3D

1
Thursday May 9 830 am-noon Working Group
4 Convenors Olsen, Igel, Furumura Macro-scale
Simulation Dynamic Rupture and Wave
Propagation Innovations in Dynamic and Kinematic
Modeling
2
Oral Presentations (WG 4) 830 am
Introduction (Olsen) 835 am Earthquakes on
Heterogeneous Faults (Harris) 850 am On the
Estimation of Dynamic Rupture Parameters
(Olsen) 910 am Seismic Energy Computed from
Dynamic Models (Archuleta/Favreau) 930 am FE
Simulations of Seismic Wave Propagation with a
Voxel Grid (Koketsu/Ikegami) 945 am The
Deformations and Fractures for Granite Block of
Y-Mode With En Echelon Fault During Biaxial
Compression (Xu/Yang/Zhao/Chen) 1000 am
Break 1020 am Guided Waves from Sources Outside
Faults An Indication for Shallow Fault Zone
Structure? (Igel/Fohrmann/Jahnke/BenZion) 1040
am Update on SE Code Development and
Applications SE Simulations of Earthquakes at
Global and Regional Scales (Komatitsch/Tromp/Shaw)
1100 am Parallel 3D Simulation of Seismic Wave
Propagation Observations and Simulations
(Furumura) 1120 am The PEER/SCEC Wave
Propagation Code Validation Exercise (Day) 1140
am Panel Discussion Noon Lunch
3
Poster Presentations (WG 4) Modeling of Strong
Ground Motions Observed for the 9/10/95 M8
Jalisco (Mexico) Earthquake (Chavez
Olsen) Stress-Breakdown Time and Critical
Weakening Slip Inferred From Slip Velocity
Functions on Earthquake Faults (Mikumo, Fukuyama,
Olsen Yagi) 3D Rendering of Earthquake
Simulations (Olsen) Dynamic Rupture Simulation on
Geologically Constrained Segments of the Uemachi
Fault, Osaka, Japan (Kase, Sekiguchi, Horikawa,
Satake Sugiyama)
4
On The Estimation of Dynamic Rupture Parameters

• Kim Olsen ICS UCSB
• S. Peyrat, T. Mikumo, E, Fukuyama, and R.
  Madariaga
• 3rd ACES Meeting
• Maui, May 9 2002

5
Slip-weakening Distance ?
Characteristic Length ?
Fracture Energy ?

• Yield Stress ?

k ?
Initial Stress ?
Strain Energy ?
Velocity-weakening Distance ?
6
Slip-weakening Rupture Model
7
Friction - Strength StressPossible to
Estimate Separately ?
8
Three Equivalent Dynamic Rupture Models
9
Comparison of DynamicRupture Propagation
10
Accelerograms Versus Synthetic Ground
MotionFrom Inversion ofDynamic Rupture
11
GPS
Surface Slip
InSAR
12
FrictionPossible to Estimate Directly ?
13

Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen Yagi (2002)
Slip(Tpv) Dc

Dc
Tb
Tpv
14

Mikumo, Fukuyama, Olsen Yagi (2002)
Slip(Tpv) Dc

Tb
15

Displacement (Tpv) Dc Near Fault ??

Displacement (slip?)
Dc ?
Velocity (sliprate?)
Tpv
16
Homogeneous Initial Stress Vertical Fault,
Surface Rupture (Dc20 cm)
Dc10 cm
Dc10 cm
17
More Complex Models (Dc20 cm)
Dc10 cm
Dc10 cm
Dc10 cm
18
2000 Mw 6.6 Tottori Earthquake
?
?
19
TTRH02 GSH Dc25-40 cm
20
Lucerne Valley from 1992 Mw 7.3 Landers
Dc 40 cm
21
Rupture PropagationPossible to Characterize
bya Single Parameter ?
22
Critical Rupture Propagation
23
Rupture Bifurcation
24
Fracture Energy Versus Strain Energy
25
Rupture Bifurcation
Te2 L k
m Tu Dck lt kc
no rupturekc lt k lt 1.5 kc Vr lt Vsk gt 1.5 kc
Vr gt Vs
26
Summary

• Accelerograms constrain rupture propagation,
  fracture energy, but not Dc, Te, Tu, through
  waveform modeling
• Measurement of Dc from near-fault strong motion
  data within factor of 2
• Non-dimensional number k characterizes rupture
  propagation