Long-Period Motions and Fault Slip. Douglas Dreger

Similar documents
Updated Graizer-Kalkan GMPEs (GK13) Southwestern U.S. Ground Motion Characterization SSHAC Level 3 Workshop 2 Berkeley, CA October 23, 2013

Developing ENA GMPE s Using Broadband Synthe=c Seismograms from Finite- Fault Simula=ons

Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting

Deterministic Generation of Broadband Ground Motions! with Simulations of Dynamic Ruptures on Rough Faults! for Physics-Based Seismic Hazard Analysis

SDSU Module Kim Olsen and Rumi Takedatsu San Diego State University

Synthetic Near-Field Rock Motions in the New Madrid Seismic Zone

Ground Motion Prediction Equations: Past, Present, and Future

Development of Ground Motion Time Histories for Seismic Design

Graves and Pitarka Method

DIRECT HAZARD ANALYSIS OF INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRA

Single-Station Phi Using NGA-West2 Data

VALIDATION AGAINST NGA EMPIRICAL MODEL OF SIMULATED MOTIONS FOR M7.8 RUPTURE OF SAN ANDREAS FAULT

Earthquake stress drop estimates: What are they telling us?

2C09 Design for seismic and climate changes

NGA-Subduction: Development of the Largest Ground Motion Database for Subduction Events

Spatial Correlation of Ground Motions in Seismic Hazard Assessment

Lower Bounds on Ground Motion at Point Reyes During the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake from Train Toppling Analysis

Ground-Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) from a Global Dataset: The PEER NGA Equations

SCEC Broadband Platform (BBP) Simulation Methods Validation for NGA-East

WAACY Magnitude PSF Model (Wooddell, Abrahamson, Acevedo-Cabrera, and Youngs) Norm Abrahamson DCPP SSC workshop #3 Mar 25, 2014

by Shahram Pezeshk, Arash Zandieh, Kenneth W. Campbell, and Behrooz Tavakoli Introduction

Earthquake Stress Drops in Southern California

Comparison of NGA-West2 GMPEs

LAB: PLATE TECTONICS GOAL: Calculate rates of plate movement

Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Projects

DEVELOPMENT OF AUTOMATED MOMENT TENSOR SOFTWARE AT THE PROTOTYPE INTERNATIONAL DATA CENTER

DEVELOPING TIME HISTORIES WITH ACCEPTABLE RECORD PARAMETERS FOR DILLON DAM. Dina Bourliea Hunt, P.E. 1 Justin Beutel, P.E. 2 Christine Weber, P.E.

RECORD OF REVISIONS. Page 2 of 17 GEO. DCPP.TR.14.06, Rev. 0

The SDSU Broadband Ground Motion Generation Module BBtoolbox Version 1.5

Hybrid Empirical Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for Eastern North America Using NGA Models and Updated Seismological Parameters

Vertical to Horizontal (V/H) Ratios for Large Megathrust Subduction Zone Earthquakes

ANALYSIS OF ORDINARY BRIDGES CROSSING FAULT-RUPTURE ZONES

Rupture directivity effects during the April 15, 2016 Kumamoto. Mw7.0 earthquake in Japan

Study of Rupture Directivity in a Foam Rubber Physical Model

Non-Ergodic Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses

High Definition Earthquake Modeling - How Technology is Changing our Understanding of Earthquake Risk

RELATIVE MOTION ANALYSIS: VELOCITY (Section 16.5)

STRIKE SLIP SPLAY USING DYNAMIC RUPTURE MODELS

Mechatronics. MANE 4490 Fall 2002 Assignment # 1

Response Modification of Urban Infrastructure. 7 Chapter 7 Rocking Isolation of Foundations. Kazuhiko Kawashima Tokyo Institute of Technology

A note on ground motion recorded during Mw 6.1 Mae Lao (Northern Thailand) earthquake on 5 May 2014

Earthquake Focal Mechanisms and Waveform Modeling

Seismic Source Mechanism

Estimation of Strong Ground Motion: Aleatory Variability and Epistemic Uncertainty

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER. NGA-West2 Ground Motion Prediction Equations for Vertical Ground Motions

The Role of Physics-Based Ground Motion Models in Non-Ergodic Site-Specific PSHA Studies

Determining the Earthquake Epicenter: Japan

Friction Lab Name: L1

25 July 2005: Dave s notes on work done for PEER NGA project File: \peer_nga\teamx\daves_notes_mechrake_c3_stage1_stage2_pga_25july2005.

