Premium
Non‐double‐couple mechanism of moderate earthquakes near Zakynthos, Greece, April 2006; explanation in terms of complexity
Author(s) -
Zahradnik J.,
Sokos E.,
Tselentis G.A.,
Martakis N.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
geophysical prospecting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.735
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1365-2478
pISSN - 0016-8025
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2478.2007.00671.x
Subject(s) - position (finance) , rake , moment tensor , moment (physics) , magnitude (astronomy) , range (aeronautics) , induced seismicity , seismology , geodesy , geology , statistics , event (particle physics) , mathematics , physics , astrophysics , paleontology , materials science , finance , economics , composite material , classical mechanics
Deviation of earthquakes from the double‐couple mechanism is an important, but delicate tool to study their source processes. For assessing the double‐couple percentage, the paper suggests to complement the standard least‐square moment‐tensor retrieval with a hierarchic spatio‐temporal grid search, progressively closer to the true source position and time. It enables identification of the double‐couple percentage convergence, while its limit is the resulting double‐couple percentage value, or range. The so‐called double‐couple percentage (DC%) versus correlation plots are introduced and difficulties of the double‐couple percentage assessment are discussed. It is proved that even close to the true source position, where the strike‐dip‐rake angles are already stable (within a few degrees), the double‐couple percentage may still vary by dozens of per cent. Moreover, even at the optimum spatial position, the double‐couple percentage estimate is extremely sensitive (0 to 100%) to small variations of the subevent origin time. This behaviour is explained in terms of the source complexity, implying a time‐dependent moment tensor. Therefore, the double‐couple percentage of complex events depends on the studied frequency band and, in general, also on the station azimuth. This explains broad variations of the double‐couple percentage reports among seismic agencies. Three earthquakes of mutually close epicentres were investigated (Zakynthos, Western Greece, April 2006, magnitudes ∼5.5) and a strong non‐double‐couple component of one of them was identified (double‐couple percentage of about 20%). Two equivalent models of this earthquake were found: a single‐event non‐ double‐couple model, and a double‐event model consisting of two double‐couple sources with highly different mechanisms.