A Characteristic Rupture Model for the 2001 Geiyo, Japan, Earthquake

• Published in: Pure and applied geophysics 2011-03, Vol.168 (3-4), p.631-644
• Main Authors: Matsuzaki, Shin’ichi, Pitarka, Arben, Collins, Nancy, Graves, Robert, Fukushima, Yoshimitsu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Earth and Environmental Science; Earth Sciences; Earthquake engineering; Earthquakes; Geophysics; Geophysics/Geodesy; Ground motion; Heterogeneity; Kinematics; Plate tectonics; Seismic activity; Seismology; Simulation
• ISSN: 0033-4553; 1420-9136
• DOI: 10.1007/s00024-010-0126-9

In this study we present a characteristic kinematic rupture model for an intraslab earthquake of the type of the 2001 Geiyo earthquake. The procedure for developing the characteristic rupture model follows the recipe developed by I rikura and M iyake (Proceedings of the 8th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, 2006 ) with a few modifications. We used the functional form of N akamura and M iyatake [Zisin (J Seism Soc Jpn), 53, 1–9, 2000 ] to model the spatial and temporal variability of the slip rate function. In our procedure the earthquake source is specified by the kinematic description of the fault model that incorporates spatial heterogeneity in slip and rise time and constant rupture velocity. In the proposed characteristic model the asperity locations and rupture initiation point were the only parameters that were constrained by the available earthquake rupture models of the target earthquake. The quality of the characteristic rupture model was assessed by comparing recorded and synthetic ground motion time histories from the 2001 Geiyo earthquake calculated with a standard broadband (0.1–10 Hz) ground motion simulation technique. Our analyses show that the characteristic rupture model performs well in reproducing the recorded ground motion, in spite of its simple representation of the fault geometry and kinematic rupture complexity. The analyses of ground motion sensitivity to relative location of asperities, and their stress drop contrast suggest that the overall ground motion goodness of fit remains the same at short periods, but decreases slightly at periods longer than 1 s. We suspect that, due to the depth of the intraslab source (40–50 km), the higher-frequency ground motions are relatively insensitive to the details of the slip distribution and slip contrast. On the other hand, even for intraslab events, the lower-frequency motions are influenced by rupture directivity effects and slip distribution.