ShakeMovies - Revision history

Maechlin: /* Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations */

2022-11-11T06:57:02Z

Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:57, 11 November 2022
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.		\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC)]]		\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia, Steve Cutchin, Marcio Faerman (SDSC)]]
	\| [https://youtu.be/iYhnN63xToI Animation_11]		\| [https://youtu.be/iYhnN63xToI Animation_11]
	\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of the instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.		\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of the instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.

Maechlin: /* Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations */

2022-11-11T06:54:31Z

Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 11 November 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC)]]		\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC)]]
	\| [https://youtu.be/~~sUTqTlkGUws~~ Animation_11]		\| [https://youtu.be/iYhnN63xToI Animation_11]
	\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of the instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.		\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of the instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.
	\|-		\|-

Maechlin: /* Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations */

2022-11-11T06:47:51Z

Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:47, 11 November 2022
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.		\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC))) ]]		\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC)]]
	\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws ~~Animation_10~~]		\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_11]
	\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.		\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of the instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 12: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 12: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
	\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 ~~Animation_11~~]		\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_12]
	\| This video shows four different dynamic rupture models, all based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). More information can be found on [[Brawley Seismic Zone Simulations]].		\| This video shows four different dynamic rupture models, all based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). More information can be found on [[Brawley Seismic Zone Simulations]].
	\|}		\|}

Maechlin: /* Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations */

2022-11-11T06:46:54Z

Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:46, 11 November 2022
Line 50:		Line 50:
	\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC))) ]]		\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC))) ]]
	\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_10]		\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_10]
	\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This ~~comparison animations~~ shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.		\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This animation shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 12: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 12: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]

Maechlin at 06:45, 11 November 2022

2022-11-11T06:45:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:45, 11 November 2022
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.		\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:vmag_side_by_side.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: TeraShake Rupture Directivity Comparison (Image Credit: Amit Chourasia Steve Cutchin (SDSC))) ]]
			\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_10]
			\| Comparison of Velocity Magnitudes For TeraShake Ruptures - This animation compares two equivalent TeraShake Ruptures on the San Andreas Fault. Both ruptures are identical except for the slip direction. This comparison animations shows multiple variables in an understandable way including location and magnitude of instantaneous peak velocity in both ruptures, the distribution and magnitude of peak ground motions for both ruptures, and the rupture and wave propagation time and duration.
			\|-
			\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 12: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
	\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]		\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]
	\| This video shows four different dynamic rupture models, all based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). More information can be found on [[Brawley Seismic Zone Simulations]].		\| This video shows four different dynamic rupture models, all based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). More information can be found on [[Brawley Seismic Zone Simulations]].

Maechlin at 09:08, 6 September 2019

2019-09-06T09:08:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 6 September 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
	\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]		\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]
	\| This video shows ~~a small collection of~~ four different dynamic rupture models~~. All the simulations are~~ based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). ~~From that point on what we observe is the interaction between different faults in this system. The interaction between the different parts of the fault system depends~~ on the selected pre-stress conditions (“S” value). The value "S" stands for "seismic parameter", the ratio of strength excess over the expected stress drop. Low S means higher tendency for rupture than high S. For example, in model N2S-S2.0-X0.45 (bottom left panel) the cross faults are pre-stressed at a higher level (S=0.45) than the main faults (S=2.0). For that reason, the cross faults have a higher tendency to participate in the rupture process and will eventually modulate the final magnitude of this model.(Top left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with all the participating faults pre-stressed homogeneously (no pre-stress contrast between main faults and cross-faults). [~~Model N2S-S2.0-X2.0]. (Bottom left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with cross-faults pre-stressed at a higher level than the main faults.~~ [~~Model N2S-S2.0-X0.45~~]. (Top right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with high pre-stress level (S=0.45), shallower locking depth (15 km) and the cross-fault intersecting the main faults (segmented model). [Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45-d15km-14f]. ~~(Bottom right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with homogeneous high pre-stress (S=0.45) level in all the participating faults.[Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45]~~		\| This video shows four different dynamic rupture models, all based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). More information can be found on [[Brawley Seismic Zone Simulations]].
	\|}		\|}

