Models to be Tested
We welcome the contribution of any models that are well developed, well documented, and scientifically defensible (i.e., publishable).
(1) The standard CDMG/USGS (1996) model (as a basis for comparison).
(2) The following by Field, Jackson, & Petersen (not nec. in that order):
a) A characteristic earthquake model similar to the 1988 Working Group model, with segmentation and no cascades, with and without time dependence.
b) A geologically based characteristic earthquake model with strong cascade interactions (w/ and w/out time dependence).
c) A geologically based model that abandons segmentation.
(3) A model based on smoothed historical seismicity that uses a Gutenberg-Richter distribution with magnitudes up to 8.5. Jackson & Kagan
(4) A model with seismicity proportional to the max shear strain rate. Shen; Ward
(5) Models with alternative LA Basin fault geometries (known sources versus known and speculative sources). Foxall & Dolan.
(6) A "Standard Physical Model" that includes stress interaction between earthquakes. Ward.
(7) A model that includes spatial and temporal foreshock/aftershock statistics. Wiemer, Jones, & Hauksson.
(8) Models based on stress evolution and rate and state friction, or at least a thorough evaluation and overview of such models. G. Anderson, E. Field, and hopefully others?
(9) Model based on historic seismicity with spatially variable b-value. M. Wyss.
Back to development of the SCEC Master Model
|