Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fonseca, J. F. B. D. Articles by Vilanova, S. P. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Reply to "Comment on ‘Lisbon 1755: A Case of Triggered Onshore Rupture?’ by Susana P. Vilanova, Catarina F. Nunes, and Joao F. B. D. Fonseca," by L. Matias, A. Ribeiro, M. A. Baptista, N. Zitellini, J. Cabral, P. Terrinha, P. Teves-Costa, and J. M. Miranda

¹ Division of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology
ICIST, Instituto Superior Tecnico
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1
1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
jfonseca@ist.utl.pt

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

In Vilanova et al. (2003), referred to in the sequence as "the article," we suggested that several observations pertaining to the historical accounts of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake are better explained assuming the occurrence of a triggered onshore rupture near Lisbon, a few minutes after the main earthquake. Such observations include the distribution of intensities and the high values in and around Lisbon, the occurrence of an early tsunami-like wave inside the Tagus lagoon prior to the arrival of the external tsunami, a report of ground deformation near Lisbon, cartographic evidence of changes in the course of the Tagus river, and the distribution of destructive aftershocks. The proposed location of the triggered rupture is the well-established seismogenic Lower Tagus Valley (LTV) fault (Cabral, 1995). There is reasonable consensus that the Lisbon earthquake was composed of three shocks in quick succession (Reid, 1914). The main innovation introduced in the article is the thesis that the location of one of the subevents was close to Lisbon, at a significant distance from the first shock. The distance between the classical Gorringe Bank epicenter (Machado, 1966) and the LTV fault is about 350 km, but this value can be significantly reduced by taking into account the finite length of the offshore rupture or by adopting a source closer to the coast as proposed in recent literature (Zitellini et al., 1999). In view of the progress in the understanding of fault interaction through dynamic or static stress changes, we believe that our hypothesis is plausible, besides it is effective as a way of explaining the observations.

L. Matias and colleagues, next referred to as "the comment," claim that our conclusion is speculative and unsubstantiated, arguing that each anomalous observation reported in the article . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related articles in Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America:

Lisbon 1755: A Case of Triggered Onshore Rupture?

Susana P. Vilanova, Catarina F. Nunes, and Joao F. B. D. Fonseca
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 2003 93: 2056-2068. [Abstract] [Full Text]