Here - Stuff

More documents

Recommendations

Info

P 9.4267BLDU45P 20.1213CASY39P 2.6205MAW57P 13.6181SBA34P 3.0181SNAA64P 13.8156PMSA63P 9.3128LCO87P 40.563PPTF41P 50.955RAR32P 52.139XMAS53P 31.330AFI32P 22.029KIP70P 17.220JOHN62P 28.71TARA44−10 0 10 20 30 40 50t(s)SH 100.339XMAS53P 22.1354WAKE62P 35.0339HNR35P 9.9339ERM89P 11.7333MAJO85P 18.7330GUMO61P 34.1320PMG40P 29.0311COEN38P 41.1309CTAO31P 27.3298MTN46P 11.3291KSM70P 8.2283PSI79P 18.5283WRKA39P 13.4280MBWA48−10 0 10 20 30 40 50t(s)SH 144.3354WAKE62SH 40.2311COEN38SH 64.8309CTAO31SH 81.8298MTN46SH 42.2291KSM70SH 57.2283PSI79SH 113.7283WRKA39SH 132.8267BLDU45SH 42.3213CASY39SH 184.6181SBA34SH 54.6181SNAA64SH 95.0156PMSA63SH 57.6128LCO87SH 106.863PPTF41−10 0 10 20 30 40 50t(s)F1: Strike= 345 degF2: Strike= 87 degkmkmDepth km01020-10 0 104101010-20 0 20101010101001020Depth km0 100 200 300▲ ▲ Figure 3. Results of the two-segment finite fault inversion. The upper panel shows the displacement waveform fits in black for thedata and red for the synthetic. Station names are displayed to the left of the traces along with the azimuths and epicentral distancesin degrees. Peak amplitude (in microns) for data is indicated above the end of each trace. The lower panel shows the cumulative slipdistribution (slip vectors with amplitude of slip also represented by color shading) and time contours of the rupture propagation asdetermined by the inversion. The rupture times are given relative to the origin time, and the red star indicates the epicenter. The strikeof each segment is shown on the top.cm804 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
0Slip (cm) 0 / 160 / 55846005842464808W (km)1015108664220 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 602468101012360240120085 o Azi. (km)▲▲Figure 4. A stochastic single-segment slip model of the 2010 Canterbury earthquake. The background color shows the distributionof cumulative slip in centimeters and the green arrows show the slip vectors. Time contours of the rupture propagation are shown asblack contours. The rupture times (numbers on the contour lines) are given relative to the origin time. The strike of the fault plane isshown at the bottom.0Slip (cm) 0 / 165 / 58160051018480W (km)10866881416W (km)2360240150 5 1088100 5 10 15 200 5 10180 5 101200121 o Azi. (km)87 o Azi. (km)87 o Azi. (km)40 o Azi. (km)▲ ▲ Figure 5. Stochastic multiple-segment slip model of the 2010 Canterbury earthquake. The background color shows the distributionof cumulative slip in centimeters and the green arrows show the slip vectors. Time contours of the rupture propagation are shown asblack contours. The rupture times (numbers on the contour lines) are given relative to the origin time. The strikes of the fault segmentsare shown at the bottom of each panel.long-period waves so the solutions have poor resolution ofearthquake depth. Also when the earthquake is shallow, strongtrade-off among depth, focal mechanism, and magnitude cancause large uncertainties in source parameters (Dahlen andTromp 1998). To overcome these problems, we extend the ideaof the regional CAP technique to teleseismic cases (teleCAP).In teleCAP, we cut 10–50 s period band P-wave segments inthe vertical components and SH-wave segments in the transversecomponents and fit them independently, allowing differenttime shifts and weights. We choose the relative weightsbetween P and SH waves so that they contribute almost equallyto the final misfit function (e.g., Tan et al. 2006).Synthetic seismograms are calculated with a 1D sourcesidecrustal model obtained from CRUST 2.0 (Bassin etal. 2000). Figure 6 shows the seismic stations used in theinversion. These stations are chosen based on their signal-tonoiseratio (SNR) and azimuthal coverage. We find the bestwaveform-fitting