WandCreview

Information about WandCreview

Published on October 9, 2007

Author: Jancis

Source: authorstream.com

Content

New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith BSSA, 1994:  New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement Donald L. Wells and Kevin J. Coppersmith BSSA, 1994 03/09/2007 Earthquake of the Week Introduction:  Introduction A precise estimates of the size of the largest earthquake is necessary for seismic hazard analysis. It is rare during the historic period. Earthquake magnitude can be estimated from fault rupture parameters. The purpose is to present new and revised empirical relationships between various rupture parameters. Include data from recent earthquakes. New investigations of older earthquakes. Data Base:  Data Base Source parameters of 421 historic earthquakes are used. Seismic moment, magnitude, focal mechanism, focal depth, slip type, surface and subsurface rupture length, maximum and average surface displacement, downdip rupture width, and rupture area. Only continental interplate or intraplate earthquakes (M > ~4.5, h < 40 km) No earthquakes associated with subduction zones. All data are evaluated. The most accurate value or average value is taken for further analysis. If there are many observations. 244 earthquakes are selected to develop empirical relationships. Ms vs. Mw:  Ms vs. Mw No systematic difference between Ms and M within the range of 5.0 to 8.0 Ms is systematically smaller than M in the range of 4.7 to 5.0 The standard deviation of the difference between each pair of Ms and M is ~ 0.19. Surface/Subsurface rupture length:  Surface/Subsurface rupture length Surface rupture length averaged about 75% of subsurface rupture length. The ratio appears to increase with magnitude. Mw vs. displacement:  Mw vs. displacement The ratio of average to maximum displacement does not vary systematically as a function of magnitude (Figure 5) Ave. surface disp < Ave. Subsurface disp. < Max surface disp. Regression Model:  Regression Model The distribution of residuals shows no obvious trends -> a linear regression model provides a satisfactory fit to the data. Regression Results and Statistical Significance:  Regression Results and Statistical Significance Only the reverse-slip relationships for maximum and average displacement are not significant at a 95% probability level Analysis of Parameter Correlations (I):  Analysis of Parameter Correlations (I) Strong Correlation (r = 0.89 to 0.95, s = 0.24 to 0.28) Mw vs. Surface Rupture Length, Subsurface Rupture Length and Rupture Area Analysis of Parameter Correlations (II):  Analysis of Parameter Correlations (II) Weak Correlation (r = 0.75 to 0.78, s = 0.39 to 0.40) Mw vs. Maximum and Average Displacement Analysis of Parameter Correlations (III):  Analysis of Parameter Correlations (III) Weakest Correlation (r = 0.71 to 0.75, s = 0.36 to 0.41) Maximum and Average Displacement vs. Surface Rupture Length Effect of Slip Type on Regressions:  Effect of Slip Type on Regressions T test for the regression coefficients for individual slip-type data sets to the coefficients for the rest of the data. SS to N+R, N to R+SS, and R to SS+N Individual slip relationships to each other. SS to R, SS to N, R to N The difference between regression coefficients are negligible if they are not different at a 95% significance level. Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (II):  Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (II) The difference is negligible Surface rupture length and subsurface rupture length vs. Mw Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (III):  Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (III) The difference is not negligible for R to N+SS (left) R to SS (right) Rupture Area and Subsurface Rupture Width vs. Magnitude Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (IV):  Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (IV) Mw vs. maximum and average displacement The difference is significant (SS to N+R) SS regression has the highest correlation and the lowest standard deviation Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (V):  Effect of Slip Type on Regressions (V) Maximum and Average displacement vs. surface rupture length The difference is negligible (SS to N) SS regression has the highest correlation and the lowest standard deviation Effect of Data Selection:  Effect of Data Selection Sensitivity test by removing two data points at random from each data set and recalculating the regression coefficients. More than approximately 14 data points are stable. Larger data sets typically have higher correlations and lower standard deviations. Although there are far more data points for subsurface rupture length and rupture area relationships than for surface rupture relationships, they have only slightly higher correlation coefficients and slightly lower standard deviations. These regressions are very stable and are unlikely to change significantly with additional data Effect of Tectonic Setting:  Effect of Tectonic Setting The difference between the extensional and compressional coefficients is insignificant The rupture area regressions differ at a 95% significant level (SCR vs. non SCR) -> difference in expected magnitudes generally is small (< 0.2) Conclusion (I):  Conclusion (I) Surface rupture length typically is equal to 75% of the subsurface rupture length. The average surface displacement typically is equal to one-half of the maximum surface displacement The ratio of surface rupture length to subsurface rupture length increases slightly as magnitude (M) increases There is no apparent relationship between the ratio of average displacement to maximum displacement and magnitude (M). The average subsurface displacement is more than the average surface displacement and less than the maximum surface displacement No systematic difference between Ms and M (Mw) over the range of magnitude 5.7 to 8.0. Ms is systematically smaller than M for magnitudes less than 5.7 Conclusion (II):  Conclusion (II) The empirical regressions show a strong correlation between magnitude and various rupture parameters M vs. surface rupture length, subsurface rupture length, downdip rupture width, and rupture area are well determined (r = 0.84 – 0.95 and std = 0.24 to 0.41) Displacement vs. rupture length/magnitude are less well correlated (r = 0.71 – 0.78) The sense of slip doesn’t significantly change the regressions. Relationship between M and rupture area/rupture width are different at 95% significant level Regression coefficients are similar and differences in parameters estimated from these regressions are small. All-slip-type regression may be used for most situations, especially true for poorly known faults or blind faults. The regressions of displacement vs. magnitude show a mild dependency on the sense of slip Conclusion (III):  Conclusion (III) Regressions containing approximately 14 or more data points are insensitive to change in data. Smaller data sets (less than 10 to 14 data points) generally are sensitive to changes in the data and correlations may not be significant. The relationships based on large data sets (> 50 earthquakes) are unlikely to change significantly with the addition of new data Extensional and compressional regressions are the same SCR and non-SCR regressions for rupture area differ at 95% significant level Subsurface regression do not differ at the same level Subdividing the data set according to various tectonic settings or geographic regions may provide slightly different results, but typically does not improve the statistical significance of the regressions. Reliable estimates of the maximum expected magnitude for faults should include consideration of multiple estimates of the expected magnitude derived from various rupture parameters.

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Jancis

Mega Dams
21. 10. 2007
0 views

Mega Dams

Apex
12. 03. 2008
0 views

Apex

erge cirugia
01. 10. 2007
0 views

erge cirugia

mitzenmacher
05. 10. 2007
0 views

mitzenmacher

ubs conference presentation
11. 10. 2007
0 views

ubs conference presentation

The Crocodile
12. 10. 2007
0 views

The Crocodile

Patentability
16. 10. 2007
0 views

Patentability

legado
16. 10. 2007
0 views

legado

nove solar fin
17. 10. 2007
0 views

nove solar fin

carcassonne
19. 10. 2007
0 views

carcassonne

Skin 08 12 04 Rev 4
23. 10. 2007
0 views

Skin 08 12 04 Rev 4

royalkapila
23. 10. 2007
0 views

royalkapila

Geller Leadership
06. 12. 2007
0 views

Geller Leadership

comedy in waiting for godot
15. 10. 2007
0 views

comedy in waiting for godot

GenisMusulmanbekov
26. 10. 2007
0 views

GenisMusulmanbekov

ifc
26. 10. 2007
0 views

ifc

chemsense
29. 10. 2007
0 views

chemsense

DelvingIntoDiversity
30. 10. 2007
0 views

DelvingIntoDiversity

e comm hellner
31. 10. 2007
0 views

e comm hellner

4 5 Soriano CENTRIXS M Final 1
06. 11. 2007
0 views

4 5 Soriano CENTRIXS M Final 1

Transport Costs
07. 11. 2007
0 views

Transport Costs

Lect 13a Celestial Theory
13. 11. 2007
0 views

Lect 13a Celestial Theory

General Vegetable Culture
15. 11. 2007
0 views

General Vegetable Culture

CCl Sept07
21. 11. 2007
0 views

CCl Sept07

P103 065
04. 10. 2007
0 views

P103 065

Nonverbal Communication BU
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Nonverbal Communication BU

