The 2006-2007 Earthquake Sequence at Bar Harbor, Maine

Ebel, John E.; Moulis, A. M.; Smith, Dina; Hagerty, M. T.

doi:10.1785/gssrl.79.3.457

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relative location analysis method that was used in this study was described by Ebel et al (2008). For each swarm, an event that was well recorded by the regional seismic network JACOBI AND EBEL | Berne earthquake swarms RESEARCH stations was chosen as a master event, and the hypocenters of the other events in the swarm were located relative to the hypocenter of that master event.…”

Section: Relative Location Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each swarm consisted of four to twenty-four earthquakes ranging in magnitude from 1.0 to 3.1 (Tables 1 and 2). Because so many of these events were scattered across such a small region, the relative location method of Ebel et al (2008) can be used to compute very precise spatial distributions of the events in these swarms. Precise relative locations of the events in these swarms provide an opportunity to delineate the faults JACOBI AND EBEL | Berne earthquake swarms RESEARCH that may have been active in these earthquake swarms and to relate the geology to any lineaments or surfaces defined by the earthquake loci established by the relative location analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seismotectonic implications of the Berne earthquake swarms west-southwest of Albany, New York

Jacobi

Ebel

2019

Lithosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five earthquake swarms occurred from 2007 to 2011 near Berne, New York. Each swarm consisted of four to twenty-four earthquakes ranging from M 1.0 to M 3.1. The network determinations of the focal depths ranged from 6 km to 24 km, 77% of which were ≥14 km. High-precision, relative location analysis showed that the events in the 2009 and 2011 swarms delineate NNE-SSW orientations, collinear with NNE trends established by the distribution of the spatially distinct swarms; the events in the 2010 swarm aligned WNW-ESE. Focal mechanisms determined from the largest event in the swarms include one nodal plane that strikes NNE, collinear with the distribution of the swarms and relative events within the swarms. Two, possibly related explanations exist for the Berne earthquake swarms. (1) The swarms were caused by reactivations of proposed blind NE- and NW-striking rift structures associated with the NE-trending Scranton gravity high. These rift structures, of uncertain age (Proterozoic or Neoproterozoic/Iapetan opening), have been modeled at depths appropriate for the seismicity. (2) The NNE-trending swarms were caused by reactivations of NNE-striking faults mapped at the surface north-northeast of the earthquake swarms. Both models involve reactivation of rift-related faults, and the development of the NNE-striking surficial faults in the second model probably was guided by the blind rift faults in the first model. The Berne swarms may be evidence that these faults are seismically capable and, if so, could sustain a maximum event on the order of Mw 5.7–6.6, based on fault segment length.

show abstract

Section: Relative Location Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismotectonic implications of the Berne earthquake swarms west-southwest of Albany, New York

Jacobi

Ebel

2019

Lithosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GM swarm earthquakes were located about 300 km offshore east of Boston, MA and were recorded on 16 seismic stations along the east coast of Canada and the U.S. with a 140° azimuthal spread (Table 2). With these data, relative locations of the GM swarm events are computed using the double-difference method of Ebel et al (2008), which follows the method of Waldhauser and Ellsworth (2000). The Ebel et al (2008) relative-location method assumes that all of the events used in the analysis have similar focal mechanisms, that the waveforms are all affected in a comparable manner by the * seismic structure, and that the events are located near enough to each other that the seismic velocity structure at the source is approximately uniform (Ebel et al, 2008).…”

Section: Relative Earthquake Location Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relative-location method from Ebel et al (2008) involves crosscorrelating the waveforms for two different events and calculating relative arrival-time differences for P and S waves for the two events at a common station within a windowed time frame that contains a hand-picked P or S arrival. The accuracy of the relative locations is dependent on having several stations located at a range of azimuths and distances from the epicenter to calculate arrival-time differences between two waveforms.…”

Section: Relative Earthquake Location Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relative Location Analysis and Moment Tensor Inversion of the 2012 Gulf of Maine Earthquake Swarm

Napoli¹,

Ebel

2017

Seismological Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large magnitude offshore passive margin earthquakes are rare, making small magnitude events (M < 4) the predominant data available to study the mechanisms of seismicity along passive margins. This study is focused on a swarm of events (M2.1-M3.9) that occurred from 2012-2013 located in the Gulf of Maine (GM) along the Atlantic Passive Margin (APM) shelf break, a region with previously minimal recorded seismic activity. Relative locations were calculated for the earthquakes of the GM swarm and a moment tensor inversion method was used to calculate focal mechanisms for the two largest events in the swarm. The results of the relative location method constrained a fault orientation to a strike of 243° ± 3° and a dip of 25° ± 3°. The focal mechanisms for the two largest events were determined to be oblique normal faults with steeply dipping planes at depths between 12-18 km. For the largest event (M3.9), the strike is 235° ± 1°, with a dip of 77.7° ± .8° and a rake of-116.5° ± 3°, and for the second largest event (M3.7) the strike is 259° ± 3°, with a dip of 78° ± 2° and a rake of-58.8° ± 7°. By mapping the spatial extent of the relative hypocenters, I infer a potential fault size of 2.7 km by 2.4 km. If this entire area were to rupture at once in the future, an earthquake of M4.9-M5.0 could occur, a magnitude not large enough to be tsunamigenic in the GM. Based on Gutenberg-Richter relations from the eastern APM, if a M7 can occur in the GM, its estimated mean repeat time is 2,120-22,800 years, and it could be tsunamigenic depending on the event's proximity to the continental slope.

show abstract

A comparison between mid-Paleozoic New England, USA, and the modern western USA: Subduction of an oceanic ridge-transform fault system

Kuiper

Wakabayashi

2018

Tectonophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2006-2007 Earthquake Sequence at Bar Harbor, Maine

Cited by 12 publications

References 13 publications

Seismotectonic implications of the Berne earthquake swarms west-southwest of Albany, New York

Seismotectonic implications of the Berne earthquake swarms west-southwest of Albany, New York

Relative Location Analysis and Moment Tensor Inversion of the 2012 Gulf of Maine Earthquake Swarm

A comparison between mid-Paleozoic New England, USA, and the modern western USA: Subduction of an oceanic ridge-transform fault system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About