The Large Chilean Historical Earthquakes of 1647, 1657, 1730, and 1751 from Contemporary Documents

Udías, Agustín; Madariaga, Raúl; Buforn, E.; Muñoz, Diego F.; Ros, María

doi:10.1785/0120110289

Cited by 63 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The length and positions of rupture planes along the trench were taken from data collections of Beck et al (1998), Comte et al (1986), Comte & Pardo (1991) and Udías et al (2012). The rupture length and location for recent strong events were taken from Barrientos & Ward (1990) for the M9.6 1960 Valdivia earthquake, Delouis et al (1997) for the M7.6 1987 earthquake near Antofagasta, Ruegg et al (1996) for the M8.0 1995 Antofagasta earthquake, Pritchard & Simons (2006) for the M9.6 1960 Valdivia earthquake, Chlieh et al (2011) for the M8.4 2001 Arequipa earthquake, the rupture plane of which extends well into our area of investigation, Schurr et al (2014) for the M7.9 2007 Tocopilla earthquake, Yue et al (2014) for the M8.8 2010 Maule earthquake, Geersen et al (2015) and Schurr et al (2014) for the M8.1 2014 Iquique earthquake, and Tilmann et al (2016) for the M8.2 2015 Illapel earthquake.…”

Section: Data Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing stress shadowing effects at the South American subduction zone

Roth¹,

Dahm²,

Hainzl³

2017

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YThe seismic gap hypothesis assumes that a characteristic earthquake is followed by a long period with a reduced occurrence probability for the next large event on the same fault segment, as a consequence of the induced stress shadow. The gap model is commonly accepted by geologists and is often used for time-dependent seismic hazard estimations. However, systematic and rigorous tests to verify the seismic gap model have often failed so far, which might be partially related to limited data and too tight model assumptions. In this study, we relax the assumption of a characteristic size and location of repeating earthquakes and analyse one of the best available data sets, namely the historical record of major earthquakes along a 3000 km long linear segment of the South American subduction zone. To test whether a stress shadow effect is observable, we compiled a comprehensive catalogue of mega-thrust earthquakes along this plate boundary from 1520 to 2015 containing 174 earthquakes with M w > 6.5. In our new testing approach, we analyse the time span between an earthquake and the last event that ruptured the epicentre location, where we consider the impact of the uncertainties of epicentres and rupture extensions. Assuming uniform boundary conditions along the trench, we compare the distribution of these recurrence times with simple recurrence models. We find that the distribution is in all cases almost exponentially distributed corresponding to a random (Poissonian) process; despite some tendencies for clustering of the M w ≥ 7 events and a weak quasi-periodicity of the M w ≥ 8 earthquakes, respectively. To verify whether the absence of a clear stress shadow signal is related to physical assumptions or data uncertainties, we perform simulations of a physics-based stochastic earthquake model considering rate and state-dependent earthquake nucleation, which are adapted to the observations with regard to the number of events, spatial extend, size distribution and involved uncertainties. Our simulations show that the catalogue uncertainties lead to a significant blurring of the theoretically peaked distribution, but the distribution would be still distinguishable from the observed one for M w ≥ 7 events. However, considering the stress transfer to adjacent fault segments and heterogeneous instead of constant stress drop within the rupture zone can explain the observed recurrence time distribution. We conclude that simplified recurrence models, ignoring the complexity of the underlying physical process, cannot be applied for forecasting the M w ≥ 7 earthquake occurrence at this plate boundary.

show abstract

Section: Data Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing stress shadowing effects at the South American subduction zone

Roth¹,

Dahm²,

Hainzl³

2017

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…earthquake whose magnitude is estimated to be M S 8. 5-9 (LOMNITZ 2004), and its rupture area is estimated to be extended from Coquimbo (30°S) down to the northern part (35°S) of the rupture zone of the 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake (e.g., UDIAS et al 2012). The last significant earthquake in this region, but much smaller than the 1730 earthquake, was the M S 7.9 1943 Illapel earthquake (Centennial Catalog;ENGDAHL and VILLASEÑ OR 2002), and its source region estimated by BECK et al (1998) overlaps the rupture area of the 2015 Illapel earthquake (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rupture Process During the 2015 Illapel, Chile Earthquake: Zigzag-Along-Dip Rupture Episodes

