Evaluation of simulation results: Aftershocks in space Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Ilya Zaliapin Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Nevada, Reno SAMSI workshop Dynamics of Seismicity Thursday, October 10, 2013 Yehuda.

Advertisements

The rate of aftershock density decay with distance Karen Felzer 1 and Emily Brodsky 2 1. U.S. Geological Survey 2. University of California, Los Angeles.

Earthquake Dynamic Triggering and Ground Motion Scaling J. Gomberg, K. Felzer, E. Brodsky.

A Wavelet Analysis of Ground Motion Characteristics R. Z. Sarica M. S. Rahman.

Static stress changes-- Coulomb. SPRINGBRICKWINCH Force Balance – Brick will not move until: Force on spring Force resisting motion (its length change.

Smoothed Seismicity Rates Karen Felzer USGS. Decision points #1: Which smoothing algorithm to use? National Hazard Map smoothing method (Frankel, 1996)?

1992 M=7.3 Landers shock increases stress at Big Bear Los Angeles Big Bear Landers First 3 hr of Landers aftershocks plotted from Stein (2003)

1 – Stress contributions 2 – Probabilistic approach 3 – Deformation transients Small earthquakes contribute as much as large earthquakes do to stress changes.

16/9/2011UCERF3 / EQ Simulators Workshop RSQSim Jim Dieterich Keith Richards-Dinger UC Riverside Funding: USGS NEHRP SCEC.

10/09/2007CIG/SPICE/IRIS/USAF1 Broadband Ground Motion Simulations for a Mw 7.8 Southern San Andreas Earthquake: ShakeOut Robert W. Graves (URS Corporation)

The trouble with segmentation David D. Jackson, UCLA Yan Y. Kagan, UCLA Natanya Black, UCLA.

What are Earthquakes? The shaking or trembling caused by the sudden release of energy Usually associated with faulting or breaking of rocks Continuing.

Stress, Strain, Elasticity and Faulting Lecture 11/23/2009 GE694 Earth Systems Seminar.

Earthquake interaction The domino effect Stress transfer and the Coulomb Failure Function Aftershocks Dynamic triggering Volcano-seismic coupling.

Omori law Students present their assignments The modified Omori law Omori law for foreshocks Aftershocks of aftershocks Physical aspects of temporal clustering.

Static stress changes-- Coulomb. Key concepts: Source faults Receiver faults Optimally oriented faults Assume receiver faults are close to failure Triggering.

Stress III The domino effect Stress transfer and the Coulomb Failure Function Aftershocks Dynamic triggering Volcano-seismic coupling.

The Empirical Model Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena. A low modern/historical seismicity rate has long been recognized in the San Francisco Bay Area Stein 1999.

Omori law The modified Omori law Omori law for foreshocks Aftershocks of aftershocks Physical aspects of temporal clustering.

L Braile, 1/26/2006 (revised, Sept., 2009) What is Moment Magnitude?

AGU fall meeting, December 5-9, 2011, San Francisco INGV Spatial organization of foreshocks as a tool for forecasting large earthquakes E. Lippiello 1,

Brainstorm: How to assess an Earthquake: Stroked off B.C. coast? Rapid Earthquake Risk Assessment Source Parameters USGS World Shake Maps USGS Shake Aftershocks.

Lecture 16 Earthquakes What are earthquakes? Elastic rebound theory Waves generated by earthquakes: P waves, S waves, Surface waves Locating earthquakes.

If we build an ETAS model based primarily on information from smaller earthquakes, will it work for forecasting the larger (M≥6.5) potentially damaging.

Earthquake scaling and statistics

Comparison of Recorded and Simulated Ground Motions Presented by: Emel Seyhan, PhD Student University of California, Los Angeles Collaborators: Lisa M.

What are Earthquakes? A sudden motion or shaking in the Earth caused by the abrupt release of slowly accumulated strain. Usually associated with faulting.

See the following news clip of the earthquake. 012/04/11/intv-indonesia-tsunami- watch-boxall.cnn.

Geologic hazards & space geodesy part 1: Introduction.

Exploring Planet Earth Blind Thrust Fault Earthquake Rupture Animation (Northridge, 1994) Brad Aagaard, USGS

Kenneth W. Hudnut USGS, Pasadena, CA West Newport Beach Association Public Forum, Newport Beach City Hall March 5, 2003 Coping with ‘quakes.

Agnès Helmstetter 1 and Bruce Shaw 2 1,2 LDEO, Columbia University 1 now at LGIT, Univ Grenoble, France Relation between stress heterogeneity and aftershock.

A functional form for the spatial distribution of aftershocks Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE FAULT PLANE AND A SIMPLE 3D VISUALIZATION TOOL Petra Adamová, Jiří Zahradník Charles University in Prague

A (re-) New (ed) Spin on Renewal Models Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena.

Response of the San Jacinto fault zone to static stress changes from the 1992 Landers earthquake M. Nic Bhloscaidh and J. McCloskey School of Environmental.

Ergodicity in Natural Fault Systems K.F. Tiampo, University of Colorado J.B. Rundle, University of Colorado W. Klein, Boston University J. Sá Martins,

Constraints on Seismogenesis of Small Earthquakes from the Natural Earthquake Laboratory in South African Mines (NELSAM) Margaret S. Boettcher (USGS Mendenhall.

