-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Questions about slip distribution results #93
Comments
Hi @emiliaxin , you obtained some nice results there. I have to admit I cannot completely follow why you would be interested in these average values? Then I would suggest you take the results from the geometry estimation, where the rake- angle is the slip-angle you are asking for. Regarding epicenter, how do you define epicenter when you have only static data available? You could talk about the location and depth of the region with maximum slip. The geometry parameters of your reference fault, such as location and angless are in the results of your geometry estimation-or if you skipped that in the attributes of your reference_faults defined in the geodetic_config.gf_config. I still have some comments on your results:
Cheers and happy holidays! |
@hvasbath I greatly appreciate your answers and suggestions. |
Dear @emiliaxin I am sorry for the late response, but it took much longer than expected to finish the tutorial. I also found I needed to implement much more to make it useful for the general user. But that greatly improved everything and I think its now very useable. Your feedback on unclear things in the text/potential bugs etc is greatly appreciated! https://pyrocko.org/beat/docs/current/examples/FFI_static_resolution.html P.S.: Please make sure to update to the latest released version ;) |
Dear @hvasbath Here is my configuration file. I look forward to your reply, thank you very much. |
First of all I strongly urge you to rename the Laquila stuff in your config to the name of the new earthquake, this gets messy very fast! Then of course these prior bounds should not be too tight, as you want to allow to also discover new things, that are not possible to discover with the classical methods, which is the true power of the non-linear Bayesian approach. So usually I tend to leave my prior bounds very wide, but they need to be physically sensible. Finally, you can run some fast forward models for example using a simple Okada Source and try to understand why which EQ mechanism produces which deformation pattern. That is an exercise we do with students during seminars ... You should discuss these things also with your supervisor, as this is not software-related but rather a general question of how to approach source studies, which is now too little space and tedious to cover in such a github- issue ;) . |
Thank you very much for your reply. |
Hi,
I have followed the steps in Example 4 to obtain the fault slip distribution in my study area. However, how can I get information from the results about the average slip angle and average slip of the fault, the location, and the depth of the epicenter?
Here are my results.
scenes_-1_max_latlon_1.pdf
scenes_-1_max_local_1.pdf
slip_dist_43_max_1.pdf
summary.txt
Could you give me some suggestions?
Thank you
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: