Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Peter M. Powers is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Peter M. Powers.


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America | 2015

Long-Term Time-Dependent Probabilities for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)

Edward H. Field; Glenn P. Biasi; Peter Bird; Timothy E. Dawson; Karen R. Felzer; David A. Jackson; Kaj M. Johnson; Thomas H. Jordan; Christopher Madden; Andrew J. Michael; Kevin Milner; Morgan T. Page; Tom Parsons; Peter M. Powers; Bruce E. Shaw; Wayne Thatcher; Ray J. Weldon; Yuehua Zeng

The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP 2014) presents time-dependent earthquake probabilities for the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Building on the UCERF3 time-in- dependent model published previously, renewal models are utilized to represent elastic- rebound-implied probabilities. A new methodology has been developed that solves applicability issues in the previous approach for unsegmented models. The new meth- odology also supports magnitude-dependent aperiodicity and accounts for the historic open interval on faults that lack a date-of-last-event constraint. Epistemic uncertainties are represented with a logic tree, producing 5760 different forecasts. Results for a variety of evaluation metrics are presented, including logic-tree sensitivity analyses and comparisons to the previous model (UCERF2). For 30 yr M ! 6:7 probabilities, the most significant changes from UCERF2 are a threefold increase on the Calaveras fault and a threefold decrease on the San Jacinto fault. Such changes are due mostly to differences in the time-independent models (e.g., fault-slip rates), with relaxation of segmentation and inclusion of multifault ruptures being particularly influential. In fact, some UCERF2 faults were simply too long to produce M 6.7 size events given the segmentation assumptions in that study. Probability model differences are also influential, with the implied gains (relative to a Poisson model) being generally higher in UCERF3. Accounting for the historic open interval is one reason. Another is an effective 27% increase in the total elastic-rebound-model weight. The exact factors influencing differences between UCERF2 and UCERF3, as well as the relative im- portance of logic-tree branches, vary throughout the region and depend on the evalu- ation metric of interest. For example, M ! 6:7 probabilities may not be a good proxy for other hazard or loss measures. This sensitivity, coupled with the approximate nature of the model and known limitations, means the applicability of UCERF3 should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America | 2014

The UCERF3 Grand Inversion: Solving for the Long‐Term Rate of Ruptures in a Fault System

Morgan T. Page; Edward H. Field; Kevin Milner; Peter M. Powers

Abstract We present implementation details, testing, and results from a new inversion‐based methodology, known colloquially as the “grand inversion,” developed for the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). We employ a parallel simulated annealing algorithm to solve for the long‐term rate of all ruptures that extend through the seismogenic thickness on major mapped faults in California while simultaneously satisfying available slip‐rate, paleoseismic event‐rate, and magnitude‐distribution constraints. The inversion methodology enables the relaxation of fault segmentation and allows for the incorporation of multifault ruptures, which are needed to remove magnitude‐distribution misfits that were present in the previous model, UCERF2. The grand inversion is more objective than past methodologies, as it eliminates the need to prescriptively assign rupture rates. It also provides a means to easily update the model as new data become available. In addition to UCERF3 model results, we present verification of the grand inversion, including sensitivity tests, tuning of equation set weights, convergence metrics, and a synthetic test. These tests demonstrate that while individual rupture rates are poorly resolved by the data, integrated quantities such as magnitude–frequency distributions and, most importantly, hazard metrics, are much more robust.


Earthquake Spectra | 2015

Seismic Source Characterization for the 2014 Update of the U.S. National Seismic Hazard Model

Morgan P. Moschetti; Peter M. Powers; Mark D. Petersen; Oliver S. Boyd; Rui Chen; Edward H. Field; Arthur Frankel; Kathleen M. Haller; Stephen C. Harmsen; Charles S. Mueller; Russell L. Wheeler; Yuehua Zeng

We present the updated seismic source characterization (SSC) for the 2014 update of the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States. Construction of the seismic source models employs the methodology that was developed for the 1996 NSHM but includes new and updated data, data types, source models, and source parameters that reflect the current state of knowledge of earthquake occurrence and state of practice for seismic hazard analyses. We review the SSC parameterization and describe the methods used to estimate earthquake rates, magnitudes, locations, and geometries for all seismic source models, with an emphasis on new source model components. We highlight the effects that two new model components—incorporation of slip rates from combined geodetic-geologic inversions and the incorporation of adaptively smoothed seismicity models—have on probabilistic ground motions, because these sources span multiple regions of the conterminous United States and provide important additional epistemic uncertainty for the 2014 NSHM.


