4.6 Article

Coseismic deformation and source model of the 12 November 2017 MW 7.3 Kermanshah Earthquake (Iran-Iraq border) investigated through DInSAR measurements

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REMOTE SENSING
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 532-554

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01431161.2018.1514542

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP130101694]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201608440352]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A large earthquake with a magnitude of M-W 7.3 struck the border of Iran and Iraq at the province of Kermanshah, Iran. In our study, coseismic deformation and source model of the 12 November 2017 Kermanshah Earthquake are investigated using ALOS-2 ScanSAR and Sentinel-1A/B TOPSAR Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) techniques. Geodetic inversion has been performed to constrain source parameters and invert slip distribution on the fault plane. The optimised source model from joint inversion shows a blind reverse fault with a relatively large right-lateral component, striking 353.5 degrees NNW-SSE and dipping 16.3 degrees NE. The maximum slip is up to 3.8 m at 12-14 km depth and the inferred seismic moment is 1.01 x 10(20) Nm, corresponding to M-W 7.3, consistent with seismological solutions. The high-resolution optical images from SuperView-1 satellite suggest that most of the linear surface features mapped by DInSAR measurements are landslides or surface cracks triggered by the earthquake. Coulomb stress changes on the source fault indicating consistency between aftershock distribution and high loaded stress zones. Based on the stress change on neighbouring active faults around this area, the Kermanshah Earthquake has brought two segments of the Zagros Mountain Front Fault (MFF), MFF-1 and MFF-2, 0.5-3.1 MPa and 0.5-1.96 MPa closer to failure, respectively, suggesting the risk of future earthquakes. Recent major aftershocks (M-W >= 5.0) could probably ease the seismic hazard on MFF-2, but the risk of earthquakes on MFF-2 is still increasing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据