Probabilistic Ground Motions for Scoggins Dam, Oregon Chris Wood Seismotectonics & Geophysics Group Technical Service Center July 2012.

Faults and Earthquakes. Some faults become “locked” –Pressure pushes together the irregular walls of the fault; surfaces resist sliding Slip can’t occur.

Thinking about time variable seismic risk Karen Felzer USGS, Pasadena.

Schuyler Ozbick. wake-up-call /

Karen Felzer & Emily Brodsky Testing Stress Shadows.

Coulomb Stress Changes and the Triggering of Earthquakes

Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The Earthquake is Inevitable: The Disaster is Not.

DIVERSITY PRESERVING EVOLUTIONARY MULTI-OBJECTIVE SEARCH Brian Piper1, Hana Chmielewski2, Ranji Ranjithan1,2 1Operations Research 2Civil Engineering.

Foreshocks, Aftershocks, and Characteristic Earthquakes or Reconciling the Agnew & Jones Model with the Reasenberg and Jones Model Andrew J. Michael.

Correlating aftershock sequences properties to earthquake physics J. Woessner S.Wiemer, S.Toda.

INCORPORATION OF EARTHQUAKE SOURCE, PROPAGATION PATH AND SITE UNCERTAINTIES INTO ASSESSMENT OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Bob Darragh Nick Gregor Walt Silva.

The seismogram U = Source * Propagation * Site.

Earthquake Statistics Gutenberg-Richter relation

Can we forecast an Earthquake??? In the next minute there will be an earthquake somewhere in the world! This sentence is correct (we have seen that there.

The Snowball Effect: Statistical Evidence that Big Earthquakes are Rapid Cascades of Small Aftershocks Karen Felzer U.S. Geological Survey.

A proposed triggering/clustering model for the current WGCEP Karen Felzer USGS, Pasadena Seismogram from Peng et al., in press.

California Earthquake Rupture Model Satisfying Accepted Scaling Laws (SCEC 2010, 1-129) David Jackson, Yan Kagan and Qi Wang Department of Earth and Space.

Yan Y. Kagan Dept. Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA , SHORT-TERM PROPERTIES.

Epistemic uncertainty in California-wide simulations of synthetic seismicity Fred Pollitz, USGS Menlo Park Acknowledgments: David Schwartz, Steve Ward.

Question of the Day What is a natural disaster?

Analysis of ground-motion spatial variability at very local site near the source AFIFA IMTIAZ Doctorant ( ), NERA Project.

Rock mechanics view of a seismogenic fault zone

Yan Y. Kagan Dept. Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA , NEGATIVE.

Southern California Earthquake Center

From Parsons et al (2001).

Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra

Douglas Dreger, Gabriel Hurtado, and Anil Chopra

R. Console, M. Murru, F. Catalli

SICHUAN EARTHQUAKE May 12, 2008

Exploratory Data Analysis

Susan Bilek University of Michigan

Presentation transcript:

Evaluation of simulation results: Aftershocks in space Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena

Subject to change!

The ETAS simulations assign aftershock density with distance, r, from the mainshock as: Aftershock density = 1/(r+dmin) -distDecay dmin (km) distDecay Trial parameter combinations: Which simulation parameters recreate real data the best?

Trial Cases Landers earthquake Northridge earthquake

Before we start: Where’s the fault? The parameter r must be measured to the mainshock fault plane, but where exactly is the real rupture surface?

Faults can be very complex Detail of El Mayor- Cucapah rupture, (Rymer et al. in preparation, courtesy of Katherine Kendrick)

Quick and dirty aftershock-based fault- tracing approach Place aftershocks into 5x5x5 km bins Sort the bins by aftershock density Calculate Nbin = min((Fault area)/10,(Total number of populated bins)/4) Place fault points at the median aftershock location in the Nbin most populated bins The distance r is measured from aftershock hypocenters to the nearest fault point.

Fault points for the Landers earthquake M 3+ aftershocks

Fault points for a simulated Landers earthquake with minDist = 0.3 km and distDecay = 1.7 M 2.5+ aftershocks

Fault points for the Northridge earthquake M 2.0+ aftershocks

Fault points for a simulated Northridge earthquake with minDist = 0.3 km and distDecay = 1.7 M 2.5+ aftershocks

Data and simulation comparison: Landers earthquake Aftershock density decays more quickly in the near field, and more slowly in the far field, than any of the simulations Suggests we need dmin<0.3 km, distDecay<1.7 Real data

Data and simulation comparison: Northridge earthquake Aftershock density decay rate is similar to the distDecay=2.0 and distDecay=2.5 simulations in the near field Far field decay is closest to the distDecay=2.5 simulation. Different results than for Landers!! Real data

How similar is the aftershock decay for different real earthquakes? I compare aftershock density vs. distance for Landers, Hector Mine, Northridge, and Joshua Tree. Each earthquake is different, but Hector Mine and Joshua Tree are closer to Northridge- type than Landers-type behavior: supports distDecay= Big Bear aftershock may be an issue?

Future work Refine method for finding fault points. Do aftershock measurements for many more large to moderate mainshocks. Do measurements with relocated aftershocks. Test sensitivity of results to minimum magnitude and duration of aftershocks used. Look for systematic variation of aftershock behavior with mainshock characteristics. Decide whether sequence-specific parameters will be necessary.