Ch10 Elections
07. 01. 2008
0 views

Ch10 Elections

HenryVIIIsWives
05. 10. 2007
0 views

HenryVIIIsWives

worldfish
23. 10. 2007
0 views

worldfish

presentation de l onde
23. 10. 2007
0 views

presentation de l onde

GARS2006 S3P2
06. 11. 2007
0 views

GARS2006 S3P2

paca
25. 10. 2007
0 views

paca

pre e272
21. 10. 2007
0 views

pre e272

Seasonal Celebrations PPT
02. 11. 2007
0 views

Seasonal Celebrations PPT

Miller Diagrams
02. 10. 2007
0 views

Miller Diagrams

katri seppala
10. 12. 2007
0 views

katri seppala

AW Chap 3
19. 10. 2007
0 views

AW Chap 3

Chapter 16
01. 01. 2008
0 views

Chapter 16

2 muller
15. 10. 2007
0 views

2 muller

chargedHiggsSB
03. 01. 2008
0 views

chargedHiggsSB

Tracking and Tracing
07. 10. 2007
0 views

Tracking and Tracing

GHSJonathanKrueger
18. 10. 2007
0 views

GHSJonathanKrueger

JEG2 Partenariat OCP
24. 10. 2007
0 views

JEG2 Partenariat OCP

ggt lng
27. 02. 2008
0 views

ggt lng

Andreas Wagner Presentation
28. 02. 2008
0 views

Andreas Wagner Presentation

6pc3 riley
28. 11. 2007
0 views

6pc3 riley

TUE pm Bergot 6 06
24. 10. 2007
0 views

TUE pm Bergot 6 06

6 MikeBarrett
10. 03. 2008
0 views

6 MikeBarrett

5 1 1Hesse ppt
13. 03. 2008
0 views

5 1 1Hesse ppt

SNI DU 25 MARS A IMPRIMER
24. 10. 2007
0 views

SNI DU 25 MARS A IMPRIMER

03 ppt
24. 03. 2008
0 views

03 ppt

Lghtle
26. 03. 2008
0 views

Lghtle

malik recog wkshp
11. 10. 2007
0 views

malik recog wkshp

Lecture 26
13. 10. 2007
0 views

Lecture 26

Panama Rainforest Trip
25. 10. 2007
0 views

Panama Rainforest Trip

303 chapter09
11. 04. 2008
0 views

303 chapter09

PPT42 Phillips Curve
14. 04. 2008
0 views

PPT42 Phillips Curve

turkishmining
16. 04. 2008
0 views

turkishmining

ch022 NH 377rev
18. 04. 2008
0 views

ch022 NH 377rev

446
22. 04. 2008
0 views

446

2007 Izrael
27. 09. 2007
0 views

2007 Izrael

lb vortrag oberdiek
15. 11. 2007
0 views

lb vortrag oberdiek

Simon091907
06. 05. 2008
0 views

Simon091907

cytometria
07. 05. 2008
0 views

cytometria

3dweb
08. 05. 2008
0 views

3dweb

CareerFairpresentati on
08. 05. 2008
0 views

CareerFairpresentati on

peter walter
02. 05. 2008
0 views

peter walter

ugo
31. 10. 2007
0 views

ugo

presentation kglinos
02. 05. 2008
0 views

presentation kglinos

Final Poster
02. 05. 2008
0 views

Final Poster

SSI Collaborative
02. 05. 2008
0 views

SSI Collaborative

BeautifulLawn
03. 10. 2007
0 views

BeautifulLawn

nbi03 mcgregor flux
09. 10. 2007
0 views

nbi03 mcgregor flux

Economic Advantages Guevara
29. 02. 2008
0 views

Economic Advantages Guevara

LREC2004 LDC Slides
04. 10. 2007
0 views

LREC2004 LDC Slides

BECKER
16. 11. 2007
0 views

BECKER

lenggenhager
17. 10. 2007
0 views

lenggenhager

96 roy
29. 09. 2007
0 views

96 roy

IxY and Space Weather
17. 10. 2007
0 views

IxY and Space Weather

AlbertoIvan3C
25. 10. 2007
0 views

AlbertoIvan3C

week2 progress
25. 10. 2007
0 views

week2 progress

WYD Presentation
18. 03. 2008
0 views

WYD Presentation

PSAE Math
08. 10. 2008
0 views

PSAE Math

Rome GRB
30. 10. 2007
0 views

Rome GRB

NMR
16. 10. 2007
0 views

NMR

0107 corporativa conjet
24. 10. 2007
0 views

0107 corporativa conjet

ICS recyclage des navires
06. 11. 2007
0 views

ICS recyclage des navires

Ratner06NFAIS
08. 10. 2007
0 views

Ratner06NFAIS

pres I
15. 10. 2007
0 views

pres I

CulturalCompetencein ahotline
30. 10. 2007
0 views

CulturalCompetencein ahotline

CollSantiago2003
22. 04. 2008
0 views

CollSantiago2003

SuperHero1
10. 10. 2007
0 views

SuperHero1

cyclone wing2000
02. 10. 2007
0 views

cyclone wing2000

Presentazione ancona piero 03
31. 10. 2007
0 views

Presentazione ancona piero 03

Warner Presentation Moscow
19. 10. 2007
0 views

Warner Presentation Moscow

SEOV
21. 11. 2007
0 views

SEOV

ConferencePetrilli 2007
16. 11. 2007
0 views

ConferencePetrilli 2007

gyimothy
03. 01. 2008
0 views

gyimothy

3391 prospecting net
14. 12. 2007
0 views

3391 prospecting net

charitonenko
11. 10. 2007
0 views

charitonenko

Lake Tahoe 06 joerg haefeli
17. 10. 2007
0 views

Lake Tahoe 06 joerg haefeli