Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America · 1995 · 63 citations · 32 references
Natural SciencesEarth SciencesGeophysicsEarthquake EngineeringEarthquake PhysicsSeismologyEarthquake Ground MotionEarthquake Source PhysicsEarthquake Source ProcessesGround Motion CharacterizationStrong-motion SeismologyDouble-couple Source ModelsEarthquake Source MechanismsEarthquake Source Time FunctionEarthquakesSeismic Source Time FunctionSource Mechanism CharacterizationSource Time Function ModelingSource Time Functions
Abstract The M S 7.2 Grand Banks earthquake of 1929 was one of the largest and the most fatal earthquakes to have occurred in Canada, with most of the death and destruction having been caused by a tsunami and submarine landslide associated with the earthquake. It has been suggested (Hasegawa and Kanamori, 1987) that a single-force (landslide) mechanism was more consistent with the data than was a double-couple source and that therefore the event was not an earthquake. However, that particular study considered only four double-couple solutions and left many unanswered questions, in particular with respect to the source time function and sediment volume involved. Here, a larger number of seismograms are used to examine the full range of double-couple solutions to determine more definitively the nature of the event. Waveform modeling using both forward and inverse methods indicates that this event was an earthquake, with a complex source mechanism. The first and largest subevent was a strike-slip double-couple event occurring on a northwest-striking plane. Two later subevents were probably strike-slip double couples on northeast-striking planes, but other mechanisms cannot be completely ruled out. The first subevent has a well-constrained focal depth of 20 ± 2 km. The second and third subevents also appear to have occurred at 20 km, but are constrained only to within ±5 km. These depths provide further evidence that the event was not a landslide. The sum of the subevent moments corresponds to an M w of 7.2 ± 0.3, which is in close agreement with the M w of 7.1 ± 0.1 obtained by the CMT method using long-period data. These M w 9s are also consistent with the M s of 7.2 (±0.3) and m B of 7.1 (±0.2) calculated directly from the seismograms. Modeling of the seafloor displacement for this mechanism indicates that the tsunami was generated by the landslide and not directly by the earthquake.
32
Preliminary reference Earth model
Adam M. Dziewoński, Don L. Anderson · Physics of The Earth and Planetary Interiors · 1981 · 10.4K citations
Walter I. Futterman · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 1962 · 1.2K citations
Mechanism of tsunami earthquakes
Hiroo Kanamori · Physics of The Earth and Planetary Interiors · 1972 · 936 citations