4.7 Article

Coseismic slip of the 2010 Mw 8.8 Great Maule, Chile, earthquake quantified by the inversion of GRACE observations

期刊

EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS
卷 335, 期 -, 页码 167-179

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.04.044

关键词

Maule earthquake; Geodynamics; GRACE

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [EAR-1013333, EAR-1014606]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 27 February 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule, Chile, earthquake ruptured over 500 km along a mature seismic gap between 34 degrees S and 38 degrees S-the Concepcion-Constitucion gap, where no large megathrust earthquakes had occurred since the 1835 Mw similar to 8.5 event. Notable discrepancies exist in slip distribution and moment magnitude estimated by various models inverted using traditional observations such as teleseismic networks, coastal/river markers, tsunami sensors, Global Positioning System (GPS) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR). We conduct a spatio-spectral localization analysis, based on Slepian basis functions, of data from Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE) to extract coseismic gravity change signals of the Maule earthquake with improved spatial resolution (350 km half-wavelength). Our results reveal discernible differences in the average slip between the GRACE observation and predictions from various coseismic models. The sensitivity analysis reveals that GRACE observation is sensitive to the size of the fault, but unable to separate depth and slip. Here we assume the depth of the fault is known, and simultaneously invert for the fault-plane area and the average slip using the simulated annealing algorithm. Our GRACE-inverted fault plane length and width are 429 +/- 6 km, 146 +/- 5 km, respectively. The estimated slip is 8.1 +/- 1.2 m, indicating that most of the strain accumulated since 1835 in the Concepcion-Constitucion gap was released by the 2010 Maule earthquake. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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