Exciting news! We're transitioning to the Statewide California Earthquake Center. Our new website is under construction, but we'll continue using this website for SCEC business in the meantime. We're also archiving the Southern Center site to preserve its rich history. A new and improved platform is coming soon!
< Back to Announcement List

Multiple SSA Session Announcements/Calls for Abstracts

Date: 12/27/2016

Dear SCEC Community,

Please see below for the following SSA session announcements. The deadline to submit abstracts is January 11th, 2017.

1a. Earthquake Complexities Revealed by Kinematic and Dynamic Modeling and Multiple Geophysical Data Sets
1b. Scaling and Empirical Relationships of Moderate to Large Earthquakes: Re-scaling or Re-thinking?
2. Earthquake interaction and triggering: from near field to far field, from natural to induced
3. The Future of Past Earthquakes
4. Estimating Earthquake Hazard from Geodetic Data

Regards,

SCEC Information

1a. Earthquake Complexities Revealed by Kinematic and Dynamic Modeling and Multiple Geophysical Data Sets
1b. Scaling and Empirical Relationships of Moderate to Large Earthquakes: Re-scaling or Re-thinking?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleagues

We would like to draw your attention to the following two Special Sessions at the 2017 Annual Meeting
of the Seismological Society of America, taking place 18–20 April, in Denver, Colorado.

Abstract Deadline is January 11, 2017

Earthquake Complexities Revealed by Kinematic and Dynamic Modeling and Multiple Geophysical Data Sets

In recent years, spatiotemporal and geometrical earthquake rupture complexities have been imaged with increasing detail. In particular, large to great earthquakes (M > 7) often show segmented rupture, involve multiple faults, and trigger large nearby aftershocks almost instantaneously. The complexity of large earthquakes challenges traditional source imaging approaches and motivates developments of novel methods to map the space-time evolution of the rupture process. The use of multiple data sets, such as seismic, geodetic and tsunami measurements, opens an avenue for future improvements in kinematic source modeling, but requires new statistical means to optimally weight individual data sets. Similarly, appropriately quantifying the uncertainties of the resulting source models is needed to assess which parts of the rupture process are well imaged. At the same time, incorporating local geology, regional tectonics and principles of earthquake dynamics is very valuable to understand and interpret the observed rupture pattern. This session discusses new approaches, new data sets, and latest findings in kinematic source imaging and dynamic rupture modeling. We invite contributions related to kinematic source imaging with new methods, improved uncertainty quantification, and using multiple data sets. In particular, we solicit studies that provide unified interpretations of observed kinematic rupture patterns with earthquakes dynamics, as well as post- and inter-seismic processes and the local tectonic framework. We also solicit contributions on dynamic rupture simulations on geometrically complex faults, and studies that incorporate new rupture physics and laboratory rupture experiments that are reconciled with geophysical observations.

Session Chairs

Wenyuan Fan <w3fan@ucsd.edu>
P. Martin Mai <martin.mai@kaust.edu.sa>
David D. Oglesby <david.oglesby@ucr.edu>

Scaling and Empirical Relationships of Moderate to Large Earthquakes: Re-scaling or Re-thinking?

Magnitude versus rupture size is a key point in many seismological fields, and in seismic hazard assessment in particular.

Despite the efforts spent by the international community on this topic, the basic dataset for deriving empirical relationships or confronting theoretical models gathers few hundreds of events, and the homogeneity in the measure (of energy release and fault/rupture size) is not always guaranteed.

In particular moderate earthquakes are poorly represented in those relationships. The session aims at debating: 1) the structure and upgrading mechanisms of a repository for the collection of certified data; 2) the contribution of new technologies (e.g. INSAR data) to acquire data; 3) the lessons learned in case studies, about generalisation or regionalisation of magnitude versus size relationships.

Session Chairs

Laura Peruzza <lperuzza@inogs.it>
P. Martin Mai <martin.mai@kaust.edu.sa>
Lucilla Benedetti <benedetti@cerege.fr>

2. Earthquake interaction and triggering: from near field to far field, from natural to induced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleagues,

Please consider to submit your abstract to the following special session at 2017 SSA, Denver, CO, 18-20 April.

