2014 VISES Summer School

From SCECpedia
SCEC-ERI Summer School for Earthquake Science
Topic: Wave and Rupture Propagation with Realistic Velocity Structures
Dates: September 28-October 2, 2014
Location: Embassy Suites Mandalay Beach Hotel, Oxnard, CA
Participants: 50

Overview. The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) and the Earthquake Research Institute of the University of Tokyo (ERI) has organized a Summer School for Earthquake Science September 28 through October 2, 2014. The theme for the Summer School is "Wave and Rupture Propagation with Realistic Velocity Structures". The program includes both lectures and exercises where participants will learn how complex velocity structure is represented and can be used to create seismograms from kinematic representations of earthquakes as point sources and propagating ruptures. One objective is for participants to construct ground motions for earthquake scenarios, which if used in a collective sense can be a method for complementing or creating hazard maps. Participants are given exercises so that they can run the various numerical methods with the supervision of the lecturers. Each participant will present a poster to share his/her research during evening sessions. ( Download Full Program [PDF] )

IMG 1991.JPG


Organizing Committee
Ralph Archuleta, UC Santa Barbara
John Shaw, Harvard
Hiroe Miyake, ERI / U of Tokyo, Japan
Jim Mori, DPRI / Kyoto U, Japan
Tom Jordan, SCEC / USC
Greg Beroza, SCEC / Stanford
Tran Huynh, SCEC / USC

Lecturers and Instructors
Domniki Asimaki, Caltech
Jorge Crempien, UC Santa Barbara
David Gill, SCEC/USC
Rob Graves, U.S. Geological Survey
Muneo Hori, ERI / U of Tokyo, Japan
Tom Jordan, SCEC / USC
Phil Maechling, SCEC / USC
Kevin Milner, SCEC / USC
Hiroe Miyake, ERI / U of Tokyo, Japan
Jim Mori, DRPI / Kyoto U, Japan
Kim Olsen, SDSU
Andreas Plesch, Harvard
John Shaw, Harvard
Peter Shearer, UC San Diego
Fabio Silva, SCEC / USC
Rumi Takedatsu, SDSU
Ryoichiro Agata, ERI / U of Tokyo, Japan
Naofumi Aso, EPS / U of Tokyo, Japan
Aida Azari Sisi, METU, Turkey
Nenad Bijelić, Stanford
Daniel Bowden, Caltech
Samuel Bydlon, Stanford
Wenyuan Fan, UC San Diego
Jacquelyn Gilchrist, UC Riverside
Thomas Goebel, Caltech
Naoki Hatakeyama, DPRI / Kyoto U, Japan
Alexandra Hutchison, UC Riverside
Naeem Khoshnevis, U of Memphis
Ryota Kiuchi, DPRI / Kyoto U, Japan
Men-Andrin Meier, Swiss Seismological Service, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Lingsen Meng, UC Los Angeles
Kevin Milner, SCEC / USC
Irene Molinari, INGV Rome, Italy
Ryo Okuwaki, U of Tsukuba, Japan
John (Chris) Rollins, Caltech
Valerie Sahakian, UC San Diego
Kaoru Sawazaki, NIED, Japan
Xin Song, USC
Cedric Twardzik, UC Santa Barbara
Mika Usher, U of Washington
Chris Van Houtte, U of Auckland, New Zealand
Loic Viens, ERI / U of Tokyo, Japan
Erin Wirth, U of Washington
Kyle Withers, SDSU / UC San Diego
Yifei Wu, ERI / U of Tokyo, Japan
Suguru Yabe, EPS / U of Tokyo, Japan
Tomoko Yano, NEID, Japan
Lingling Ye, UC Santa Cruz


