The second of our RCN's three workshops will focus on assessing the critical aspects of faulting, earthquake sequences and aseismic slip, and megathrust rupture dynamics that should be included in the future integrative community modeling framework for subduction zones. We aim to bring together a diverse selection of modelers and earthquake scientists to synthesize existing modeling efforts and identify the disconnects and knowledge gaps between fault slip and deformation models of various spatial and temporal scales. This workshop is designed to facilitate discussions on and collaborations toward developing the modeling framework for subduction megathrusts, but is not designed to develop codes.
Identify the key processes at different temporal and spatial scales that are critical to subduction megathrusts.
Identify the disconnects among models of different scales and/or mechanisms and the knowledge gaps among modelers.
Synthesize and direct existing efforts towards building a framework for faulting, earthquake sequences and aseismic slip, and megathrust rupture dynamics modeling for subduction zones.
Explore what theory and constraints would be needed to interpret sensor network streams for physics based hazard assessment
Develop a community plan for an integrative modeling framework for the above problems and spell out a vision for the MCS from a megathrust perspective
Dates: October 6-9, 2019
Location: University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
There will be a special session focused on early career scientists (ECS) on Sunday, October 6. The main workshop will be held October 7-9, ending with a half-day session on the final morning. There will be a poster session the evening of October 7.
Full schedule available below.
By accepting an invitation to participate in a MCS event, participants agree to abide by the MCS Code of Conduct.
Sessions and Questions
Modeling sequences of earthquake and aseismic slip (SEAS)
What controls the nature of deformation and seismicity along the plate interface?
What are asperities? How fixed are they in space and time?
Is there overlap between aseismically slipping parts of the fault and parts that participate in coseismic slip?
What role does viscous flow play in postseismic response?
Is there observable precursory deformation?
Why do some regions have slow slip and others don’t?
Will the shallow portion of the fault remain locked in future megathrusts?
Modeling dynamic ruptures and tsunamis (DRT)
What limits rupture extent?
How do ruptures interact with regions that were aseismically creeping interseismically?
What happens near the trench, where elastic materials are highly compliant and bimaterial effects are largest?
How does stress in hanging wall change after a megathrust, and what does this tell us about ambient stress levels, stress drop, and dynamic weakening?
What conditions determine if ruptures take splays?
How can earthquake modeling inform tsunami modeling (and vice versa)?
Geodynamic and surface processes (GSP)
What processes control subduction zone structure and stress state?
How persistent are coupling distributions?
What can we do to quantify the spatio-temporal scales where coupling matters and where it doesn’t, and can we use those insights to provide better bounds on likely inputs and outputs for megathrust events?
Can we use long-term geodynamics surface process/topography evolution, paleo-seismology, seismology and geodesy to get at multi-constraint locking and future event estimates?
Can we use stress predictions from focal mechanisms, geodynamics, locking estimates to provide a better estimate of future rupture probability distributions?
Amanda Thomas (Univ. of Oregon) and Eric Dunham (Stanford Univ.)
Alice Gabriel (LMU Munich), Shuoshuo Han (UT Austin), Shuo Ma (San Diego State Univ.), Tatsuhiko Saito (NIED), Ylona van Dinther (Utrecht Univ.), Camilla Cattania (Stanford Univ.), Victor Cruz-Atienza (UNAM), Jessica Hawthorne (Univ. of Oxford), John Platt (USC),
Jean-Arthur Olive (ENS), Judith Hubbard (Earth Observatory of Singapore), Noah Finnegan (UCSC), Kelin Wang (Geological Survey of Canada), Thorsten Becker (UT Austin),
Roland Burgmann (UC Berkeley)