(A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 12. The coseismic Δσ f caused by the two-segment slip model at a focal depth of 5 km with μ′ = 0.4 for variations in receiverfault dip. A), B), C), and D) show results for dips of 21°, 41°, 61°, and 81°, respectively. The strike and rake of the receiver fault are heldconstant at 52° and 128°, respectively, in these calculations. The beach balls show the location and mechanism of the mainshock andM w 6.3 aftershock.also applied, although the variability of P-wave amplitudehas to be taken into account (Ni et al. 2010; Chu et al. 2011).For M ~ 5 earthquakes well recorded with local stations, thetraditional CAP technique can be applied to estimate sourceparameters. For even smaller earthquakes (M 2–4), Tan andHelmberger (2007) have proposed a new amplitude correctiontechnique to invert short-period (0.5–2 Hz) P waveforms forsource parameters, and achieved success in the 2003 Big Bearsequence. Since focal mechanism itself cannot distinguishbetween the fault plane and auxiliary fault plane, additionalinformation is needed, for example from aftershock distributionor earthquake rupture directivity (e.g., Luo et al. 2010).Paleoseismology and geology can also provide important informationon potential fault orientations, particularly for regionswithout active seismicity.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSConstructive reviews provided by Jeanne Hardebeck, MorganPage, and an anonymous reviewer were very helpful in revisingthe paper and making it acceptable for publication. Thiswork is supported by China Earthquake Administrationfund 200808078, and NSFC fund 40821160549, 41074032.REFERENCESAllen, R. M., and H. Kanamori (2003). The potential of earthquake earlywarning in southern California. Science 300 (5,620), 786–789.Bakun, W. H., F. G. Fischer, E.g. Jensen, and J. VanSchaack (1994). Earlywarning system for aftershocks. Bulletin of the Seismological Societyof America 84 (2), 359–365.Bassin, C., G. Laske, and G. Masters (2000). The current limits ofresolution for surface wave tomography in North America. Eos,Transactions, American Geophysical Union 81, F897.Beavan, J., S. Samsonov, M. Motagh, L. Wallace, S. Ellis, and N. Palmer(2010). The Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake: Geodetic observationsand preliminary source model. Bulletin of the New ZealandSociety for Earthquake Engineering 43 (4), 228–235.Chu, R., S. Ni, A. Pitarka, and D. V. Helmberger (2011). Inversion ofsource parameters for moderate earthquakes using short-period teleseismicP waves. Submitted to Geophysical Journal International.812 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
(A)(B)(C)▲▲Figure 13. The coseismic Δσ f caused by the two-segment slip model for different values of apparent coefficient of friction μ′ at adepth of 5 km with a receiver fault mechanism of 52°/61°/128°. A), B), and C) show results for μ′ of 0.0, 0.4, and 0.8, respectively.Dahlen, F. A., and J. Tromp (1998). Theoretical Global Seismology.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Dreger, D. S., and D. V. Helmberger (1993), Determination of SourceParameters at Regional Distances with Single Station or SparseNetwork Data, Journal of Geophysical Research 98, 8,107–8,125.Felzer, K. R., T. W. Becker, R. E. Abercrombie, G. Ekström, and J. R. Rice(2002), Triggering of the 1999 MW 7.1 Hector Mine earthquakeby aftershocks of the 1992 MW 7.3 Landers earthquake, Journalof Geophysical Research 107 B92190; doi:10.1029/2001JB000911.Felzer, K. R., and E. E. Brodsky (2006). Decay of aftershock densitywith distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress. Nature 441,735–738.Freed, A. M. (2004). Earthquake triggering by static, dynamic, andpostseismic stress transfer. Annual Review of Earth and PlanetarySciences 33, 335–367.Freed, A. M., and J. Lin (2001). Delayed triggering of the 1999 HectorMine earthquake by viscoelastic stress transfer. Nature 411, 180–183.Graves, R., and A. Pitarka (2010). Broadband ground motion simulationusing a hybrid approach. Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 100, 2,095–2,123; doi: 10.1785/0120100057.Harris, R. A. (1998). Introduction to special section: Stress triggers,stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard. Journal ofGeophysical Research 103, 24,347–24,358.Harris, R. A. (2000). Earthquake stress triggers, stress shadows, and seismichazard. Current Science 79 (9), 10.Jaeger, J. C., N. G. W. Cook, and R. W. Zimmerman (2007).Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, fourth edition. Wiley-Blackwell.Ji, C., D. J. Wald, and D. V. Helmberger (2002a). Source description ofthe 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake, part I: Waveletdomain inversion theory and resolution analysis. Bulletin of theSeismological Society of America 92 (4), 1,192–1,207.Ji, C., D. J. Wald, and D. V. Helmberger (2002b). Source description ofthe 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake, part II: Complexityof slip history. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 92 (4),1,208–1,226.King, G. C. P., R. S. Stein, and J. Lin (1994). Static stress changes andthe triggering of earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 84, 935–953.Lavallée, D., and R. J. Archuleta (2003). Stochastic modeling of slipspatial complexities for the 1979 Imperial Valley, California,earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters 30 (5), 1,245;doi:10.1029/2002GL015839.Liu, P., R. J. Archuleta, and S. H. Hartzell (2006). Prediction of broadbandground-motion time histories: Hybrid low/high frequencymethod with correlated random source parameters. Bulletin of theSeismological Society of America 96, 2,118–2,130.Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 813
- 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 50 and 51: P 9.4267BLDU45P 20.1213CASY39P 2.62
- 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 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