2016
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggw069
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Source parameters of the Sarez-Pamir earthquake of 1911 February 18

Abstract: The M s ∼ 7.7 Sarez-Pamir earthquake of 1911 February 18 is the largest instrumentally recorded earthquake in the Pamir region. It triggered one of the largest landslides of the past century, building a giant natural dam and forming Lake Sarez. As for many strong earthquakes from that time, information about source parameters of the Sarez-Pamir earthquake is limited due to the sparse observations. Here, we present the analysis of analogue seismic records of the Sarez-Pamir earthquake. We have collected, scanne… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
47
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(84 reference statements)
2
47
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The relatively low strain rates in the central Pamir are hardly enough to reload the same fault in slightly more than 100 years: Compared to average GPS rates in the West Pamir, the East Pamir block exhibits 5 ± 2 mm/yr of increased NNE motion (Figure S11). S ‐ P phase arrival times measured at European stations are about 6 s less for the 1911 event compared to the 2015 event (Kulikova et al, ), indicating that they did not occur at the same location but that the 1911 event was closer to Europe. From a stress perspective, a location of the 1911 event contiguous north or south of the 2015 rupture would be most plausible, albeit less consistent with intensities of shaking and travel times.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The relatively low strain rates in the central Pamir are hardly enough to reload the same fault in slightly more than 100 years: Compared to average GPS rates in the West Pamir, the East Pamir block exhibits 5 ± 2 mm/yr of increased NNE motion (Figure S11). S ‐ P phase arrival times measured at European stations are about 6 s less for the 1911 event compared to the 2015 event (Kulikova et al, ), indicating that they did not occur at the same location but that the 1911 event was closer to Europe. From a stress perspective, a location of the 1911 event contiguous north or south of the 2015 rupture would be most plausible, albeit less consistent with intensities of shaking and travel times.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Close‐up of the Sarez‐Karakul fault system including shallow seismicity (2008–2010 and 2012–2014, purple) (Kufner et al, ; Sippl, Schurr, Yuan, et al, ), main active faults in brown, focal mechanisms of selected earthquakes in pink (Schurr et al, ), the 1911 event in green (Ambraseys & Bilham, ; Bindi et al, ; Kulikova et al, ; Storchak et al, ), and the 2015 earthquake in red (USGS, ). The color‐coded line represents the modeled slip of the 2015 earthquake in the upper 2.5 km of the crust (only slip >0.5 m is shown).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Modern analyses have been performed on some historic seismograms (e.g. Schlupp & Cisternas 2007;Kulikova & Krüger 2015;Kulikova et al 2016), yielding estimates of magnitude, focal mechanism or other source parameters. Interestingly, a new archive, reaching a few more centuries back, may be available.…”
Section: Limitations Of Instrumental Historic and Palaeoseismic Catmentioning
confidence: 99%