2019
DOI: 10.1029/2018jb016355
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Landers 1992 “Reloaded”: Integrative Dynamic Earthquake Rupture Modeling

Abstract: The 1992 M w 7.3 Landers earthquake is perhaps one of the best studied seismic events.However, many aspects of the dynamics of the rupture process are still puzzling, for example, the rupture transfer between fault segments. We present 3-D spontaneous dynamic rupture simulations, incorporating the interplay of fault geometry, topography, 3-D rheology, off-fault plasticity, and viscoelastic attenuation. Our preferred scenario reproduces a broad range of observations, including final slip distribution, shallow s… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
50
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 143 publications
(329 reference statements)
2
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To this end, dynamic rupture simulations can reach high spatial and temporal resolution of increasingly complex geometrical and physical modelling components (e.g. Bauer et al 2017;Wollherr et al 2019). SeisSol is verified with a wide range of community benchmarks, including dipping and branching fault geometries, laboratory derived friction laws, as well as heterogeneous on-fault initial stresses and material properties (de la Puente et al 2009;Pelties et al 2012Pelties et al , 2013Pelties et al , 2014Wollherr et al 2018) in line with the SCEC/USGS Dynamic Rupture Code Verification exercises (Harris et al 2011(Harris et al , 2018.…”
Section: Earthquake-tsunami Coupled Modelingmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…To this end, dynamic rupture simulations can reach high spatial and temporal resolution of increasingly complex geometrical and physical modelling components (e.g. Bauer et al 2017;Wollherr et al 2019). SeisSol is verified with a wide range of community benchmarks, including dipping and branching fault geometries, laboratory derived friction laws, as well as heterogeneous on-fault initial stresses and material properties (de la Puente et al 2009;Pelties et al 2012Pelties et al , 2013Pelties et al , 2014Wollherr et al 2018) in line with the SCEC/USGS Dynamic Rupture Code Verification exercises (Harris et al 2011(Harris et al , 2018.…”
Section: Earthquake-tsunami Coupled Modelingmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…However, changes in other frictional parameters or material parameters (e.g., shear modulus) with plastic strain are not taken into account in our simulations despite the fact that they can be expected in natural fault systems. Our model is a simplification in that it ignores anisotropy, poroelasticity and dilatant volume changes, which are typically observed in natural faults (e.g., Woodcock et al, 2007;Brace et al, 1966;Peacock and Sanderson, 1992;Rawling et al, 2002). Our choice of parameters results in a Poisson's ratio of 0.125.…”
Section: Width Of the Off-fault Fanmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent 2-D dynamic earthquake rupture modeling study nicely shows coseismic off-fault damage during earthquake ruptures at different depths and analyzes its contribution to the overall energy budget (Okubo et al, 2019). Geometrically more complex faults and elastic-plastic off-fault response due to singular events in non-evolving media were studied in a generic case (Fang and Dunham, 2013) or in a realistic fault geometry model of the Landers earthquake (Wollherr et al, 2019). The main limitation of all these modeling studies is that they are restricted to one single earthquake, a fixed and mostly single main fault that is unable to extend, simplified background stress state represented by a fixed orientation of the principal stress (e.g.…”
Section: [D]mentioning
confidence: 99%