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 HORNER, R. B. Articles by PLOUFFE, M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

A fault model for the Nahanni earthquakes from aftershock studies

PACIFIC GEOSCIENCE CENTRE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA, BOX 6000, SIDNEY, BRITISH COLUMBIA V8L 4B2
GEOPHYSICS DIVISION GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA, 1 OBSERVATORY CRESCENT, OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1A 0Y3
MINERAL RESEARCH LABORATORY CANADA CENTRE FOR MINERAL AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, BOX 100, ELLIOTT LAKE, ONTARIO P5A 2J6

Abstract

Relative locations of 323 large aftershocks (M 3.0 or greater) in the period from 5 October 1985 to 25 March 1988 show that the M_s 6.6 event on 5 October 1985 initiated at 62.208°N, 124.217°W, about 2.5 km northeast of the M_s 6.9 main shock on 23 December 1985. The overall aftershock distribution suggests the October rupture was primarily a west-dipping, low-angle thrust. In subsequent aftershock activity, the main rupture plane was marked by a distinct quiescent area of about 200 km² that persisted until the 23 December event. Most of the stress drop and slip occurred in this area. Following the 23 December rupture, a similar sized quiescent zone was also observed; however, it was only evident during the first 24 hr of the aftershock sequence, and the area was about 50 per cent too small to yield the overall stress drop. The additional area appeared to come from secondary rupture zones that developed coincident with the main shock rupture. Precise locations of 182 small (M 3.0 or less) aftershocks recorded during a third field survey from 12 to 21 September 1986 indicated at least one and probably three high-angle faults. Composite mechanism solutions showed thrust faulting except in a region directly south of the main shock rupture areas where there is a bend in one of the secondary fault zones and a concentration of aftershock activity. Mechanism solutions calculated for five of the largest aftershocks in the same region also indicated a similar variability. Development of secondary fault zones explained the increased complexity of the December event and may also provide an explanation for the vertical peak acceleration exceeding 2 g that was recorded about 10 sec after the December rupture initiated.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Hartzell, C. Langer, and C. Mendoza Rupture histories of eastern North American earthquakes Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1994; 84(6): 1703 - 1724. [Abstract] [PDF]