2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.11.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Earthquake scaling, fault segmentation, and structural maturity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

19
358
1
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 282 publications
(384 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
19
358
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…10) represent rupture lengths, the potential magnitude of an associated earthquake can be inferred from D-L regressions (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). However, it is necessary to recall that: (1) part of the surface expression of fault activity may be concealed by sedimentation, especially at tips of overlapping segments, where cumulative displacements are less: this is indeed what is suggested by the along-strike evolution of scar heights, at least for the B and D segments (see H1 evolution, Table 2); (2) surface slip is only a fraction of actual slip at depth, averaging ~ 40% for moderate-size reverse earthquakes (Manighetti et al, 2006); and (3) fault rupture of M > 6 earthquakes often concerns several adjacent fault segments or cracks, inducing large along-strike-slip variability and slip saturation ( [Rubin, 1995] and [Manighetti et al, 2005]). If we hypothesize here that close segments A (~ 30 km), B (~ 30 km), and C (~ 20 km) may break during a single large event, the scaling relations between surface displacement and length (Manighetti et al, 2006) indicate relatively mature fault segments and yield a consistent seismic moment Mo of 1-2 × 1020 Nm and a magnitude Mw of ~ 7.5 (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994), i.e.…”
Section: Fault Segmentation and Seismic Potentialmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…10) represent rupture lengths, the potential magnitude of an associated earthquake can be inferred from D-L regressions (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994). However, it is necessary to recall that: (1) part of the surface expression of fault activity may be concealed by sedimentation, especially at tips of overlapping segments, where cumulative displacements are less: this is indeed what is suggested by the along-strike evolution of scar heights, at least for the B and D segments (see H1 evolution, Table 2); (2) surface slip is only a fraction of actual slip at depth, averaging ~ 40% for moderate-size reverse earthquakes (Manighetti et al, 2006); and (3) fault rupture of M > 6 earthquakes often concerns several adjacent fault segments or cracks, inducing large along-strike-slip variability and slip saturation ( [Rubin, 1995] and [Manighetti et al, 2005]). If we hypothesize here that close segments A (~ 30 km), B (~ 30 km), and C (~ 20 km) may break during a single large event, the scaling relations between surface displacement and length (Manighetti et al, 2006) indicate relatively mature fault segments and yield a consistent seismic moment Mo of 1-2 × 1020 Nm and a magnitude Mw of ~ 7.5 (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994), i.e.…”
Section: Fault Segmentation and Seismic Potentialmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Such setting is also the one assumed in the so-called "W -model" 47,48 , which also predicts the saturation of the slip amount for very long ruptures. The scaling relation between the mean slip amount and the rupture length for natural faults has long been discussed 8,[47][48][49][50][51][52] , where some reported that the mean slip amount tended to be size independent for very large events with L r much longer than the seismogeniczone width W 8,49-51 . Additional information can be obtained by looking at the manner how the rupture propagates during the main- shock.…”
Section: The Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Fig.1(a) of Ref. 51 suggests that the slip amount tends to saturate for longer rupture length of L r 100 − 200 [km].…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bouchon et al (2010) observed the fault rupture surface of several earthquakes with supershear ruptures and concluded that the rupture may propagate at a supershear speed only when the geometry of the fault is simple. Besides, Manighetti et al (2007) and Radiguet et al (2009) analyzed stress drop, another important source parameter, with respect to the so-called maturity of faults. Maturity includes fault features such as age, length, and cumulative displacement on the fault.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%