Abstract

The relative locations between mainshocks and their aftershocks have long been studied to characterize the mainshock–aftershock relationships, yet these comparisons may be subjected to biases inherited from various sources, such as the analysis method, data, and model parameters. Here, we perform both a relocation analysis of interplate events to obtain accurate relative centroid locations and a slip inversion analysis of the mainshock slip relative to the relocated events, with some of the relocated events used as empirical Green’s functions, to retrieve the spatiotemporal slip features of the mainshock relative to all of the relocated events. We perform these analyses on the large (6.0 le M_{W} le 7.3) interplate earthquakes that occurred near four giant (M_{W} ge 8.5) megathrust earthquakes: the 2007 M_{W} ;8.5 Bengkulu (Indonesia), 2005 M_{W} ;8.6 Nias (Indonesia), 2010 M_{W} ;8.8 Maule (Chile), and 2011 M_{W} ;9.1 Tohoku-Oki (Japan) earthquakes. Most of the spatiotemporal slip features of the mainshocks are consistently recovered using different empirical Green’s functions. We qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrate that the large interplate aftershocks within 5 years of the four analyzed mainshocks are largely located on the periphery or outside of the large-slip regions of these four giant megathrust earthquakes.

Highlights

  • The relationship between the mainshock rupture and its subsequent aftershock sequence has been widely discussed

  • Here, we retrieve the robust slip features by bootstrapping over results using different station and component combination, extract the stable portion of the slip models by comparing results using several Empirical Green’s function (EGF) separately

  • This approach offers us the reliability information of the EGF-based slip inversion analysis, as we assumed that all EGFs behave and treated them in the same manner except for their timing, location, and magnitude differences

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The relationship between the mainshock rupture and its subsequent aftershock sequence has been widely discussed. Many studies have associated aftershocks with the coseismic Coulomb stress changes caused by the mainshock rupture (e.g., Nakamura et al 2016; Reasenberg and Simpson 1992; Seeber and Armbruster 2000; Stein 1999) or afterslip in the surrounding region (e.g., Hsu et al 2006; Lange et al 2014). Numerous comparisons between the mainshock slip region and aftershock locations have been performed to characterize the mainshock–aftershock relationship. Das and Henry (2003) and Mendoza and Hartzell (1988) qualitatively compared and summarized the slip locations for a number of mainshocks and their aftershock distributions, with both studies highlighting that the common feature among most of the mainshock events was the lack of aftershocks in the large-slip region. Quantitative studies have been performed. Agurto et al (2012) found that the MW > 4.0

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call