A New Finite-Element Model of

the Hayward Fault

Michael Barall
USGS Menlo Park and Invisible Software Inc.

Northern California Earthquake Hazards Program Workshop, January 2006

 Web Version
Slides with yellow backgrounds, like this one, were not part
of the original oral presentation. We added them to the
PowerPoint file on our web site, www.FaultMod.com, to
make the file easier to understand for readers who did not
hear the oral presentation.
The next slide acknowledges the many people at USGS
who have contributed to this effort.
 Acknowledgements

Brad Aagaard, Thomas Brocher, James Dieterich,

Russell Graymer, Ruth Harris, Robert Jachens,
Patricia McCrory, Andrew Michael, Diane Moore,
Geoffrey Phelps, David Ponce, Robert Simpson,
William Stuart, Carl Wentworth.
 Goals
This project has two goals. The first goal is to create a
finite-element model of the Hayward fault that includes both
the 3D distribution of rock properties and the 3D fault
geometry. We’ll be using new 3D data sets from USGS, that
make it possible for the first time to construct such a model.
The second goal is to test and demonstrate the capabilities
of the FAULTMOD software. FAULTMOD is a new open-source
3D finite element program. It was developed for USGS, and
is designed specifically for earthquake modeling.
Goal: Create a finite-element model that
includes the 3D distribution of rock
properties and the 3D fault geometry.

Use the latest 3D data sets from USGS:

• Hayward 3D geologic map.
• Bay Area 3D geologic map.
• Bay Area 3D velocity model.
 FAULTMOD Software

• Open-source finite-element software developed

for USGS.
• Designed specifically for earthquake modeling.
• Web site: www.FaultMod.com.
 Outline

• Finite-element mesh.
• Geologic and physical property data.
• 3D fault geometry.
• First calculation results.
• Future directions.
 Topography and Bathymetry
The next slide shows our finite-element mesh, colored by
elevation. Green and blue are below sea level, yellow and red
are above sea level. In the center, you can see San Francisco
Bay as a green “lake,” surrounded by the cities of San
Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.
The coloring is the actual elevation of the top surface of the
finite-element mesh. It’s not just a topographic map overlaid
on an image of the mesh. The image shows that we are using
topographic and bathymetric data from USGS to form the
upper surface of our mesh, and you can see that the mesh’s
upper surface is a fairly good map of the Bay Area.
 Topography and Bathymetry

Oakland
San Francisco

50 km San Jose

400 km

300 km
Geologic Data
 Geologic Data
Geologic data tells you what type of rock is present within
the earth. We are using two truly remarkable 3D geologic data
sets, both published by USGS in 2005.
The next slide shows the Hayward 3D geologic map. It is a
very detailed map that gives rock types within ~10 km of the
Hayward fault, down to a depth of ~13 km. It also gives the
3D geometry of the fault surface.
The second slide after this one shows the Bay Area 3D
geologic map. It gives the distribution of rock types
throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.
 Sources of Geologic Data:
Hayward 3D Geologic Map (Graymer et. al.)

This map gives rock types near the fault, and the 3D fault
geometry. We use both pieces of information.
 Sources of Geologic Data:
Bay Area 3D Geologic Map (Jachens et. al.)

This model gives rock types over the entire Bay Area.
 Geologic Data in the Mesh
The next slide shows how we are using geologic data to fill
in the finite-element mesh. The central part (yellow) comes
from the detailed Hayward 3D geologic map. Surrounding the
central area (green) we use the much larger Bay Area 3D
geologic map.
Our mesh is so big that even the Bay Area map doesn’t fill
it, so the outer portion of the mesh (blue) is filled in using
regional average properties. Finally, at depths below the
geologic maps (red), we use a simple mantle model.
Sources of Geologic Data

Hayward 3D
Geologic Map

Bay Area 3D
Geologic Map

Regional
Averages

Mantle Model
Physical Property Data
 Physical Properties
Physical properties tell you the actual behavior of the rock.
This information is needed to run the finite-element
simulations. Initially we are assuming elastic properties, but
the FAULTMOD software also permits the use of viscoelastic
and plastic rheologies.
Our physical property data comes from the Bay Area 3D
velocity model, another remarkable data set published by
USGS in 2005. It gives the physical properties as a function
of rock type and depth.
 Sources of Physical Property Data:
Bay Area 3D Velocity Model (Brocher et. al.)

This model assigns rock properties based on rock type and

depth, for the Bay Area.
 Physical Property Data
The next five slides show you the distribution of physical
properties in the finite-element mesh, which results from
combining the geologic data and property data. The data
includes S-wave velocity, S-wave attenuation, P-wave
velocity, P-wave attenuation, and rock density.
The images illustrate the wealth of data that is available in
the 3D data sets from USGS.
Physical Property Data: S-Wave Velocity
Physical Property Data: S-Wave Attenuation
Physical Property Data: P-Wave Velocity
Physical Property Data: P-Wave Attenuation
Physical Property Data: Rock Density
3D Fault Geometry
 Fault Surface
The next slide shows the location of the fault surface within
the finite-element mesh. The red line is the model fault. Note
that it runs right under the city of Oakland.
The actual Hayward fault lies in the central portion of the
mesh, where its shape is determined by the Hayward 3D
geologic map.
For modeling purposes, we extended the fault straight north
and south for the entire 400 km length of the model. Below
~13 km depth, which is the lower limit of the Hayward 3D
geologic map, we extended the fault straight down to the
bottom of the mesh.
 Fault Surface

