5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Community Code Verification Exercise for Simulating Sequences of Earthquakes and Aseismic Slip (SEAS)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Numerical simulations of sequences of earthquakes and aseismic slip (SEAS) have made great progress over past decades to address important questions in earthquake physics. However, significant challenges in SEAS modeling remain in resolving multiscale interactions between earthquake nucleation, dynamic rupture, and aseismic slip, and understanding physical factors controlling observables such as seismicity and ground deformation. The increasing complexity of SEAS modeling calls for extensive efforts to verify codes and advance these simulations with rigor, reproducibility, and broadened impact. In 2018, we initiated a community code-verification exercise for SEAS simulations, supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center. Here, we report the findings from our first two benchmark problems (BP1 and BP2), designed to verify different computational methods in solving a mathematically well-defined, basic faulting problem. We consider a 2D antiplane problem, with a 1D planar vertical strike-slip fault obeying rate-and-state friction, embedded in a 2D homogeneous, linear elastic half-space. Sequences of quasi-dynamic earthquakes with periodic occurrences (BP1) or bimodal sizes (BP2) and their interactions with aseismic slip are simulated. The comparison of results from 11 groups using different numerical methods show excellent agreements in long-term and coseismic fault behavior. In BP1, we found that truncated domain boundaries influence interseismic stressing, earthquake recurrence, and coseismic rupture, and that model agreement is only achieved with sufficiently large domain sizes. In BP2, we found that complexity of fault behavior depends on how well physical length scales related to spontaneous nucleation and rupture propagation are resolved. Poor numerical resolution can result in artificial complexity, impacting simulation results that are of potential interest for characterizing seismic hazard such as earthquake size distributions, moment release, and recurrence times. These results inform the development of more advanced SEAS models, contributing to our further understanding of earthquake system dynamics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references110

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Crustal earthquake instability in relation to the depth variation of frictional slip properties

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Growth of Slip Surfaces in the Progressive Failure of Over-Consolidated Clay

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Dilatancy, compaction, and slip instability of a fluid-infiltrated fault

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Seismological Research Letters
                Seismological Society of America (SSA)
                0895-0695
                1938-2057
                January 29 2020
                March 01 2020
                January 29 2020
                March 01 2020
                : 91
                : 2A
                : 874-890
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, U.S.A.
                [2 ]Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.
                [3 ]Invisible Software, Inc., San Jose, California, U.S.A.
                [4 ]California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
                [5 ]Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.
                [6 ]U.S. Geological Survey, Moffett Field, California, U.S.A.
                [7 ]University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, U.S.A.
                [8 ]Université Côte d’Azur, IRD, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Géoazur, Valbonne, France
                [9 ]University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
                [10 ]University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.
                [11 ]University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.
                [12 ]Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, U.S.A.
                [13 ]McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [14 ]Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
                [15 ]University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
                Article
                10.1785/0220190248
                15832095-33ad-4388-b4f1-9996854efe81
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article