Session outline
| Solid Earth Sciences(S) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Session Sub Category | Seismology | |
| Session ID | S-SS05 | |
| Title | earthquake statistics, physics-based earthquake forecasting, and earthquake model testing | |
| Short title | Under consideration | |
| Main Convener | Name | Hiroshi Tsuruoka |
| Affiliation | Earthquake Research Institute, Tokyo Univ. | |
| Co-Convener 1 | Name | Danijel Schorlemmer |
| Affiliation | GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences | |
| Co-Convener 2 | Name | Naoshi Hirata |
| Affiliation | Earthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo | |
| Co-Convener 3 | Name | Matt Gerstenberger |
| Affiliation | GNS Science | |
| Co-Convener 4 | Name | Jiancang Zhuang |
| Affiliation | Institute of Statistical Mathematics | |
| Language | EE | |
| Scope | Earthquake statistics, providing major contributions to earthquake forecast and hazard models, is moving towards combinations with physics-based models. On one hand, Coulomb-based or rate and state-based models attempt to better describe stress and activity evolution for better forecasting seismicity rates, while global interseismic strain rates are combined with activity rates to improve long-term forecasts. On the other hand, hazard models are nowadays incorporating more earthquake statistics than simple Poissonian seismicity models for background seismicity. They are becoming increasingly time- dependent on various time scales beyond the established ETAS model. Statistics are included to describe temporal as well as spatial earthquake activity. The concept of earthquakes resembling a Poisson process has been challenged but still remains a cornerstone in seismic hazard analysis. Many studies have found evidence for earthquake preparations processes on various time scales. Statistical studies have indicated stress accumulations and asperity build-up over periods lasting from years to decades. Likewise, Coulomb-stress modeling revealed changes in stress states as results of previous earthquakes, moving affected areas closer to failure. These developments are creating new challenges for model testing. In this session we aim at exploring new opportunities these kind of models and model combinations offer for seismic hazard. Can hazard estimates be improved significantly by incorporating these models? Is their forecasting power sufficiently larger to warrant their inclusion? How well can future seismicity be forecast based on time-limited observations? Can the preparation process be modeled into seismic hazard? What are the limits of these models and how can we bridge the gap in the models between detailed short-term statistical observations and long-term geologic/geodetic observations? How can any of the models being tested rigorously? | |
| Type of presentation | Oral and Poster presentation | |
| Invited authors | ||