Abstract deadline: January 11, 2017

Earthquake interaction and triggering: from near field to far field, from natural to induced

Unraveling patterns and mechanisms of earthquake triggering is important for understanding earthquake occurrence and seismic hazard forecast. For example, aftershocks are consequences of static and/or dynamic stress perturbations from mainshocks. Whereas static-stress triggering is most effective at near field, dynamic-stress triggering has been widely reported to cause earthquakes and nonvolcanic tremor remotely. Recent studies show dynamic triggering is common in the near-to-intermediate field, and capable to cause damaging earthquakes. Faults near oil-and-gas and geothermal fields are also highly susceptive to dynamic triggering. Such observations lead to questions regarding fault friction properties, tectonic stress conditions, and fault hydraulic responses. This session discusses new observations and models related to earthquake interaction and triggering. We invite contributions from studies of near-field to remote earthquake triggering and studies of natural and anthropogenically induced earthquake interactions. We also solicit research of hydro-mechanical modeling and dynamic simulations of fault interactions, which incorporate laboratory experiments and field observations.

Session Chairs:
Wenyuan Fan <w3fan@ucsd.edu>
Andy Barbour <abarbour@usgs.gov>
Xiaowei Chen <xiaowei.chen@ou.edu>

3. The Future of Past Earthquakes
-------------------------------------------------

The Future of Past Earthquakes
The broad field of earthquake geology, which includes paleoseismology, provides approaches for quantifying the longer term behavior of active structures and active regions in time and space. Since the mid-1960s, when trenching was first used for simple fault location primarily in California, investigations of the rupture behavior of seismogenic structures have spread worldwide to all tectonic settings including subduction zones. Using improved and new techniques for dating geologic deposits and geomorphic surfaces, incorporating high resolution ground-based and satellite imagery for measuring coseismic surface and longer-term displacements, and investigating sites with long records of earthquake occurrence and event slip, earthquake geologic studies have expanded our four dimensional understanding of active earthquake systems and provided fundamental data for seismic hazard analysis.This Special Session will include invited and contributed papers that present the current status and future directions of research in earthquake geology. We encourage papers examining all tectonic settings, fast and slow, and especially those incorporating new concepts, methods, and data that: a) define single-source and regional earthquake cycles; b) quantify earthquake rupture recurrence and slip models and their uncertainties; c) provide comparisons between short-term deformation rates from GPS, InSAR, and historical seismic moment release estimates with longer-term geologic slip rates and earthquake recurrence rates; d) develop insights into controls on dynamic rupture propagation and improve estimates of paleo and future fault rupture lengths; and e) use paleoseismic observations to suggest new constraints in modeling seismic hazard.

Session Chairs
David Schwartz <dschwartz@usgs.gov>
Ramon Arrowsmith <ramon.arrowsmith@asu.edu>
William Lettis <lettis@lettisci.com>
Koji Okumura <kojiok@hiroshima-u.ac.jp>
Daniela Pantosti <daniela.pantosti@ingv.it>
Thomas Rockwell <trockwell@mail.sdsu.edu>

4. Estimating Earthquake Hazard from Geodetic Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello All,

We will be holding a special session entitled "Estimating Earthquake Hazard from Geodetic Data" at the SSA Annual Meeting to be held April 18 - 20, 2017 in Denver, CO. The full session description is below. Please consider submitting an abstract; the deadline is January 11th, 2017.

Best Regards,
Jeff Freymueller
Eileen Evans
Jessica Murray

Geodetic techniques such as GPS and InSAR provide a critical constraint for quantifying earthquake hazard by recording the active accumulation of tectonic strain across seismogenic faults. Geodetic observations are particularly important in regions with sparsely mapped faults and/or few geologic slip rate estimates, such as inland Alaska, and in regions with known seismic hazard but broadly distributed strain, like the Basin and Range. However, geodetic estimates of fault slip rates can vary significantly for a single fault or region and may differ from geologic rates on the same fault. These discrepancies may reflect model assumptions since geodetic observations of the interseismic phase of the earthquake cycle must be interpreted in the context of a prescribed deformation model. They may also reflect transient processes due to post-seismic relaxation, glacial isostatic adjustment, and aseismic slip events that bias inferred interseismic deformation rates and, in turn, long-term fault slip rate estimates. We invite contributions that describe the application of geodetic data to earthquake hazard estimation in a variety of settings worldwide. We also seek contributions that present new approaches to addressing the challenge of effectively incorporating geodetic information into seismic hazard assessment. Some questions of interest include:

- How can we best utilize geodetic observations in regions with few mapped structures or regions with low strain rates but known seismic hazard?

- What is the role of off-fault deformation in geodetically observed strain rates, and what fraction of deformation occurs between major faults?

- Can we identify the cause of discrepancies between geodetic and geologic slip rate estimates for the same fault?

- By what metrics should geodetic models be assessed?

- How do we assess uncertainty and the impact of modeling assumptions?

- How do we estimate long-term fault slip rates in the presence of transient deformation signals (e.g., glacial isostatic adjustment, postseismic relaxation, slow slip events, etc.)?