Sunday, September 28
15:00 Check-in Embassy Suites Mandalay Beach Hotel
18:00 - 21:00 Welcome Dinner
Monday, September 29
07:00 - 08:30 Breakfast
07:00 - 08:30 Software Installation Support
08:30 - 10:00 Unified Structural Representation of the Southern California Crust and Upper Mantle, Prof. John Shaw
10:00 - 10:30 Break
10:30 - 12:00 Strong-motions of the 2011Tohoku-oki Earthquake: Impact on Nuclear Power Plants, Prof. Jim Mori
12:00 - 13:00 Lunch
13:00 - 14:00 Software Installation Support
14:00 - 15:30 Full-3D Tomography: Theory and Application to Southern California, Prof. Tom Jordan
15:30 - 18:30 Computer Exercises: 3D Structural Velocity Modeling/USR Framework
18:30 - 20:30 Group Dinner
20:30 - 22:00 Poster Viewing
Tuesday, September 30
07:00 - 08:30 Breakfast
08:30 - 10:00 Broadband Kinematic Modeling of Earthquakes, Prof. Ralph Archuleta
10:00 - 10:30 Break
10:30 - 12:00 The GP2014 Ground Motion Simulation Technique, Dr. Robert Graves
12:00 - 13:00 Lunch
13:00 - 14:00 Free Time
14:00 - 15:30 The SDSU Broadband Ground Motion Generation Module BBtoolbox Version 1.5, Prof. Kim Olsen
15:30 - 18:30 Computer Exercises: Broadband Ground Motion Simulation I
18:30 - 20:30 Group Dinner
Wednesday, October 1
07:00 - 08:30 Breakfast
08:30 - 10:00 UCSB Broadband Ground Motion from Kinematic Simulated Earthquakes, Mr. Jorge Crempien
10:00 - 10:30 Break
10:30 - 12:00 Earthquake Back-projection Methods, Prof. Peter Shearer
12:00 - 13:00 Lunch
13:00 - 14:00 Free Time
14:00 - 15:30 Integrated Earthquake Simulation – Program Architecture and Plugged-in Components, Prof. Muneo Hori
15:30 - 18:30 Computer Exercises: Broadband Ground Motion Simulation II & Back Projection Method
18:30 - 20:30 Group Dinner
20:30 - 22:00 Poster Viewing
Thursday, October 2
07:00 - 08:30 Breakfast
08:30 - 10:00 Site Response: Translating Simulated Ground Motions into Input Time-series for Engineering Design Applications, Prof. Domniki Asimaki
10:00 - 11:00 Discussion
11:00 Check-out Embassy Suites Mandalay Beach Hotel

Computer Exercises


The program includes a lab component, where students will work in small groups to perform several computer exercises. SCEC will provide laptops (loaded with the necessary software) for the students to share and use during these exercises. Participants are welcome and encouraged to use their own laptops for this part of the program.

We will provide the scientific software to be used in the workshop as a Virtual Box Image file. The file will need to be copied onto any computer used. The SCEC-ERI image is also available online. Copies of this file on USB disk drive will be available for installation on site.

If you decide to use your own laptop, you will need to install Virtual Box (a free download from Oracle: https://www.virtualbox.org) and then to load a virtual image containing all the required software on your computer.

Computer requirements. Windows 7/8 or a Mac OS X laptop with a recent version of the OS installed, 4GB RAM (8GB+ is definitely better!), and 50GB available on the hard drive. If your computer does not meet these minimum requirements (or if you experience problems setting up your laptop with our software), you are welcome to use/share one of our laptops.

Obtain and Install Virtual Box. If you are able, please plan to install Virtual Box on your computer before the computer exercises begin on Monday afternoon.

Instructions are also posted at SCEC wiki: https://scec.usc.edu/scecpedia/Install_Virtual_Box

  1. Download the Virtual Box software from Oracle (https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads). This software is free to use. Retrieve a version that is appropriate for the Host Operating system of the computer you want to use. If your laptop runs Mac OS X, then retrieve a version of Virtual Box for Mac OS X. If your laptop runs Windows 8, retrieve a version of Virtual Box for Windows 8. We have tested the SCEC-ERI Image with Virtual Box Version 4.2.24 and higher.
  2. Follow the Virtual Box installation instructions and install Virtual Box on your computer (https://www.virtualbox.org/manual/UserManual.html). The installation procedure varies slightly based on the operating system you are using. It may require administrator permissions to install virtual box on some computers.

Obtain and Install SCEC-ERI Image. For detailed description and install instructions, go to SCEC-ERI Workshop Software.

Technical Support. Please feel free to contact us (software[at]scec.org) for help installing Virtual Box or the workshop software.

3D Structural Velocity Modeling / USR Framework

Goal. This afternoon’s exercises are designed to familiarize you with the components of 3D structural velocity models, including basin structures, faults, and velocity parameterizations. We will accomplish this using the SCEC Unified Structural Representation (USR) for southern California and two tools developed to access and use this model: SCEC VDO, and interactive 3D visualization tool, and UCVM, which allows you to extract velocity values from these models.

