scholarly journals Comparison of Palaeostress Analysis, Geodetic Strain Rates and Seismic Data in the the Western Part of the Sultandağı Fault in Turkey

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Tiryakioğlu ◽  
Çağlar Özkaymak ◽  
Tamer Baybura ◽  
Hasan Sözbilir ◽  
Murat Uysal
Keyword(s):  
Seismic Data ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Geodetic Strain

scholarly journals Static stress drop as determined from geodetic strain rates and statistical seismicity

2011 ◽  
Vol 116 (B2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Caporali ◽  
Salvatore Barba ◽  
Michele M. C. Carafa ◽  
Roberto Devoti ◽  
Grazia Pietrantonio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stress Drop ◽  
Static Stress ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Static Stress Drop ◽  
Geodetic Strain

scholarly journals Comparison of seismic and geodetic strain rates at the margins of the Ordos Plateau, northern China

2017 ◽  
Vol 212 (2) ◽  
pp. 988-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy A Middleton ◽  
Barry Parsons ◽  
Richard T Walker
Keyword(s):  
Northern China ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Ordos Plateau ◽  
Geodetic Strain

scholarly journals The block-like behavior of Anatolia envisaged in the modeled and geodetic strain rates

2002 ◽  
Vol 29 (20) ◽  
pp. 39-1-39-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivone Jiménez-Munt ◽  
Roberto Sabadini
Keyword(s):  
Strain Rates ◽  
Geodetic Strain

scholarly journals Earthquake recurrence parameters from seismic and geodetic strain rates in the eastern Mediterranean

2004 ◽  
Vol 157 (3) ◽  
pp. 1331-1347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Jenny ◽  
Saskia Goes ◽  
Domenico Giardini ◽  
Hans-Gert Kahle
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Mediterranean ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Earthquake Recurrence ◽  
Geodetic Strain

GEAR1: A Global Earthquake Activity Rate Model Constructed from Geodetic Strain Rates and Smoothed Seismicity

2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 2538-2554 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Bird ◽  
D. D. Jackson ◽  
Y. Y. Kagan ◽  
C. Kreemer ◽  
R. S. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Earthquake Activity ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Rate Model ◽  
Activity Rate ◽  
Smoothed Seismicity ◽  
Geodetic Strain

Seismic potential in Italy from integration and comparison of seismic and geodetic strain rates

2013 ◽  
Vol 608 ◽  
pp. 996-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmelo Angelica ◽  
Alessandro Bonforte ◽  
Giovanni Distefano ◽  
Enrico Serpelloni ◽  
Stefano Gresta
Keyword(s):  
Strain Rates ◽  
Seismic Potential ◽  
Geodetic Strain

Preliminary forecast model of crustal earthquakes in southwest Japan based on GNSS data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takuya Nishimura
Keyword(s):  
Strain Rate ◽  
Probability Model ◽  
Active Faults ◽  
Inelastic Strain ◽  
Forecast Model ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Southwest Japan ◽  
Crustal Earthquakes ◽  
Gnss Data ◽  
Geodetic Strain

<p>In Japan, the Headquarters for Earthquake Research Promotion has developed a nationwide probabilistic earthquake model called “National Seismic Hazard Maps for Japan” since the destructive 1995 Kobe earthquake. This model covers both subduction and crustal earthquakes based on a history of past large earthquakes from seismological, archaeological, and geological data. The model for crustal earthquakes relies on geological and geomorphological data of active faults and never use geodetic data, whereas contemporary deformation of the Japanese Islands has been observed by a dense GNSS network. Here, we attempt to develop a preliminary forecast model of shallow crustal earthquakes using GNSS velocity data.</p><p>We follow the procedure of Shen et al.(2007) to calculate the forecast model. The GNSS velocities at continuous GNSS stations from April 2005 to December 2009 are used for the model in southwest Japan. Elastic deformation due to interplate coupling along the Nankai Trough is removed using the block model of Nishimura et al. (2018). Strain rate field is calculated at a grid point of 0.2º x 0.2º by a method of Shen et al (1994). The strain rates are converted to geodetic moment rates by a formula proposed in Savage and Simpson (1997). The thickness of a seismogenic layer, rigidity, b value of the Gutenberg-Richter law, and magnitude of the maximum earthquake are assumed to be 12 km, 30 GPa, 0.9, and 7.5, respectively. They are uniform in the modeled region. Previous studies (e.g., Shen-Tu et al., 1994) revealed that geodetic strain rates were much larger than seismological ones in southwest Japan because geodetic strain includes both elastic and inelastic strain. Elastic strain rates presumably equal to seismological ones on a long-term average. We compared seismic moment rates released by shallow historical earthquakes since AD1586 with the geodetic moment rates. Their ratio is 0.24 and 0.16 in the Chubu, Kinki, and Chugoku region and the whole southwest Japan. This difference is probably attributed to the distribution of historical documents and may also reflect the regionality of the ratio between elastic and inelastic strain. Applying 0.16 for calculating elastic rates and the stationary Poisson process of the earthquake occurrence, a probability of M≥6 earthquakes for 30 years ranges from 5.1 % to 0.2 % in each 0.2º x 0.2º grid of southwest Japan. We verify this probability model by using shallow (Depth≤ 20 km) M≥5 earthquakes occurred in 2010-2019, which is a period after the used GNSS data. The number of earthquakes was 36, which is roughly concordant to the predicted number of the model (3.04 per year). About 58 % of the earthquakes occurred with 25 % of the area with the highest strain rates, which suggests many crustal earthquakes occur in high strain-rate regions. The verification suggests the preliminary forecast model has the predictive power reasonably.</p>

scholarly journals Seismotectonics and earthquake risk macrozoning

1979 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
R. P. Suggate
Keyword(s):  
Earthquake Risk ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Earthquake Occurrence ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Risk Zones ◽  
Geodetic Strain

Seismological and geological studies must be combined into a "seismotectonic" approach before better macrozones of earthquake risk can be designated. Since such zones were published as N.Z. Standard NZS 1900, 1965, pertinent studies have been made: on frequency of earthquake occurrence; on periodicity of faulting in different tectonic regions; and on the present geodetic strain rates. Integration of these and previous studies may result in agreed seismotectonic zoning, but the conversion to risk zones requires different types of decisions dependent on the assessment of the risks themselves and of the significance of differences of risk in relation to zone boundaries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document