HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by SAVAGE, M. K. Articles by MEYER, R. P. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Aftershocks of an M = 4.2 earthquake in Hawaii and comparison with long-term studies of the same volume

GEOPHYSICAL AND POLAR RESEARCH CENTER DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON, 1215 W. DAYTON STREET, MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706

Abstract

Study of the aftershocks recorded in a 3-hr period after a 4.2 magnitude event on the East Rift Zone of Kilauea volcano, Hawaii, on 12 April 1982 shows that the aftershocks occurred on different planes than the main shock, probably as a result of stress redistribution; the aftershock locations are probably controlled by preexisting structures. This study also suggests that these relatively small aftershocks occurred in the same seismicity patterns as larger events recorded in the same volume over a period of 10 yr. Slips on most of the aftershocks and the main shock are in the same direction, perpendicular to the East Rift Zone, as has been found in studies of other, larger earthquakes. However, fault-plane solutions varied more, as did the tensional axes, and several of the smaller events showed movement in the opposite direction from the main shock and the rest of the aftershocks, suggesting some rebound was occurring near the edges of the aftershock zone. Because ten times as much energy was released in the aftershocks in a narrow linear region as elsewhere, and since the main shock epicenter was oceanward of all the aftershocks, we suggest that rupture began at the main shock hypocenter and propagated landward, implying an almost "one-dimensional" fault.

For the aftershocks, the relationship between moment and magnitude was: log M₀ = (1.18 ± 0.17) M_L + (17.3 ± 0.17). Differences in amplification lead to site differences of up to 0.8 units in local magnitude and 1.5 orders of magnitude in energy release. These correlated somewhat with station time corrections in that the stations with the longest delay times also had greatest amplification.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. E. JAMES and M. K. SAVAGE A search for seismic reflections from the top of the oceanic crust beneath Hawaii Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1990; 80(3): 675 - 701. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. MENDOZA and S. H. HARTZELL Aftershock patterns and main shock faulting Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1988; 78(4): 1438 - 1449. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y. LI and C. H. THURBER Source properties of two microearthquakes at Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1988; 78(3): 1123 - 1132. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. F. SCHNEIDER, R. C. ASTER, L. A. POWELL, and R. P. MEYER Timing of portable seismographs from Omega navigation signals Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1987; 77(4): 1457 - 1478. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. MENDOZA Source mechanisms of Colombia aftershocks using digital surface-wave data Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1986; 76(6): 1597 - 1613. [Abstract] [PDF]