1 / 20

Yoshihiro Kaneko

The rupture process of great subduction earthquakes: the concept of the barrier and asperity models. Yoshihiro Kaneko (Presentation based on Aki, 1984; Rundle and Kanamori, 1987; Park and Mori, 2007; Das and Aki, 1977; Madariaga, 1983; Heaton, 1990; Dunham et al., 2003) Ge 277 – Fall, 2007.

ania
Download Presentation

Yoshihiro Kaneko

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The rupture process of great subduction earthquakes: the concept of the barrier and asperity models Yoshihiro Kaneko (Presentation based on Aki, 1984; Rundle and Kanamori, 1987; Park and Mori, 2007; Das and Aki, 1977; Madariaga, 1983; Heaton, 1990; Dunham et al., 2003) Ge 277 – Fall, 2007

  2. Two important seismological observations 1. Slip is heterogeneous over a fault plane with several patches of relatively larger slip 2. Rise time at any point is shorter than the duration of an EQ Ozgun Kunca • Rise Time: 15-30s • Rupture velocity: 2.5-3kms • Duration: 80s

  3. Key seismologicalterminology Barriers = areas of smaller amount of slip in a single EQ Asperities = areas of larger amount of slip in a single EQ Ammon et al, 2005

  4. Barrier vs. asperity models (interpretation by Aki, 1984) Barrier/asperity = regions of higher shear strength

  5. Concept of “barrier” model

  6. Concept of “asperity” model

  7. Summary: barrier vs. asperity models • Barrier model • Stress roughening process (homogenous -> heterogeneous) • Stable barrier is unbroken in repeated EQs, but weaker ones break in different patterns (different amount of slip in different EQs) • Resulting in characteristic fault length but not a characteristic amount of slip • How do strong barriers behave over time (the region needs to accommodate some slip eventually)? • Asperity model • Stress smoothening process (heterogeneous -> homogenous) • Consistent with many great interplate earthquakes that show stable slip patches over EQ cycles (both characteristic fault length and amount of slip) • The stability of asperity strength can explain "the time predictable model" • Act as a strong barrier during interseismic(?), or slipping seismically

  8. An evidence for the barrier model: Maximum slip scales with barrier interval maximum slip (m) barrier interval (km) Aki (1984)

  9. Observational studies:Are asperities and barriers stable? • Papua New Guinea sequences (Park and Mori, 2007) • Colombia-Ecuador sequences (Randle and Kanamori, 1987) • Nankai trough sequences (Randle and Kanamori, 1987) • Sumatra sequences (J.-P. Avouac, introduction)

  10. Park and Mori (2007) Tectonic setting Studied Area 8 – 15 cm/year

  11. Locations of the fault planes and focal mechanisms Park and Mori (2007)

  12. Asperities do not overlap

  13. Asperities may not be stable in some places Park and Mori (2007) The studied area (Papua New Guinea subduction) may be tectonically complicated region (?).

  14. Nankai Trough sequences 6.5 cm/year Rundle and Kanamori (2007)

  15. Remark:Slip at a given patch is larger in the largest EQ than that those in individual small EQs Rundle and Kanamori (2007)

  16. Colombia-Ecuador sequences Rundle and Kanamori (2007)

  17. Remark:Moment is 2.7 – 7 times larger in the largest 1906 EQ than that the sum of the other 3 EQs. Rundle and Kanamori (2007)

  18. Sumatra subduction zone (J.-P. Avouac, this class) - Are asperities stable over many earthquake cycles? - Is the time predictable model applicable for this region? - Is slip at a given patch greater in the largest EQ than that those in individual small EQs?

  19. Hiroo’s comments

  20. Alternative model(Yoshi, Avouac, Nadia) • Feature: • - asperities are stable over EQ cycles • time predictable (on average) • the slip at a given point is comparable or greater in the largest EQ than those in small EQs • explains the relation of seismic coupling and asperity

More Related