Insights Into the Kinematic Rupture of the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel, Chile, Earthquake From Joint Analysis of Geodetic, Seismological, Tsunami, and Superconductive Gravimeter Observations

Liu, Chengli; An, Chao; Shan, Bin; Xiong, Xiong; Chen, Xiaodong

doi:10.1029/2018jb016065

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We consider a homogeneous Poissonian elastic half‐space (Okada, 1992) and a friction coefficient of 0.4. Aftershocks should be primarily concentrated on the transition zones between high and low slip or in the margins of high‐slip regions, where the static CFS increased due to the sudden mainshock rupture (Liu et al., 2018). From Figure S10 in Supporting Information , we can find that the stress change in the main rupture area induced by the Illapel earthquake reaches several MPa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The immediate afterslip is likely driven by rupture‐induced stress elevation along the boundary of the coseismic rupture area. Of course, some aftershocks cannot be well explained by the classic CFS changes induced by the mainshock, such as dynamic stress changes, postseismic stress changes, or the secondary aftershock triggering, which will affect the spatial distribution of aftershocks at different periods (Liu et al., 2018). These results indicate that the coseismic Coulomb stress is the main influence factor for both early afterslip and aftershocks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The largest event in the history of this area occurred in 1730 (Ms > 8.5), and its impact range was up to 500 km (Lomnitz, 2004; Métois et al., 2012; Udías et al., 2012). There have been many studies using regional Global Positioning System (GPS), seismic and InSAR data to analyze the 2015 earthquake (e.g., Barnhart et al., 2016; Carrasco et al., 2019; Feng et al., 2017; Herman et al., 2017; Huang et al., 2017; Klein et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Melgar et al., 2016; Meng et al., 2018; Shrivastava et al., 2016; Tilmann et al., 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Very Early Postseismic Deformation Following the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel Earthquake, Chile Revealed From Kinematic GPS

Geng

Wen

et al. 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The very early phase of postseismic deformation spanning the first few hours is difficult to capture using daily Global Positioning System (GPS) and interferometric synthetic aperture radar. Using kinematic GPS instead, we analyzed the surface deformation that occurred during the first 3 days immediately after the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel earthquake. Particularly, the displacements at station PFRJ reached 2–3 cm during the first 2 hr, and grew to 6.1 cm after 12 hr from the origin time. We hence imaged the afterslip evolution by inverting kinematic GPS and found that the very early afterslip was mainly concentrated around the hypocenter. The early afterslip evolved to be distributed along three main slip zones along the strike, which was complementary to the coseismic slip zones in space. The location of aftershocks was highly consistent with the spatiotemporal evolution of early afterslip, suggesting that the occurrence of aftershocks may be influenced by afterslip in the very early postseismic period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Very Early Postseismic Deformation Following the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel Earthquake, Chile Revealed From Kinematic GPS

Geng

Wen

et al. 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ruegg et al 1996;Delouis et al 1997;Carlo et al 1999;Pritchard et al 2002;Ye et al 2016) and the 2015 Illapel earthquake (e.g. Heidarzadeh et al 2016;Li et al 2016Li et al , 2018Melgar et al 2016;An et al 2017;Ye et al 2017;Liu et al 2018) are both typical thrust earthquakes and located just to the north and south of the rupture zone of the 1922 earthquake, respectively ( Fig. 1).…”

Section: O M O R I S E I S M O G R a M S R E C O R D E D At H O N G Omentioning

confidence: 99%

New constraints on the 1922 Atacama, Chile, earthquake from Historical seismograms

Kanamori

Rivera

et al. 2019

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY We recently found the original Omori seismograms recorded at Hongo, Tokyo, of the 1922 Atacama, Chile, earthquake (MS = 8.3) in the historical seismogram archive of the Earthquake Research Institute (ERI) of the University of Tokyo. These recordings enable a quantitative investigation of long-period seismic radiation from the 1922 earthquake. We document and provide interpretation of these seismograms together with a few other seismograms from Mizusawa, Japan, Uppsala, Sweden, Strasbourg, France, Zi-ka-wei, China and De Bilt, Netherlands. The 1922 event is of significant historical interest concerning the cause of tsunami, discovery of G wave, and study of various seismic phase and first-motion data. Also, because of its spatial proximity to the 1943, 1995 and 2015 great earthquakes in Chile, the 1922 event provides useful information on similarity and variability of great earthquakes on a subduction-zone boundary. The 1922 source region, having previously ruptured in 1796 and 1819, is considered to have significant seismic hazard. The focus of this paper is to document the 1922 seismograms so that they can be used for further seismological studies on global subduction zones. Since the instrument constants of the Omori seismographs were only incompletely documented, we estimate them using the waveforms of the observed records, a calibration pulse recorded on the seismogram and the waveforms of better calibrated Uppsala Wiechert seismograms. Comparison of the Hongo Omori seismograms with those of the 1995 Antofagasta, Chile, earthquake (Mw = 8.0) and the 2015 Illapel, Chile, earthquake (Mw = 8.3) suggests that the 1922 event is similar to the 1995 and 2015 events in mechanism (i.e. on the plate boundary megathrust) and rupture characteristics (i.e. not a tsunami earthquake) with Mw = 8.6 ± 0.25. However, the initial fine scale rupture process varies significantly from event to event. The G1 and G2, and R1 and R2 of the 1922 event are comparable in amplitude, suggesting a bilateral rupture, which is uncommon for large megathrust earthquakes.

show abstract

“…In addition, geodetic inversion of fault slip can be oversmoothed (particularly for small, deep events) such that they are too smooth to explain the teleseismic data (Pritchard et al, ). Therefore, the complimentary nature of geodetic and teleseismic data has been simultaneously considered in most recent publications (e.g., Liu et al, , ; Yue, ), resulting in tight constraint for the slip distribution. However, given that the teleseismic data and geodetic data have different sensitivities to coseismic rupture properties (Pritchard et al, , ), a mature strategy to determine the reliable focal mechanism is fault geometry inverted by uniform model with geodetic data first, then the spatial distribution of fault slip tightly constrained by integrating teleseismic and geodetic data (Ding et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coseismic Rupture Geometry and Slip Rupture Process During the 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage, South‐Central Alaska Earthquake: Intraplate Normal Faulting by Slab Tear Constrained by Geodetic and Teleseismic Data

Wen

Chen

et al. 2020

Earth and Space Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Mw 7.1 Anchorage earthquake on 30 November 2018 beneath the south-central Alaska is a rare intermediate-depth event larger than Mw 7 that occurred in a complex subduction region, where the young Yakutat oceanic terrane wedges in the continental-oceanic plate collisional region between the Pacific oceanic plate and the North American plate. We use both ascending and descending Sentinel-1 satellite Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) images to construct the coseismic displacement associated with this earthquake, which shows a nearly circular deformation pattern with a subsidence of~4 cm in line of sight direction. Combining coseismic GPS data, we determine the focal mechanism of this event dominated by normal faulting with N-S striking of 186°and westward dipping of 64°by using a uniform slip model. Then we find a preferred slip model with both geodetic data and teleseismic data, suggesting the main slips are concentrated on a depth of 55-75 km. The total released moment of our preferred slip model is 5.32 × 10 19 N·m, equivalent to Mw 7.1. The rupture process includes two peaks terminating at about 18 s and indicates a unilateral rupture with its front propagating northwestward direction at an average speed of 2.5 km/s. In comparison with the detailed seismic image in this region, this event just occurred in the Yakutat terrane beneath a low velocity zone, suggesting it was caused by slab tear but not slab boundary breaking and determining the lower boundary of shallow thrust-slip in the Alaska subduction zone.

show abstract

Insights Into the Kinematic Rupture of the 2015 M_w 8.3 Illapel, Chile, Earthquake From Joint Analysis of Geodetic, Seismological, Tsunami, and Superconductive Gravimeter Observations

Cited by 5 publications

References 130 publications

Very Early Postseismic Deformation Following the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel Earthquake, Chile Revealed From Kinematic GPS

Very Early Postseismic Deformation Following the 2015 Mw 8.3 Illapel Earthquake, Chile Revealed From Kinematic GPS

New constraints on the 1922 Atacama, Chile, earthquake from Historical seismograms

Coseismic Rupture Geometry and Slip Rupture Process During the 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage, South‐Central Alaska Earthquake: Intraplate Normal Faulting by Slab Tear Constrained by Geodetic and Teleseismic Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About