Maechlin at 09:04, 6 September 2019

2019-09-06T09:04:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:04, 6 September 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
	\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]		\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]
	\| This video shows a small collection of four different dynamic rupture models. All the simulations are based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). From that point on what we observe is the interaction between different faults in this system. The interaction between the different parts of the fault system depends on the selected pre-stress conditions (“S” value). The value "S" stands for "seismic parameter", the ratio of strength excess over the expected stress drop. Low S means higher tendency for rupture than high S. For example, in model N2S-S2.0-X0.45 (bottom left panel) the cross faults are pre-stressed at a higher level (S=0.45) than the main faults (S=2.0). For that reason, the cross faults have a higher tendency to participate in the rupture process and will eventually modulate the final magnitude of this model.		\| This video shows a small collection of four different dynamic rupture models. All the simulations are based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). From that point on what we observe is the interaction between different faults in this system. The interaction between the different parts of the fault system depends on the selected pre-stress conditions (“S” value). The value "S" stands for "seismic parameter", the ratio of strength excess over the expected stress drop. Low S means higher tendency for rupture than high S. For example, in model N2S-S2.0-X0.45 (bottom left panel) the cross faults are pre-stressed at a higher level (S=0.45) than the main faults (S=2.0). For that reason, the cross faults have a higher tendency to participate in the rupture process and will eventually modulate the final magnitude of this model.(Top left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with all the participating faults pre-stressed homogeneously (no pre-stress contrast between main faults and cross-faults). [Model N2S-S2.0-X2.0]. (Bottom left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with cross-faults pre-stressed at a higher level than the main faults. [Model N2S-S2.0-X0.45]. (Top right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with high pre-stress level (S=0.45), shallower locking depth (15 km) and the cross-fault intersecting the main faults (segmented model). [Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45-d15km-14f]. (Bottom right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with homogeneous high pre-stress (S=0.45) level in all the participating faults.[Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45]
	(Top left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with all the participating faults pre-stressed homogeneously (no pre-stress contrast between main faults and cross-faults). [Model N2S-S2.0-X2.0]
	(Bottom left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with cross-faults pre-stressed at a higher level than the main faults. [Model N2S-S2.0-X0.45]
	(Top right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with high pre-stress level (S=0.45), shallower locking depth (15 km) and the cross-fault intersecting the main faults (segmented model). [Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45-d15km-14f]
	(Bottom right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with homogeneous high pre-stress (S=0.45) level in all the participating faults. [Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45]
	\|}		\|}

Maechlin at 09:02, 6 September 2019

2019-09-06T09:02:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 6 September 2019
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.		\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: ~~Philip Maechling~~ (Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Christos Kyriakopoulos)(Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
	\| [~~https~~://~~youtu~~.be/~~sUTqTlkGUws~~ Animation_11]		\| [http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/BSZ_CK/videos/Many_Models.mp4 Animation_11]
	\| ~~Brawley Seismic Zone~~ Dynamic ~~Ruptures~~.		\| This video shows a small collection of four different dynamic rupture models. All the simulations are based on a postulated network of faults in the Salton Sea area, southern California. The hypocenter of these events is placed on the San Andreas fault and approximately 30km north of Bombay beach. The first seconds of the simulations show the initiation phase of the earthquake, also known as the “nucleation phase”. After this initial phase, the earthquake rupture propagates spontaneously towards the right-hand side of the screen (south-east in the map). From that point on what we observe is the interaction between different faults in this system. The interaction between the different parts of the fault system depends on the selected pre-stress conditions (“S” value). The value "S" stands for "seismic parameter", the ratio of strength excess over the expected stress drop. Low S means higher tendency for rupture than high S. For example, in model N2S-S2.0-X0.45 (bottom left panel) the cross faults are pre-stressed at a higher level (S=0.45) than the main faults (S=2.0). For that reason, the cross faults have a higher tendency to participate in the rupture process and will eventually modulate the final magnitude of this model.
			(Top left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with all the participating faults pre-stressed homogeneously (no pre-stress contrast between main faults and cross-faults). [Model N2S-S2.0-X2.0]
			(Bottom left panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with cross-faults pre-stressed at a higher level than the main faults. [Model N2S-S2.0-X0.45]
			(Top right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with high pre-stress level (S=0.45), shallower locking depth (15 km) and the cross-fault intersecting the main faults (segmented model). [Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45-d15km-14f]
			(Bottom right panel) Dynamic rupture simulation with homogeneous high pre-stress (S=0.45) level in all the participating faults. [Model N2S-S0.45-X0.45]
	\|}		\|}

Maechlin at 08:58, 6 September 2019

2019-09-06T08:58:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:58, 6 September 2019
Line 48:		Line 48:
	\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.		\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[File:~~Northridge_at_pacoima~~.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 10: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Philip Maechling (Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]		\| [[File:BSZ Many Models.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 11: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Philip Maechling (Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
	\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws ~~Animation_10~~]		\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_11]
	\| Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Ruptures.		\| Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Ruptures.
	\|}		\|}

Maechlin: /* Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations */

2019-09-06T08:56:19Z

Examples of SCEC Earthquake Animations

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:56, 6 September 2019
Line 47:		Line 47:
	\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_10]		\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_10]
	\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.		\| EQ_Northridge_Site_Pacoima - Simulation showing the effects of ground motions on objects in Pacoima, about 12km from epicenter of Northridge Earthquake. The animation was created by retrieving the observed ground motions from a Pacoima strong motion station for the Northridge earthquake, then inputting these seismograms into a scene containing everyday objects, and using a physics-engine to show the results of the ground motions on the objects.
			\|-
			\| [[File:Northridge_at_pacoima.png\|150px\|thumb\|left\| Fig 10: Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Rupture (Image Credit: Philip Maechling (Univ of Memphis/CERI)) ]]
			\| [https://youtu.be/sUTqTlkGUws Animation_10]
			\| Brawley Seismic Zone Dynamic Ruptures.
	\|}		\|}