Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Should West Valley fault (UT) be considered low probability? #9

Closed
pmpowers-usgs opened this issue Nov 30, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

Should West Valley fault (UT) be considered low probability? #9

pmpowers-usgs opened this issue Nov 30, 2015 · 2 comments
Labels
2018 question WUS

Comments

@pmpowers-usgs
Copy link
Member

Discussions with @haller-usgs while fixing bugs in the 2014 fortran code/model suggest that West Valley (Wasatch) should be considered a low probability of occurrence fault with a weight of 0.25
@haller-usgs
Copy link

The West Valley fault was implemented having variable width in the 2008 model depending on the combination of dips of the West Valley and the Wasatch fault. Haller supports re instituting variable width so that the representation of the West Valley does not support a geologically unlikely relation with the Wasatch in that it cuts through the regional master fault.

@pmpowers-usgs pmpowers-usgs mentioned this issue Apr 19, 2018
Open
@pmpowers-usgs
Copy link
Member Author

Migrated to usgs/nshm-cous-2018#5

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
2018 question WUS
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@pmpowers-usgs @haller-usgs