SCEC Award Number 19199 View PDF
Proposal Category Individual Proposal (Integration and Theory)
Proposal Title Developing earthquake simulators for use in seismic hazard estimates: Improving fault geometry and source physics and contributing to WGCEP
Investigator(s)
Name Organization
Bruce Shaw Columbia University
Other Participants
SCEC Priorities 5a, 2e, 5b SCEC Groups EFP, FARM, SAFS
Report Due Date 04/30/2020 Date Report Submitted 07/27/2020
Project Abstract
 We report here on two papers which were completed in the last year. The first one, (Shaw, 2019), was published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. The second one, (Milner, Shaw, et al., 2020) was submitted for publication. In addition to these publications, research related to the ground motions arising from the simulations was being pursued. We briefly discuss these three areas, the published results, the submitted paper, and the new research areas below.
Intellectual Merit Advances knowledge and techniques of earthquake simulators to improve understanding of earthquake physics and beahvior.
Broader Impacts Advances knowledge and techniques of earthquake simulators to improve understanding of seismic hazard.
Exemplary Figure Figure 3: Example ground motions from simulator events compared with Ground Motion Models (GMM). RotD50 spectra for site USC from ruptures on the Mojave section of the San Andreas Fault, computed with a one-dimensional (1D) velocity structure with VS30=500 m/s in the South- ern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) BroadBand Platform (BBP). (a) Spectrum for the M 7.48 rupture on the Mojave section of the San Andreas Fault in Figures 2 and 3 plotted as a thick black line. (b) Spectra for 185 different 7.0 ≤ M ≤ 7.5 RSQSim ruptures on the Mojave section of the San Andreas Fault simulated at USC plotted with thin gray lines, the mean of all 185 ruptures as a thick black line, and the mean plus and minus one standard deviation with dashed black lines. GMM comparisons (with plus and minus one standard deviation bounds marked with dashed lines) are plotted with colored lines. GMM predictions are slightly different for (b) because distributions are averaged across those predicted for each of the 185 RSQSim ruptures (rather than for a single M 7.48 rupture in (a)). From [Milner, Shaw, et al., 2020].