{"title":"滑动函数和模拟地动的选择","authors":"Igor A. Beresnev","doi":"10.1007/s00024-024-03502-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Kinematic simulations of strong ground motions require representation of the temporal functional form of fault slip. There is a range of source time functions that are commonly used: those that are generalized from numerical simulations of crack dynamics or those that radiate the seismic spectra of the omega-<i>n</i> type. All are physical plausible, while the modern source-inversion studies are still unable to better constrain the choices available. The uncertainty in the kinematically simulated motions due to the ambiguity in assigning an underlining form of fault slip still requires rigorous quantification. The representation integral of elasticity is an appropriate analytical tool, providing the exact seismic field in the entire practically relevant frequency band and including all near- and far-field terms. The smooth dynamically compatible version of the source time function, in which the rise time is the governing parameter, has the drawback of implicitly leading to unreasonably high slip rates and, as a consequence, unrealistically extreme ground velocities and accelerations. On the other hand, the functions, both dynamic and of the omega-<i>n</i> type, in which the static offset <i>U</i> and peak rate of slip <i>v</i><sub>max</sub> are the two independent controlling parameters, all provide nearly the same peak-motion values that match the prescribed, realistically observed coseismic fault-slip rates. With <i>U</i> and <i>v</i><sub>max</sub> as the correctly prescribed slip parameters, respectively controlling the low- and high-frequency ends of the radiated spectra, the choice between a dynamic or omega-<i>n</i> function leads to insignificant differences in radiation, causing the uncertainty in peak motions not exceeding approximately 10%.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21078,"journal":{"name":"pure and applied geophysics","volume":"181 6","pages":"1859 - 1869"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choices of Slip Function and Simulated Ground Motions\",\"authors\":\"Igor A. Beresnev\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00024-024-03502-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Kinematic simulations of strong ground motions require representation of the temporal functional form of fault slip. There is a range of source time functions that are commonly used: those that are generalized from numerical simulations of crack dynamics or those that radiate the seismic spectra of the omega-<i>n</i> type. All are physical plausible, while the modern source-inversion studies are still unable to better constrain the choices available. The uncertainty in the kinematically simulated motions due to the ambiguity in assigning an underlining form of fault slip still requires rigorous quantification. The representation integral of elasticity is an appropriate analytical tool, providing the exact seismic field in the entire practically relevant frequency band and including all near- and far-field terms. The smooth dynamically compatible version of the source time function, in which the rise time is the governing parameter, has the drawback of implicitly leading to unreasonably high slip rates and, as a consequence, unrealistically extreme ground velocities and accelerations. On the other hand, the functions, both dynamic and of the omega-<i>n</i> type, in which the static offset <i>U</i> and peak rate of slip <i>v</i><sub>max</sub> are the two independent controlling parameters, all provide nearly the same peak-motion values that match the prescribed, realistically observed coseismic fault-slip rates. With <i>U</i> and <i>v</i><sub>max</sub> as the correctly prescribed slip parameters, respectively controlling the low- and high-frequency ends of the radiated spectra, the choice between a dynamic or omega-<i>n</i> function leads to insignificant differences in radiation, causing the uncertainty in peak motions not exceeding approximately 10%.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21078,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"pure and applied geophysics\",\"volume\":\"181 6\",\"pages\":\"1859 - 1869\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"pure and applied geophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00024-024-03502-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"pure and applied geophysics","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00024-024-03502-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
强地面运动的运动学模拟需要表示断层滑移的时间函数形式。目前常用的震源时间函数有:从裂缝动力学数值模拟中归纳出来的函数,或辐射Ω-n 型地震频谱的函数。所有这些在物理上都是可信的,而现代震源反演研究仍无法更好地约束现有的选择。由于在确定断层滑动的基本形式时存在模糊性,因此运动模拟运动的不确定性仍需严格量化。弹性表示积分是一种合适的分析工具,可提供整个实际相关频带的精确地震场,并包括所有近场和远场项。光滑的动态兼容型震源时间函数(其中上升时间是控制参数)的缺点是隐含地导致不合理的高滑移率,并因此导致不切实际的极端地面速度和加速度。另一方面,以静态偏移 U 和峰值滑移率 vmax 为两个独立控制参数的动态函数和欧米茄-n 型函数,都提供了几乎相同的峰值运动值,与规定的、实际观测到的同震断层滑移率相吻合。由于 U 和 vmax 是正确规定的滑动参数,分别控制着辐射频谱的低频和高频端,因此选择动态函数还是欧米茄-n 函数导致的辐射差异不大,从而使峰值运动的不确定性不超过约 10%。
Choices of Slip Function and Simulated Ground Motions
Kinematic simulations of strong ground motions require representation of the temporal functional form of fault slip. There is a range of source time functions that are commonly used: those that are generalized from numerical simulations of crack dynamics or those that radiate the seismic spectra of the omega-n type. All are physical plausible, while the modern source-inversion studies are still unable to better constrain the choices available. The uncertainty in the kinematically simulated motions due to the ambiguity in assigning an underlining form of fault slip still requires rigorous quantification. The representation integral of elasticity is an appropriate analytical tool, providing the exact seismic field in the entire practically relevant frequency band and including all near- and far-field terms. The smooth dynamically compatible version of the source time function, in which the rise time is the governing parameter, has the drawback of implicitly leading to unreasonably high slip rates and, as a consequence, unrealistically extreme ground velocities and accelerations. On the other hand, the functions, both dynamic and of the omega-n type, in which the static offset U and peak rate of slip vmax are the two independent controlling parameters, all provide nearly the same peak-motion values that match the prescribed, realistically observed coseismic fault-slip rates. With U and vmax as the correctly prescribed slip parameters, respectively controlling the low- and high-frequency ends of the radiated spectra, the choice between a dynamic or omega-n function leads to insignificant differences in radiation, causing the uncertainty in peak motions not exceeding approximately 10%.
期刊介绍:
pure and applied geophysics (pageoph), a continuation of the journal "Geofisica pura e applicata", publishes original scientific contributions in the fields of solid Earth, atmospheric and oceanic sciences. Regular and special issues feature thought-provoking reports on active areas of current research and state-of-the-art surveys.
Long running journal, founded in 1939 as Geofisica pura e applicata
Publishes peer-reviewed original scientific contributions and state-of-the-art surveys in solid earth and atmospheric sciences
Features thought-provoking reports on active areas of current research and is a major source for publications on tsunami research
Coverage extends to research topics in oceanic sciences
See Instructions for Authors on the right hand side.