source parameters by grid-searching earthquakemagnitude, focal mechanism (strike, dip, and rake),depth, and source duration. Figure 7 shows the best waveformfitting, the corresponding focal mechanism (strike/dip/rake = 174°/46°/42° or 52°/61°/128°) and magnitude (M w6.3). Compared with the Global CMT solution (strike/dip/rake/magnitude = 167°/57°/32° or 59°/64°/143°, M w 6.1),there is ~10 degree difference for strike/dip/rake and 0.2 differencein magnitude. These differences will be discussedlater. Both P and SH wave amplitudes and waveforms at allazimuths are fit very well. Figure 8 shows the waveform misfitas functions of centroid depth and source duration; the bestfitting depth is 5 km, which is the same as reported by NewZealand local seismologists using local stations. The best fittingsource duration is 6 s, the same as in the Global CMT solu-Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 805
Page 1: Volume 82, Number 6 November/Decemb
Page 7: News and Notes (continued)Nominatio
Page 11: Preface to the Focused Issue on the
Page 14 and 15: TABLE 1Peak ground acceleration (PG
Page 16 and 17: ▲▲Figure 2. A) Sketch of the
Page 18 and 19: ▲▲Figure 4. A) Adopted moment r
Page 20 and 21: ▲▲Figure 7. As in Figure 6 but
Page 22 and 23: ▲ ▲ Figure 8. Misfit parameters
Page 24 and 25: ▲ ▲ Figure 10. Spatial variabil
Page 26 and 27: ▲ ▲ Figure 12. Standard spectra
Page 28 and 29: Quigley, M., R. Van Dissen, P. Vill
Page 30 and 31: slip on a 59-degree striking fault
Page 32 and 33: ▲▲Figure 4. Convergence of inve
Page 34 and 35: observations and other source studi
Page 36 and 37: -42. 5-43. 0-43. 5-44. 0-44. 5-43.2
Page 38 and 39: “Product CSK © ASI, (ItalianSpac
Page 40 and 41: TABLE 2Solutions for fault location
Page 42 and 43: -43.45(A)degrees N-43.50-43.552.52.
Page 44 and 45: is still a good fit to the horizont
Page 46 and 47: Coulomb Stress Change Sensitivity d
Page 48 and 49: mation takes on a larger strike-sli
Page 52 and 53: ERMJNUMAJOINUJHJ2CBIJMIDWJOWYHNBTPU
Page 54 and 55: (A)6.146.13(B)6.246.36Misfit6.156.1
Page 56 and 57: (A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 10. The co
Page 58 and 59: (A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 12. The co
Page 60 and 61: Luo, Y., Y. Tan, S. Wei, D. Helmber
Page 62 and 63: −44˚00' −43˚00'4-Sep-2010Mw 7
Page 64 and 65: TABLE 1Pairs of SAR imagery used in
Page 67 and 68: Depth (km)Coulomb Stress Change(bar
Page 69 and 70: Crippen, R. E. (1992). Measurement
Page 71 and 72: AlpineFaultHope Fault38 mm/yr0+ +-1
Page 73 and 74: σ 1dσ 3Nuσ 3CM w 7.1dw 6.2u70°M
Page 75 and 76: Right-lateral Faults(A) Range Front
Page 77 and 78: DISCUSSIONThe 2010-2011 Canterbury
Page 79 and 80: Large Apparent Stresses from the Ca
Page 81 and 82: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. Observed vs. pred
Page 83 and 84: 10Obs SA(1s)AS1AS+SDAB 2006AB+SDSA(
Page 85 and 86: Fine-scale Relocation of Aftershock
Page 87 and 88: −43.25°OXZ0 10 20km−43.5°−4
Page 89 and 90: A’0 km 4 8−43.5°B’B−43.6°
Page 91 and 92: REFERENCESAvery, H. R., J. B. Berri
Page 93 and 94: ▲ ▲ Figure 2. A) shows three-co
Page 95 and 96: ▲ ▲ Figure 4. Vertical accelera
Page 97 and 98: 0.8PRPC Z0.40Normalized (Max PGA +
Page 99 and 100: Near-source Strong Ground MotionsOb
Page 101 and 102:
(A)Magnitude, M w876542009 NZdataba
Page 103 and 104:
Scale0.5 g5 seconds▲▲Figure 4.
Page 105 and 106:
(A)(B)Spectral Acc, Sa (g)North/Wes
Page 107 and 108:
Vertical-to-horizontal PGA ratio543
Page 109 and 110:
(A)(B)Station:CCCCSolid:AvgHorizDas
Page 111 and 112:
REFERENCESAagaard, B. T., J. F. Hal
Page 113 and 114:
▲ ▲ Figure 1. Shear-wave veloci
Page 115 and 116:
Spectral Acceleration (0.3 s), (g)I
Page 117 and 118:
Spectral Acceleration (3 s), (g)In[
