1 / 17

Seismology Response to the 2010 M7.2 El Mayor- Cucapah Earthquake

Seismology Response to the 2010 M7.2 El Mayor- Cucapah Earthquake. Elizabeth Cochran 11 Sept. 2011. Overview. Deployment Instruments and people Aftershock Relocation Clouds to faults? Lessons for the Next Response? Objectives, Communication, Instrumentation, Sites.

hope
Télécharger la présentation

Seismology Response to the 2010 M7.2 El Mayor- Cucapah Earthquake

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. Seismology Response to the 2010 M7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah Earthquake Elizabeth Cochran 11 Sept. 2011

  2. Overview • Deployment • Instruments and people • Aftershock Relocation • Clouds to faults? • Lessons for the Next Response? • Objectives, Communication, Instrumentation, Sites

  3. 4 April 2010 M7.2 El Mayor-Cucapahaka ‘Baja Earthquake’ • Most of the rupture was south of the California-Mexico border • Deployment Considerations: • Coordination between US and Mexican researchers • Customs issues for instrumentation

  4. Seismic Deployment Early Aftershocks: April 4 – 6 • Deployment teams: UCR, UCSB and SDSU • Instrumentation: • 5 UCR and 3 UCSB station set-ups • Installed strong (EpiSensors) and weak motion (L4) sensors Many thanks to the field teams!

  5. Safety First!

  6. Seismic Deployment: Stations installed between 4 April and 14 June 2010 Zoom Area

  7. Aftershock Relocation: Study Area SCSN Catalog Locations K. Kroll, Masters Thesis, UCR • 4000+ events within the study area • 13 stations: • 8 temporary (5 UCR; 3 UCSB) • 5 SCSN • Manually picked P and S arrivals • And, cross-correlated for higher precision

  8. Relocation:Methods Velocity Models Used CVM-4 Imperial Valley, 10% higher, 10%, & 20% lower HypoDD • Uses automated, manual, and cross-correlation picks • Provides good relative locations for well-clustered events • Relative locations are not highly dependent on velocity model Collapsing Method • Defines clusters of events • Principle component analysis of cluster to determine if is a point, line, or plane • Moves the events within error estimates

  9. Relocation:HypoDD Results • HypoDD relocations suggest some NW and NE striking features • However, features are still not very clear

  10. Relocation:Collapsing Results • NW and NE striking features are better defined • Features that are consistent across the models are labeled Zoom Area

  11. See Poster B-46 for more results! Aftershock Relocation in the Yuha Desert Following the 4 April 2010 M7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah Earthquake By K.A. Kroll, E.S. Cochran and K.B. Richards-Dinger

  12. Lessons for the Next Response Successful response requires: • Known science objectives 2010 US-side covered a limited portion of the aftershock zone, no simple surface rupture, edge of the SCSN. Goal: Use relocated seismicity to better define structures in the region Future High-resolution studies of large aftershocks? Fault zone studies? Site response across an urban area? Not clear if it is possible to fully define objectives in advance?

  13. Lessons for the Next Response Successful response requires: • Known science objectives • Rapid communication between groups interested in deployment Successful coordination through the SCEC Response Wiki Ensure information is relayed to all potential volunteers (not just PIs) Communication between groups during a large event (satellite phones, text message)?

  14. Lessons for the Next Response Successful response requires: • Known science objectives • Rapid communication between groups interested in deployment • Available equipment and locations 2010 Only a few stations were needed; telemetry was not reliable Future More equipment needed for a large quake; SCEC RAMP equipment needs modernizing Real time data integration into the network; important for rapid event detection, aftershock forecasting, research Often difficult to find adequate locations (security, power, etc.)

  15. Lessons for the Next Response Successful response requires: • Known science objectives • Rapid communication between groups interested in deployment • Available equipment, including telemetry

  16. RAMP Needs • Urban Ramp • Clear view of sky for GPS timing is often an issue • Small footprint makes building/land owners more comfortable • Smaller AC Power supply with charge controller and small battery • Coupling sensor to Earth for ground response observations • SSI – Free Field or building response • Remote Ramp • Secure location • Low power, autonomous, with ability to telemeter state of health at a minimum • Often marginal or no land-based communications service • Costly to maintain if the sites have to be visited regularly • Costly to integrate the data into the regional network after the fact. From Steidl, Seismic Instrumentation Workshop

  17. The End

More Related