SCEC Project Details
SCEC Award Number | 17075 | View PDF | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposal Category | Collaborative Proposal (Integration and Theory) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposal Title | A Collaborative Project: Rupture Dynamics, Validation of the Numerical Simulation Method | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigator(s) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other Participants | at least 10 postdocs and students, in addition to the co-PI's already listed on the proposal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SCEC Priorities | 4a, 4b, 2d | SCEC Groups | GM, FARM, CME | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report Due Date | 06/15/2018 | Date Report Submitted | 05/17/2018 |
Project Abstract |
This multi-co-PI collaborative project (17075) included SCEC investigators (senior PIs, postdocs, and students) from at least six countries. Over the past decade the SCEC-USGS dynamic rupture code verification group constructed and performed more than 37 benchmark exercises, then demonstrated that more than 12 spontaneous rupture codes could reproduce each other’s results, using earthquake rupture simulations that incorporated a range of assumptions for the fault geometry, from simple planar to multi-fault rupture and rough faults, the velocity structure, from homogeneous to 1D to 3D along with elastic versus plastic or viscoplastic rock response, a range of initial stress conditions that ranged from homogeneous to stochastic heterogeneous, and multiple formulations for fault friction. The group also implemented a benchmark exercise using a model of the M6.0 Parkfield 2004 earth-quake, and compared the simulated synthetic seismograms with recorded seismograms. In 2017-early 2018, the goal was to investigate potential methods for dynamic rupture code validation. Whereas code verification was achieved (see Harris et al., SRL, 2018), code validation is different and difficult. Code validation questions include which information is to be validated, and which activities are sufficient to be declared successful. Possible approaches to code validation include using a test set of observations from multiple earthquakes and examining how well codes can match overall features of these observations. A successful validation would imply that the code(s) can be used as tools for forecasting the range of behavior by earthquakes that have not yet happened, a goal of many earthquake physics and ground motions studies. |
Intellectual Merit | This project helps us understand what our community’s computational capabilities are for simulating dynamic earthquake rupture and the resulting strong ground motions, using a physics-based perspective. Our project has helped advance the science of dynamic earthquake rupture simulation while also testing the codes used to perform these types of simulations. |
Broader Impacts | This project helps us understand what our community’s computational capabilities are for simulating dynamic earthquake rupture and the resulting strong ground motions, using a physics-based perspective. These types of simulations help us understand how earthquakes in the past have worked, and they might be able to tell us how earthquakes and strong ground shaking in the future might work. Students and postdocs are heavily involved in our project. We are the training and testing ground for current and future experts in this field. |
Exemplary Figure | Figure 1 is my classic figure about how the project works. |
Linked Publications
Add missing publication or edit citation shown. Enter the SCEC project ID to link publication. |
|