Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; August 1995; v. 85; no. 4; p. 1003-1020
© 1995 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bent, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

A complex double-couple source mechanism for the Ms 7.2 1929 Grand Banks earthquake

Allison L. Bent

Geophysics Division Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0Y3

Abstract

The MS 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 Mw of 7.2 ± 0.3, which is in close agreement with the Mw of 7.1 ± 0.1 obtained by the CMT method using long-period data. These Mw's are also consistent with the Ms of 7.2 (±0.3) and mB 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.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Seismological  Research LettersHome page
M. Chapman
A Comparison of Short-Period and Broadband Seismograph Systems in the Context of the Seismology of the Eastern United States
Seismological Research Letters, November 1, 2009; 80(6): 1019 - 1034.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society of America Special PapersHome page
L. Swafford and S. Stein
Limitations of the short earthquake record for seismicity and seismic hazard studies
Geological Society of America Special Papers, January 1, 2007; 425(0): 49 - 58.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Geological Society of America Special PapersHome page
X. van Lanen and W. D. Mooney
Integrated geologic and geophysical studies of North American continental intraplate seismicity
Geological Society of America Special Papers, January 1, 2007; 425(0): 101 - 112.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Seismological  Research LettersHome page
M. P. Tuttle, A. Ruffman, T. Anderson, and H. Jeter
Distinguishing Tsunami from Storm Deposits in Eastern North America: The 1929 Grand Banks Tsunami versus the 1991 Halloween Storm
Seismological Research Letters, January 1, 2004; 75(1): 117 - 131.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
Intraplate Triggered Earthquakes: Observations and Interpretation
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2003; 93(5): 2212 - 2221.



Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
I. A. Beresnev and G. M. Atkinson
Generic finite-fault model for ground-motion prediction in eastern North America
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 1999; 89(3): 608 - 625.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
M. Assumpcao
Seismicity and stresses in the Brazilian passive margin
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1998; 88(1): 160 - 169.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
W.-Y. Chung and H. Gao
The Greenland earthquake of 11 July 1987 and postglacial fault reactivation along a passive margin
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, August 1, 1997; 87(4): 1058 - 1068.
[Abstract] [PDF]




JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Seismological Society of America