Figure 34. Cumulative participation MFD statistics for 200 simulated annealing runs on the reference branch. The fault-section examples shown here represent the worst case, median case, and best case in terms of fractional uncertainty described in the test (which is proportional to the standard deviation (StdDev) divided by the mean). 108 Figure 35. Number of above-water-level ruptures for branch-averaged solutions as a function of the number of simulated annealing runs on each branch (for Fault Model 3.1). The maximum value on the y-axis is the total number of ruptures (~250,000). 109 Figure 36. PGA hazard curves for the Los Angeles and San Francisco site listed in 14, obtained by varying equation set weights on the UCERF3 reference branch, as summarized in the main text and detailed in Appendix N (Page et al., 2013). The minimum and maximum curves among these tests are plotted with the red dashed lines, which can be compared with the range implied by alternative logic tree branches (blue shaded region). The difference between the mean curves (red and blue solid lines) is not meaningful in this comparison. Results for other sites are available here. 111 Table 1. List of acronyms 5 Table 2. List of appendixes to technical report* 11 Table 3. WGCEP (2013) consensus-building activities 16 Table 4. Moment rates for the various types of sources in UCERF2 (, given in units of 1019 Nm/yr or 1026 dyne-cm/yr)5 28 Table 5. Moment rates (in units of 1019 Nm/yr) for the UCERF3 deformation models, plus implied values of maximum magnitude (Mmax) and mean recurrence interval (MRI) of M≥8 events 8. ABM is short for Block Model”. Also listed are “Average UCERF2 values, and the notes give important comparison details. 29 6. The grand inversion system of equations used in solving for the long-term rate of fault-based ruptures, where fr represents the frequency or rate of the rth rupture. Important implementation details, such as equation set weighting, are given in Appendix N (Page et al., 2013). 42 Table 7. Magnitude-area and slip-length model combinations used in UCERF3* 46
Figure 34. Cumulative participation MFD statistics for 200 simulated annealing runs on the reference branch. The fault-section examples shown here represent the worst case, median case, and best case in terms of fractional uncertainty described in the test (which is proportional to the standard deviation (StdDev) divided by the mean). 108 Figure 35. Number of above-water-level ruptures for branch-averaged solutions as a function of the number of simulated annealing runs on each branch (for Fault Model 3.1). The maximum value on the y-axis is the total number of ruptures (~250,000). 109 Figure 36. PGA hazard curves for the Los Angeles and San Francisco site listed in 14, obtained by varying equation set weights on the UCERF3 reference branch, as summarized in the main text and detailed in Appendix N (Page et al., 2013). The minimum and maximum curves among these tests are plotted with the red dashed lines, which can be compared with the range implied by alternative logic tree branches (blue shaded region). The difference between the mean curves (red and blue solid lines) is not meaningful in this comparison. Results for other sites are available here. 111 Table 1. List of acronyms 5 Table 2. List of appendixes to technical report* 11 Table 3. WGCEP (2013) consensus-building activities 16 Table 4. Moment rates for the various types of sources in UCERF2 (, given in units of 1019 Nm/yr or 1026 dyne-cm/yr)5 28 Table 5. Moment rates (in units of 1019 Nm/yr) for the UCERF3 deformation models, plus implied values of maximum magnitude (Mmax) and mean recurrence interval (MRI) of M≥8 events 8. ABM is short for “Average Block Model”. Also listed are UCERF2 values, and the notes give important comparison details. 29 6. The grand inversion system of equations used in solving for the long-term rate of fault-based ruptures, where fr represents the frequency or rate of the rth rupture. Important implementation details, such as equation set weighting, are given in Appendix N (Page et al., 2013). 42 Table 7. Magnitude-area and slip-length model combinations used in UCERF3* 46
UCERF3pt3_Report_v13.tmpt1.docx