Exciting news! We're transitioning to the Statewide California Earthquake Center. Our new website is under construction, but we'll continue using this website for SCEC business in the meantime. We're also archiving the Southern Center site to preserve its rich history. A new and improved platform is coming soon!

SCEC Community Fault Model (CFM) 6.0 Released

Perspective view of the CFM6.0 with fault surfaces colored by the fault system. Relocated seismicity is colored by time (calendar year). (Hauksson et al., 2012, and 2019 updates)
30 May 2023 3:02pm
By Scott Marshall, Andreas Plesch, John Shaw, Mei-Hui Su, Philip Maechling, Tran Huynh, Edric Pauk

It is our great pleasure to announce the release of the SCEC Community Fault Model version 6.0! CFM6.0 is a significant revision from the previous CFM version, incorporating feedback from an in-depth community evaluation process. There are 37 new or revised fault representations, including updates to the San Andreas system, faults in the Los Angeles and Ventura basins, offshore areas, and many other regions. All additions and revisions feature a complete set of metadata that includes naming based on fault system hierarchy, average strike/dip, source references, and the associated fault ID number in the USGS Quaternary fault and fold database where available. The complete model archive has been assigned a DOI and is available for download. The web-based CFM Viewer has been updated to take advantage of the improved CFM6.0 dataset, where the model can be interactively explored, queried, and portions of interest downloaded.

 
 
Peer Evaluation
The updated CFM6.0 model was developed through an open peer-review process involving 29 SCEC investigators who evaluated and quantitatively ranked 23 current and alternative fault representations considered for CFM6.0. The fault representations receiving the highest overall ranking by the reviewers were incorporated as the “preferred representation” in CFM6.0. As a result, 14 out the 23 faults evaluated were designated as new preferred versions in CFM6.0 (Figure 2). We sincerely thank the CFM evaluators (listed below) for their efforts. The CFM cannot improve without the efforts of the SCEC Community. 
 
CFM Database Updates
New to CFM6.0 are two additional separate and fully-documented sub models: the ruptures and alternatives models. In total, CFM6.0 comprises the following components: 
  1. The CFM6.0 Preferred Model: a set of 443 fault objects that constitute the preferred set of active faults in southern California.
  2. The CFM6.0 Rupture Model: a set of 13 fault objects assembled from the CFM6.0 preferred model that ruptured during selected significant historic events. These are not earthquake source models but are representations of the entire fault surfaces where a significant historic rupture occurred. This model is intended to indicate which CFM fault objects were involved with selected significant historic ruptures.
  3. The CFM6.0 Alternatives: a set of 36 alternative representations where structural differences have been proposed that could potentially significantly impact fault mechanics and associated seismic hazards. These alternative representations were selected based on community rankings following a comprehensive evaluation of the CFM that took place in May of 2022.
Including all sub models, the CFM6.0 incorporates 492 fully documented objects. 
 
Web-Based Tool Updates
The web-based CFM Viewer now delivers preferred, alternative, and selected faults that have had significant historic ruptures, along with the previous CFM5.3 preferred model in map and 3D views. Developed by the CFM development team in coordination with the SCEC web team, this tool improves upon previous versions  where only the preferred model was available.
 
Our ongoing meetings and discussions with colleagues at the USGS and CGS provided key information about how alternative fault representations may be used in future seismic hazard assessments. This feedback allowed us to revise and improve the CFM alternatives with complete metadata so they can also be served through this web based tool.
 
Screenshot of the updated CFM6.0 web-based tools. Three new features are highlighted: 1) Users can now select from four different CFM models to view and query, 2) The map interface now has a Google Earth kml/kmz uploader so users can upload their own data to the web tools and compare to the CFM, and 3) The map interface can now be resized in three sizes, including a full-screen option.
 
 
The CFM Viewer has been enhanced to accept user uploaded georegistered images and other data in Google Earth format (.kml/.kmz), and allow the map interface to be resized based on the user’s preference. Along with the CFM Viewer updates, the CFM homepage has been refreshed for the CFM6.0 release, and now includes links to a new web form where SCEC community members can notify the CFM development team of new data relevant to the CFM. As new peer-reviewed papers are published, submissions to this carefully crafted form will notify the CFM development team and provide the data needed to evaluate and incorporate updates where appropriate. 
 
All these enhancements together will further facilitate the use of the SCEC CFM in earthquake science, seismic hazard assessment applications, and the development of other related community-based structural models. This work was made possible by the efforts of a large team that includes the SCEC software team in collaboration with the CFM development team. If you have any questions about the CFM or the new web features, feel free to contact the CFM development team at the CFM List at 
 
 
Special Thanks to the CFM Evaluators:
 

About the Authors

Scott T. Marshall is a professor in the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences at Appalachian State University. His research focuses on computational modeling of fault mechanics and satellite geodesy. He is currently co-leader of the Community Modeling Group (CXM) of the SCEC Science Planning Committee and is a developer of the SCEC Community Fault Model.
Andreas Plesch is a senior research scientist in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. His research focuses on 3D model building and validation, regional synthesis of datasets, and seismic interpretation. He is currently a developer of the SCEC Community Fault Model.
John H. Shaw is the Harry C. Dudley Professor of Structural and Economic Geology in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. His research focuses on the structure of the earth's crust, active faulting and folding, earthquake hazards assessment, petroleum exploration methods, and remote sensing. He is currently a developer of the SCEC Community Fault Model.
Mei-Hui Su is a senior programmer at SCEC with many years of professional experience working both in academia and industry. She is the lead software developer for SCEC’s community modeling activities.
Philip Maechling is the Associate Director for Information Technology for the SCEC where he develops and performs large-scale seismic hazard calculations using high-performance computing. He also develops and releases open-source seismological and engineering software used in ground motion modeling and simulations. He is a member of the SCEC Executive Committee and the Science Planning Committee.
Tran Huynh is the SCEC Associate Director for Science Operations, working to promote research collaborations across organizations and to align short-term science priorities and business strategies with SCEC’s long-term goals. With the help of her team, she manages the development of SCEC’s collaborative tools and web presence, and allocation of resources for researchers to participate in the SCEC collaboration.
Edric Pauk is a software engineer and web developer at SCEC. He is the lead developer for the technical infrastructure of the SCEC Community Information Systems that supports the annual SCEC Science and Collaboration Plan processes, including proposal submissions and reviews, subawards, project reporting, publications, workshops, and annual meeting registration.
 
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center (Award No. 22066 and 21018). SCEC is funded by NSF Cooperative Agreement EAR-1600087 and USGS Cooperative Agreement G22AC0070. We thank the numerous contributors to the SCEC CFM over the years.