1999
DOI: 10.1785/gssrl.70.1.59
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterizing Crustal Earthquake Slip Models for the Prediction of Strong Ground Motion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

65
733
4
20

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 847 publications
(841 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
65
733
4
20
Order By: Relevance
“…The ratio of maximum slip to average slip in the deep part was assumed to be 2.8, similar to the shallow part Source Fujiwara et al (2013) a Slip is applied randomly across the fault using the CRSP model demonstrated that asperity accounts for 22 % (average), 10 % (minimum), and 40 % (maximum) of the area of the entire fault. When the fault asperity of the five cases generated in this study is calculated based on the above definition, the area ratio of asperity to total fault area (100,000 km 2 ) is in the range of 12.5-18.1 %, which agrees relatively well with the results of Somerville et al (1999); we believe it can appropriately express the heterogeneous slip distribution characteristics of actual fault slip.…”
Section: Shallow Areasupporting
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The ratio of maximum slip to average slip in the deep part was assumed to be 2.8, similar to the shallow part Source Fujiwara et al (2013) a Slip is applied randomly across the fault using the CRSP model demonstrated that asperity accounts for 22 % (average), 10 % (minimum), and 40 % (maximum) of the area of the entire fault. When the fault asperity of the five cases generated in this study is calculated based on the above definition, the area ratio of asperity to total fault area (100,000 km 2 ) is in the range of 12.5-18.1 %, which agrees relatively well with the results of Somerville et al (1999); we believe it can appropriately express the heterogeneous slip distribution characteristics of actual fault slip.…”
Section: Shallow Areasupporting
confidence: 80%
“…The asperity area ratio in the fault for these five cases is shown in Table 3. Somerville et al (1999) defined asperity as the region having a slip that is at least 1.5 times greater than the average slip across a fault, and, based on analyzing the area of asperities of 15 past earthquakes, Boundary depth between shallow area and deep area : 15km Average slip rate : 3.0 [Ishii et al 2013] …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The combined area of SMGA is approximately the half of the value expected by the empirical relationship between the combined area of asperities and seismic moment reported by Somerville et al (1999). This discrepancy may be due to the dispersion of the empirical relationship; the value of combined area of SMGA is within the spread in values of combined asperity areas used in determining the empirical relationship.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…2 Observed source spectral ratios of stations used for the source modeling (thin gray lines), the average observed source spectral ratios (thick black lines) and fitting source spectral ratio function (red lines) for a E1, b E2, c E3, d E4, e E5 and f E6 events, respectively. Solid and open triangles show stations used in the source spectral ratio analysis and forward EGF simulation for each event, respectively relationship between the seismic moment and the combined area of characterized asperities for the inland crustal earthquakes proposed by Somerville et al (1999). The SMGAs of these eight Nantou events seem to be smaller and follow certain self-similar scaling relationships with a higher stress drop.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…We then estimated the static stress drop of these eight Nantou earthquakes from the SMGA and the seismic moment (Madariaga 1979;Boatwright 1988;Miyake et al 2003; Table 1): where r represents the equivalent radius for the SMGA (SMGA = πr 2 ) and R indicates the equivalent radius of the total rupture area, S (S = πR 2 ). We estimated S of these eight events from the inversion models of previous studies (Yen 2002;Chi and Dreger 2004;Lee et al 2015) according to the trimming criteria of Somerville et al (1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%