Hosgri Fault Source Slip Rate CDF - Pacific Gas and ... · Hosgri Fault Source Slip Rate CDF . TI...
Transcript of Hosgri Fault Source Slip Rate CDF - Pacific Gas and ... · Hosgri Fault Source Slip Rate CDF . TI...
1
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study
Hosgri Fault Source Slip Rate CDF
TI Team Evaluation S. Thompson
Diablo Canyon SSHAC Level 3 PSHA Workshop #3
Feedback to Technical Integration Team on Preliminary Models March 25-27, 2014
San Luis Obispo, CA
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 2
Overview of Hosgri Slip Rate CDF Goal:
• Construct a slip rate CDF for the Hosgri Source relevant for the reach opposite DCPP.
Approach: • Four geologic study sites to consider • Define uncertainty distributions for lateral
offsets and ages; combine to get slip rate • Consider adjustments or weighting schemes
based on multiple observations, site age, distance from site
• Evaluate results against other data, modeling results
• Revisions expected following report finalization and new data evaluation
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 3
Relevant for all three Fault Models
NE Model SW Model OV Model
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 4
Sites Four geologic slip rate sites: 1) San Simeon 2) Offshore Pt. Estero* 3) South Estero Bay* 4) Offshore Pt. Sal*
*Evaluation by TI Team in progress
1
2
4
3
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 5
San Simeon: Oso Terrace Horizontal Slip Rate
Source: Hanson and Lettis (1994)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 6
San Simeon Slip Rate Assessment
Oso Terrace Offset Oso Terrace Age
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0 200 400 600 800
Prob
abili
ty
Offset (m)
Paleostrandline offset
0.00
0.05
0.10
160 180 200 220 240 260Pr
obab
ility
Channel Age (ky)
Stage 7 Highstand Age Model
Stage 7 Highstand Age Value (ky) Min -> 190
Best min -> 195 Best max -> 215
Max -> 220
Lateral Offsets Value (m) Min -> 150
Best min -> 300 Best max -> 450
Max -> 560
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 7 San Simeon Slip Rate
Oso Terrace Slip Rate CDF
Slip Rate Value
(mm/yr) Min -> 0.7 Max -> 2.9
Mean -> 1.8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
Slip Rate (m/ky)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 8
Offshore Pt. Estero: Cross-Hosgri Slope (S. Johnson, in review, BSSA)
Source: S. Johnson, Presentation to SSHAC TI Team (3/5/2014)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 9
Offshore Pt. Estero: Cross-Hosgri Slope (S. Johnson, in review, BSSA)
Source: S. Johnson, Presentation to SSHAC TI Team (3/5/2014)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 10
Offshore Pt. Estero: Cross-Hosgri Slope (S. Johnson, in review, BSSA)
Source: S. Johnson, Presentation to SSHAC TI Team (3/5/2014)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 11
Offshore Pt. Estero: Cross-Hosgri Slope Age Model
Source: S. Johnson, Presentation to SSHAC TI Team (3/5/2014)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 12
Pt. Estero Slip Rate Assessment
CHS Offset CHS Age
CHS Age Value (ky) Min -> 10
Best min -> 12 Best max -> 12
Max -> 13
Lateral Offsets Value (m) Min -> 15
Best min -> 30 Best max -> 35
Max -> 43
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Prob
abili
ty
Offset (m)
Wave-Face offset
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
8 10 12 14
Prob
abili
ty
CHS Age (ky)
Younger Dryas sealevel rise age model
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 13
Pt. Estero Slip Rate Assessment
CHS Slip Rate CDF
Slip Rate Value
(mm/yr) Min -> 1.2 Max -> 4.1
Mean -> 2.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
Slip Rate (m/ky)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 14
Sites Four geologic slip rate sites: 1) San Simeon 2) Offshore Pt. Estero* 3) South Estero Bay* 4) Offshore Pt. Sal*
*Evaluation by TI Team in progress
1
2
4
3
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 15
Channel Offset
Total Offset Value (m) Min -> 680 Max -> 1930
