俯冲界面几何形状对卡斯卡迪亚地表位移和滑动过程的影响

IF 2.6 3区 地球科学 Q2 ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
H. M. Elston, J. P. Loveless, J. R. Delph
{"title":"俯冲界面几何形状对卡斯卡迪亚地表位移和滑动过程的影响","authors":"H. M. Elston,&nbsp;J. P. Loveless,&nbsp;J. R. Delph","doi":"10.1029/2025EA004623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The subduction interface geometry is particularly important for estimating interplate coupling and surface geodetic motion, which has significant implications for seismic hazard mapping. Several published Cascadia subduction interface geometries derived from different seismic data sets vary significantly from one another. However, results from deformation models that use the different interface geometries are rarely systematically compared. Here, we assess the impact of subduction interface geometry on surface motion predictions, slip inversion results, and interface coupling estimates from four published Cascadia subduction interface geometries. We isolate the effect of the interface geometry on the predicted surface motion by applying uniform unit slip or Gaussian slip patterns to each interface geometry and calculate the predicted displacements at locations of GNSS stations. The forward model-predicted horizontal displacements can differ by &gt;20% and show azimuthal differences up to 10°; such differences correlate spatially to geometric differences amongst the interface realizations. Inversions of surface displacements estimated using a Gaussian distribution of slip, mimicking an earthquake, recover the applied slip distribution with differing spatial patterns and residuals of up to 38% of the maximum applied slip. Block models that use the four interface realizations produce coupling estimates on the interface with regions of significant coupling (&gt;50%) that differ noticeably in down-dip extent and lateral continuity. The results we present suggest that models utilizing interface geometry as an input, such as earthquake and tsunami models, should consider comparing models with differing interface geometries to critically evaluate model uncertainty stemming from this fundamental input.</p>","PeriodicalId":54286,"journal":{"name":"Earth and Space Science","volume":"12 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025EA004623","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Subduction Interface Geometry on Surface Displacements and Slip Processes in Cascadia\",\"authors\":\"H. M. Elston,&nbsp;J. P. Loveless,&nbsp;J. R. Delph\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2025EA004623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The subduction interface geometry is particularly important for estimating interplate coupling and surface geodetic motion, which has significant implications for seismic hazard mapping. Several published Cascadia subduction interface geometries derived from different seismic data sets vary significantly from one another. However, results from deformation models that use the different interface geometries are rarely systematically compared. Here, we assess the impact of subduction interface geometry on surface motion predictions, slip inversion results, and interface coupling estimates from four published Cascadia subduction interface geometries. We isolate the effect of the interface geometry on the predicted surface motion by applying uniform unit slip or Gaussian slip patterns to each interface geometry and calculate the predicted displacements at locations of GNSS stations. The forward model-predicted horizontal displacements can differ by &gt;20% and show azimuthal differences up to 10°; such differences correlate spatially to geometric differences amongst the interface realizations. Inversions of surface displacements estimated using a Gaussian distribution of slip, mimicking an earthquake, recover the applied slip distribution with differing spatial patterns and residuals of up to 38% of the maximum applied slip. Block models that use the four interface realizations produce coupling estimates on the interface with regions of significant coupling (&gt;50%) that differ noticeably in down-dip extent and lateral continuity. The results we present suggest that models utilizing interface geometry as an input, such as earthquake and tsunami models, should consider comparing models with differing interface geometries to critically evaluate model uncertainty stemming from this fundamental input.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earth and Space Science\",\"volume\":\"12 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025EA004623\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earth and Space Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EA004623\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earth and Space Science","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EA004623","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

俯冲界面的几何形状对估计板块间耦合和地表大地运动尤为重要,对地震危险性制图具有重要意义。根据不同的地震数据集得出的几种已发表的卡斯卡迪亚俯冲界面几何形状彼此之间差异很大。然而,使用不同界面几何形状的变形模型的结果很少被系统地比较。在这里,我们评估了俯冲界面几何形状对地表运动预测、滑动反演结果和四个已发表的Cascadia俯冲界面几何形状的界面耦合估计的影响。我们通过对每个界面几何形状应用均匀单位滑移或高斯滑移模式来隔离界面几何形状对预测表面运动的影响,并计算GNSS站位置的预测位移。正演模型预测的水平位移可能相差20%,方位角相差可达10°;这种差异在空间上与接口实现之间的几何差异相关。利用高斯滑移分布估计的地表位移反演,模拟地震,恢复具有不同空间模式的应用滑移分布,残差高达最大应用滑移的38%。使用四种界面实现的区块模型在界面上与显著耦合区域(>50%)产生耦合估计,这些区域在下倾程度和横向连续性方面存在显著差异。我们提出的结果表明,利用界面几何形状作为输入的模型,如地震和海啸模型,应该考虑比较具有不同界面几何形状的模型,以批判性地评估由这一基本输入产生的模型不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Influence of Subduction Interface Geometry on Surface Displacements and Slip Processes in Cascadia

Influence of Subduction Interface Geometry on Surface Displacements and Slip Processes in Cascadia

The subduction interface geometry is particularly important for estimating interplate coupling and surface geodetic motion, which has significant implications for seismic hazard mapping. Several published Cascadia subduction interface geometries derived from different seismic data sets vary significantly from one another. However, results from deformation models that use the different interface geometries are rarely systematically compared. Here, we assess the impact of subduction interface geometry on surface motion predictions, slip inversion results, and interface coupling estimates from four published Cascadia subduction interface geometries. We isolate the effect of the interface geometry on the predicted surface motion by applying uniform unit slip or Gaussian slip patterns to each interface geometry and calculate the predicted displacements at locations of GNSS stations. The forward model-predicted horizontal displacements can differ by >20% and show azimuthal differences up to 10°; such differences correlate spatially to geometric differences amongst the interface realizations. Inversions of surface displacements estimated using a Gaussian distribution of slip, mimicking an earthquake, recover the applied slip distribution with differing spatial patterns and residuals of up to 38% of the maximum applied slip. Block models that use the four interface realizations produce coupling estimates on the interface with regions of significant coupling (>50%) that differ noticeably in down-dip extent and lateral continuity. The results we present suggest that models utilizing interface geometry as an input, such as earthquake and tsunami models, should consider comparing models with differing interface geometries to critically evaluate model uncertainty stemming from this fundamental input.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earth and Space Science
Earth and Space Science Earth and Planetary Sciences-General Earth and Planetary Sciences
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
285
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Marking AGU’s second new open access journal in the last 12 months, Earth and Space Science is the only journal that reflects the expansive range of science represented by AGU’s 62,000 members, including all of the Earth, planetary, and space sciences, and related fields in environmental science, geoengineering, space engineering, and biogeochemistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信