SCEC Award Number 16056 View PDF
Proposal Category Collaborative Proposal (Integration and Theory)
Proposal Title A Collaborative Project: Rupture Dynamics, Validation of the Numerical Simulation Method
Name Organization
Ruth Harris United States Geological Survey Jean Paul Ampuero California Institute of Technology Michael Barall Invisible Software, Inc. Benchun Duan Texas A&M University Eric Dunham Stanford University Shuo Ma San Diego State University Brad Aagaard United States Geological Survey Ralph Archuleta University of California, Santa Barbara Eric Daub University of Memphis Alice-Agnes Gabriel Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Germany) Yoshihiro Kaneko GNS Science (New Zealand) Yuko Kase National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Japan) Jeremy Kozdon United States Navy Kim Olsen San Diego State University Zhenguo Zhang University of Science and Technology of China (China) Daniel Roten San Diego State University Nadia Lapusta California Institute of Technology Zheqiang Shi San Diego State University Ahmed Elbanna University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Luis Dalguer swissnuclear (Switzerland) David Oglesby University of California, Riverside Arben Pitarka Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Other Participants approximately 10 to 15 students and postdocs will also be participating
SCEC Priorities 3c, 4e, 6b SCEC Groups FARM, CME, GMP
Report Due Date 03/15/2017 Date Report Submitted 03/27/2017
Project Abstract
This multi-co-PI collaborative project (16056) included SCEC investigators (senior PIs, postdocs, and students) from multiple countries who participated in the winter 2016-2017 spontaneous earthquake rupture code-comparison exercise and related scientific discussions. These code comparisons are conducted so as to test the spontaneous rupture computer codes used by SCEC and USGS scientists to computationally simulate dynamic earthquake rupture. Over the past decades, a variety of numerical methods have been used to examine or simulate earthquakes and their rupture processes. These mathematical approaches have ranged from simple analytical solutions, all of the way to complex numerical solutions that incorporate the Earth’s intricate physical processes, such as friction and inertia. Spontaneous, dynamic earthquake rupture codes are among these more-complex numerical methods, and there are no mathematical solutions that can easily be used to test if these codes are working as expected. To remedy this problem, we compare the results produced by each spontaneous rupture code with the results produced by other spontaneous rupture codes, and, starting in 2016-2017, we are also comparing with data recorded during earthquakes. If when using the same assumptions about fault-friction, initial stress conditions, fault geometry, and material properties, the codes all produce the same results (e.g., rupture-front patterns and synthetic seismograms), then we are more confident that the codes are operating as intended.