260 likes | 354 Views
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 )
E N D
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 OlsenICS – UCSB S. Peyrat, T. Mikumo, E, Fukuyama, and R. Madariaga 3rd ACES Meeting Maui, May 9 2002
Slip-weakening Distance ? Characteristic Length ? Yield Stress ? Fracture Energy ? k ? Initial Stress ? Strain Energy ? Velocity-weakening Distance ?
Friction - Strength – StressPossible to Estimate Separately ?
Accelerograms Versus Synthetic Ground MotionFrom Inversion ofDynamic Rupture
GPS Surface Slip InSAR
Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen & Yagi (2002): Slip(Tpv) ~ Dc Dc ~ Tpv Tb
Displacement (Tpv) ~ Dc Near Fault ?? Displacement (~slip?) Dc? Velocity (~sliprate?) Tpv
Homogeneous Initial Stress: Vertical Fault, Surface Rupture (Dc=20 cm) Dc’=10 cm Dc’=10 cm
More Complex Models… (Dc=20 cm) Dc’=10 cm Dc’=10 cm Dc’=10 cm
Lucerne Valley from 1992 Mw 7.3 Landers Dc’~ 40 cm
Rupture PropagationPossible to Characterize bya Single Parameter ?
Rupture BifurcationTe2 Lk = m Tu Dck < kc no rupturekc < k < 1.5 kc Vr < Vsk > 1.5 kc Vr > Vs
Summary Accelerograms constrain rupture propagation, fracture energy, but not Dc, Te, Tu, through waveform modeling Measurement of Dc from near-fault strong motion data within factor of 2 Non-dimensional number k characterizes rupture propagation