4.7 Article

Global coseismic deformations, GNSS time series analysis, and earthquake scaling laws

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
卷 119, 期 12, 页码 9095-9109

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JB011280

关键词

coseismic deformations; GNSS; time series discontinuities; earthquake scaling laws; geodetic station velocity

资金

  1. Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigate how two decades of coseismic deformations affect time series of GPS station coordinates (Global Navigation Satellite System) and what constraints geodetic observations give on earthquake scaling laws. We developed a simple but rapid model for coseismic deformations, assuming different earthquake scaling relations, that we systematically applied on earthquakes with magnitude larger than 4. We found that coseismic displacements accumulated during the last two decades can be larger than 10m locally and that the cumulative displacement is not only due to large earthquakes but also to the accumulation of many small motions induced by smaller earthquakes. Then, investigating a global network of GPS stations, we demonstrate that a systematic global modeling of coseismic deformations helps greatly to detect discontinuities in GPS coordinate time series, which are still today one of the major sources of error in terrestrial reference frame construction (e.g., the International Terrestrial Reference Frame). We show that numerous discontinuities induced by earthquakes are too small to be visually detected because of seasonal variations and GPS noise that disturb their identification. However, not taking these discontinuities into account has a large impact on the station velocity estimation, considering today's precision requirements. Finally, six groups of earthquake scaling laws were tested. Comparisons with our GPS time series analysis on dedicated earthquakes give insights on the consistency of these scaling laws with geodetic observations and Okada coseismic approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据