Monday, September 29
15:30 – 15:45 Laptop setup, virtual box instructions
15:45 - 16:15 SCEC VDO: Structural components
  • Basics: navigation, loading plugins and datasets
  • Visualizing faults: SCEC CFM
  • Visualizing geologic surfaces: Basement and Moho surfaces
  • Exercise: Examining faults that affect the Basement surface
16:15 - 16:45 SCEC VDO: Exploring velocity models
  • Examining velocity cross-sections
  • Examining velocity maps
  • Exercise: Comparing velocity structures and geologic surfaces
16:45 – 17:00 Break
17:00 – 18:30 UCVM
  • Introduction to the UCVM framework
  • Plotting cross sections and maps
  • Exercise: Comparing alternative velocity parameterizations
  • Extracting 1-D velocity profiles
  • Exercise Evaluating basin velocity structures
18:30 Conclude

Handout. Tutorial Instructions: 3D Structural Velocity Modeling/USR Framework (PDF) (also available: Previous Version)

SCEC Broadband Platform

The SCEC Broadband Platform (BBP) is a collaborative software development project involving geoscientists, earthquake engineers, graduate students, and the SCEC Community Modeling Environment. The SCEC BBP is open-source scientific software that can generate broadband (0-100Hz) ground motions for earthquakes, integrating complex scientific modules that implement rupture generation, low and high frequency seismogram synthesis, non-linear site effects calculation, and visualization into a software system that supports easy on-demand computation of seismograms.

The Broadband Platform operates in two primary modes: validation simulations and scenario simulations. In validation mode, the Platform runs earthquake rupture and wave propagation modeling software to calculate seismograms for a well-observed historical earthquake. Then, the BBP calculates a number of goodness of fit measurements that quantify how well the model-based broadband seismograms match the observed seismograms for a certain event. Based on these results, the Platform can be used to tune and validate different numerical modeling techniques.

In scenario mode, the Broadband Platform can run simulations for hypothetical (scenario) earthquakes. In this mode, users input an earthquake description, a list of station names and locations, and a 1D velocity model for their region of interest, and the Broadband Platform software then calculates ground motions for the specified stations.

The latest release includes 5 simulation methods, 7 simulation regions covering California, Japan, and Eastern North America, the ability to compare simulation results against GMPEs, and several new data products, such as map and distance-based goodness of fit plots. As the number and complexity of scenarios simulated using the Broadband Platform increases, we have added batching utilities to substantially improve support for running large-scale simulations on computing clusters.

  1. Northridge SRC file, SoCal velocity structure, 5 stations within 40 km of fault (Epicentral distance is limited so that Green’s functions are computed for less time.) This fault has top of rupture at 5.0 km. Choose 5 stations that are distributed at various distances from fault and various azimuths (Figure 1).
    1. Students will compute 3-component time histories, Fourier amplitude spectrum (FAS), and response spectrum.
    2. Plot the 3-components of ground motion at each site using the data.
    3. At the same scale as part b, plot the 3-components of synthetic ground motion.
    4. Compute the FAS for each component of the data and plot on log-log scale.
    5. Compute the FAS for each component of the synthetic and plot on log-log scale.
    6. Compare response spectrum from synthetic with that from GMPE (overlay two plots).
    7. For students own homework, run a different realization of the kinematic model and compare with the results from parts c and d.
  2. Northridge, but SRC file will have fault coming to the surface, SoCal velocity structure, 5 stations within 40 km of fault. The dip here should be same as that for Ex.1. However, this fault has top of rupture at 0.0 km. Students can see the difference of surface vs buried rupture.
    1. Students to compute 3 component time histories, FAS, and response spectrum at the same 5 stations chosen in Exercise 1.
    2. Compare response spectrum from synthetic with that from GMPE (overlay two plots).
    3. Compare ground motions between surface rupture (Ex. 1) and buried rupture. Plot synthetics from this exercise (Ex. 2) and those from Ex. 1 on the same plot. Use SAC.
  3. Strike slip, M 6.6, SoCal velocity structure, surface rupture, 5 stations. All stations are located 20 km from the fault. Hypocenter is random.
    1. Compute 3-component time histories, FAS, and response spectrum for each station.
    2. Compare response spectrum from synthetic with that from GMPE (overlay two plots).
    3. If you have time, repeat parts a and b with a different realization.

Handout. Procedure for Executing on the Broadband Platform (PDF), SAC Instructions, and UCSB BB User Manual (PDF)

Back Projection Methods

Please refer to Peter Shearer's SCEC-ERI Back-projection Material, which includes:

