2012
DOI: 10.1080/00288306.2012.676556
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistical analysis of the 2010MW7.1 Darfield Earthquake aftershock sequence

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(19 reference statements)
1
14
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Following the method described in Stirling and Zúñiga (), we apply the rates of CES seismicity to a 20,000‐year time period (the minimum expected recurrence interval range of GF surface rupturing earthquakes (20–30 kyr; Hornblow et al, ) assuming no future aftershocks and no pre‐Darfield seismicity (Figure b; CES seismicity). Average annual rates of less than three M L = 3.6 earthquakes averaged over the 1 January 2016 to 31 May 2017 window are still 84 to 8 times greater than annual rates from the pre‐Darfield seismicity model (in accordance with Omori's law following the Darfield earthquake and large aftershocks; Gerstenberger et al, ; Quigley & Forte, ; Shcherbakov et al, ), suggesting that the CES aftershock sequence is still ongoing.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Following the method described in Stirling and Zúñiga (), we apply the rates of CES seismicity to a 20,000‐year time period (the minimum expected recurrence interval range of GF surface rupturing earthquakes (20–30 kyr; Hornblow et al, ) assuming no future aftershocks and no pre‐Darfield seismicity (Figure b; CES seismicity). Average annual rates of less than three M L = 3.6 earthquakes averaged over the 1 January 2016 to 31 May 2017 window are still 84 to 8 times greater than annual rates from the pre‐Darfield seismicity model (in accordance with Omori's law following the Darfield earthquake and large aftershocks; Gerstenberger et al, ; Quigley & Forte, ; Shcherbakov et al, ), suggesting that the CES aftershock sequence is still ongoing.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Several studies have analyzed the magnitude‐frequency distribution of the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES; e.g., Quigley & Forte, ; Quigley et al, ; Shcherbakov et al, ). Most recently, Stirling and Zúñiga () used seismic data (GeoNet earthquake catalogue; September 2010 to April 2016; M w ≥ 4.0) and geological data (palaeoseismic recurrence interval of 20–30 kyr on the GF, as determined by Hornblow et al, ) to describe the magnitude‐frequency distribution of the entire CES area as a G‐R relationship and the GF area as best represented by characteristic earthquake behavior (Stirling & Zúñiga, ).…”
Section: Darfield Earthquakementioning
confidence: 99%
“…P indicates how fast the aftershock rate decays with time and has a value close to 1.0 [6]. P-value varies between 0.6 and 1.8 [16], or changes from 0.5 to 1.8 [17]. P-value changes may be related to the tectonic condition of the region such as structural heterogeneity, stress and temperature or the crustal heat flow in the source volume [6] [15].…”
Section: Statistical Properties Of Aftershocksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Results for several prominent earthquakes with welldocumented aftershock sequences are given in Table 1 (Nanjo et al, 2007;Shcherbakov et al, 2012Shcherbakov et al, , 2013b. In terms of magnitude, they range from the m ¼ 9.1 Sumatra earthquake to the m ¼ 6.0 Parkfield earthquake.…”
Section: The Omori Lawmentioning
confidence: 99%