1 / 15

Evaluation of simulation results: Aftershocks in space

Evaluation of simulation results: Aftershocks in space. Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena. Preliminary Work!!. Subject to change!. The ETAS simulations assign aftershock density with distance, r , from the mainshock as:. Aftershock density = 1/(r+ dmin) - distDecay.

yoland
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of simulation results: Aftershocks in space

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. Evaluation of simulation results: Aftershocks in space Karen Felzer USGS Pasadena

  2. Preliminary Work!! Subject to change!

  3. The ETAS simulations assign aftershock density with distance, r, from the mainshock as: Aftershock density = 1/(r+dmin)-distDecay Trial parameter combinations: Which simulation parameters recreate real data the best?

  4. Trial Cases Northridge earthquake Landers earthquake

  5. Before we start: Where’s the fault? • The parameter r must be measured to the mainshock fault plane, but where exactly is the real rupture surface?

  6. Faults can be very complex Detail of El Mayor-Cucapah rupture, (Rymer et al. in preparation, courtesy of Katherine Kendrick)

  7. Quick and dirty aftershock-based fault-tracing approach • Place aftershocks into 5x5x5 km bins • Sort the bins by aftershock density • Calculate Nbin = min((Fault area)/10,(Total number of populated bins)/4) • Place fault points at the median aftershock location in the Nbin most populated bins • The distance r is measured from aftershock hypocenters to the nearest fault point.

  8. Fault points for the Landers earthquake M 3+ aftershocks

  9. Fault points for a simulated Landers earthquake with minDist = 0.3 km and distDecay = 1.7 M 2.5+ aftershocks

  10. Fault points for the Northridge earthquake M 2.0+ aftershocks

  11. Fault points for a simulated Northridge earthquake with minDist = 0.3 km and distDecay = 1.7 M 2.5+ aftershocks

  12. Data and simulation comparison: Landers earthquake Aftershock density decays more quickly in the near field, and more slowly in the far field, than any of the simulations Suggests we need dmin<0.3 km, distDecay<1.7 Real data

  13. Data and simulation comparison: Northridge earthquake • Aftershock density decay rate is similar to the distDecay=2.0 and distDecay=2.5 simulations in the near field • Far field decay is closest to the distDecay=2.5 simulation. • Different results than for Landers!! Real data

  14. How similar is the aftershock decay for different real earthquakes? • I compare aftershock density vs. distance for Landers, Hector Mine, Northridge, and Joshua Tree. • Each earthquake is different, but Hector Mine and Joshua Tree are closer to Northridge-type than Landers-type behavior: supports distDecay=2.0-2.5. • Big Bear aftershock may be an issue?

  15. Future work • Refine method for finding fault points. • Do aftershock measurements for many more large to moderate mainshocks. • Do measurements with relocated aftershocks. • Test sensitivity of results to minimum magnitude and duration of aftershocks used. • Look for systematic variation of aftershock behavior with mainshock characteristics. • Decide whether sequence-specific parameters will be necessary.

More Related