1 / 30

Velocities in ITRF – not appropriate for interpretation

Velocities in ITRF – not appropriate for interpretation. http://www.unavco.org/research_science/workinggroups_projects/snarf/SNARF1.0/SNARF1.0.html. Velocities in NUVEL-1A – better, but SNARF will be even better!. The SCEC 3.0 velocity field. Elastic Rebound. Earthquake!. Earthquake!.

jalene
Télécharger la présentation

Velocities in ITRF – not appropriate for interpretation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Velocities in ITRF – not appropriate for interpretation http://www.unavco.org/research_science/workinggroups_projects/snarf/SNARF1.0/SNARF1.0.html

  2. Velocities in NUVEL-1A – better, but SNARF will be even better!

  3. The SCEC 3.0 velocity field

  4. Elastic Rebound Earthquake! Earthquake!

  5. Elastic Rebound Earthquake! Earthquake!

  6. Elastic Rebound SF 1906 Guatemala 1976 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/slideset/10/10_slides.shtml Earthquake! Kobe 1995 http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/kojiok/nojimaeq.htm

  7. The SCEC 3.0 velocity field

  8. The SCEC 3.0 velocity field

  9. Vertical Velocities: Not dominated by tectonics! GIA is the issue. http://www.unavco.org/research_science/workinggroups_projects/snarf/SNARF1.0/SNARF1.0.html

  10. GIA Predicted Velocities: Very sensitive to model parameters http://www.unavco.org/research_science/workinggroups_projects/snarf/SNARF1.0/SNARF1.0.html

  11. The SCEC 3.0 velocity field

  12. Coseismic Offset Eruption GPS Data Analysis • GIPSY-OASIS 2.5 [Zumberge et al. 1997] • JPL Precise Orbits • ITRF-97 • Atmospheric & ionospheric models • Error Analysis [Mao et al. 1999] • Position Uncertainties (mean) 3, 6 & 12 mm • Rate Uncertainties (mean) – 1.0, 1.3 & 2.5 mm/a

  13. Co-Seismic Offsets (Model from InSAR & local GPS) [Pedersen et al., 2003]

  14. Co-Seismic Corrected • June 17 & 21, 2000 SISZ earthquakes • Distributed slip model [Pedersen et al., 2003] • Correct positions for offsets, recalculate time series • Residual = Feb. 28 – March 6, 2000 Hekla eruption

  15. Hekla Deformation

  16. Co-Seismic Corrected • June 17 & 21, 2000 SISZ earthquakes • Distributed slip model [Pedersen et al., 2003] • Correct positions for offsets, recalculate time series • Residual = Feb. 28 – March 6, 2000 Hekla eruption

  17. Co-Seismic Corrected

  18. Velocity Field Relative to Stable North America

  19. The SCEC 3.0 velocity field

  20. Normalized observed velocity field (in the PoD spherical coordinate system) The velocity transformation allows us to examine the velocity field by a single quantity - the magnitude of the longitudinal velocity (Vf).Vertical lines mark the orientation of small circles about the PoD.Horizontal lines mark the boundaries between 10 segments of similar velocity transitionVelocities are normalized by 0.64°/Myr.

  21. Velocity and velocity gradientof all segments

  22. Maximum horizontal shear

  23. Relation between seismicity and interseismic deformation

  24. Earthquake Cycle Thatcher 1986

  25. Rate on a fault: How much displacement is accomodated On that feature for a given time. Geologic rate: Distance between offset feature/Time Geodetic rate: The amount of deformation imposed in the Model to fit the geodetic data

  26. Example of Geologic rate

  27. Seismicity Up to now we have assumed linear behavior of the movement of the observed point Lecture 6 May 24th 2005

More Related