Student Poster Presentations

  • Large-scale simulation of postseismic deformation using a high-fidelity viscoelastic finite element model, Ryoichiro Agata (ERI)
  • A Parametric Study on Synthetic Uniform Hazard Spectrum of Erzincan, Turkey, Aida Azari Sisi (METU), Aysegul Askan (METU) and Murat Altug Erberik (METU)
  • Utilization of simulated ground motions for engineering performance assessment of tall buildings, Nenad Bijelić (Stanford), Ting Lin (Marquette), Greg Deierlein (Stanford)
  • Observing wave propagation with ambient noise using a dense array in Long Beach, CA, Daniel Bowden (Caltech), Victor Tsai (Caltech), Fan-Chi Lin (Univ. Utah)
  • Dynamic earthquake rupture simulations on nonplanar faults embedded in 2D and 3D geometrically complex, heterogeneous Earth models, Sam Bydlon (Stanford), Kenneth Duru (Stanford), and Eric Dunham (Stanford)
  • Kinematic earthquake rupture inversion in the frequency domain, Wenyuan Fan (SIO/UCSD), Peter M. Shearer (SIO/UCSD) and Peter Gerstoft (SIO/UCSD)
  • Possible bias in ground motion and rupture simulations arising from forced nucleation locations that are inconsistent with heterogeneous stress conditions, Jacquelyn Gilchrist (UCR), James Dieterich (UCR), Keith *Richards-Dinger (UCR) and David Oglesby (UCR) 
  • A comparative study of the seismo-tectonics in the San Gorgonio and Ventura Special Fault Study Areas, Thomas H.W. Goebel (Caltech), Egill Hauksson (Caltech), Andreas Plesch (Harvard), John H. Shaw (Harvard)
  • Study on Identification of the Physical Parameters of a Full-Scale Steel Structure Based on Observed Records, Naoki Hatakeyama (DPRI)
  • Systematic Search for Ambient Non-Volcanic Tremor in the San Jacinto Fault, Alexandra A. Hutchison (UCR) and Abhijit Ghosh (UCR)
  • Evaluation of the Southern California Velocity Models through Simulation and Validation of Multiple *Historical Events, Naeem Khoshnevis (CERI/U Memphis), Shima Azizzadehroodpish (CERI/U Memphis) and Ricardo Taborda (CERI/ U Memphis)
  • Focal Mechanism Dependence of Apparent Stress for Moderate and Large Earthquakes, Ryota Kiuchi (DPRI/Kyoto U) and Jim Mori (DPRI/Kyoto U)
  • A Filter Bank Approach to Earthquake Early Warning, Men-Andrin Meier (ETH Zurich), Tom Heaton (Caltech), John Clinton (ETH Zurich)
  • Operational earthquake forecasting in California: A prototype system combining UCERF3 and CyberShake, Kevin R. Milner (USC), Thomas H. Jordan (USC), and Edward H. Field (USGS Golden)
  • Seismic shaking scenarios in realistic 3D basin model of Po Plain (Northern Italy), Irene Molinari (INGV) and Andrea Morelli (INGV)
  • Behavior of high-frequency seismic radiation, revealed by hybrid back-projection method, Ryo Okuwaki, Yuji Yagi (U Tsukuba) and Shiro Hirano (U Tsukuba)
  • Postseismic deformation following the 2010 El Mayor-Cucapah earthquake: observations, kinematic inversions and endmember models, Christopher Rollins (Caltech), Sylvain Barbot (Earth Observatory of Singapore) and Jean-Philippe Avouac (Cambridge University)
  • Monitoring of microseismicity in Japan by applying the matched filter technique to Hi-net continuous records, Kaoru Sawazaki (NIED)
  • Stochastic descriptions of small-scale, near-surface velocity variations in the Los Angeles basin, Xin Song (USC), Thomas H. Jordan (USC), Andreas Plesch (Harvard) and John H. Shaw (Harvard)
  • Inversion for the physical parameters that control the source dynamics of the 2004 Parkfield earthquake, C. Twardzik (UCSB), R. Madariaga (ENS Paris), and S. Das (U of Oxford)
  • The site attenuation parameter in New Zealand and its variability, Chris Van Houtte (University of Auckland), Caroline Holden (GNS Science), Tam Larkin (University of Auckland) and Olga Ktenidou (ISTerre)
  • Long-Period Ground Motion Simulations for Subduction Earthquakes Using the Ambient Seismic Field, Loic Viens (ERI), Kazuki Koketsu (ERI), and Hiroe Miyake (ERI)
  • The M9 Project and probabalistic modeling of megathrust events in Cascadia: An Overview, Erin A. Wirth (U Washington)
  • High-Complexity Deterministic Q(f) Simulation of the 1994 Northridge Mw 6.7 Earthquake, Kyle B. Withers (SDSU/UCSD), Kim B. Olsen (SDSU), Zheqiang Shi (SDSU), and Steve Day (SDSU)
  • An improved method to calculate normal mode of a semi-closed bay or ocean basin, Yifei Wu (ERI) and Kenji Satake (ERI)
  • The spatial variation of tidal sensitivity of tectonic tremor, Suguru Yabe (EPS/U Tokyo), Satoshi Ide (EPS/U Tokyo), Yoshiyuki Tanaka (ERI/U Tokyo), Heidi Houston (UW)
  • A stress-field orientation in northwestern area of the Kanto plain, Japan, Tomoko E. Yano (NEID), Tetsuya Takeda (NEID), Katsuhiko Shiomi (NEID)
  • Rupture Characteristics of Large (Mw ≥ 7.0) Megathrust Earthquakes from 1990-2014, Lingling Ye (UCSC), Thorne Lay (UCSC) and Hiroo Kanamori (Caltech)

