The positions of 115 ground marks in a 150 × 100 km area of oblique continental collision in the central Southern Alps, New Zealand, have been measured by Global Positioning System (GPS) two to four times between 1994 and 1998. Contemporary velocity and strain rate fields derived from these observations are largely invariant along the northeasterly strike of the mountains and Alpine fault. Across strike, more than 60% of the strain occurs within a band from 5 km NW to 20 km SE of the Alpine fault, but significant strain continues at least a further 60 km SE to near the edge of the Southern Alps foothills. Projections of the fault‐parallel and fault‐normal components of velocity onto an Alpine faultnormal profile show that about 85% of the NUVEL‐1A model relative plate motion is observed within the GPS network. The surface displacements in the high strain rate region are well fit by a model in which stable slip or shearing is occurring at 50–70% of the relative plate rate in a region deeper than about 5–8 km on the down‐dip extension of the SE dipping Alpine fault. Material shallower than this is behaving elastically and thus storing elastic strain in the region of the Alpine fault. The longer‐wavelength displacements can be modeled either as distributed deformation beneath the Southern Alps, or by localization of elastic strain around the upper end of a discrete NW dipping fault or shear zone that is slipping stably below about 30 km depth and would outcrop near the SE boundary of the mountains if extrapolated to the surface. Strain determined from a small‐scale survey network crossing the Alpine fault indicates no significant near‐surface aseismic fault slip on the central Alpine fault over the past 25 years. Our results are consistent with independent geological evidence that the central section of the Alpine fault is capable of producing large to great earthquakes.

A seismological model is developed for earthquakes induced by subsurface reservoir volume changes. The approach is based on the work of Kostrov () and McGarr () linking total strain to the summed seismic moment in an earthquake catalog. We refer to the fraction of the total strain expressed as seismic moment as the strain partitioning function, α. A probability distribution for total seismic moment as a function of time is derived from an evolving earthquake catalog. The moment distribution is taken to be a Pareto Sum Distribution with confidence bounds estimated using approximations given by Zaliapin et al. (). In this way available seismic moment is expressed in terms of reservoir volume change and hence compaction in the case of a depleting reservoir. The Pareto Sum Distribution for moment and the Pareto Distribution underpinning the Gutenberg‐Richter Law are sampled using Monte Carlo methods to simulate synthetic earthquake catalogs for subsequent estimation of seismic ground motion hazard. We demonstrate the method by applying it to the Groningen gas field. A compaction model for the field calibrated using various geodetic data allows reservoir strain due to gas extraction to be expressed as a function of both spatial position and time since the start of production. Fitting with a generalized logistic function gives an empirical expression for the dependence of α on reservoir compaction. Probability density maps for earthquake event locations can then be calculated from the compaction maps. Predicted seismic moment is shown to be strongly dependent on planned gas production.

No abstract

We have demonstrated that ubiquitous van der Waals forces are significant in controlling the interactions between nanoparticles and nanotubes. The adsorption of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) on nanotubes (MWNTs) obeys a simple quadratic dependence on the nanotube surface area, regardless of the source of AuNPs and MWNTs. Changes in the geometric parameters of the components have pronounced effects on the affinity of nanoparticles for nanotubes, with larger, more polarizable nanostructures exhibiting stronger attractive interactions, the impact of which changes in the following order MWNT diameter > AuNP diameter > MWNT length.

No abstract