Mean -> 1230
Lateral Offsets
West (m)
East (m)
Min -> 450 200 Best min -> 800 250 Best max -> 900 270
Max -> 1650 320
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Prob
abili
ty
Channel Offset (m)
West strandoffset
East strandoffset
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000C
umul
ativ
e Pr
obab
ility
Channel Offset (m)
West strand (m)
East strand (m)
Combined W+E (m)
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment, South Estero Bay Site
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 16
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment, South Estero Bay Site
Channel Age (80/20 weighting)
Slip Rate CDF
Ages Unconformity
model (ky) Sedimentation Rate model (ky)
Min -> 540 540 Best min -> 780 1600 Best max -> 820 1800
Max -> 1400 3500
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Prob
abili
ty
Channel Age (ky)
Unconformity AgeModel
Sedimentation RteAge Model
Weighted Age Model
Slip Rate Value
(mm/yr) Min -> 0.3 Max -> 3.2
Mean -> 1.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
Slip Rate (m/ky)
Unconformity agemodel
Sedimentationrate age model
Weighted
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 17
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment, Pt. Sal Site
Channel F Offset
Lateral Offset Value (m) Min -> 376
Best min -> 500 Best max -> 550
Max -> 610
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Prob
abili
ty
Offset (m)
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 18
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment, Pt. Sal Site
Channel Age Model
Ages (in ky) and Weights
Stage 6 [0.05]
Stage 10 [0.25]
Broad [0.3]
Min -> 125 335 125 Best min -> 135 340 250 Best max -> 140 350 630
Max -> 160 355 1400
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0 500 1000 1500
Prob
abili
ty
Channel Age (ky)
Stage 6 (min)
Stage 10 age (best)
Broad
Weighted Age Model
Weighting for Age Model Model Wt Stage 6 0.05
Stage 8 0.1
Stage 10 0.25
Stage 12 0.15
Stage 14 0.1
Stage 16 0.05
Broad 0.3
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 19
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment, Pt. Sal Site Offshore Pt. Sal Channel
Slip Rate CDF
Weighted Slip Rate Value
(mm/yr) Min -> 0.3 Max -> 4.7
Mean -> 1.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
Slip Rate (m/ky)
Slip Rate -minimum agemodel
Slip Rate - preferred agemodel
Slip Rate - maximum agemodel
Slip Rate - Weighted
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 20
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment Four Hosgri Sites Slip Rate CDFs
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
Slip Rate, mm/yr
San Simeon / Oso Terrace
Pt. Estero Cross-Hosgri slope
Estero Bay Submarine Channel
Pt. Sal Channel F
Weighting Scheme
San Simeon
Pt. Estero
Estero Bay Pt. Sal
Near-Equal 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 Inverse-Age 0.27 0.50 0.07 0.16
Inverse-Distance 0.13 0.22 0.38 0.27
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 21
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment 5-pt distribution for Hosgri fault, Near-Equal weighting:
[0.101]
Weighted mean slip rate: 1.8 mm/yr
2.5 mm/yr
[0.244]
[0.244]
[0.101]
1.7 mm/yr
1.1 mm/yr
0.6 mm/yr
3.3 mm/yr
[0.309]
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cum
ulat
ive
Prob
abili
ty
Slip Rate, mm/yr
Near-Equal Weighting
Age-Weighted
Distance-Weighted
CDFs for Hosgri fault, alternative weighting schemes:
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study 22
Hosgri Slip Rate Assessment
Hosgri slip rate: Center: 1.8 mm/yr (wtd mean) Body: 0.6 to 3.4 (95%) Range: 0.26 min; 4.7 max
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Slip Rate, mm/yr
Hosgri fault slip rate CDFs Other constraints: 1) GPS plate boundary: 0.5 to 4
mm/yr 2) USGS Block modeling: 0.5 to
~3 mm/yr 3) UCERF3 Targets (mm/yr):
Zeng: 1.0-1.4; Bird: 1.2; ABM: 1.64; Geologic: 2.15;
4) UCERF3 Solution (mm/yr): 0.9 to 2.1 range; 1.4 to 1.5 mean
23
PG&E DCPP SSHAC Study
Diablo Canyon SSHAC Level 3 Study
Thank You