Further Reading

Full 3D Tomography

  • Zhao, L., T. H. Jordan, K. Olsen, and P. Chen, Fréchet kernels for imaging regional Earth structure based on three-dimensional reference models, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 95, 2066-2080.
  • Tromp, J., C. Tape, and Q. Liu (2005), Seismic tomography, adjoint methods, time reversal and banana-doughnut kernels, Geophys. J. Int., 160(1), 195–216, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02453.x.
  • Chen, P., T. H. Jordan, and L. Zhao (2007a), Full three-dimensional waveform tomography: a comparison between the scattering-integral and adjoint-wavefield methods, Geophys. J. Int., 170, 175-181, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2007.03429.x.
  • Chen, P., L. Zhao, and T. H. Jordan (2007b), Full 3D tomography for crustal structure of the Los Angeles region, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97, 1094-1120, doi: 10.1785/0120060222.
  • Tape, C., Q. Liu, A. Maggi, and J. Tromp (2010), Seismic tomography of the southern California crust based on spectral-element and adjoint methods, Geophys. J. Int., 180(1), 433–462, doi:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04429.x.
  • Lee E.-J., P. Chen, T. H. Jordan, P. B. Maechling, M. A.M. Denolle and G. C. Beroza (2014a), Full-3D Tomography for Crustal structure in Southern California based on the scattering-integral and the adjoint-wavefield methods, J. Geophys. Res., 119, 6421-6451, doi:10.1002/2014JB011346
  • Lee, E.-J., P. Chen, and T. H. Jordan (2014b), Testing waveform predictions of 3D velocity models against two recent Los Angeles earthquakes, Seismol. Res. Lett., 85(6).

SDSU Broadband Ground Motion Generation Module

  • Olsen, K.B., and Takedatsu, R. (2014). The SDSU Broadband Ground Motion Generation Module BBtoolbox Version 1.5, Seismological Research Letters, in revision (article and e-supplement).
  • Mai, P.M., W. Imperatori, K.B. Olsen (2010). Hybrid Broadband Ground-Motion Simulations: Combining Long-Period Deterministic Synthetics with High-Frequency Multiple S-to-S Backscattering, Bull. Seis. Soc. Am., Vol. 100, No. 5A, pp. 2124–2142, October 2010, doi: 10.1785/0120080194.
  • Mena, B., P.M. Mai, K.B. Olsen, M. Purvance, and J. Brune (2010). Hybrid Broadband Ground-Motion Simulation Using Scattering Green’s Functions: Application to Large-Magnitude Events, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 100, No. 5A, pp. 2143–2162, October 2010, doi: 10.1785/0120080318.

Back Projection Methods

  • Allmann, B.P., and P.M. Shearer, A high-frequency secondary event during the 2004 Parkfield earthquake, Science, 318, 1279, doi: 10.1126/science.1146537, 2007.
  • Ishii, M., P.M. Shearer, H. Houston and J.E. Vidale, Extent, duration and speed of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array, Nature, 435, doi:10.1038/nature03675, 2005.
  • Ishii, M., P.M. Shearer, H. Houston, and J.E. Vidale, Teleseismic P wave imaging of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman and 28 March 2005 Sumatraearthquake ruptures using the Hi-net array,J. Geophys. Res.,112, B11307,doi:10.1029/2006JB004700, 2007.
  • Walker, K.T., M. Ishii and P.M. Shearer, Rupture details of the 28 March 2005 Sumatra Mw 8.6 earthquake imaged with teleseismic P waves, Geophys. Res.Lett., 32, L24303, doi: 10.1029/2005GL024395, 2005.
  • Walker, K. T., and P. M. Shearer, Illuminating the near-sonic rupture velocities of the intracontinental Kokoxili Mw 7.8 and Denali fault Mw 7.9 strike-slip earthquakes with global P wave back projection imaging, J. Geophys. Res., 114, doi: 10.1029/2008JB005738, 2009.