Deformation Models 2.x
Six different deformation models (versions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) were developed as part of UCERF2.
The different models represent epistemic uncertainties, meaning at most only one can be correct.
The following are ASCII file representations for each deformation model (see the header for a description), followed by the weight given by the working group for each (the probability that each is the correct model):
| Model Version | Source File | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|
| D2.1 | TXT | XML | 0.25 |
| D2.2 | TXT | XML | 0.10 |
| D2.3 | TXT | XML | 0.15 |
| D2.4 | TXT | XML | 0.25 |
| D2.5 | TXT | XML | 0.10 |
| D2.6 | TXT | XML | 0.15 |
Before describing the differences in the 6 models, lets first review our nomenclature. The Fault-Section Database contains a list of all fault sections that may be of use (some of which may be mutually exclusive). A Fault Model is simply a list of Fault Sections that represent a complete viable, statewide model (where the slip rates and aseismicity factors in the Fault-Section Database are ignored in the Fault Model). A Deformation Model is simply a Fault Model with Slip-Rate and Aseismic slip factors added (which may or may not be the same as in the fault section database).
Deformation Models 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are based on Fault Model 2.1, and Deformation Models 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 are based on Fault Model 2.2. In other words, ignoring the slip rates Deformation Models 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are all exactly the same as Fault Model 2.1, and Deformation Models 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 are all exactly the same as Fault Model 2.2. The only added complication is that a Fault Section from a Fault Model is not included in a Deformation Model if the slip-rate estimate is null (unavailable). The following table lists the fault sections that are unique to Deformation Models 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 versus those unique to Deformation Models 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 (all other fault sections are identical between models, ignoring slip rates)
| Models 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 | Models 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 |
|---|---|
| Anacapa-Dume, alt 1 | Anacapa-Dume, alt 2 |
| Chino, alt 1 | Chino, alt 2 |
| Holser, alt 1 | Malibu Coast, alt 2 |
| Malibu Coast, alt 1 | Newport-Inglewood, alt 2 |
| Newport-Inglewood, alt 1 | North Channel |
| Pitas Point (Lower, West) | Oak Ridge (Offshore) |
| Pitas Point (Lower)-Montalvo | Pitas Point (Upper) |
| Puente Hills | Puente Hills (Coyote Hills) |
| Santa Monica, alt 1 | Puente Hills (LA) |
| Santa Susana, alt 1 | Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs) |
| Santa Monica, alt 2 |
Now, the only differences between Deformation Models 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are the slip-rate estimates for the following fault sections of the southern San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults (slip rates are mm/yr with standard deviation in parentheses):
| Fault Section | 2.1 & 2.4 | 2.2 & 2.5 | 2.3 & 2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| San Andreas (Coachella) rev | 20.0 (3.0) | 16.0 (3.0) | 24.0 (3.0) |
| San Andreas (San Bernardino N) | 22.0 (3.0) | 18.0 (2.5) | 25.0 (5.0) |
| San Andreas (San Bernardino S) | 16.0 (3.0) | 10.0 (3.0) | 16.0 (4.0) |
| San Andreas (San Gorgonio Pass-Garnet HIll) | 10.0 (3.0) | 5.0 (1.0) | 11.0 (3.0) |
| San Jacinto (Anza, stepover) | 9.0 (2.0) | 11.0 (2.0) | 7.0 (2.0) |
| San Jacinto (Anza) rev | 18.0 (3.0) | 22.0 (3.0) | 14.0 (3.0) |
| San Jacinto (Clark) rev | 14.0 (3.0) | 18.0 (3.0) | 10.0 (2.0) |
| San Jacinto (San Bernardino) | 6.0 (2.0) | 10.0 (4.0) | 3.0 (1.0) |
| San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley, stepover) | 9.0 (2.0) | 11.0 (2.0) | 7.0 (2.0) |
| San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley) rev | 18.0 (3.0) | 22.0 (3.0) | 14.0 (3.0) |
The above differences between Deformation Models 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are exactly the same as those for differences between Deformation Models 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, respectively.
These faults models can be accessed and viewed using the Fault & Deformation Model visualization tools.
Further documentation is available in the UCERF 2 Final Report and Appendix A.