4.6 Article

Using the locations of M ≥ 4 earthquakes to delineate the extents of the ruptures of past major earthquakes

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL JOURNAL INTERNATIONAL
卷 207, 期 2, 页码 862-875

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggw312

关键词

Earthquake interaction, forecasting, and prediction; Seismicity and tectonics; Statistical seismology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some modern seismicity in the magnitude range of M 4 and M 6 in California and eastern North America preferentially occurs at the edges of past large ruptures. Once a large earthquake rupture has occurred, stress is concentrated at the edges of the rupture, and apparently this stress concentration can trigger earthquakes at or near the rupture edges many decades or even longer after a main shock. Furthermore, the modern M a parts per thousand yen 4 earthquakes in the vicinity of a past main shock usually have the same focal mechanism as the earlier main shock. There are a number of examples of this in California and Nevada, where there is a statistically significant correlation of the locations of M a parts per thousand yen 4 earthquakes and the edges of 19th and 20th century fault ruptures in M-w a parts per thousand yen 6.5 earthquakes. In contrast, the M a parts per thousand yen 4 earthquakes near the epicentres of future ruptures in California are randomly scattered around the fault with no concentration near the ends of the future fault rupture. The concentration of earthquakes near the ends of earlier large ruptures in California becomes progressively less pronounced as the smallest magnitude in the data set is reduced from M 4.0 to M 3.0. These observations also appear to be true for intraplate regions where aftershock sequences can last millennia. The identification of modern rupture-edge M a parts per thousand yen 4 aftershocks can be used to help discover where and when past strong earthquakes took place, even if there is no historical record of the main shock. This is of great importance for seismic hazard studies.

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

4.6
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