1 / 25

Seismogenesis, scaling and the EEPAS model

Seismogenesis, scaling and the EEPAS model. David Rhoades GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand. 4 th International Workshop on Statistical Seismology, Shonan Village, Japan, 9-13 January 2006. Precursory Scale Increase (Ψ) – example. Dashed lines show:

astin
Télécharger la présentation

Seismogenesis, scaling and the EEPAS model

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. Seismogenesis, scaling and the EEPAS model David Rhoades GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 4th International Workshop on Statistical Seismology, Shonan Village, Japan, 9-13 January 2006

  2. Precursory Scale Increase (Ψ) – example Dashed lines show: a. Seismogenic area b. Magnitude increase c. Rate increase

  3. Ψ-phenomenon: Predictive relations

  4. EEPAS Model - Formulation • “Every Earthquake is a Precursor According to Scale”; i.e., it is evidence of the occurrence of the Ψ-phenomenon on a particular scale . • Every earthquake initiates a transient increment of long-term hazard. The scale (of time, magnitude, location) depends on its magnitude. • The weight of its contribution may depend on other earthquakes around it. • The hazard at any given time, magnitude, and location depends on all previous earthquakes within a neighbourhood of appropriate scale.

  5. EEPAS model rate density where λ0 is a baseline rate density, η is a normalising function and wi isa weighting factor and f, g, & h probability densities:

  6. Contribution of an individual earthquake to the rate density under the EEPAS model • mi=4 • mi=5

  7. Normalised rate density under the EEPAS model relative to a reference (RTR) rate density in which one earthquake per year, on average, exceeds any magnitude m in 10m km2. The fixed coordinates are those of the W. Tottori earthquake.

  8. Weighting strategies 1. Equal weights 2. Low weight to aftershocks where is a rate density that includes aftershocks and ν is the proportion of earthquakes that are not aftershocks

  9. EEPAS model – fitting & testing • Fitted to NZ earthquake catalogue 1965-2000, M>5.75 • Tested against PPE on CNSS catalogue of California, M > 5.75 • Tested against PPE on JMA catalogue of Japan, M > 6.75 • Optimised for JMA catalogue M > 6.25 • Fitted to NIED catalogue of central Japan M>4.75 • Tested against PPE on NZ catalogue 2001-2004 • Fitted to AUT catalogue of Greece, 1966-80, M>5.95, and tested against SVP 1981-2002 • Fitted to ANSS catalogue of southern California, M>4.95

  10. Questions • Does the EEPAS model work equally well at all magnitude scales? • Are the parameter values universal across different regions and magnitude thresholds?

  11. Regions of surveillance • New Zealand • California • Japan • Greece

  12. Evolution of performance factor = L(EEPAS)/L(PPE)(a-c),or L(EEPAS)/L(SVP)(d)

  13. Regions of surveillance Kanto: M > 4.75 S. California: M > 4.95

  14. Observations For low magnitude applications in S. California and Kanto regions: • Spatially varying models are more informative with respect to SUP. • Equal weights version of EEPAS is better than version with aftershocks down-weighted. • Information rate of EEPAS with respect to spatially varying model is similar to applications at higher magnitude.

  15. Fitted distributions for time, magnitude & location, given mi in applications of EEPAS model.

  16. Modified magnitude distribution • Present model appears to be compromising between forecasting mainshocks and aftershocks for low magnitude application in S. California • Change magnitude distribution to allow for aftershocks

  17. where H(s) = 1 if s > 0 and 0 otherwise. (Density integrates to expected number of aftershocks). Then magnitude distribution of aftershocks predicted by ith earthquake is Modified magnitude distribution (2) Let x denote magnitude of mainshock, and y that of an aftershock. Assume If we set γ= ασM2, and δ′ = δ- ασM2/2, then where Gi(y) is the survivor function of gi(y).

  18. Modified magnitude distribution (3) Then the combined magnitude distribution (for mainshocks and their aftershocks) is • If α> β, then g′i(m) can be normalized so that the forecast magnitude distribution follows the G-R relation with slope parameter b=βln10. • If bM = 1, then the normalising function reduces to a constant (i.e., is independent of m).

  19. Individual earthquake contribution to rate density a. Original magnitude distribution b. Modified magnitude distribution

  20. Results • For S. California dataset, lnL of model is hardly improved. • Equal weight version of EEPAS still prevails. • Optimal value of δ′ ~1.3. • fi(t) parameters not changed much, but if σM and σT are constrained not to be small, then fi(t) is similar to other datasets, with only a small reduction of lnL.

  21. Fitted distributions for time, magnitude & location, given mi in applications of EEPAS model.

  22. Modified magnitude distribution Applied to S. California with σT<0.5 & σM<0.5.

  23. Conclusions • EEPAS model works similarly well at higher and lower magnitudes, but with some parameter differences, that may indicate deviations from scaling in the long-term seismogenic process. • Superiority of equal-weights version at low magnitudes is unexplained. • Effect of aftershocks on the fitting and performance of the model needs further investigation. • When σM and σT are constrained, the optimal time, magnitude and location distributions differ little between regions.

More Related