Standards for Documenting Finite‐Fault Earthquake Rupture Models

Handle URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10754/617316
Title:
Standards for Documenting Finite‐Fault Earthquake Rupture Models
Authors:
Mai, Paul Martin ( 0000-0002-9744-4964 ) ; Shearer, Peter; Ampuero, Jean‐Paul; Lay, Thorne
Abstract:
In this article, we propose standards for documenting and disseminating finite‐fault earthquake rupture models, and related data and metadata. A comprehensive documentation of the rupture models, a detailed description of the data processing steps, and facilitating the access to the actual data that went into the earthquake source inversion are required to promote follow‐up research and to ensure interoperability, transparency, and reproducibility of the published slip‐inversion solutions. We suggest a formatting scheme that describes the kinematic rupture process in an unambiguous way to support subsequent research. We also provide guidelines on how to document the data, metadata, and data processing. The proposed standards and formats represent a first step to establishing best practices for comprehensively documenting input and output of finite‐fault earthquake source studies.
KAUST Department:
Physical Sciences and Engineering (PSE) Division
Citation:
Standards for Documenting Finite‐Fault Earthquake Rupture Models 2016, 87 (3):712 Seismological Research Letters
Publisher:
Seismological Society of America (SSA)
Journal:
Seismological Research Letters
Issue Date:
6-Apr-2016
DOI:
10.1785/0220150204
Type:
Article
ISSN:
0895-0695; 1938-2057
Sponsors:
We are grateful to Rob Graves (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) for supporting our efforts by making his standard‐rupture‐format (.srf) openly available. Comments by M. van Driel, F. Pollitz, R. Okuwaki, Y. Yagi, and O. Zielke helped to refine and clarify the formatting requirements when using the .srf convention for computing synthetic seismograms at teleseismic distances. S. Jónsson helped to define Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data requirements. We thank the two reviewers, J. Murray and T. Iwata, for their valuable comments and constructive criticism. Their feedback helped to improve not only the manuscript, but also the proposed data and metadata documentation. This research was supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). SCEC is funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) Cooperative Agreement EAR‐1033462 and USGS Cooperative Agreement G12AC20038. The SCEC Contribution Number for this article is 2107. The research presented in this article is supported by the Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).
Additional Links:
http://srl.geoscienceworld.org/lookup/doi/10.1785/0220150204
Appears in Collections:
Articles

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMai, Paul Martinen
dc.contributor.authorShearer, Peteren
dc.contributor.authorAmpuero, Jean‐Paulen
dc.contributor.authorLay, Thorneen
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-21T10:57:51Z-
dc.date.available2016-07-21T10:57:51Z-
dc.date.issued2016-04-06-
dc.identifier.citationStandards for Documenting Finite‐Fault Earthquake Rupture Models 2016, 87 (3):712 Seismological Research Lettersen
dc.identifier.issn0895-0695-
dc.identifier.issn1938-2057-
dc.identifier.doi10.1785/0220150204-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10754/617316-
dc.description.abstractIn this article, we propose standards for documenting and disseminating finite‐fault earthquake rupture models, and related data and metadata. A comprehensive documentation of the rupture models, a detailed description of the data processing steps, and facilitating the access to the actual data that went into the earthquake source inversion are required to promote follow‐up research and to ensure interoperability, transparency, and reproducibility of the published slip‐inversion solutions. We suggest a formatting scheme that describes the kinematic rupture process in an unambiguous way to support subsequent research. We also provide guidelines on how to document the data, metadata, and data processing. The proposed standards and formats represent a first step to establishing best practices for comprehensively documenting input and output of finite‐fault earthquake source studies.en
dc.description.sponsorshipWe are grateful to Rob Graves (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) for supporting our efforts by making his standard‐rupture‐format (.srf) openly available. Comments by M. van Driel, F. Pollitz, R. Okuwaki, Y. Yagi, and O. Zielke helped to refine and clarify the formatting requirements when using the .srf convention for computing synthetic seismograms at teleseismic distances. S. Jónsson helped to define Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) data requirements. We thank the two reviewers, J. Murray and T. Iwata, for their valuable comments and constructive criticism. Their feedback helped to improve not only the manuscript, but also the proposed data and metadata documentation. This research was supported by the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). SCEC is funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) Cooperative Agreement EAR‐1033462 and USGS Cooperative Agreement G12AC20038. The SCEC Contribution Number for this article is 2107. The research presented in this article is supported by the Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSeismological Society of America (SSA)en
dc.relation.urlhttp://srl.geoscienceworld.org/lookup/doi/10.1785/0220150204en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Seismological Research Letters. This copy is for distribution only by the authors of the article and their institutions in accordance with the Open Access Policy of the Seismological Society of America.en
dc.titleStandards for Documenting Finite‐Fault Earthquake Rupture Modelsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentPhysical Sciences and Engineering (PSE) Divisionen
dc.identifier.journalSeismological Research Lettersen
dc.eprint.versionPublisher's Version/PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of California, San Diego IGPP 0225 La Jolla, California 92093 U.S.A.en
dc.contributor.institutionCalifornia Institute of Technology Seismological Laboratory 1200 East California Boulevard, MC 252-21 Pasadena, California 91125 U.S.A.en
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of California Santa Cruz Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences 1156 High Street Santa Cruz, California 95064 U.S.A.en
dc.contributor.affiliationKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)en
kaust.authorMai, Paul Martinen
All Items in KAUST are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.