Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Numerical Study of Ground-Motion Differences between Buried-Rupturing and Surface-Rupturing Earthquakes

Authors: A. Pitarka; L. A. Dalguer; S. M. Day; P. G. Somerville; K. Dan;

Numerical Study of Ground-Motion Differences between Buried-Rupturing and Surface-Rupturing Earthquakes

Abstract

Recent ground-motion observations suggest that surface-rupturing earth- quakes generate weaker near-fault ground motion than buried earthquakes. This dif- ference is significant in the period range of 0.3-3 sec. Contributing factors to this phenomenon may include the effect of fault zone weakness at shallow depth on rup- ture dynamics and rupture directivity during earthquakes. We present results from numerical experiments of spontaneous dynamic rupture and near-source ground-motion simulations of surface rupturing and buried earth- quakes and discuss mechanisms for the observed ground-motion differences. The surface-rupturing earthquake is modeled with a shallow zone of 5 km thickness con- taining areas of negative stress drop (within the framework of the slip-weakening fric- tion model) and lower rigidity. Surface-rupturing models with this weak zone generate lower amplitude ground velocity than do models without this modification. Observed ground-motion differences between surface and buried events are qual- itatively reproduced by imposing higher stress drop in the buried earthquakes than in the surface earthquakes, combined with introducing a deeper rupture initiation for buried rupture, enhancing upward rupture-directivity effects for the latter events. In the context of our simplified model parameterization, then, the observed differences in ground motion could arise from combined effects of relative weakness of the shal- low layer of faults, the relatively larger stress drops of buried ruptures, and a tendency of near-fault sites to record strong upward directivity from buried ruptures.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    35
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
35
Top 10%
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!