4.4 Article

Radiated Energy of Great Earthquakes from Teleseismic Empirical Green's Function Deconvolution

期刊

PURE AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS
卷 171, 期 10, 页码 2841-2862

出版社

SPRINGER BASEL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00024-014-0804-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gabilan Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  2. Pacific Gas and Electric
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23244090] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We expand on the empirical Green's function deconvolution method of IDE et al. (2011) to estimate radiated energy for the six largest earthquakes worldwide over the last 10 years: 2011 M-w 9.0 Tohoku-Oki, 2004 M-w 9.1 Sumatra, 2010 M-w 8.8 Maule, 2005 M-w 8.7 Nias, 2007 M-w 8.5 Bengkulu, and 2012 M-w 8.6 off-Sumatra. Deconvolution of P, SV and SH components gives consistent energy results that are comparable to estimates found independently by other researchers. Apparent stress for the five great thrust earthquakes is between 0.4 and 0.8 MPa, while the 2012 off-Sumatra strike-slip earthquake has a higher apparent stress of 3 MPa, which is consistent with other studies that find a tendency for strike-slip events to be more energetic. Our results are within the spread of apparent stress from the wider global earthquake population over a large magnitude range. The azimuthal distribution of energy in each case shows signs of directivity, and in some cases, shows less energy radiated in the trench-ward direction, which may suggest enhanced tsunami potential. We find that eGfs as small as similar to M 6.5 can be used for teleseismic deconvolution, and that an eGf-mainshock magnitude difference of 1.5 units yields stable results. This implies that M 8 is the minimum mainshock size for which teleseismic eGf deconvolution will work well. We propose that a database of eGf events could be used to calculate radiated energy and apparent stress of great, hazardous events in near real time, i.e., promptly enough that it could contribute to rapid response measures.

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

4.4
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