Lecture 14: Strain Examples. GEOS 655 Tectonic Geodesy Jeff Freymueller

2.13 Linearization and Differentials

UPDATED GRAIZER-KALKAN GROUND- MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR WESTERN UNITED STATES

AP Physics C Mechanics Vectors

Recent Advances in Development of Ground Motion Prediction Equations

Introduction to Displacement Modeling

STUDYING THE IMPORTANT PARAMETERS IN EARTHQUAKE SIMULATION BASED ON STOCHASTIC FINITE FAULT MODELING

Solutions to ECE 2026 Problem Set #1. 2.5e j0.46

Widespread Ground Motion Distribution Caused by Rupture Directivity during the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal Earthquake

Near-Source Ground Motion along Strike-Slip Faults: Insights into Magnitude Saturation of PGV and PGA

Estimation of Peak Ground Acceleration for Delhi Region using Finsim, a Finite Fault Simulation Technique

Maximum Direction to Geometric Mean Spectral Response Ratios using the Relevance Vector Machine

Lab 9: Satellite Geodesy (35 points)

Kappa for Candidate GMPEs

7 The Navier-Stokes Equations

Review for 3 rd Midterm

Please be sure to save a copy of this activity to your computer!

Answers to selected problems from Essential Physics, Chapter 10

Physics 211 Week 10. Statics: Walking the Plank (Solution)

Lab 6: Earthquake Focal Mechanisms (35 points)

Trigonometry Test 3 Practice Chapters 5 and 6 NON-CALCULATOR PORTION

SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS. Instructional Material Complementing FEMA 451, Design Examples Seismic Hazard Analysis 5a - 1

Simulation-based Seismic Hazard Analysis Using CyberShake

Module 2. Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures by the Matrix Force Method

Ground Motion Prediction Equation Hazard Sensitivity Results for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Site (PVNGS)

Solutions Practice Test - PHYS 211 Final Exam (New Material)

Splay Fault Considerations

Modeling of Cyclic Load-Deformation Behavior of Shallow Foundations Supporting Rocking Shear Walls. Sivapalan Gajan. Advisor: Bruce Kutter

Spatial Cross-correlation Models for Vector Intensity Measures (PGA, Ia, PGV and Sa s) Considering Regional Site Conditions

SELECTION OF GROUND-MOTION PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS : CASE STUDY OF TAIWAN

b) Fluid friction: occurs when adjacent layers in a fluid are moving at different velocities.

NGA-West 2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes

Numerical Studies of Backscattering from Time Evolving Sea Surfaces: Comparison of Hydrodynamic Models

PRACTICE 2 PROYECTO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN DE PUENTES. 1º Máster Ingeniería de Caminos. E.T.S.I. Caminos, canales y puertos (Ciudad Real) 01/06/2016

Electromagnetic Spectrum

The 2016, October 26, Central Italy Earthquake Origin Time 17:10:36 UTC, M L(ISNet) =5.3; M W(ISNet) =5.6

Sequences & Functions

GEM-PEER Global GMPEs Project Guidance for Including Near-Fault Effects in Ground Motion Prediction Models

F R. + F 3x. + F 2y. = (F 1x. j + F 3x. i + F 2y. i F 3y. i + F 1y. j F 2x. ) i + (F 1y. ) j. F 2x. F 3y. = (F ) i + (F ) j. ) j

Source parameters II. Stress drop determination Energy balance Seismic energy and seismic efficiency The heat flow paradox Apparent stress drop

Analysis Of Seismic Performance Of Fps Base Isolated Structures Subjected To Near Fault Events

Tsunami potential and modeling

Physics 8 Wednesday, November 9, 2011

PHY 001 (Physics I) Lecture 7

Ground Motion and Seismicity Aspects of the 4 September 2010 Darfield and 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquakes

GPS Strain & Earthquakes Unit 5: 2014 South Napa earthquake GPS strain analysis student exercise

EXAM-3 PHYS 201 (Fall 2006), 10/31/06

Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

As we know, the three basic trigonometric functions are as follows: Figure 1

PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER

AP Calculus AB Chapter 2 Test Review #1

Transcription:

Long-Period Motions and Fault Slip Douglas Dreger

Long-Period Motions and Fault Slip It was remarked that long-period motions at sites close to the fault are most sensitive to nearby slip on the fault when we define everything in terms of magnitude this may oversimplify the problem. Suggestions: Check long-period motions (PSd) against fault slip. Check static displacement against fault slip. Compare simulated and GMPE PSd

Landers Simulation Fault and Stations LCN JOS Examined the 50 realization of the BBP Landers simulations at the two closest stations, LCN and JOS.

