Solid Earth Sciences(S)
Session Sub CategorySeismology
Session IDS-SS05
Titleearthquake statistics, physics-based earthquake forecasting, and earthquake model testing
Short titleUnder consideration
Main ConvenerNameHiroshi Tsuruoka
AffiliationEarthquake Research Institute, Tokyo Univ.
Co-Convener 1NameDanijel Schorlemmer
AffiliationGFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
Co-Convener 2NameNaoshi Hirata
AffiliationEarthquake Research Institute, the University of Tokyo
Co-Convener 3NameMatt Gerstenberger
AffiliationGNS Science
Co-Convener 4NameJiancang Zhuang
AffiliationInstitute of Statistical Mathematics
ScopeEarthquake 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 presentationOral and Poster presentation
Invited authors