Oakland
San Francisco

50 km San Jose

400 km

300 km
 Fault Surface Faces
The next two slides show the east and west faces of the
fault surface, inside the model. The curved section in the
center lies in and below the Hayward 3D geologic map. The
upper portion of the fault surface dips to the east.
The surface is colored according to the S-wave velocity of
the adjacent rock. If you look carefully, you can see that the
coloring is different on the two sides of the fault. The
software is able to display different colors on opposite sides
of the surface, to indicate the rock properties on each side.
Fault Surface – East Face

400 km
Fault Surface – West Face

400 km
“Morphing” the Mesh
 Morphing the Mesh
The next seven slides illustrate how we produce a mesh
with a curved fault surface. It is done by “morphing.” We
start with an ideal mesh, which is a simple rectilinear mesh
with a straight vertical fault. Then we gently distort the entire
mesh, to produce the desired curved and dipping fault surface.
The following slides show horizontal slices of the mesh.
The first slide shows a slice of the ideal mesh, with a straight
fault. Succeeding slides show slices of the final mesh, at six
different depths ranging from 0 to 12.5 km. In each slice, the
fault is curved according to the Hayward 3D geologic map at
the corresponding depth.
 Morphing the Mesh (continued)
The mesh in each slice is distorted to accommodate the
shape of the fault. Notice that the gentle distortion is
distributed throughout the mesh.
If you page through the slides in sequence, you can see that
the fault overall moves to the east as you view increasing
depths. This generates the eastward dip of the fault surface.
These horizontal slices are connected together to produce
the final 3D mesh. Below 12.5 km depth, the shape of the
fault is kept constant.
The topography on the top surface of the mesh is also
produced by morphing, but in this case the distortion is
vertical rather than horizontal.
 Ideal Mesh

• All cells are squares.

• Fault is a straight line.
 Morphed Mesh,
Depth = 0.0 km
• Distort the entire mesh to
produce the fault trace.
• Each layer of the mesh
has a different trace.
• In successive layers, fault
trace shifts to the east,
creating eastward dip.
 Morphed Mesh,
Depth = 2.5 km
• Distort the entire mesh to
produce the fault trace.
• Each layer of the mesh
has a different trace.
• In successive layers, fault
trace shifts to the east,
creating eastward dip.
 Morphed Mesh,
Depth = 5.0 km
• Distort the entire mesh to
produce the fault trace.
• Each layer of the mesh
has a different trace.
• In successive layers, fault
trace shifts to the east,
creating eastward dip.
 Morphed Mesh,
Depth = 7.5 km
• Distort the entire mesh to
produce the fault trace.
• Each layer of the mesh
has a different trace.
• In successive layers, fault
trace shifts to the east,
creating eastward dip.
Morphed Mesh,
Depth = 10.0 km
• Distort the entire mesh to
produce the fault trace.
• Each layer of the mesh
has a different trace.
• In successive layers, fault
trace shifts to the east,
creating eastward dip.
Morphed Mesh,
Depth = 12.5 km
• Distort the entire mesh to
produce the fault trace.
• Each layer of the mesh
has a different trace.
• In successive layers, fault
trace shifts to the east,
creating eastward dip.
 First Calculation:
Frictionless Fault Slip
 Frictionless Fault Slip
For our first calculation, we allowed the entire fault to slip
without friction. Tectonic driving forces were applied to the
east and west borders of the mesh. Then, the FAULTMOD
software calculated the resulting displacements and stresses
throughout the mesh.
If the fault were straight, the two sides would slide past
each other without distortion or stress. But the model fault is
curved, and so the fault geometry induces distortions and
stresses as the two sides try to slide past each other.
 Calculated Vertical Displacement
The next two slides show the calculated vertical
displacement at the Earth’s surface, for frictionless fault slip.
Red denotes upward displacement and blue denotes
downward displacement. You can see that they form an
interesting pattern. The FAULTMOD software also allows
viewing displacements and stresses inside the mesh.
We did the calculation twice. The first slide shows the
results for a non-uniform rheology based on USGS 3D data.
The second slide shows the results for a uniform rheology.
Although there are some differences between the two slides,
overall they are very similar. This demonstrates that, for this
calculation, fault geometry is more important than rheology.
Calculated Vertical Displacement
Calculated Vertical Displacement – Uniform Rheology
Calculated Perpendicular Displacement
The next two slides show the calculated displacement at the
Earth’s surface, perpendicular to the fault, for frictionless
fault slip. Red denotes eastward displacement and blue
denotes westward displacement.
The first slide shows the results for a non-uniform rheology
based on USGS 3D data. The second slide shows the results
for a uniform rheology. Although there are some differences
between the two slides, overall they are very similar. So once
again, for this calculation, fault geometry is more important
than rheology.
Calculated Displacement Perpendicular to Fault
Calculated Displacement Perpendicular to Fault – Uniform Rheology
 Calculated Fault Slip
The next two slides show the calculated slip on the fault
surface, for frictionless fault slip. Red denotes maximum slip
and blue denotes minimum slip. Maximum slip occurs along
the straight sections at the north and south, and minimum slip
occurs where the fault is most sharply curved. This is
consistent with the idea that fault curvature impedes slip.
The first slide shows the results for a non-uniform rheology
based on USGS 3D data. The second slide shows the results
for a uniform rheology. Although there are some differences
between the two slides, overall they are very similar. So once
again, for this calculation, fault geometry is more important
than rheology.
Calculated Fault Slip
Calculated Fault Slip – Uniform Rheology
 Future Directions
The final slide lists some scientific questions that
we plan to investigate with the model.
 Future Directions
• What are the effects and relative importance of
fault geometry and non-uniform physical
properties?
• Can the model account for the observed creep
rates and geodetic observations along the Hayward
fault?
• What are the effects of introducing locked patches
and friction on the fault?
• Can aseismic slip on parts of the fault surface
create patterns of deformation or concentrations of
stress that are consistent with observations?