4.7 Article

The 16 April 2016, MW 7.8 (MS 7.5) Ecuador earthquake: A quasi-repeat of the 1942 MS 7.5 earthquake and partial re-rupture of the 1906 MS 8.6 Colombia-Ecuador earthquake

Journal

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
Volume 454, Issue -, Pages 248-258

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.006

Keywords

2016 Ecuador earthquake; re-rupture of 1942 event; source rupture model; Ecuador-Colombia earthquake sequence

Funding

  1. NSF [EAR1245717]
  2. Caltech Seismological Laboratory
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [1245717] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Earth Sciences [1245717] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2016 Ecuador M-W 7.8 earthquake ruptured the subduction zone boundary between the Nazca and South American plates. Joint modeling of seismic and tsunami observations indicates an similar to 120 km long rupture area beneath the coastline north of the 1998 M-W 7.2 rupture. The slip distribution reveals two discrete asperities near the hypocenter and around the equator. Their locations and the patchy pattern are consistent with the prior interseismic geodetic strain, which showed highly locked patches also beneath the coastline. Aftershocks cluster along two streaks, one aligned nearly parallel to the plate convergence direction up-dip of the main slip patches, and the other on a trench-perpendicular lineation south of the 1958 rupture zone. Comparisons of seismic waveforms and magnitudes show that the 2016 event and 1942 earthquakes have similar surface wave magnitude (M-S 7.5), overlapping rupture areas, and similar main pulses of moment rate. The same area ruptured as the southernmost portion of the larger earthquake of 1906 (M-W 8.6, M-S 8.6). The seismic behavior reflects persistent heterogeneous frictional properties of the Colombia-Ecuador megathrust. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available