Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of Dynamic Asperity Models to Predict Surface Fault Displacement Caused by Earthquakes

  • Published:
Pure and Applied Geophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Asperity models for ground motion prediction is widely used in Japan. Here we expand the application of these asperity models to predict fault displacement caused by surface rupture. The proposed approach is rather simple and practical for the use in fault displacement hazard analysis in nuclear installations and other critical infrastructures, as it is the emphasis of the current topical issue. The proposed method mainly consists of two steps. The first step consists in the characterization of asperities at the seismogenic zone based on the kinematic asperity source model following Irikura’s recipe (Irikura and Miyake in Pure Applied Geophysics, 168:85–104, 2011) for strong ground motion prediction. Since the kinematic model does not take into account surface rupture mechanism, this first step assumes that the fault is buried, and then by trial and error procedure the stress drop on the asperities are estimated, so that the average slip at each asperity be consistent with the ones from the kinematic model. At this stage, the dynamic model predicts strong ground motion consistent with those from the kinematic model. In the second step, the surface rupture is included by calibrating the shallow layer (SL) with stress drop, strength excess and critical slip distance, so that the final fault displacement along the fault be consistent with observations. The 2010 Mw 7.0 Darfield (New Zealand) earthquake is used to test the proposed method. Surface-rupturing was observed in several sites along the main fault reaching values of fault displacement larger than 5 m. The main fault of this earthquake is strike-slip, almost vertical. Therefore, a simplified planar fault asperity model to capture the main features of the fault displacement is assumed. The fault dimensions are assumed to have a length of 60 km and a width of 24 km with three asperities. The preferred model of the first step predicts average slip for each asperity of 2.7, 2.7, and 2 m corresponding, respectively, to stress drops of 6.0 MPa, 8.5 MPa, and 7.0 MPa. In the second step, the surface rupture is calibrated assuming a SL zone of 3 km depth. We found that negative stress drop is not necessary in the SL, because this strongly inhibits surface rupturing. Our preferred model produces fault displacement distribution closer to the observed ones, but average slip at each asperity increases to 3.4 m, 3.2 and 2.8 m. This increase in average slip is due to the contribution of surface rupturing. Ground motion differences between fault-surface rupturing and buried models are negligible, except at the very near-source. These differences are attributed to the SL rupture that mainly affect the ground motion at the very near-source. Overall, our simple asperity model captures the main features of the observed fault displacement and near-source ground motion, proving that the proposed simple and practical two step-procedure provides meaningful estimate of fault displacement and near-source ground motion consistent with observations, as such, this method has the potential to be used in practical fault displacement hazard analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, NA, (2002). Velocity pulses in near-fault ground motions. In Proceedings of the UC Berkeley—CUREE Symposium in Honor of Ray Clough and Joseph Penzien: Berkeley, California, UC Berkeley, Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, 9–11 May 2002, pp 40–41.

  • Akkar, S., & Gülkan, P. (2002). A critical examination of near-field accelerograms from the sea of Marmara region earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,92(1), 428–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. J. (1976). Rupture velocity of plane-strain shear cracks. Journal of Geophysical Research,81, 5679–5687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. J. (1980). A stochastic fault model: 1. Static case. Journal of Geophysical Research,85, 3867–3877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brune, J. N., & Anooshehpoor, A. (1998). A physical model of the effect of a shallow weak layer on strong ground motion for strike-slip ruptures. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,88, 1070–1078.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burks, L. S., & Baker, J. W. (2014). Fling in near-fault ground motions and its effect on structural collapse capacity. In Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska, 21–25 July 2014.

  • Dalguer, L. A., & Day, S. M. (2006). Comparison of fault representation methods in finite difference simulations of dynamic rupture. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,96, 1764–1778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalguer, L. A., & Day, S. M. (2007). Staggered-grid split-nodes method for spontaneous rupture simulation. Journal of Geophysical Research,112, B02302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalguer, L. A., Fukushima, Y., Irikura, K., & Wu, Ch. (2017). Best practices in physics-based fault rupture models for seismic hazard assessment of nuclear installations: introduction. Pure and Applied Geophysics,174(2017), 3325–3329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1673-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalguer, L. A., Irikura, K., Riera, J., & Chiu, H. C. (2001). The importance of the dynamic source effects on strong ground motion during the 1999 Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake: brief interpretation of the damage distribution on buildings. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,95, 1112–1127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalguer, L. A., Miyake, H., Day, S. M., & Irikura, K. (2008). Surface rupturing and buried dynamic rupture models calibrated with statistical observations of past earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,98, 1147–1161. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120070134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalguer, L. A., Miyake, H. & Irikura, K. (2004). Characterization of dynamic asperity source models for simulating strong ground motion. In Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (13WCEE), Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 1–6, 2004, Paper No. 3286.

  • Dalguer, L. A., Wu, H., Matsumoto, Y., Irikura, K., Takahama, T. & Tonagi, M. (2018). Asperity models to predict surface fault displacement caused by earthquakes: The 2010 Mw 7.0 Darfield (New Zealand) earthquake. In Proceedings of the BestPSHANI 2018 workshop “Best Practices in Physics-based Fault Rupture Models for Seismic Hazard Assessment of Nuclear Installations: issues and challenges towards full Seismic Risk Analysis”, Cadarache-Château, France, 14–16 May 2018.

  • Day, S. M. (1982). Three-dimensional simulation of spontaneous rupture: the effect of nonuniform prestress. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,72, 1881–1902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, S. M., Dalguer, L. A., Lapusta, N., & Liu, Y. (2005). Comparison of finite difference and boundary integral solutions to three-dimensional spontaneous rupture. Journal of Geophysical Research,110, B12307. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JB003813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, S. M., & Ely, G. P. (2002). Effect of a shallow weak zone on fault rupture: numerical simulation of scale-model experiments. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,92, 3006–3021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreger, D., Hurtado, G., Chopra, A., & Larsen, S. (2011). Near-field across-fault seismic ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,101(1), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, G. P., Day, S. M., & Minster, J.-B. (2008). A support-°©-operator method for viscoelastic wave modelling in 3-°©-D heterogeneous media. Geophysical Journal International,172(1), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ely, G., Day, S. M., & Minster, J.-B. (2009). A support-operator method for 3D rupture dynamics. Geophysical Journal International,177, 1140–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365246X.2009.04117.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvez, P., Dalguer, L. A., Ampuero, J. P., & Giardini, D. (2016). Rupture reactivation during the 2011 Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake: dynamic rupture and ground motion simulations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120150153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gledhill, K., Ristau, J., Reyners, M., Fry, B., & Holden, C. (2011). The Darfield (Canterbury, New Zealand) Mw 7.1 earthquake of September 2010: A preliminary seismological report. Seismological Research Letters, 82(3), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.3.378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidotti, R., Stupazzini, M., Smerzini, C., Paolucci, R., & Ramieri, P. (2011). Numerical study on the role of basin geometry and kinematic seismic source in 3D ground motion simulation of the 22 February 2011 MW 6.2 Christchurch earthquake. Seismological Research Letters,82, 767–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. A., Barall, M., Archuleta, R., Dunham, E. M., Aagaard, B., Ampuero, J. P., et al. (2009). The SCEC/USGS dynamic earthquake-rupture code verification exercise. Seismological Research Letters,80(1), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.80.1.119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAEA. (2010). Seismic hazards in site evaluation for nuclear installations (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG–9). Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA. (2015). Ground motion simulation based on fault rupture modelling for seismic hazard assessment in site evaluation for nuclear installations (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. 85). Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA. (2017). Proceedings of the workshop on best practices in physics-based fault rupture models for seismic hazard assessment of nuclear installations (BestPSHANI). International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 18–20 November 2015.

  • IAEA. (2019). Probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis in site evaluation for existing nuclear installations. International Atomic Energy Agency—IAEA-TECDOC (in preparation).

  • Irikura, K., & Kurahashi, S. (2018), Extension of strong-motion-prediction recipe for near-source long-period ground motion: Validation of ground motion for the 2016 Mw 7.0 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan. In: Proceeding of the BestPSHANI 2018 workshop best practices in physics-based fault rupture models for seismic hazard assessment of nuclear installations: issues and challenges towards full seismic risk analysis, Cadarache-Château, France, 14–16 May 2011.

  • Irikura, K., Kurahashi, S. & Matsumoto Y. (2019). Extension of characterized source model for long-period ground motion in near-fault area strong-motion-prediction recipe for near-source long-period. Pure Applied Geophysics. In review (This issue).

  • Irikura, K., & Miyake, H. (2011). Recipe for predicting strong ground motion from crustal earthquake scenarios. Pure Applied Geophysics,168, 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0150-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamae, K., & Irikura, K. (1998). Source model of the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake and simulation of near-source ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,88(2), 400–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamai, R., Abrahamson, N., & Graves, R. (2014). Adding fling effects to processed ground-motion time histories. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,104(4), 1914–1929. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko, Y., & Fialko, Y. (2011). Shallow slip deficit due to large strike-slip earthquakes in dynamic rupture simulations with elasto-plastic off-fault response. Geophysical Journal International,186(3), 1389–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, M., Jun Li, X., Wen An, X., & Zhao, J. X. (2010). A preliminary study on the near-source strong-motion characteristics of the great 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,100(5), 2491–2507. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marone, C. (1998). Laboratory-derived friction laws and their application to seismic faulting. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences,26, 643–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marone, C., & Scholz, C. H. (1988). The depth of seismic faulting and the upper transition from stable to unstable slip regimes. Geophysical Research Letters,15, 621–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, K. B., Madariaga, R., & Archuleta, R. (1997). Three Dimensional dynamic simulation of the 1992 landers earthquake. Science,278, 834–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitarka, A., Dalguer, L. A., Day, S. M., Somerville, P., & Dan, K. (2009). Numerical study of ground motion differences between buried and surface-rupturing earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,99(3), 1521–1537. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, M., Van Dissen, R., Litchfield, N., Villamor, P., Duffy, B., Barrell, D., et al. (2012). Surface rupture during the 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake: implications for fault rupture dynamics and seismic-hazard analysis. Geology,40(1), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1130/g32528.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripperger, J., & Mai, P. M. (2004). Fast computation of static stress changes on 2D faults from final slip distributions. Geophysical Research Letters,31(18), L18610. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roten, D., Olsen, K. B., & Day, S. M. (2017). Off-fault deformations and shallow slip deficit from dynamic rupture simulations with fault zone plasticity. Geophysical Research Letters,44, 7733–7742. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, Ch. (2002). The mechanism of earthquakes and faulting, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., ISBN 0-521-65540-4.

  • Shashkov, M. (1996). Conservative finite-difference methods on general grids. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, T. C., & Teng, T. L. (2001). An overview of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,91, 895–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirahama, Y., Yoshimi, M., Awata, Y., Maruyama, T., Azuma, T., Miyashita, Y., et al. (2016). Characteristics of the surface ruptures associated with the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake sequence, central Kyushu, Japan. Earth, Planets and Space,68, 191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-016-0559-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was part of the 2015–2016 research project ‘Development of evaluating method for fault displacement’ by the Secretariat of Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), Japan. We thank the two reviewers, Arben Pitarka and the anonymous one, for constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 3Q-Lab GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland

    L. A. Dalguer

  2. Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, China

    H. Wu

  3. Kozo Keikaku Engineering Inc, Tokyo, Japan

    Y. Matsumoto, T. Takahama & M. Tonagi

  4. Aichi Institute of Technology, Toyota, Japan

    L. A. Dalguer & K. Irikura

Authors
  1. L. A. Dalguer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Irikura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Takahama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Tonagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. A. Dalguer.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A

Appendix A

The comparison of velocity and displacement ground motion with all the observed records at the 20 stations shown in the map of Fig. 2 are shown in Figs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. Comparisons are done in the frequency band of 0.0–0.5 Hz. Overall, most of the synthetic seismograms are consistent with observations, however, not all the components are good, in particular the vertical (UD) components of displacement. The simplified model as well as the assuming 1D velocity structure may be the main cause of these discrepancies at some stations.

Fig. 13
figure 13

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station CSHS

Full size image
Fig. 14
figure 14

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station SPFS

Full size image
Fig. 15
figure 15

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station OXZ

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station DFHS

Full size image
Fig. 17
figure 17

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station HORC

Full size image
Fig. 18
figure 18

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station GDLC

Full size image
Fig. 19
figure 19

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station TPLC

Full size image
Fig. 20
figure 20

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station ROLC

Full size image
Fig. 21
figure 21

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station LINC

Full size image
Fig. 22
figure 22

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station DSLC

Full size image
Fig. 23
figure 23

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station LRSC

Full size image
Fig. 24
figure 24

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station RKAC

Full size image
Fig. 25
figure 25

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station SBRC

Full size image
Fig. 26
figure 26

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station DORC

Full size image
Fig. 27
figure 27

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station ADCS

Full size image
Fig. 28
figure 28

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station WSFC

Full size image
Fig. 29
figure 29

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station MAYC

Full size image
Fig. 30
figure 30

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station CACS

Full size image
Fig. 31
figure 31

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station RHSC

Full size image
Fig. 32
figure 32

Three components of velocity and displacement ground motion compared with observed records. Station RPZ

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dalguer, L.A., Wu, H., Matsumoto, Y. et al. Development of Dynamic Asperity Models to Predict Surface Fault Displacement Caused by Earthquakes. Pure Appl. Geophys. 177, 1983–2006 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02255-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02255-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation