4.1 Article

A detailed analysis of two seismic sequences in Abruzzo, Central Apennines, Iitaly

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEISMOLOGY
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 1-21

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009870327083

关键词

Apennines; focal mechanisms; seismicity; source parameters

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A three-component digital seismic network has been installed along central Apennines since the end of 1991. Two seismic sequences having main shocks of magnitudes 3.9 and 3.7 were recorded in August 1992 and June 1994, respectively. A detailed analysis of these sequences, including multiplet relocation, fault-plane solutions and source parameter estimation, is performed in the present paper. A correlation analysis allowed us to recognize a number of correlated events in the two sequences which were used for relative locations using a master event technique. This analysis allowed to obtain a better alignment of epicentral data along two almost orthogonal directions, following an Apenninic and an anti-Apenninic trend. For the two sequences, fault-plane solutions were evaluated by using a first arrival technique, resulting in mechanisms with predominant normal faulting for the 1992 and 1994 swarms. S-wave polarization analysis allowed to check the stability of the previous solutions and to reduce their range of uncertainty. The same technique was also applied to derive the composite fault-plane solutions from the aftershocks, resulting in solutions which are in good agreement with those derived from the main shocks of both sequences. Source parameters were then derived from the three-component records of 28 well-recorded events with seismic moment in the range 8.5 x 10(10)-1.0 x 10(14) Nm. Stress drops ranged in the interval 0.3-52.3 bar and source radii were of the order of 100 m. Their scaling relations are in good agreement with other results derived from the analysis of other Italian earthquakes that occurred in regions of predominantly normal faulting tectonics (Apennines and Calabrian arc).

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

4.1
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