-independent point sources to extended fault slip distributions. Further computational complexity arises because the seismological community has established so many source description formats and variations thereof; what this means is that conceptually equivalent source models are often expressed in different ways. Despite the resultant practical difficulties, there exists a rich semantic vocabulary for working with earthquake sources. For these reasons, we feel it is appropriate to create a semantic model of earthquake sources using an ontology, a computer science tool from the field of knowledge representation.

Unlike the domain of most ontology work to date, earthquake sources can be described by a very precise mathematical framework. Another uniqueness associated with developing such an ontology is that earthquake sources are often used as computational objects. A seismologist generally wants more than to simply construct a source and have it be well-formed and properly described; additionally, the source will be used for performing calculations. Representation and manipulation of complex mathematical objects presents a challenge to the ontology development community.

In order to enable simulations involving many different types of source models, we have completed preliminary development of a seismic point source ontology. The use of an ontology to represent knowledge provides machine interpretability and the ability to validate logical consistency and completeness. Our ontology, encoded using the OWL Web Ontology Language – a standard from the World Wide Web Consortium, contains the conceptual definitions and relationships necessary for source translation services. For example, specification of strike, dip, rake, and seismic moment will automatically translate into a double couple seismic moment tensor.

The seismic point source ontology captures a set of domain-specific knowledge and thus it can serve as the foundation for software tools designed to manipulate seismic sources. We demonstrate this usage through software called Seismic Source Translator (SST), a Java Application Programming Interface (API) accessed via an interactive Graphical User Interface (GUI). This application provides means for constructing a point source representation and translating this source into a number of formats compatible with wave propagation modeling codes.

Fully 3D Waveform Tomography for the L. A. Basin Area Using SCEC/CME

Zhao, Li (USC), Po Chen (USC), and Thomas H. Jordan (USC)

A central problem of seismology is the inversion of regional waveform data for models of 3D earth structure. In Southern California, two 3D earth models, the SCEC Community Velocity Model (CVM) of Magistrale et al. (2000) and the Harvard/Caltech model (Komatitsch et al. 2003), are already available, and efficient numerical methods have been developed for solving the forward wave-propagation problem in 3D models. Based on these previous achievements, we have developed a unified inversion procedure to improve 3D earth models as well as recover the finite source properties of local earthquakes (Chen et al, this meeting). Our data are time- and frequency-localized measurements of the phase and amplitude anomalies relative to synthetic seismograms computed in the 3D elastic starting model. The procedure relies on the use of receiver-side strain Green tensors (RSGTs) and source-side earthquake wavefields (SEWs). The RSGTs are the spatial-temporal strain fields produced by the three orthogonal unit impulsive point forces acting at the receiver. The SEWs are the wavefields generated by the actual point earthquake sources. We have constructed a RSGT database for 64 broadband stations in the Los Angeles region using the SCEC CVM and K. Olsen’s finite-difference code. The Fréchet (sensitivity) kernels for our time-frequency-dependent phase and amplitude measurements are computed by convolving the SEWs with the RSGTs. To set up the structural inverse problem, we made about 20,000 phase-delay and amplitude-reduction measurements on 814 P waves, 822 SH waves and 293 SV waves from 72 local small earthquakes (3.0 < ML < 4.8). Using CVM as our starting model and the data and their Fréchet kernels, we have obtained a revised 3D model LABF3D for Los Angeles Basin area. To our knowledge, this is the first “fully 3D” inversion of waveform data for regional earth structure.

Detection of Temporally and Spatially Limited Periodic Earthquake Recurrence in Synthetic Seismic Records

Zielke, Olaf (ASU)

The nonlinear dynamics of fault behavior are dominated by complex interactions among the multiple processes controlling this system. For example, temporal and spatial variations in pore pressure, healing effects, and stress transfer cause significant heterogeneities in fault properties and the stress-field at the sub-fault level. Numerical and laboratory fault models show that the interaction of large systems of fault elements causes the entire system to develop into a state of self-organized criticality. Once in this state, small perturbations of the system may result in chain reactions (i.e., earthquakes) which can affect any number of fault segments. This sensitivity to small perturbations is strong evidence for chaotic fault behavior, which implies that exact event prediction is not possible. However, earthquake prediction with a useful accuracy is nevertheless possible.

Studies of other natural chaotic systems have shown that they may enter states of metastability, in which the system’s behavior is predictable. Applying this concept to earthquake faults, these windows of metastable behavior should be characterized by periodic earthquake recurrence. One can argue that the observed periodicity of the Parkfield, CA (M= 6) events resembles such a window of metastability.

I am statistically analyzing numerically generated seismic records to study the existence of these phases of periodic behavior. In this preliminary study, seismic records were generated using a model introduced by Nakanishi [Phys. Rev. A, 43, #12, 6613-6621, 1991]. It consists of a one-dimensional chain of blocks (interconnected by springs) with a relaxation function that mimics velocity-weakened frictional behavior. The earthquakes occurring in this model show a power-law frequency-size distribution as well as clusters of small events that precede larger earthquakes.

I have analyzed time-series of single block motions within the system. These time-series show noticeable periodicity during certain intervals in an otherwise aperiodic record. The periodicity is generally limited to the largest earthquakes. The maximum event size is a function of the systems stiffness and the degree of velocity-weakening. The observed periodic recurrence resembles the concept of the characteristic earthquake model, in that the earthquakes involved occur at the same location, with the same slip distribution. Again, this periodic behavior is basically limited to the largest but also most interesting (i.e., destructive) events occurring in certain time windows. Within these windows of periodic behavior, the prediction of large earthquake becomes a straightforward task. Further studies will attempt to determine the characteristics of onset, duration, and end of these windows of periodic behavior.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download