Follow

for M 6.2 offshore of

At overlap area of 1960 & 2010 aftershock areas probably along megathrust

Felt intensity of MMI 7

Read more in report focusing on 2010 M 8.8 earthjay.com/?p=5111

earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquake

@earthjay Now that you’re here and posted the moment tensor, could you tell me how to explain the T completely surrounded by the white? I understand garden-variety moment tensors but these I don’t get.

@SakuRainbow @earthjay Here is the same earthquake analysed by #Geoscope. The 1st image shows the focal mechanism. This is a stereographic projection of 4 quarter-spaces: ◻️ is the region where the rupture radiates tensional ⏪⏩ waves, ◼️ is where compressional waves ⏩⏪ are radiated. What you need to care about is the limit between ◻️ and ◼️: it corresponds to the two *possible* planes, which are perpendicular ❌. Both planes are depicted in 2nd figure

@RaphaelGrandin @earthjay I get the nodal planes and motion in general. I’m curious about the parts circled here. I’m assuming it’s a thrust or reverse fault, so does this show oblique motion, tension on all sides of the thrust or what?

@SakuRainbow @earthjay Actually, the rounded parts show that the moment tensor is not 100% consistent with pure slip on a planar fault ("pure double couple"). But maybe 10% is unexplained. The rest can be due to 1/ uncertainty in the inversion, 2/ actual complexity of the rupture (multiple faults activated, roughness of the fault...) or 3/ volume change (e.g. when magma is involved). #SCARDEC assumes a pure fault plane, whereas #USGS leaves more freedom to inversion. See pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/7

Non-double-couple earthquakes. 1. Theory

Historically, most quantitative seismological analyses have been based on the assumption that earthquakes are caused by shear faulting, for which the equivalent force system in an isotropic medium is a pair of force couples with no net torque (a 'double couple,' or DC). Observations of increasing quality and coverage, however, now resolve departures from the DC model for many earthquakes and find some earthquakes, especially in volcanic and geothermal areas, that have strongly non-DC mechanisms. Understanding non-DC earthquakes is important both for studying the process of faulting in detail and for identifying nonshear-faulting processes that apparently occur in some earthquakes. This paper summarizes the theory of 'moment tensor' expansions of equivalent-force systems and analyzes many possible physical non-DC earthquake processes. Contrary to long-standing assumption, sources within the Earth can sometimes have net force and torque components, described by first-rank and asymmetric second-rank moment tensors, which must be included in analyses...

pubs.er.usgs.gov

@SakuRainbow @earthjay Interestingly, you can look at different solutions for the the same earthquake (M7.3 #Tonga shallow #earthquake of 11 Oct), depending on the inversion method: earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquake.

@RaphaelGrandin @earthjay This is exactly what I wanted to know. I screenshot all this and saved the links in case I can’t find this again. But you have helped me understand what I’ve wondered about for a long time. Thanks for your detailed answers! Also I really need to review the non-double couple, which I’m not sure I actually understood the first time around. Been focused on volcanoes for the past few years.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.