Here - Stuff

Here - Stuff Here - Stuff

static2.stuff.co.nz
from static2.stuff.co.nz More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

REFERENCESAbercrombie, R. E. (1995). Earthquake source scaling relationships from~1 to 5 M L using seismograms recorded at 2.5 km depth. Journal ofGeophysical Research 100, 24,015–24,036.Abrahamson, N. A., and W. J. Silva (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson& Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra 24 (1),67–97.Aki, K. (1967). Scaling law of seismic spectrum. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 72, 1,217–1,231.Atkinson, G. M., and D. M. Boore (2006). Earthquake ground-motionprediction equations for eastern North America. Bulletin of theSeismological Society of America 96, 2,181–2,205.Baltay, A., S. Ide, G. Prieto, and G. Beroza (2011). Variability in earthquakestress drop and apparent stress. Geophysical Research Letters38, L06303; doi:10.1029/2011GL046698.Bannister, S., B. Fry, M. Reyners, J. Ristau, and H. Zhang (2011).Fine-scale relocation of aftershocks of the 22 February M w 6.2Christchurch earthquake using double-difference tomography.Seismological Research Letters 82, 839–845.Beavan, R. J., S. Samsonov, M. Motagh, L. M. Wallace, S. M. Ellis, andN. Palmer (2010). The Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake: Geodeticobservations and preliminary source model. Bulletin of the NewZealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43 (4), 228–235.Beavan, J., E. Fielding, M. Motagh, S. Samsonov, and N. Donnelly(2011). Fault location and slip distribution of the 22 February 2011M W 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand, earthquake from geodeticdata. Seismological Research Letters 82, 789–799.Ben-Zion, Y., and C. G. Sammis (2003). Characterization of fault zones.Pure and Applied Geophysics 160, 677–715.Boatwright, J., and G. Choy (1986). Teleseismic estimates of the energyradiated by shallow earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research91, 2,095–2,112.Boatwright, J., and G. Choy (1992). Acceleration source spectra anticipatedfor large earthquakes in northeastern North America.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 82 (2), 660–682.Boatwright, J., G. Choy, and L. Seekins (2002). Regional estimates ofradiated seismic energy. Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 92, 1,241–1,255.Choy, G. L., and J. L. Boatwright (1995). Global patterns of radiatedseismic energy and apparent stress. Journal of Geophysical Research100, 18,205–18,228.Choy, G. L., J. L. Boatwright, and S. Kirby (2001). The Radiated SeismicEnergy and Apparent Stress of Interplate and Intraplate Earthquakesat Subduction Zone Environments: Implications for Seismic HazardEstimation. USGS Open-File Report 01-005, 10 pp.Eberhart-Phillips, D., M. E. Reyners, S. C. Bannister, M. P. Chadwick,and S. M. Ellis (2010). Establishing a versatile 3-D seismic velocitymodel for New Zealand. Seismological Research Letters 81 (6),992–1,000; doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.6.992.Field, E. H., T. H. Jordan, and C. A. Cornell (2003). OpenSHA: Adeveloping community-modeling environment for seismic hazardanalysis. Seismological Research Letters 74 (4), 406–419.Fry, B., S. Bannister, J. Beavan, L. Bland, B. Bradley, S. Cox, J. Cousins,N. Gale, G. Hancox, C. Holden, R. Jongens, W. Power, G. Prasetya,M. Reyners, J. Ristau, R. Robinson, S. Samsonov, K. Wilson, andthe GeoNet team (2010). The M w 7.6 Dusky Sound earthquake of2009: Preliminary report. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society forEarthquake Engineering 43 (1), 24–40.Fry, B., R. Benites, and A. Kaiser (2011). The character of accelerationsin the M w 6.2 Christchurch earthquake. Seismological ResearchLetters 82, 846–852.Gerstenberger, M., M. Cubrinovski, G. McVerry, M. Stirling, D.Rhoades, B. Bradley, R. Langridge, T. Webb, B. Peng, J. Pettinga,K. Berryman, and H. Brackley (2011). Probabilistic Assessment ofLiquefaction Potential for Christchurch in the Next 50 Years. GNSScience report 2011/15, 30 pp. Lower Hutt, New Zealand.Gledhill, K., J. Ristau, M. E. Reyners, B. Fry, and C. Holden (2010).The Darfield (Canterbury, New Zealand) M w 7.1 earthquake ofSeptember 2010: A preliminary seismological report. SeismologicalResearch Letters 82 (3), 378–386; doi:10.1785/gssrl.82.6.378.Ide, S., G. C. Beroza, S. G. Prejean, and W. L. Ellsworth (2003).Apparent break in earthquake scaling due to path and site effectson deep borehole recordings. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(B5), 2,271; doi:10.1029/2001JB001617.Kaiser, A., C. Holden, J. Beavan, D. Beetham, R. Benites, A. Celentano,D. Collett et al. (2011). The February 2011 Christchurch earthquake:A preliminary report. Submitted to New Zealand Journal ofGeology and Geophysics.Kanamori, H., J. Mori, E. Hauksson, T. H. Heaton, L. K. Hutton, andL. M. Jones (1993). Determination of earthquake energy releaseand M L using TERRAscope. Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 83, 330–346.McVerry, G. H., J. X. Zhao, N. A. Abrahamson, and P. G. Somerville(2006). Response spectral attenuation relations for crustal and subductionzone earthquakes. Bulletin for the New Zealand Society ofEarthquake Engineering 39, 1–58.Singh, S. K., and M. Ordaz (1994). Seismic energy release in Mexicansubduction zone earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Societyof America 72, 2,003–2,016.Standards New Zealand (2004). Structural Design Actions, Part 5:Earthquake Actions—New Zealand. New Zealand Standard NZS1170.5:2004. Wellington, New Zealand.Stirling, M. W., G. H. McVerry, and K. R. Berryman (2002). A new seismichazard model for New Zealand. Bulletin of the SeismologicalSociety of America 92 (5), 1,878–1,903.Wood, R.A., and R. H. Herzer (1993). The Chatham Rise, New Zealand.In South Pacific Sedimentary Basins, ed. P. F. Ballance, 329–349.Vol. 2 of Sedimentary Basins of the World. Amsterdam: ElsevierScience Publishers.Wyss, M., and J. N. Brune (1968). Seismic moment, stress, and sourcedimensions for earthquakes in the California-Nevada region.Journal of Geophysical Research 73 (14), 4,681–4,694.GNS Science1 Fairway DriveAvalon, Lower Hutt, New Zealandb.fry@gns.cri.nz(B. F.)838 Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011

Fine-scale Relocation of Aftershocks of the22 February M w 6.2 Christchurch EarthquakeUsing Double-difference TomographyStephen Bannister, Bill Fry, Martin Reyners, John Ristau, and Haijiang ZhangStephen Bannister, 1 Bill Fry, 1 Martin Reyners, 1 John Ristau, 1 andHaijiang Zhang 2EOnline material: Hypocenters of 2,177 earthquakes recordedduring 21 February 21–31 March 2011INTRODUCTIONOn 22 February 2011 New Zealand time (21 February UTC),the M W 6.2 Christchurch earthquake occurred just 7 kmsoutheast of the center of Christchurch city, New Zealand (Fryet al. 2011, Holden 2011, page 783 of this issue). There were181 confirmed fatalities, and the damage to Christchurch cityis estimated to be NZ$15 billion–$NZ20 billion (US$12 billion–US$16billion). The event was well-recorded by thebroadband and strong-motion national-scale GeoNet network(Petersen et al. 2011) as well as by the Canterbury regionalstrong-motion network (Avery et al. 2004). Since the 22February earthquake, more than 2,700 further aftershockshave been recorded up to 1 May 2011, including 21 events withlocal magnitude (M L ) greater than 5. Here we describe the initialrelocation analysis for these aftershocks.The M w 6.2 Christchurch earthquake is part of the largeraftershock sequence of the M w 7.1 Darfield earthquake, whichoccurred at 16:35 3 September UTC, 2010. Seismological,GPS, and InSAR data all suggest that the earthquake ruptureprocess for the M w 7.1 Darfield earthquake involved failureof multiple fault segments (Beavan et al. 2010; Gledhill et al.2011). A surface rupture for that earthquake, now termedthe Greendale fault, extending ~29.5 km and located ~4 kmsouth of the epicenter, is consistent with strike-slip faultingwith an average horizontal surface displacement of ~2.5 m(Quigley et al. 2010). The vast majority of the 7,400+ aftershocksfollowing the Darfield earthquake are shallow, at lessthan 15 km depth. Figure 1 shows that, although many of theaftershocks occurred near the surface trace of the Greendalefault, intense clusters of aftershock activity have also occurred1. GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand2. Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.at the western and eastern ends of the Darfield fault trace, aswell as north-northwest from the Darfield epicenter.The distribution of the aftershocks (Figure 1A) indicatesa complex fault system, most of which was previously undetected;prior to the 2010–2011 activity there was negligiblerecorded seismicity in the region, as illustrated in Figure 1Bfor the time period 2000–2010. However, some faults havebeen inferred from geological mapping studies (Howard et al.2005; Pettinga et al. 2001) as well as from onshore and offshoreseismic reflection work (Dorn et al. 2010; Barnes 1995, 1996;Barnes et al. 2011; Wood et al. 1989).Following the destructive 22 February earthquake newstudies have begun to characterize the location and geometryof possible hidden faults beneath the region. This new workincludes a combination of offshore marine seismic surveys(Barnes et al. 2011), additional gravity acquisition and interpretation,new aeromagnetic surveys across sections of theCanterbury Plains (Figure 1B), some active-seismic reflectionsurveys, and relocation analysis of the existing earthquakeaftershock data (this study). Here we provide relocation analysisfor more than 2,100 aftershocks that have occurred since theM w 6.2 February earthquake. Separate analysis and processingof the aeromagnetic and reflection seismic survey data is underway.SEISMIC DATASeismic waveform data for the 22 February earthquake,and aftershocks, recorded by the New Zealand national seismographnetwork (Petersen et al. 2011) and the CanNet(Canterbury) strong-motion network (Avery et al. 2004) arepublicly available through GeoNet (http://www.geonet.org.nz).The strong-motion data coverage is excellent, with 15 strongground-motionrecorders (Figure 2) within 8 km of the top ofthe fault plane of the February M w 6.2 earthquake, 13 of theserecording vertical ground accelerations greater than 0.2 g.Many of the strong-motion recorders usually triggered foraftershocks of M L > 4 (90 events since 21 February to 1 May),doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.839Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 839

Fine-scale Relocation of Aftershocks of the22 February M w 6.2 Christchurch EarthquakeUsing Double-difference TomographyStephen Bannister, Bill Fry, Martin Reyners, John Ristau, and Haijiang ZhangStephen Bannister, 1 Bill Fry, 1 Martin Reyners, 1 John Ristau, 1 andHaijiang Zhang 2EOnline material: Hypocenters of 2,177 earthquakes recordedduring 21 February 21–31 March 2011INTRODUCTIONOn 22 February 2011 New Zealand time (21 February UTC),the M W 6.2 Christchurch earthquake occurred just 7 kmsoutheast of the center of Christchurch city, New Zealand (Fryet al. 2011, Holden 2011, page 783 of this issue). There were181 confirmed fatalities, and the damage to Christchurch cityis estimated to be NZ$15 billion–$NZ20 billion (US$12 billion–US$16billion). The event was well-recorded by thebroadband and strong-motion national-scale GeoNet network(Petersen et al. 2011) as well as by the Canterbury regionalstrong-motion network (Avery et al. 2004). Since the 22February earthquake, more than 2,700 further aftershockshave been recorded up to 1 May 2011, including 21 events withlocal magnitude (M L ) greater than 5. <strong>Here</strong> we describe the initialrelocation analysis for these aftershocks.The M w 6.2 Christchurch earthquake is part of the largeraftershock sequence of the M w 7.1 Darfield earthquake, whichoccurred at 16:35 3 September UTC, 2010. Seismological,GPS, and InSAR data all suggest that the earthquake ruptureprocess for the M w 7.1 Darfield earthquake involved failureof multiple fault segments (Beavan et al. 2010; Gledhill et al.2011). A surface rupture for that earthquake, now termedthe Greendale fault, extending ~29.5 km and located ~4 kmsouth of the epicenter, is consistent with strike-slip faultingwith an average horizontal surface displacement of ~2.5 m(Quigley et al. 2010). The vast majority of the 7,400+ aftershocksfollowing the Darfield earthquake are shallow, at lessthan 15 km depth. Figure 1 shows that, although many of theaftershocks occurred near the surface trace of the Greendalefault, intense clusters of aftershock activity have also occurred1. GNS Science, Lower Hutt, New Zealand2. Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.at the western and eastern ends of the Darfield fault trace, aswell as north-northwest from the Darfield epicenter.The distribution of the aftershocks (Figure 1A) indicatesa complex fault system, most of which was previously undetected;prior to the 2010–2011 activity there was negligiblerecorded seismicity in the region, as illustrated in Figure 1Bfor the time period 2000–2010. However, some faults havebeen inferred from geological mapping studies (Howard et al.2005; Pettinga et al. 2001) as well as from onshore and offshoreseismic reflection work (Dorn et al. 2010; Barnes 1995, 1996;Barnes et al. 2011; Wood et al. 1989).Following the destructive 22 February earthquake newstudies have begun to characterize the location and geometryof possible hidden faults beneath the region. This new workincludes a combination of offshore marine seismic surveys(Barnes et al. 2011), additional gravity acquisition and interpretation,new aeromagnetic surveys across sections of theCanterbury Plains (Figure 1B), some active-seismic reflectionsurveys, and relocation analysis of the existing earthquakeaftershock data (this study). <strong>Here</strong> we provide relocation analysisfor more than 2,100 aftershocks that have occurred since theM w 6.2 February earthquake. Separate analysis and processingof the aeromagnetic and reflection seismic survey data is underway.SEISMIC DATASeismic waveform data for the 22 February earthquake,and aftershocks, recorded by the New Zealand national seismographnetwork (Petersen et al. 2011) and the CanNet(Canterbury) strong-motion network (Avery et al. 2004) arepublicly available through GeoNet (http://www.geonet.org.nz).The strong-motion data coverage is excellent, with 15 strongground-motionrecorders (Figure 2) within 8 km of the top ofthe fault plane of the February M w 6.2 earthquake, 13 of theserecording vertical ground accelerations greater than 0.2 g.Many of the strong-motion recorders usually triggered foraftershocks of M L > 4 (90 events since 21 February to 1 May),doi: 10.1785/gssrl.82.6.839Seismological Research Letters Volume 82, Number 6 November/December 2011 839

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!