2004 NGA Simulations for HW Effects

N. Abrahamson Nov 29, 2011

Reverse Slip Scenarios Event Name

Mag Area

(km^2) W (km) L (km) Dip

Top of Rupture

(km) RA 6.5 324 18 18

30 5

RB 6.5 324 18 18 45

0

RC 6.5 324 18 18 45

5

RD 6.5 324 18 18 45

10

RE 6.5 324 18 18 60

5

RF 7.0 1024 32 32 30

0

RG 7.0 1008 28 36 45

0

RH 7.0 1008 21 48 45

5

RI 7.0 989 23 43 60

0

RJ 7.5 3160 40 79 30

0

RK 7.5 3164 28 113 45

0

RL 7.8 6320 40 158 30

0

HW Scaling Cases

• Dip Dependence – M6.5 Scenarios (ZTOR = 5 km)

• RA (30), RC (45), RE (60) – M7.0 Scenarios (ZTOR=0 km)

• RF (30), RG (45), RI (60)

• Magnitude Dependence – 30 degree dip (ZTOR = 0 km)

• RF (M7.0), RJ (M7.5), RL (M7.8) – 45 degree dip (ZTOR = 0 km)

• RB (M6.5), RG (M7.0), RK (M7.5)

M6.5 Scenario Stations

M7.0 Scenario Stations

Dip=30, Scenario Stations

Dip=45, Scenario Stations

Simulation Methods

• Three Kinematic Finite-Fault Simulations – Pacific Engineering and Analysis (Silva) – University of Nevada, Reno (Zeng) – URS (Somerville / Graves)

• Multiple Realizations for each scenario – PEA: 15 or 30 realizations – UNR:12 realizations – URS: 12 realizations

M6.5, Dip=30, ZTOR=5

M6.5, Dip=45, ZTOR=0

M6.5, Dip=45, ZTOR=5

M6.5, Dip=45, ZTOR=10

M6.5, Dip=60, ZTOR=5

M6.5, Dip=30, ZTOR=0

M7.0, Dip=45, ZTOR=0

M7.0, Dip=45, ZTOR=5

M7.0, Dip=60, ZTOR=0

Discussion

• Overall, similar strong scaling for HW effects seen for all three methods

• What additional cases are needed for DCPP applications? – What happens for M< 6.5? – Better coverage of stations over the fault? – Better coverage past edge of rupture (Rx)