Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Poster Abstracts | Group 2 – USR model Vs varies as much as ±20% for Vp > 5.0 km/s and as much as ±35% for Vp < 5.0 km/s. This large variation in the predicted S-wave velocity demonstrates the value of determining Vs independently from Vp. 146 | Southern California Earthquake Center
Tectonic Geodesy Group 2 – Tectonic Geodesy | Poster Abstracts 2-014 GEOEARTHSCOPE: NEWLY ACQUIRED AERIAL AND SATELLITE IMAGERY AND GEOCHRONOLOGY Phillips DA, Jackson ME, and Meertens CM UNAVCO has acquired aerial and satellite imagery and geochronology as part of GeoEarthScope, a component of the EarthScope Facility project funded by the National Science Foundation. All GeoEarthScope airborne LiDAR data acquisitions are now complete and cover a total area of more than 5000 square kilometers. Of particular interest to the SCEC community, we have collected high resolution airborne LiDAR imagery of major fault systems in southern and eastern California including the Garlock fault, the Elsinore fault, and numerous other active faults and structures in the Mojave, Panamint valley, Owens valley and elsewhere. These LiDAR data were collected in Spring 2008 and preliminary processed imagery will be shown. These new LiDAR data complement the previously acquired B4 and GeoEarthScope NoCal LiDAR datasets. In addition to airborne LiDAR imagery, we have acquired a significant volume of InSAR imagery covering southern California and other targets within the EarthScope footprint from several satellites, including ERS-1/2, ENVISAT and RADARSAT. ENVISAT satellite tasking for GeoEarthScope will continue through and conclude on September 30, 2008. Besides imagery data, twelve geochronology labs have been funded to provide analysis services including 14C, OSL, Cosmogenic, (U-TH)/He, Fission Track, 40Ar/39Ar and U-Pb dating techniques. 2-019 IMPROVING PRESENT-DAY LOADING RATE ESTIMATES FOR THE SOUTHERNMOST SAN ANDREAS FAULT USING THE JOSHUA TREE AND SAN BERNARDINO GPS NETWORKS Spinler JC, Bennett RA, Anderson ML, Hreinsdottir S, and McGill SF We present the first results from a new dense network of Global Positioning System (GPS) stations located in the eastern Transverse Ranges Province (ETR), a transition zone between the southern San Andreas fault (SSAF) and eastern California shear zone (ECSZ). The Joshua Tree Integrative Geodetic Network (JOIGN) is composed of 23 campaign stations, which have been observed each May, September, and February from September 2005 to September 2007. We also analyzed data from 37 nearby continuous stations from the PBO NUCLEUS-SCIGN and PBO GPS networks (1994-2007), and an additional 7 campaign sites located in the San Bernardino Mountains. We used the GPS-determined site velocity estimates and elastic block models to constrain loading rates for model faults for four fault-block scenarios. For each model, we estimated relative block motions accounting for elastic strain on locked faults using a weighted least squares algorithm that annihilates common mode rotation and translation attributable to reference frame errors. We tested models variously representing the Pinto Mountain and Blue Cut faults of the ETR, a hypothetical new NNW striking fault (the "Landers-Mojave earthquake line") that cuts obliquely across the ETR and Mojave Desert faults, and models including various combinations of these end-member faultblock models. All models produce fault loading rate estimates for the SSAF that reduce the discrepancy between previous geodetic loading rate models and the majority of estimates for intermediate- and short-term fault slip rates based on tectonic geomorphology and paleoseismology. We attribute the improved match between long- and short-term loading/slip-rate estimates to a more realistic parameterization of the fault system in the ETR, which allows geodetic estimates for SSAF slip to vary along strike from 21.0-21.5 ± 0.1 mm/yr in the Coachella Valley to 3.2-5.6 ± 0.1 mm/yr near San Bernardino, depending on the model. However, our slip rate estimates are markedly different from the overall temporal-average slip rate of 30 mm/yr based on 2008 SCEC Annual Meeting | 147
Page 1 and 2:
S C E C an NSF+USGS center 2008 Sou
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents SCEC ANNUAL MEETI
Page 5 and 6:
SCEC Annual Meeting Program Meeting
Page 7 and 8:
Workshop Descriptions and Agendas E
Page 9 and 10:
Earthquake Source Inversion Validat
Page 11 and 12:
Workshop for Science Educators and
Page 13 and 14:
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & SCIENCE WO
Page 15 and 16:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 07:30
Page 17 and 18:
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Annual M
Page 19 and 20:
State of SCEC, 2008 Thomas H. Jorda
