1 / 17

Source Inversion Validation (SIV): Quantifying Uncertainties in Earthquake Source Inversions

Source Inversion Validation (SIV): Quantifying Uncertainties in Earthquake Source Inversions. Martin Mai Morgan Page Danijel Schorlemmer. Earthquake rupture models.

niyati
Télécharger la présentation

Source Inversion Validation (SIV): Quantifying Uncertainties in Earthquake Source Inversions

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. Source Inversion Validation (SIV): Quantifying Uncertainties in Earthquake Source Inversions Martin Mai Morgan Page Danijel Schorlemmer

  2. Earthquake rupture models • Finite-source inversion are done almost routinely today, using a variety of inversion / modeling approaches, different data sets and processing steps • We use the slip models to infer rupture dynamics, to devise source-characterization methods for ground-motion simulations, to perform Coulomb stress modeling, to …. • But: how “good”, i.e. reliable and robust, are these rupture models ?

  3. Intra-event variability • In cases where multiple slip-inversion solutions exist for a single earthquake we often find striking differences in the slip maps! • What drives the large differences between these slip models? A suite of models for the 1999 Izmit (M 7.5) earthquake

  4. Intra-event variability • In cases where multiple slip-inversion solutions exist for a single earthquake we often find striking differences in the slip maps! • What drives the large differences between these slip models? A suite of preliminary investigations of the large Chile earthquake

  5. Initial Project: SPICE BLIND TEST

  6. SPICE: Blind Test on Source Inversion • Source geometry and station distribution similar to the 2000 Tottori earthquake • Synthetic seismograms for 19 (33) near-fault sites (COMPSYN, fmax ~ 3 Hz) • Known: seismic moment: 1.43 x 1019 Nm, geometry (strike, dip, rake: 150°, 90°, 180°), hypocentral location and depth (Z= 12.5 km), velocity-density structure • Unknown: slip on fault plane, rupture velocity & rise time (both constant)

  7. SPICE: Blind Test on Source Inversion • 9 groups; the slip models from 5 groups are “visually” similar to the input model • waveform fits in all cases implied visually a “very good fit” ….

  8. Outcome of the blind test was unexpected • Despite the “simplicity” of the input model, inversions could not resolve slip very well; uncertainties in rupture velocity and rise time up to 20% • Despite differences among all inversion solutions, predicted waveforms are remarkably similar (f < 1 Hz), resulting in low misfit values (generally L2-norm) • 4 out of 9 inversion results are, statistically speaking, NOT better than a random model with somehow correlated slip! • Issues in the inversion method? • Issues in the parameterization? • Issues in the provided synthetics (“correct” solution) • Issues in the “basics”: Green’s function computation

  9. Source Inversion Validation

  10. Past Activities within the SIV Initiative • SPICE source inversion blindtest • March 2005 – Dec 2007; 9 participating groups • Special AGU session (Dec 2007) with invited speakers • Problems: short-lived; no funding; suggested data formats where not used, and hence lots of manual labor to generate comparisons • SCEC workshop on earthquake source inversion (Sept. 2008) • ~50 participants, 6 invited speakers, and ~3 hrs intense discussions • General consensus that SIV (Source Inversion Validation) has to continue • Collection of general ideas on how to setup the problems and how to organize ourselves … but no formal decisions or “constitution of a core group”

  11. Past Activities within the SIV Initiative • Proposal to SCEC for financial support for 2009 SCEC-SIV workshop • Dedicated webpage launched (March 2009) • Online platform to distribute the inversion problems and all relevant meta-data • General communication & exchange platform for everyone interested in SIV • Mini-workshop during SSA 2009 (April 2009) • ~20 participants for general ~2 hrs discussion on future activities • Step 0: Setup of Green’s function test and initial forward-modeling exercise • Workshop during the Annual SCEC meeting (Sept 2009) • Talks on uncertainty assessment, Bayesian modeling, robustness, source dynamics • Discussions on “Expectations from forward-modeling exercise” and “Simple inversion exercise” • Discussion on implementation (CSEP-like approach ?) http://siv.usc.edu

  12. Past Activities within the SIV Initiative • Workshop at KAUST, (March 22-24, 2010) • ~20 non-KAUST & 10 KAUST-affiliated participants • 3 days of talks and discussions on • Green’s function validation • New approaches to (source) inversion and validation • Addressing uncertainties and differences in source models • Using source models in subsequent work • Computational aspects & testing center • How to enjoy snorkeling and not to get sea-sick in unexpectedly rough waters in the Red Sea

  13. Program for this workshop • Saturday, September 11, 2010 (1:30-5:30pm) • Session I: Review of SIV Activities and Green's Function Test Results • 1:30 – 1:45 Mai, Page, Schorlemmer: SIV Introduction • 1:45 – 2:05 Causse, Mai, and all participants: Results from Green's function test • 2:05 – 2:35 Shao & Ji : What did the Exercise of SPICE Source Inversion Validation BlindTest not Tell You? • 2:35 – 3:45 Discussion of Green’s function Results • 3:45 – 4:00 break • Session II: Inversion Techniques & Slip Models • 4:00 – 4:20 Song: Does earthquake slip follow Gaussian statistics? • 4:20 – 4:50 Lavallee, Archuleta, Schmedes: Spectral analysis of slip spatial •   distributions • 4:50 – 5:30 Discussion of previous talks & plans for Sunday breakout groups

  14. Program for this workshop • Sunday, September 12, 2010 (8:00am-12:00pm) • Session III: Inversion Techniques and Seismic-Network Geometry • 8:00 – 8:30 Ellsworth: Source inversion with minimal assumptions • 8:30 – 9:00 Meng & Ampuero: Optimal network geometries for source inversion • 9:00 – 9:45 Discussion of previous talks, setting up the initial inversion test • 9:45 – 10:00 break • Session IV: Break-Out Session and Open Discussion • 10:00-10:45 Breakout groups meet • Preliminary breakout groups: • Input/Output formats, station geometry, • source models, forward model calculations, • misfit functions web tools & development • Where are we heading? What needs to be done? Who does what? • 10:45-12:00 Summaries from breakout groups, Open Discussion

  15. Step 0: Green’s Function Validation • Do all groups compute the Green’s function appropriately? • The SIV-project thus start with a zero-order test to verify GF-computations: • “point-source” at 10 km depth, parameterized as a 1 x 1 km2 slip patch with homogeneous slip and boxcar slip-function of duration τr = 0.2 sec • The shear-modulus at the given depth result in: Mw 4.992, M0 = 3.4992 x 1016 point-source depth

  16. Step 0: Green’s Function Validation • Two cases are considered for the Green’s function test • purely left-lateral strike-slip rupture on a vertical fault • purely thrust-motion on a 40° dipping fault • Stations at Y = 1 km parallel to surface projection of fault plane, and two arrays that are 30° and 60° rotated from the fault-parallel direction

  17. Details on Green’s function test in the next talk

More Related