GNGTS 2024 - Atti del 42° Convegno Nazionale

Session 1.1 GNGTS 2024 dynamic models and use their ground moton as real events and we invert the data with kinematc models (Fig. 1). Fig. 1: Workfow for one model: results from spontaneous rupture of a bidirectvity model on the lef; kinematc inversions results using ground-moton from dynamic model. For each source tme functon diferent rise tme and rupture velocity were tested. The slip distributon from best models of each source tme functon. The kinematc inversion has been conducted utlizing both single-tme and mult-tme windowing and to mitgate the uncertaintes we adopt four diferent source tme functons on the fault plane (triangular, box, regularized-yofe and exponental). In this way we could examine how the slip velocity functon infuences the slip distributon on the fault plane and test if the inferred kinematc parameters are consistent with the dynamic models. We also examine the variability of the peak ground velocity (PGV) from forward modelling of synthetc seismograms up to 1 Hz, for a dense grid of phantom received, assuming the same slip distributon, rise tme and rupture velocity, but changing the source tme functons. Those results provide a glimpse of the variability that kinematc source tme functons (dynamically consistent or not) might have when used as a constraint to model the earthquake dynamic. Finally, we use the retrieved kinematc history on the pseudo-dynamic models to examine how diferent kinematc assumptons lead to a variability in the shear stress evoluton. We focus on some dynamic parameters such as the breakdown work, the stress drop, and the Dc parameter. Those results provide a glimpse of the variability that kinematc source tme functons (dynamically consistent or not) might have when used as a constraint to model the earthquake dynamic.