Seismological Research Letters | 2017

A Synoptic View of the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3)

Edward H. Field; Thomas H. Jordan; Morgan T. Page; Kevin Milner; Bruce E. Shaw; Timothy E. Dawson; Glenn P. Biasi; Tom Parsons; Jeanne L. Hardebeck; Andrew J. Michael; Ray J. Weldon; Peter M. Powers; Kaj M. Johnson; Yuehua Zeng; Karen R. Felzer; Nicholas J. van der Elst; Christopher Madden; Ramon Arrowsmith; M. Werner; Wayne Thatcher

ABSTRACT Probabilistic forecasting of earthquake‐producing fault ruptures informs all major decisions aimed at reducing seismic risk and improving earthquake resilience. Earthquake forecasting models rely on two scales of hazard evolution: long‐term (decades to centuries) probabilities of fault rupture, constrained by stress renewal statistics, and short‐term (hours to years) probabilities of distributed seismicity, constrained by earthquake‐clustering statistics. Comprehensive datasets on both hazard scales have been integrated into the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3). UCERF3 is the first model to provide self‐consistent rupture probabilities over forecasting intervals from less than an hour to more than a century, and it is the first capable of evaluating the short‐term hazards that result from multievent sequences of complex faulting. This article gives an overview of UCERF3, illustrates the short‐term probabilities with aftershock scenarios, and draws some valuable scientific conclusions from the modeling results. In particular, seismic, geologic, and geodetic data, when combined in the UCERF3 framework, reject two types of fault‐based models: long‐term forecasts constrained to have local Gutenberg–Richter scaling, and short‐term forecasts that lack stress relaxation by elastic rebound.


Earthquake Spectra | 2015

2014 Update to the National Seismic Hazard Model in California

Peter M. Powers; Edward H. Field

The 2014 update to the U. S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Model in California introduces a new earthquake rate model and new ground motion models (GMMs) that give rise to numerous changes to seismic hazard throughout the state. The updated earthquake rate model is the third version of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), wherein the rates of all ruptures are determined via a self-consistent inverse methodology. This approach accommodates multifault ruptures and reduces the overprediction of moderate earthquake rates exhibited by the previous model (UCERF2). UCERF3 introduces new faults, changes to slip or moment rates on existing faults, and adaptively smoothed gridded seismicity source models, all of which contribute to significant changes in hazard. New GMMs increase ground motion near large strike-slip faults and reduce hazard over dip-slip faults. The addition of very large strike-slip ruptures and decreased reverse fault rupture rates in UCERF3 further enhances these effects.


Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America | 2014

Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time‐Independent Model

Edward H. Field; Ramon Arrowsmith; Glenn P. Biasi; Peter Bird; Timothy E. Dawson; Karen R. Felzer; David D. Jackson; Kaj M. Johnson; Thomas H. Jordan; Christopher Madden; Andrew J. Michael; Kevin Milner; Morgan T. Page; Tom Parsons; Peter M. Powers; Bruce E. Shaw; Wayne Thatcher; Ray J. Weldon; Yuehua Zeng


Open-File Report | 2013

Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3): the time-independent model

Edward H. Field; Glenn P. Biasi; Peter Bird; Timothy E. Dawson; Karen R. Felzer; David D. Jackson; Kaj M. Johnson; Thomas H. Jordan; Christopher Madden; Andrew J. Michael; Kevin Milner; Morgan T. Page; Tom Parsons; Peter M. Powers; Bruce E. Shaw; Wayne Thatcher; Ray J. Weldon; Yuehua Zeng


California Geological Survey Special Report 228; Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792 | 2013

Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165

Edward H. Field; Glenn P. Biasi; Peter Bird; Timothy E. Dawson; Karen R. Felzer; David D. Jackson; Kaj M. Johnson; Thomas H. Jordan; Christopher Madden; Andrew J. Michael; Kevin Milner; Morgan T. Page; Tom Parsons; Peter M. Powers; Bruce E. Shaw; Wayne Thatcher; R. J. Weldon; Yuehua Zeng


Archive | 2007

Use of dependence probabilities to detect near-fault bias in earthquake triggering

Peter M. Powers; Thomas H. Jordan


Open-File Report | 2018

Additional period and site class maps for the 2014 National Seismic Hazard Model for the conterminous United States

Allison M. Shumway; Mark D. Petersen; Peter M. Powers; Sanaz Rezaeian

Collaboration


Dive into the Peter M. Powers's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Edward H. Field

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas H. Jordan

University of Southern California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Yuehua Zeng

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kevin Milner

University of Southern California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Morgan T. Page

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrew J. Michael

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Kaj M. Johnson

Indiana University Bloomington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Karen R. Felzer

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge