2016
DOI: 10.1785/0120150302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 11 October 2010 Novaya Zemlya Earthquake: Implications for Velocity Models and Regional Event Location

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The choice of this approach is driven by (1) a lack of knowledge about exhaustive and more complex velocity models covering the whole area, (2) to keep a coherent depth estimation that could be compared with other teleseismic studies (Craig et al 2011, ISC-EHB-L1 catalogue) and (3) to provide an homogeneous catalogue for the area. When available, using local velocity models instead would improve the depth estimation as shown by Jerkins et al (2020) and Gibbons et al (2016). Letort et al (2014), have also showed that a depth difference of 3-5 km could arise when using different models extracted the CRUST2.0 (Bassin et al 2000) instead of using ak135 velocity model.…”
Section: Validation Of the Cepstral Approach And Comparison With Isc-ehb L1 Events And Extraction Of Depth Resolution Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The choice of this approach is driven by (1) a lack of knowledge about exhaustive and more complex velocity models covering the whole area, (2) to keep a coherent depth estimation that could be compared with other teleseismic studies (Craig et al 2011, ISC-EHB-L1 catalogue) and (3) to provide an homogeneous catalogue for the area. When available, using local velocity models instead would improve the depth estimation as shown by Jerkins et al (2020) and Gibbons et al (2016). Letort et al (2014), have also showed that a depth difference of 3-5 km could arise when using different models extracted the CRUST2.0 (Bassin et al 2000) instead of using ak135 velocity model.…”
Section: Validation Of the Cepstral Approach And Comparison With Isc-ehb L1 Events And Extraction Of Depth Resolution Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These plots are a variant on the VESPA process (Davies et al, 1971) and allow us to confirm that each of the signals at the time of the predicted Parrival is associated with a coherent wave packet with a direction consistent with the origin hypothesis. Gibbons et al (2016) performed such analysis on several array stations for an earthquake of similar magnitude near the Northern tip of Novaya Zemlya in the Russian Arctic and found double bursts of coherent energy with a delay of just over 3 seconds at stations at di↵erent azimuths from the epicenter. This observation supported a hypothesis of teleseismic pP phases which helped to constrain the event depth.…”
Section: Overview Of the Seismological Observationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These plots are a variant on the VESPA process (Davies et al 1971) and allow us to confirm that each of the signals at the time of the predicted P arrival is associated with a coherent wave packet with a direction consistent with the origin hypothesis. Gibbons et al (2016) performed such analysis on several array stations for an earthquake of similar magnitude near the Northern tip of Novaya Zemlya in the Russian Arctic and found double bursts of coherent energy with a delay of just over 3 s at stations at different azimuths from the epicentre. This observation supported a hypothesis of teleseismic pP phases which helped to constrain the event depth.…”
Section: Ov E Rv I E W O F T H E S E I S M O L O G I C a L O B S E Rv...mentioning
confidence: 99%