Thursday May 9 8:30 am-noon Working Group 4 Convenors: Olsen, Igel, Furumura Macro-scale Simulation Dynamic Rupture and Wave Propagation Innovations in Dynamic and Kinematic Modeling
Oral Presentations (WG 4): 8:30 am Introduction (Olsen) 8:35 am Earthquakes on Heterogeneous Faults (Harris) 8:50 am On the Estimation of Dynamic Rupture Parameters (Olsen) 9:10 am Seismic Energy Computed from Dynamic Models (Archuleta/Favreau) 9:30 am FE Simulations of Seismic Wave Propagation with a Voxel Grid (Koketsu/Ikegami) 9:45 am The Deformations and Fractures for Granite Block of Y-Mode With En Echelon Fault During Biaxial Compression (Xu/Yang/Zhao/Chen) 10:00 am Break 10:20 am Guided Waves from Sources Outside Faults: An Indication for Shallow Fault Zone Structure? (Igel/Fohrmann/Jahnke/BenZion) 10:40 am Update on SE Code Development and Applications: SE Simulations of Earthquakes at Global and Regional Scales (Komatitsch/Tromp/Shaw) 11:00 am Parallel 3D Simulation of Seismic Wave Propagation: Observations and Simulations (Furumura) 11:20 am The PEER/SCEC Wave Propagation Code Validation Exercise (Day) 11:40 am Panel Discussion Noon Lunch
Poster Presentations (WG 4): Modeling of Strong Ground Motions Observed for the 9/10/95 M8 Jalisco (Mexico) Earthquake (Chavez & Olsen) Stress-Breakdown Time and Critical Weakening Slip Inferred From Slip Velocity Functions on Earthquake Faults (Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen & Yagi) 3D Rendering of Earthquake Simulations (Olsen) Dynamic Rupture Simulation on Geologically Constrained Segments of the Uemachi Fault, Osaka, Japan (Kase, Sekiguchi, Horikawa, Satake & Sugiyama)
On The Estimation of Dynamic Rupture Parameters Kim Olsen ICS – UCSB S. Peyrat, T. Mikumo, E, Fukuyama, and R. Madariaga 3 rd ACES Meeting Maui, May
Slip-weakening Distance ? Yield Stress ? Initial Stress ? Velocity-weakening Distance ? Fracture Energy ? Characteristic Length ? Strain Energy ?
Slip-weakening Rupture Model
Friction - Strength – Stress Possible to Estimate Separately ?
Three Equivalent Dynamic Rupture Models
Comparison of Dynamic Rupture Propagation
Accelerograms Versus Synthetic Ground Motion From Inversion of Dynamic Rupture
GPS InSAR Surface Slip
Friction Possible to Estimate Directly ?
Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen & Yagi (2002): Slip(T pv ) ~ D c DcDc TbTb ~ T pv
Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen & Yagi (2002): Slip(T pv ) ~ D c TbTb
Displacement (T pv ) ~ D c Near Fault ?? Displacement (~slip?) Velocity (~sliprate?) Dc ?Dc ? T pv
Homogeneous Initial Stress: Vertical Fault, Surface Rupture (D c =20 cm) D c ’=10 cm
More Complex Models… (D c =20 cm) D c ’=10 cm
2000 M w 6.6 Tottori Earthquake ∆ ∆
TTRH02 & GSH: D c ’~25-40 cm
Lucerne Valley from 1992 M w 7.3 Landers D c ’~ 40 cm
Rupture Propagation Possible to Characterize by a Single Parameter ?
Critical Rupture Propagation
Rupture Bifurcation
Fracture Energy Versus Strain Energy
Rupture Bifurcation T e 2 L = T u D c 1.5 c V r > V s
Summary Accelerograms constrain rupture propagation, fracture energy, but not D c, T e, T u, through waveform modeling Measurement of D c from near-fault strong motion data within factor of 2 Non-dimensional number characterizes rupture propagation