USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70191606

Finite‐fault Bayesian inversion of teleseismic body waves

Abstract

Inverting geophysical data has provided fundamental information about the behavior of earthquake rupture. However, inferring kinematic source model parameters for finite‐fault ruptures is an intrinsically underdetermined problem (the problem of nonuniqueness), because we are restricted to finite noisy observations. Although many studies use least‐squares techniques to make the finite‐fault problem tractable, these methods generally lack the ability to apply non‐Gaussian error analysis and the imposition of nonlinear constraints. However, the Bayesian approach can be employed to find a Gaussian or non‐Gaussian distribution of all probable model parameters, while utilizing nonlinear constraints. We present case studies to quantify the resolving power and associated uncertainties using only teleseismic body waves in a Bayesian framework to infer the slip history for a synthetic case and two earthquakes: the 2011 M w 7.1 Van, east Turkey, earthquake and the 2010 M w 7.2 El Mayor–Cucapah, Baja California, earthquake. In implementing the Bayesian method, we further present two distinct solutions to investigate the uncertainties by performing the inversion with and without velocity structure perturbations. We find that the posterior ensemble becomes broader when including velocity structure variability and introduces a spatial smearing of slip. Using the Bayesian framework solely on teleseismic body waves, we find rake is poorly constrained by the observations and rise time is poorly resolved when slip amplitude is low.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Brandon S. Clayton, Stephen H. Hartzell, Morgan P. Moschetti, Sarah E. Minson. 2017-03-28. Finite‐fault Bayesian inversion of teleseismic body waves. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160268

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