English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

SUMMARY Based on numerous studies of the relevant geodetic data, a low-angle thrusting mechanism has been assigned to the 1960 Chile earthquake. Kanamori, Rivera and Lambotte recently suggested that a component of dextral slip comparable to the thrusting be included in the mechanism to satisfy long-period, teleseismic observations. The absence of geodetic evidence for that huge strike-slip component is the subject of this comment. The geodetic data are largely measurements of coseismic uplift associated with the earthquake but include eight measurements of the coseismic change in shear strain. Because strike-slip produces relatively little uplift except near the end points of the rupture, identification of that strike-slip component in the geodetic data depends upon the measured, shear-strain change. I consider elastic, half-space models of oblique slip on the plate interface possibly supplemented by simultaneous dextral slip on the nearby, intra-arc Liquiñe-Ofqui Fault Zone. Slip is assumed to be uniform along strike. The best fits to the geodetic data for these models furnish little evidence for strike-slip on those structures. To satisfy the long-period, teleseismic data, Kanamori et al. proposed six examples, each of which requires a large amount of dextral slip. Because the long-period, teleseismic data do not define the slip distributions, I have used the best fits of those examples to the geodetic data to define those distributions. The large thrusting near the deformation front required by those slip distributions implies large uplift there, contrary to the uplift inferred from the inversion of tsunami data. However, an acceptable fit to the geodetic data and the tsunami data for the six examples suggested by Kanamori et al. can be obtained if the seismic moments specified by them are reduced by a factor ∼1.8, a factor within the uncertainties in estimating seismic moments of the 1960 Chile earthquake. The presence of strike-slip in those reduced-moment examples despite the lack of geodetic evidence for strike-slip is due to a remarkable coincidence that requires careful balancing of contributions from the shallower (depths &amp;lt; 70 km) coseismic sources against those from the deeper coseismic sources to nullify the geodetic evidence for strike-slip. Such balancing is possible, but it is remarkable that the balancing is so nearly perfect that it nullifies the geodetic evidence for strike-slip and thereby confounds the interpretation of the geodetic data.

Comment on ‘Evidence for a large strike-slip component during the 1960 Chilean earthquake’ by H. Kanamori, L. Rivera and S. Lambotte