Okuwaki

Yagi

Aránguiz

et al. 2016

Pure Appl. Geophys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We constructed a seismic source model for the 2015 M W 8.3 Illapel, Chile earthquake, which was carried out with the kinematic waveform inversion method adopting a novel inversion formulation that takes into account the uncertainty in the Green's function, together with the hybrid backprojection method enabling us to track the spatiotemporal distribution of high-frequency (0.3-2.0 Hz) sources at high resolution by using globally observed teleseismic P-waveforms. A maximum slip amounted to 10.4 m in the shallow part of the seismic source region centered 72 km northwest of the epicenter and generated a following tsunami inundated along the coast. In a gross sense, the rupture front propagated almost unilaterally to northward from the hypocenter at \2 km/s, however, in detail the spatiotemporal slip distribution also showed a complex rupture propagation pattern: two up-dip rupture propagation episodes, and a secondary rupture episode may have been triggered by the strong high-frequency radiation event at the down-dip edge of the seismic source region. High-frequency sources tends to be distributed at deeper parts of the slip area, a pattern also documented in other subduction zone megathrust earthquakes that may reflect the heterogeneous distribution of fracture energy or stress drop along the fault. The weak excitation of high-frequency radiation at the termination of rupture may represent the gradual deceleration of rupture velocity at the transition zone of frictional property or stress state between the megathrust rupture zone and the swarm area.

show abstract

“…The 1928 Talca earthquake in Maule Region with an estimated magnitude of M 7.6 (Beck et al 1998;Ruegg et al 2002) is far smaller than the 2010 Maule earthquake, and is not considered here. The central slip zone of the Maule earthquake ruptured in 1835 by an earthquake of M ∼ 8.2 (Udias et al 2012;NOAA 2015). The Concepción earthquake in 1751 affected a very large region from Santiago to Valdivia, and caused a large tsunami.…”

Section: Strain Accumulation Time Implied By Historical Mega-earthquamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Concepción earthquake in 1751 affected a very large region from Santiago to Valdivia, and caused a large tsunami. It has been suggested that it had a similar size and extent as the 2010 Maule earthquake (Udias et al 2012;Bernhardt et al 2015). Although the M ∼ 8.2 event in 1835 has possibly ruptured the central slip zone of the Maule earthquake, it is far smaller than the 2010 event (the former released only ∼1/18 of the seismic moment of the latter).…”

Section: Strain Accumulation Time Implied By Historical Mega-earthquamentioning

confidence: 99%

To which level did the 2010 M 8.8 Maule earthquake fill the pre-existing seismic gap?

Wang

Hainzl

Martin

2017

Geophysical Journal International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S U M M A R YThere is a long-standing debate whether or not the 2010 M 8.8 Maule earthquake filled a pre-existing seismic gap in which no large earthquake occurred for about 200 yr. Utilizing the inversion approach of Wang et al. that considers elastic strain accumulation and strain release during the earthquake cycle and includes the fault-coupling state as prior information in coseismic slip modelling, we investigate the inter-and coseismic slip balance for the 2010 M 8.8 Maule earthquake. The coseismic slip model is obtained as the product of three components: the interseismic backslip rate, the strain accumulation time, and the fraction of coseismically released slip potency (the product of slip and slip area) that may either fully or partially release the local strain. We construct slip models using the Slab1.0 fault geometry, and constrain the strain accumulation time for the 2010 Maule earthquake based on historical large earthquakes in the region. The results demonstrate that two slip clusters (north and south of the hypocentre) are required to model the geodetically measured coseismic displacements. The slip patch south of the hypocentre is located in a strongly coupled zone, and possibly released the local strain completely. The slip area north of the hypocentre overlaps with the interseismically creeping zone in which strain buildup may be low. The northern slip patch released higher slip potency than accumulated since the last mega-event in 1751, suggesting a possible dynamic overshoot during coseismic rupture (under the assumption that the last major earthquake has reset the regional strain). Alternatively, the last big event may not have fully released the strain in this region. Our study reveals that the Maule earthquake, combing its coseismic and post-seismic slip over 1.3 yr, released ∼67-72 per cent of the local strain. Remaining strain is concentrated mainly south of the hypocentre, with potency equivalent to an M 8.4 event considering strain accumulation for 259 yr (since 1751).

show abstract

The Large Chilean Historical Earthquakes of 1647, 1657, 1730, and 1751 from Contemporary Documents

Abstract: The four largest historical earthquakes of central Chile in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

Cited by 63 publications

References 14 publications

Testing stress shadowing effects at the South American subduction zone

Testing stress shadowing effects at the South American subduction zone

Rupture Process During the 2015 Illapel, Chile Earthquake: Zigzag-Along-Dip Rupture Episodes

To which level did the 2010 M 8.8 Maule earthquake fill the pre-existing seismic gap?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About