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 1Mean (μ LLH ) and standard
Page 121 and 122:
Strong Ground Motions and Damage Co
Page 123 and 124:
ings and the Modified Takeda-Slip M
Page 125 and 126:
high, but there were no buildings d
Page 127 and 128:
REFERENCES▲▲Figure 8. Heavily d
Page 129 and 130:
(A)(B)(C)(D)(E)▲▲Figure 1. A) M
Page 131 and 132:
(A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 3. A) Typ
Page 133 and 134:
(A) (B) (C)▲ ▲ Figure 4. A) Typ
Page 135 and 136:
Case StudyKey ParametersTABLE 1Key
Page 137 and 138:
▲ ▲ Figure 9. Representative bu
Page 139 and 140:
Soil Liquefaction Effects in the Ce
Page 141 and 142:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Representative su
Page 143 and 144:
Location of structures illustrated
Page 145 and 146:
Shading indicates areaover which pr
Page 147 and 148:
1.8 deg15 cmGround cracking due to
Page 149 and 150:
30 cm17 cm30 cmFoundation beam▲
Page 151 and 152:
Comparison of Liquefaction Features
Page 153 and 154:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 2. A) Simplified
Page 155 and 156:
(A)Acceleration (Gal)6004002000-200
Page 157 and 158:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Distribution
Page 159 and 160:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 10. Damage to a
Page 161 and 162:
(A)(B)▲ ▲ Figure 14. A) Subside
Page 163 and 164:
▲▲Figure 17. A trench in a resi
Page 165 and 166:
Ambient Noise Measurements followin
Page 167 and 168:
▲▲Figure 1. Location of the noi
Page 169 and 170:
▲▲Figure 5. Site N20 showing HV
Page 171 and 172:
▲▲Figure 8. Comparison between
Page 173 and 174:
Use of DCP and SASW Tests to Evalua
Page 175 and 176:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Aerial image of C
Page 177 and 178:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 4. DCP test bein
Page 179 and 180:
▲▲Figure 7. SASW setup at a sit
Page 181 and 182:
where X ~ N(μ X , σ X 2 ) is shor
Page 183 and 184:
Using the same critical layers as s
Page 185 and 186:
Performance of Levees (Stopbanks) d
Page 187 and 188:
▲▲Figure 3. Typical geometry an
Page 189 and 190:
TABLE 1Damage severity categories (
Page 191 and 192:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 6. A) Large sand
Page 193 and 194:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 8. A) Representa
Page 195 and 196:
each of the Waimakariri River and a
Page 197 and 198:
▲ ▲ Figure 2. Horizontal peak g
Page 199 and 200:
only minor damage, mostly to their
Page 201 and 202:
(A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 5. Ferrymead
Page 203 and 204:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 7. Damage to sou
Page 205 and 206:
(A)(B)▲▲Figure 11. Settlement o
Page 207 and 208:
(A)(C)(B)▲▲Figure 14. Railway B
Page 209 and 210:
Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Associ
Page 211 and 212:
New PublicationsCanGeoRefThe Americ
Page 213 and 214:
Wednesday, 18 AprilTechnical Sessio
Page 215 and 216:
Verification of a Spectral-Element
Page 217 and 218:
EASTERN SECTIONRESEARCH LETTERSReas
Page 219 and 220:
(A)70°N100°W 60°W70°N(B)100°E1
Page 221 and 222:
Mongolia SCRThe presence or absence
Page 223 and 224:
the small horizontal relative motio
Page 225 and 226:
80°100°120°140°EXPLANATIONBorde
Page 227 and 228:
Chang, K. H. (1997). Korean peninsu
Page 229 and 230:
Wheeler, R. L. (2008). Paleoseismic
Page 231 and 232:
A significant outcome of this study
Page 233 and 234:
TABLE 1 (continued)Earthquakes for
Page 235 and 236:
▲▲Figure 2. Earthquakes used in
Page 237 and 238:
Meeting CalendarM E E T I N GC A L
Page 239 and 240:
201 Plaza Professional Bldg. • El
Page 241 and 242:
Seismological Research Letters (SRL
Page 243 and 244:
Christa von Hillebrandt-Andrade, Pr
show all

Here - Stuff

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?