Mapping of interplate coupling in the Kamchatka subduction zone from variations in the earthquake size distribution

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The geometry of supposed coupling zones in the Kamchatka subduction zoneis determined by the earthquake size distribution based on earlier revealed relationship between its shape and rate of inelastic deformations. In the areas of higher aseismic slip, a break of linearity in earthquake size distribution is observed owing to the deficit of large earthquakes. Zones of higher coupling between the oceanic and continental plates are characterized by an excess of large earthquakes and an inverse bend in the earthquake size distribution. The mapping results of the bend value agree with the coupling zones distinguished from satellite geodetic data and inversion of marigrams.

About the authors

I. A. Vorobieva

Институт теории прогноза землетрясений и математической геофизики Российской Академии наук

Author for correspondence.
Email: vorobiev@mitp.ru
Russian Federation

A. A. Soloviev

Институт теории прогноза землетрясений и математической геофизики Российской Академии наук

Email: vorobiev@mitp.ru

Corresponding Member of the RAS

Russian Federation

P. N. Shebalin

Институт теории прогноза землетрясений и математической геофизики Российской Академии наук

Email: vorobiev@mitp.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Lay T., Kanamori H., Ruff L.T. // Earthquake Predict. Res. 1982. V. 1. P. 3–71.
  2. Pacheco J.F., Sykes L.R., Scholz C.H. // J. Geophys. Res. 1993. V. 98. P. 14,133–14,159.
  3. Scholz C.H., Campos J. // J. Geophys. Res. 2012. V. 117. P. B05310. doi: 10.1029/2011JB009003.
  4. Johnson J.M., Satake K. // Pure Appl. Geophys. 1999. V. 154. P. 541–553.
  5. MacInnes B.T., Weiss R., Bourgeois J., Pinegina T.K. // Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 2010. V. 100. P. 1695–1709. doi: 10.1785/0120090376.
  6. Zobin V.M., Levina V.I. // Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 2001. V. 91. P. 1619–1628.
  7. Bürgmann R., Kogan M.G., Levin V.E., Scholz C.H., King R.W., Steblov G.M. // Geophys. Res. Lett. 2001. V. 28. P. 1331–1334. doi: 10.1029/2000GL012350.
  8. Bürgmann R., Kogan M.G., Steblov G.M., Hilley G., Levin V.E., Apel E. // J. Geophys. Res. 2005. V. 110. P. B07405. doi: 10.1029/2005JB003648.
  9. Vorobieva I., Shebalin P., Narteau C. // Geophys. Res. Lett. 2016. V. 43. P. 6869–6875.
  10. Левина В.И., Ландер А.В., Митюшкина С.В., Чеброва А.Ю. // Вулканология и сейсмология. 2013. № 1. C. 41–64.
  11. Zaliapin I., Ben-Zion Y. // Geophys. J. Int. 2016. V. 207. P. 608–634.
  12. Vorobieva I., Narteau C., Shebalin P., Beauducel F., Nercessian A., Clouard V., Bouin, M.‐P. // Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 2013. V. 103. P. 2188–2202.
  13. Bender B. // Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 1997. V. 73. P. 831–851.
  14. Федотов С.А., Чернышев С.Д., Матвиенко Ю.Д., Жаринов Н.А. // Вулканология и сейсмология. 1998. № 6. С. 3.
  15. Bourgeois J., Pinegina T.K. // Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018. V. 18. P. 335–350.

Copyright (c) 2019 Russian academy of sciences

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies