1. 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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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 9 2002

5. Slip-weakening Distance ? Yield Stress ? Initial Stress ? Velocity-weakening Distance ? Fracture Energy ? Characteristic Length ? Strain Energy ? 

6. Slip-weakening Rupture Model

7. Friction - Strength – Stress Possible to Estimate Separately ?

8. Three Equivalent Dynamic Rupture Models

9. Comparison of Dynamic Rupture Propagation

10. Accelerograms Versus Synthetic Ground Motion From Inversion of Dynamic Rupture

11. GPS InSAR Surface Slip

12. Friction Possible to Estimate Directly ?

13. Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen & Yagi (2002): Slip(T pv ) ~ D c DcDc TbTb ~ T pv

14. Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen & Yagi (2002): Slip(T pv ) ~ D c TbTb

15. Displacement (T pv ) ~ D c Near Fault ?? Displacement (~slip?) Velocity (~sliprate?) Dc ?Dc ? T pv

16. Homogeneous Initial Stress: Vertical Fault, Surface Rupture (D c =20 cm) D c ’=10 cm

17. More Complex Models… (D c =20 cm) D c ’=10 cm

18. 2000 M w 6.6 Tottori Earthquake ∆ ∆

19. TTRH02 & GSH: D c ’~25-40 cm

20. Lucerne Valley from 1992 M w 7.3 Landers D c ’~ 40 cm

21. Rupture Propagation Possible to Characterize by a Single Parameter ?

22. Critical Rupture Propagation

23. Rupture Bifurcation

24. Fracture Energy Versus Strain Energy

25. Rupture Bifurcation T e 2 L  =  T u D c  1.5  c V r > V s

26. 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