Annual Meeting - SCEC.org
Annual Meeting - SCEC.org
Annual Meeting - SCEC.org
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Report | <strong>SCEC</strong> Research Accomplishments<br />
Shearer, P., E. Hauksson, and G. Lin, Southern California hypocenter relocation with waveform cross correlation: Part 2.<br />
Results using source-specific station terms and cluster analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 904-915, doi:<br />
10.1785/0120040168, 2005.<br />
Stephenson, W. J., J. K. Odum, R. A.Williams, and M. L. Anderson, 2002, Delineation of faulting and basin geometry along a<br />
seismic reflection transect in urbanized San Bernardino valley, California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 2504–2520.<br />
Süss, M. P., and J. H. Shaw, 2003, P-wave seismic velocity structure derived from sonic logs and industry reflection data in the<br />
Los Angeles basin, California, Journal of Geophysical<br />
Research, 108/B3.<br />
Tape, C., Q. Liu, A. Maggi, and J. Tromp, 2010, Seismic<br />
tomography of the southern California crust based on<br />
spectral-element and adjoint methods, Geophys. J. Int.,<br />
180, 433–462.<br />
Tape, C., Q. Liu, A. Maggi, and J. Tromp, 2009, Adjoint<br />
tomography of southern California, Science, vol 325, p.<br />
988-992.<br />
Fault and Rupture Mechanics<br />
The primary mission of the Fault and Rupture Mechanics<br />
Focus Group is to develop physics-based models of the<br />
nucleation, propagation, and arrest of dynamic rupture to<br />
understand earthquakes in Southern California. Specific<br />
research goals of FARM are to investigate the relative<br />
importance of different dynamic weakening mechanisms,<br />
characterize the constitutive behavior of faults and<br />
develop a capability to incorporate the behavior into<br />
dynamic rupture models, discover the relation of fault<br />
zone structure and earthquake mechanics at all scales, and<br />
determine the extent and causes of rupture directivity.<br />
Over the past year a large number of funded projects have<br />
addressed the research priorities of FARM using a variety<br />
of techniques. For the purpose of reporting research<br />
accomplishments, the projects are loosely categorized into<br />
the themes of fault-slip behavior, the micromechanics of<br />
faulting, the constitutive behavior of fault materials,<br />
advanced dynamic rupture modeling, and the<br />
characteristics of fault-slip and fault structure through<br />
observational studies in the field and laboratory. This<br />
section provides a brief summary of some<br />
accomplishments and research-related activities reported<br />
in March of 2011. Additional accomplishments are<br />
reviewed in other sections of this report. For a complete<br />
review of all FARM-related activities please see the annual<br />
reports for the individual projects posted on the <strong>SCEC</strong><br />
website.<br />
Mechanics-based Analysis of Fault Slip<br />
Behavior<br />
Building off of earlier work of Shearer et al. (2005), Bird<br />
recomputed Brune-type stress drops of magnitude 1.5-3.1<br />
earthquakes occurring in southern California from 1989 to<br />
2001 to test hypotheses relating stress drops to hypocentral<br />
56 | Southern California Earthquake Center<br />
Figure 18. Interpreted stress-drop regimes, based on temperature- and<br />
depth-systematics (from Fig. 3 in <strong>SCEC</strong> Report #10025). Dotted lines<br />
show steady-state geotherms for various heat-flows, based on the<br />
assumed crustal conductivity and radioactivity. Long-dashed curves<br />
show model brittle/ductile transition conditions (for strain rates varying<br />
over 4 orders of magnitude) in the homogeneous crustal rheology<br />
assumed by Liu & Bird [2002], whose models used the same thermal<br />
parameters and map of of heat flow.<br />
Figure 19. (a) The profiles of coseismic displacement on the Earth<br />
surface for the elastic simulation, a plastic simulation, an elastic<br />
prediction for the simulated slip distribution shown in panel b, and the<br />
best fitting model to the plastic response in the inversion. (b) The slip<br />
distribution in the plastic simulation and slip inversions of the surface<br />
displacements. The blue curve is the inverted slip of the surface<br />
displacement of the elastic prediction. The red curve is the inverted slip<br />
of the surface displacement of the simulated plastic response. (c)<br />
Difference between the inverted slip distributions shown in panel b,<br />
indicating that 10% (0.5 m) of the coseismic slip at 3-4 km depths is<br />
due to an artifact of the inversion that is based on the elastic model.