Ricardo Taborda

:: Publications

Title: The ShakeOut earthquake scenario: Verification of three simulation sets

Download:
Full text submission

Authors: Bielak J., Graves R.W., Olsen K.B., Taborda R., Ramírez-Guzmán L., Day S.M., Ely G.P., Roten D., Jordan T.H., Maechling P.J., Urbanic J. and Juve G.
Publication: Geophysical Journal International
Anotation: Submitted for publication March 17, 2009
Year: 2009

Abstract:

This paper presents a verification of three simulations of the ShakeOut scenario, an Mw 7.8 earthquake on a portion of the San Andreas fault in southern California, conducted by three different groups at the Southern California Earthquake Center using the SCEC Community Velocity Model for this region. We conducted two simulations using the finite difference method, and one by the finite element method, and performed qualitative and quantitative comparisons between the corresponding results. The results are in good agreement with each other; only small differences occur both in amplitude and phase between the various synthetics at ten observation points located near and away from the fault---as far as 150 km away from the fault. Using an available goodness-of-fit criteria all the comparisons scored above 8, with most above 9.2. This score would be regarded as excellent if the measurements were between recorded and synthetic seismograms. We also report results of comparisons based on time-frequency misfit criteria. Results from these two criteria can be used for calibrating the two methods for comparing seismograms. In those cases in which noticeable discrepancies occurred between the seismograms generated by the three groups, we found that they were the product of inherent characteristics of the various numerical methods used and their implementations. In particular, we found that the major source of discrepancy lies in the difference between mesh and grid representations of the same material model. Overall, however, even the largest differences in the synthetic seismograms are small. Thus, given the complexity of the simulations used in this verification, it appears that the three schemes are consistent, reliable, and sufficiently accurate and robust for use in future large-scale simulations.

This page is better seen using Mozilla Firefox® and screen resolution 1024 x 768 or better
Questions and comments to: rtaborda@andrew.cmu.edu
Last modified Mar-09