Luo, Y., Y. Tan, S. Wei, D. Helmberger, Z. Zhan, S. Ni, E. Hauksson, andY. Chen (2010). Source mechanisms and rupture directivity of theMay 18, 2009 Mw 4.6 Inglewood, California earthquake. Bulletinof the Seismological Society of America 100 (6), 3,269–3,277.Ma, K.-F., C.-H. Chan, and R. S. Stein (2005). Response of seismicityto Coulomb stress triggers and shadows of the 1999 Mw = 7.6Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research 110,B05S19.Mai, P. M., and G. C. Beroza (2002). A spatial random field model tocharacterize complexity in earthquake slip. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 107 (B11); doi:10.1029/2001JB000588.Nalbant, S. S., A. Hubert, and G. C. P. King (1998). Stress couplingbetween earthquakes in northwest Turkey and the north AegeanSea. Journal of Geophysical Research 103, 24,469–24,486.Ni, S., A. Pitarka, and D. V. Helmberger (2010). Rapid source estimationfrom global calibrated paths. Seismological Research Letters 81 (3),498–504; doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.498.Okada, Y. (1992). Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faultsin a half-space. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 82,1,018–1,040.Parsons, T., R. S. Stein, R. W. Simpson, and P. A. Reasenberg (1999).Stress sensitivity of fault seismicity: A comparison between limitedoffsetoblique and major strike slip faults. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 104, 20,183–20,202.Parsons, T., S. Toda, R. S. Stein, A. Barka, and J. H. Dieterich (2000).Heightened odds of large earthquakes near Istanbul: An interaction-basedprobability calculation. Science 288, 661.Quigley, M., P. Villamor, K. Furlong, J. Beavan, R. Van Dissen, N.Litchfield, T. Stahl, B. Duffy, E. Bilderback, D. Noble, D. Barrell, R.Jongens, and S. Cox (2010). Previously unknown fault shakes NewZealand’s South Island. Eos, Transactions, American GeophysicalUnion 91, 469–472; doi:10.1029/2010EO490001.Reilinger, R. E., S. Ergintav, R. Bürgmann, S. McClusky, O. Lenk, A.Barka, O. Gurkan et al. (2000). Coseismic and postseismic faultslip for the 17 August 1999, M = 7.5, Izmit, Turkey earthquake.Science 289, 1,519–1,524.Reyners, M. (2011). Lessons from the destructive Mw 6.3 Christchurch,New Zealand, earthquake. Seismological Research Letters 82(3),371–372.Scholz, C. H. (1990). The Mechanics of Earthquakes and Faulting. NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 439 pp.Shan, B., X. Xiong, Y. Zheng, and F. Diao (2009). Stress changes onmajor faults caused by Mw7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, May 12,2008. Science in China, Series D—Earth Sciences 52 (5), 593–601;doi:10.1007/s11430-009-0060-9.Stein, R. S. (1999). The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence.Nature 402 (6,762), 605–609.Stein, R. S., A. A. Barka, and J. H. Dieterich (1997). Progressive failureon the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering.Geophysical Journal International 128, 594–604.Stein, R. S., G. C. P. King, and J. Lin (1994). Stress triggering of the 1994M = 6.7 Northridge, California, earthquake by its predecessors,Science 265, 1,432–1,435.Talebian, M., J. Biggs, M. Bolourchi, A. Copley, A. Ghassemi, M.Ghorashi, J. Hollingsworth, J. Jackson, E. Nissen, B. Oveisi, B.Parsons, K. Priestley, and A. Saiidi (2006). The Dahuiyeh (Zarand)earthquake of 2005 February 22 in central Iran: Reactivation of anintramountain reverse fault. Geophysical Journal International 164(1), 137–148.Tan, Y., L. Zhu, D. V. Helmberger, and C. K. Saikia (2006). Locatingand modeling regional earthquakes with two stations. Journal ofGeophysical Research 111, B01306; doi:10.1029/2005JB003775.Tan, Ying, and Don Helmberger (2007). A New Method for DeterminingSmall Earthquake Source Parameters Using Short-Period P Waves.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 97 (4): 1,176–1,195;doi:10.1785/0120060251.Toda, S., J. Lin, M. Meghraoui, and R. S. Stein (2008). 12 May 2008M = 7.9 Wenchuan, China, earthquake calculated to increasefailure stress and seismicity rate on three major fault systems.Geophysical Research Letters 35, L17305.Toda, S., R. Stein, P. Reasenberg, J. Dieterich, and A. Yoshida (1998).Stress transferred by the Mw = 6.5 Kobe, Japan, shock: Effecton aftershocks and future earthquake probabilities. Journal ofGeophysical Research 103, 24,543–24,565.Van Dissen, R., D. Barrell, N. Litchfield, P. Villamor, M. Quigley, A.King, K. Furlong, et al. (2011). Surface rupture displacement onthe Greendale fault during the Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury)earthquake, New Zealand, and its impact on man-made structures.Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on EarthquakeEngineering, 14–16 April 2011, 186–193.Wallace, L. M., and J. Beavan (2006). A large slow slip event on thecentral Hikurangi subduction interface beneath the Manawaturegion, North Island, New Zealand. Geophysical Research Letters33, L11301; doi:10.1029/2006GL026009.Wan, K., S. Ni, X. Zeng, and S. Paul (2009). Real-time seismology for the05/12/2008 Wenchuan earthquake of China: A retrospective view.Science in China, Series D—Earth Sciences 52 (2), 155–165.Wang, R., F. Lorenzo Martín, and F. Roth (2003). Computation ofdeformation induced by earthquakes in a multi-layered elasticcrust—FORTRAN programs EDGRN/EDCMP. Computers &Geoscience 29 (2), 195–207.Wang, R., F. Lorenzo-Martín, and F. Roth (2006). PSGRN/PSCMP—anew code for calculating co- and post-seismic deformation, geoidand gravity changes based on the viscoelastic-gravitational dislocationtheory. Computers & Geoscience 32, 527–541.Wang, W., S. Ni, Y. Chen, and H. Kanamori (2009). Magnitude estimationfor early warning applications using the initial part of Pwaves: A case study on the 2008 Wenchuan sequence. GeophysicalResearch Letters 36, L16305; doi:10.1029/ 2009GL038678.Xiong, X, B. Shan, Y. Zheng, and R. Wang (2010). Stress transfer andits implication for earthquake hazard on the Kunlun fault, Tibet.Tectonophysics 482, 216–225.Zhao, L. S., and D. V. Helmberger (1994). Source estimation from broadbandregional seismograms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 84, 91–104.Zhang, G., L. Zhu, X. Song, Z. Li, M. Yang, N. Su, and X. Chen (1999).Predictions of the 1997 strong earthquakes in Jiashi, Xinjiang,China. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 89 (5),1,171–1,183.Zhu, L., and D. V. Helmberger (1996). Advancements in source estimationtechniques using broadband regional seismograms. Bulletin ofthe Seismological Society of America 86, 1,634–1,641.Seismological LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, California 91125, U.S.A.zwzhan@gmail.com(Z. Z.)814 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011
Insar and Optical Constraints on Fault Slipduring the 2010–2011 New Zealand EarthquakeSequenceWilliam D. Barnhart, Michael J. Willis, Rowena B. Lohman, and Andrew K. MelkonianWilliam D. Barnhart, Michael J. Willis, Rowena B. Lohman, andAndrew K. MelkonianCornell UniversityEOnline material: Images of InSAR data, model residuals; tablesincluding offsets and resampled InSAR dataINTRODUCTIONOur study used space-based interferometric synthetic apertureradar (InSAR) and feature tracking on sub-meter-resolutionoptical imagery pairs to characterize surface deformationresulting from the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Darfield,22 February 2011 Mw 6.3 Christchurch, and 13 June 2011Christchurch earthquakes (dates in local time), each of whichoccurred in the Canterbury region of the South Island ofNew Zealand. A rapid, coordinated international emergencyresponse is often required when strong-motion earthquakes hiturban areas. Unfortunately in these cases relief workers oftenhave little information about the location or the extent of damage.Remote sensing can rapidly provide maps of certain keyvariables (i.e., building damage, potential loading of nearbyfaults, etc.) to relief workers on the ground. These maps cancover broad areas on time scales that are only limited by therevisit time of the satellite or aircraft. Critically, imagery typessuch as satellite-based synthetic aperture radar (SAR) have longrepeat times of up to 46 days at present, although the existenceof overlapping tracks and multiple satellite platforms effectivelyreduces the repeat time somewhat. <strong>Here</strong> we demonstratethe impact of commercial optical imagery that can be acquiredwithin hours to days after an earthquake, with the goal of supportingrelief efforts in future earthquakes on a more rapidtimescale than can be achieved with SAR imagery alone. Wedemonstrate that these sub-meter-resolution scenes are feasibletools for deriving near-fault surface displacements for use infault slip inversions, even in areas of heavy agricultural activity.The Darfield and Christchurch earthquakes present anopportunity to observe postseismic deformation related to multiplemoderate (
- 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 58 and 59: (A)(B)(C)(D)▲▲Figure 12. The co
- 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