28.01.2013 Views

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

Annual Meeting - SCEC.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Poster Abstracts | Group 1 – ExGM<br />

energy partitioning during rupture, and find that the plastic strain energy dissipated in the bulk<br />

can be several times the slip-weakening fracture energy.<br />

1-069<br />

SPATIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN KINEMATIC SOURCE PARAMETERS<br />

DERIVED FROM DYNAMIC RUPTURE SIMULATIONS Schmedes J, Archuleta RJ, and<br />

Lavallee D<br />

For a kinematic model to accurately predict ground motion, it is necessary not only to know the<br />

spatial distribution of the source parameters but also to know the correlation among the<br />

parameters. Because there are limitations from inversions of seismic data, we determine the spatial<br />

correlations from physically based dynamic ruptures.<br />

We computed and analyzed 150 dynamic subshear rupture models to get a quantitative<br />

understanding of the correlation and amplitude distributions of parameters describing the<br />

earthquake source, such as stress drop, rupture velocity, and rise time. The dynamic ruptures are<br />

based on a slip weakening friction law and different approaches to create random heterogeneous<br />

initial stress and strength distributions on the fault. While there is much to be learned by looking at<br />

differences among all the models, we focus on features that are common among all models, that is,<br />

features that show the least dependence on the choice of the initial model. Using the 150 dynamic<br />

ruptures, we are able to construct probability density functions (PDF’s) for the amplitude<br />

distributions of the source parameters as well as for the spatial correlation between the source<br />

parameters.<br />

We find: (1) slip amplitude does not show systematic correlations with rupture velocity, and it is<br />

positively correlated with rise time; (2) peak slip rate shows strong correlation with rupture<br />

velocity and rise time; (3) the PDF of rupture velocity has a well defined maximum between 80%-<br />

90% of the shear wave velocity. The value of this maximum probability density increases with<br />

distance from the hypocenter, while the width of the PDF decreases, i.e., the rupture velocity tends<br />

toward a more constant value. A similar dependence is found for the PDF of the rise times, which<br />

has a width that decreases with increasing distance from the nucleation zone; moreover, the mean<br />

value of the rise time shifts to a smaller value.<br />

Our findings will be used to refine the rupture model currently used in the <strong>SCEC</strong> broadband<br />

simulation platform.<br />

1-070<br />

IS TIME/SLIP/VELOCITY WEAKENING NECESSARY IN DYNAMIC RUPTURE<br />

SIMULATIONS? APPLICATION OF A DISCRETE ELEMENT METHOD TO MODEL<br />

YUCCA MOUNTAIN GROUND MOTIONS Purvance MD<br />

Using geotechnical and fault offset data, Andrews et al. (2008 - AEA08) developed dynamic<br />

rupture models to constrain the physical limits on ground motions at Yucca Mountain. The AEA08<br />

model uses a traction-at-split-node finite difference and includes realistic material properties,<br />

topography, and initial stresses. To independently verify the AEA08 ground motions, this work<br />

builds a distinct element (DEM) dynamic rupture model for Yucca Mountain. The bulk material is<br />

discretized by a triangular lattice consisting of linear springs connecting nodes (32 m spacing, 0.25<br />

Poisson ratio). This Lagrangian approach tracks nodal positions and velocities using the Velocity<br />

Verlet algorithm (accurate to 4th order in position, 2nd order in velocity). The fault sides interact<br />

through a soft contact law where normal stresses develop from overlap between a node on one side<br />

of the fault and the opposite fault member. Shear stress increments are obtained by calculating the<br />

106 | Southern California Earthquake Center

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!