Slip Model from One GP/SDSU Simulation JOS LCN

Fault Slip Measures Considered Nearest surface slip Maximum radiation weighted FP slip Maximum radiation weighted FN slip Geometric mean of maximum weighted FP & FN slip Geometric mean of FP & FN radiation weighted average slip

Compute the Fsh and Fsv, and then project to Fp and Fn radiation pattern from all points on the fault for a given station. Compute the inverse distance scaling (geometric spreading) for all points on the fault for a given station. The product of the radiation pattern term and the spreading defines the fault slip sensitivity and can be used as weights in a weighted average of fault slip.

Compute the Distribution of Fault Slip for 13 stations and 50 simulations to assess whether a single location captures slip variability

Nearest Surface Fault Slip Number (13 stations by 50 simulations Slip (cm)

Nearest Surface Fault Slip Number Slip (cm)

Simulated Ground Displacement at LCN from 50 Source Realizations Both static displacement, and peak displacement are measured from the simulated time histories to compare to nearby fault slip.

Static Ground Displacement Compared to Surface Slip and Radiation-Spreading Averaged Slip for LCN Fault Parallel Static Ground Motion (cm) ½ Nearest Surface Fault Slip (cm)

Radiation Pattern and Geometrical Spreading Weighted Average of Fault Slip Number (13 stations by 50 simulations) Slip (cm)

Radiation Pattern and Geometrical Spreading Weighted Average of Fault Slip Number Slip (cm)

Comparison of Static Ground Displacement vs. Rad-Geo Weighted Average Fault Slip Fault Parallel Static Ground Motion (cm) ½ Rad-Geo Weighted Average Fault Slip (cm)

Peak FN Ground Displacement Compared to Radiation- Spreading Averaged Fault Slip for LCN

Peak FP Ground Displacement Compared to Radiation- Spreading Averaged Fault Slip for LCN

Vector Maximum Peak Ground Displacement Compared to Radiation-Spreading Averaged Fault Slip for LCN

Geometric Mean PSd: Landers: 50 Simulations: Station LCN 1-3 sec 3-7 sec > 13 sec Psd (centimeters) Period (seconds)

Fault Slip vs. Psd Psd (1 to 3 seconds) Radiation and geometric spreading weighted average fault slip (cm)

Fault Slip vs. Psd Psd (3-7 seconds) Radiation and geometric spreading weighted average fault slip (cm)

Fault Slip vs. Psd Psd (>13 seconds) Radiation and geometric spreading weighted average fault slip (cm)

Comparison of Static Ground Displacement vs. Rad-Geo Weighted Average Fault Slip Station JOS Fault Parallel Static Ground Motion (cm) ½ Nearest Surface Fault Slip (cm)

Comparison of Static Ground Displacement vs. Rad-Geo Weighted Average Fault Slip Station JOS Fault Parallel Static Ground Motion (cm) ½ Rad-Geo Weighted Average Fault Slip (cm)

Peak FN Ground Displacement Compared to Radiation- Spreading Averaged Fault Slip for JOS

Peak FP Ground Displacement Compared to Radiation- Spreading Averaged Fault Slip for JOS

Comparison of Simulated, Observed, and GMPE PSd Station LCN ASK2014 BSSA2014 CB2014 CY2014 IM2014 The thick red line is the geometric mean of observed PSd. Plusses show the geometric mean of the two horizontal components from 50 simulations.

Comparison of Simulated, Observed, and GMPE PSd Station JOS ASK2014 BSSA2014 CB2014 CY2014 IM2014 The thick red line is the geometric mean of observed PSd. Plusses show the geometric mean of the two horizontal components from 50 simulations.

Summary Static displacement, peak displacement, and long-period Psd all correlate with spatially averaged fault slip. The weighted average of fault slip was computed using weights based on the FP and FN radiation patterns with geometrical spreading. PSd from GMPEs are consistent with simulations at long-period.