2022
DOI: 10.1093/gji/ggac473
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 2015–2017 Pamir earthquake sequence: foreshocks, main shocks and aftershocks, seismotectonics, fault interaction and fluid processes

Abstract: Summary A sequence of three strong (MW7.2, 6.4, 6.6) earthquakes struck the Pamir of Central Asia in 2015-2017. With a local seismic network, we recorded the succession of the fore-, main-, and aftershock sequences at local distances with good azimuthal coverage. We located 11,784 seismic events and determined 33 earthquake moment tensors. The seismicity delineates the tectonic structures of the Pamir in unprecedented detail, i.e., the thrusts that absorb shortening along the Pamir’s thrust fron… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 141 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5), and because the poroelastic ∆CFS values are much larger than a critical triggering value of +0.1 bar 2,7 in the region where most of the upperplate aftershocks occur. This contrasts the widely used ∆CFS estimation to investigate aftershock sequences based on coseismic stress changes derived from purely elastic models in all tectonic settings 2,5,7,8,41 , where stress changes are generally much smaller and which fail to explain the time-dependency. This time dependency could be explained by the exponential decay of afterslip 12,42 or non-linear viscoelastic relaxation 43 , but the estimation of ∆CFS resulting from these processes is highly sensitive to the used fault orientation and the assumed style of faulting, respectively.…”
Section: Pore-pressure Diffusion In the Upper Platementioning
confidence: 65%
“…5), and because the poroelastic ∆CFS values are much larger than a critical triggering value of +0.1 bar 2,7 in the region where most of the upperplate aftershocks occur. This contrasts the widely used ∆CFS estimation to investigate aftershock sequences based on coseismic stress changes derived from purely elastic models in all tectonic settings 2,5,7,8,41 , where stress changes are generally much smaller and which fail to explain the time-dependency. This time dependency could be explained by the exponential decay of afterslip 12,42 or non-linear viscoelastic relaxation 43 , but the estimation of ∆CFS resulting from these processes is highly sensitive to the used fault orientation and the assumed style of faulting, respectively.…”
Section: Pore-pressure Diffusion In the Upper Platementioning
confidence: 65%