Page 21 and 22:
SCEC Director | Report 2007), led b
Page 23 and 24:
SCEC Director | Report The Center s
Page 25 and 26:
SCEC Director | Report November, 20
Page 27 and 28:
SCEC Director | Report local and na
Page 29 and 30:
SCEC Advisory Council | Report Eval
Page 31 and 32:
SCEC Advisory Council | Report inte
Page 33 and 34:
SCEC Advisory Council | Report to p
Page 35 and 36:
SCEC CEO Director | Report practice
Page 37 and 38:
SCEC CEO Director | Report Los Ange
Page 39 and 40:
SCEC CEO Director | Report • Move
Page 41 and 42:
SCEC Experiential Learning and Care
Page 43 and 44:
K-12 Education Partnerships and Act
Page 45 and 46:
Draft 2009 Science Plan SCEC Planni
Page 47 and 48:
Draft 2009 Science Plan and they wi
Page 49 and 50:
Draft 2009 Science Plan • Innovat
Page 51 and 52:
Draft 2009 Science Plan A5. Develop
Page 53 and 54:
2. Tectonic Geodesy Draft 2009 Scie
Page 55 and 56:
Draft 2009 Science Plan • Cosmoge
Page 57 and 58:
Draft 2009 Science Plan • Develop
Page 59 and 60:
Draft 2009 Science Plan fully three
Page 61 and 62:
Draft 2009 Science Plan Bombay Beac
Page 63 and 64:
Draft 2009 Science Plan E. End-to-E
Page 65 and 66:
Draft 2009 Science Plan part coordi
Page 67 and 68:
Draft 2009 Science Plan representat
Page 69 and 70:
SCEC Annual Meeting Abstracts Plena
Page 71 and 72:
Plenary Presentations | Abstracts e
Page 73 and 74:
Plenary Presentations | Abstracts t
Page 75 and 76:
Group 1 - CEO | Poster Abstracts me
Page 77 and 78:
Group 1 - CEO | Poster Abstracts co
Page 79 and 80:
Group 1 - CEO | Poster Abstracts Lo
Page 81 and 82:
Group 1 - CME/PetaSHA | Poster Abst
Page 83 and 84:
Group 1 - CME/PetaSHA | Poster Abst
Page 85 and 86:
Group 1 - SHRA | Poster Abstracts S
Page 87 and 88:
Group 1 - SHRA | Poster Abstracts d
Page 89 and 90:
Group 1 - SHRA | Poster Abstracts 1
Page 91 and 92:
Group 1 - SHRA | Poster Abstracts c
Page 93 and 94:
Group 1 - SHRA | Poster Abstracts r
Page 95 and 96:
Group 1 - ShakeOut | Poster Abstrac
Page 97 and 98:
Group 1 - ShakeOut | Poster Abstrac
Page 99 and 100: Ground Motion Prediction (GMP) Grou
Page 101 and 102: Group 1 - GMP | Poster Abstracts Wa
Page 103 and 104: Group 1 - GMP | Poster Abstracts ma
Page 105 and 106: Group 1 - GMP | Poster Abstracts es
Page 107 and 108: Extreme Ground Motion (ExGM) Group
Page 109 and 110: Group 1 - CSEP | Poster Abstracts o
Page 111 and 112: Group 1 - CSEP | Poster Abstracts r
Page 113 and 114: Group 1 - CSEP | Poster Abstracts C
Page 115 and 116: Group 1 - CSEP | Poster Abstracts u
Page 117 and 118: Group 1 - WGCEP | Poster Abstracts
Page 119 and 120: Group 1 - EFP | Poster Abstracts Ea
Page 121 and 122: Group 1 - EFP | Poster Abstracts 1-
Page 123 and 124: Group 1 - EFP | Poster Abstracts th
Page 125 and 126: Group 1 - EFP | Poster Abstracts re
Page 127 and 128: Group 1 - CDM | Poster Abstracts el
Page 129 and 130: Group 1 - CDM | Poster Abstracts di
Page 131 and 132: Group 1 - CDM | Poster Abstracts 1-
Page 133 and 134: Group 1 - CDM | Poster Abstracts Be
Page 135 and 136: Group 1 - CDM | Poster Abstracts sh
Page 137 and 138: Group 1 - LAD | Poster Abstracts Li
Page 139 and 140: Group 1 - LAD | Poster Abstracts pr
Page 141 and 142: Group 1 - LAD | Poster Abstracts lo
Page 143 and 144: Group 1 - LAD | Poster Abstracts un
Page 145 and 146: Group 1 - LAD | Poster Abstracts ad
Page 147 and 148: Group 2 - Tectonic Geodesy | Poster
Page 149: Group 2 - Tectonic Geodesy | Poster
Page 159 and 160: Group 2 - Earthquake Geology | Post
Page 165 and 166: Group 2 - SoSAFE | Poster Abstracts
Page 175 and 176: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts F
Page 177 and 178: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts W
Page 179 and 180: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts u
Page 181 and 182: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts q
Page 183 and 184: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts 2
Page 185 and 186: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts 2
Page 187 and 188: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts P
Page 189 and 190: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts f
Page 191 and 192: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts c
Page 193 and 194: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts t
Page 195 and 196: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts f
Page 197 and 198: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts r
Page 199 and 200: Group 2 - FARM | Poster Abstracts h
Page 201 and 202:
Seismology Group 2 - Seismology | P
Page 203 and 204:
Group 2 - Seismology | Poster Abstr
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
MADARIAGA Raul, ENS/ Paris MAHAN Sh
Page 221:
Group 2 Poster Layout Group 2 poste
show all

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?