DOCSLIB.ORG

Long-Term Monitoring Experiment in Geologically Active Regions of Europe Prone to Natural Hazards: the Supersite Concept]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long-Term Monitoring Experiment in Geologically Active Regions of Europe Prone to Natural Hazards: the Supersite Concept] THEME [ENV.2012.6.4-2] [Long-term monitoring experiment in geologically active regions of Europe prone to natural hazards: the Supersite concept] * Annex I - "Description of Work" !" # $%& ' '( &) ' * ' # +,-./0 1 & 2,/2/,,- Table of Contents Part A A.1 Project summary ......................................................................................................................................4 A.2 List of beneficiaries ..................................................................................................................................5 A.3 Overall budget breakdown for the project ............................................................................................... 7 Workplan Tables WT1 List of work packages ............................................................................................................................1 WT2 List of deliverables .................................................................................................................................2 WT3 Work package descriptions ................................................................................................................... 9 Work package 1......................................................................................................................................9 Work package 2....................................................................................................................................12 Work package 3....................................................................................................................................16 Work package 4....................................................................................................................................22 Work package 5....................................................................................................................................28 Work package 6....................................................................................................................................33 Work package 7....................................................................................................................................38 Work package 8....................................................................................................................................42 Work package 9....................................................................................................................................46 Work package 10..................................................................................................................................50 Work package 11..................................................................................................................................54 WT4 List of milestones .................................................................................................................................56 WT5 Tentative schedule of project reviews ................................................................................................. 57 WT6 Project effort by beneficiaries and work package ................................................................................58 WT7 Project effort by activity type per beneficiary ...................................................................................... 60 WT8 Project efforts and costs ......................................................................................................................63 A1: Project summary 1 +,-./0 2 One form per project General information 3 !" # $%& ' '( &) '* ' # # & 4 ,/3//32,/2 " '5 +4 5 6& 6 (0) 12,/2 ! ) 172,/2747.2 8 & 56 9 7 ) '%& ' # 8 # ;# $%&; ; ( : !& 9 <' & '=: & & >;?& ;&$ ;!'': & '' ;' ' ' &'! :& ! : 7 ' & ' & # !'' '=: ' ' & & ; ' & ' # ; ' & & ) ; & ' ' '%&7( ' ' #?<) & ! ' ' ' @ ' A : & ) 7 <'! ' @ !&A !& ! : & & '&& 7 <' #?<) & ' ! '& :5 ' 6 ' & & ' ' # & ' & & 7<' & && ; ' &; && & ' & & ' & ' ' & 7 +,-./0 2,/2/,,-/222 . - A2: List of Beneficiaries 1 +,-./0 2 List of Beneficiaries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ist of Beneficiaries 9 #' '10 ' 2/ ## #77 #! % & / +4 +,-./0 2,/2/,,-/222 4 - A3: Budget Breakdown 1 +,-./0 2 One Form per Project Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project) Participant Fund. Requested number in Participant 13 RTD / 12 Ind. costs Demonstration Management Total EU 11 short name % Innovation Other (D) this project (B) (C) A+B+C+D contribution (A) / E*)? 0I7, < JI4;--,7,, ,7,, .2,;,,,7,, ,7,, /;+04;--,7,, /;/+0;44,7,, 2 (C 0I7, < II/;04,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, II/;04,7,, ./+;-2,7,, + <DB?<E 0I7, < J-/;IJ-7., ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, J-/;IJ-7., 0+4;/J-7-, . ?()) 0I7, ++/;,,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ++/;,,,7,, 2.-;2I,7,, I ? 1 0I7, < 0J,;-,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, 0J,;-,,7,, IJ+;/,,7,, 4 ?D 0I7, .-.;I4,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, .-.;I4,7,, +4+;.2,7,, 0 E*D 0I7, ( J+;,,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, J+;,,,7,, 4J;0I,7,, - ?<D 0I7, < 2I+;I2,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, 2I+;I2,7,, /J,;/.,7,, J 0I7, # 2--;4,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, 2--;4,,7,, 2/4;.I,7,, 5?#?)6 /, B 0I7, +I4;.,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, +I4;.,,7,, 240;+,,7,, // )D) <) 0I7, < 00;04,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, 00;04,7,, I-;+2,7,, /2 # 0I7, < 22I;--+72, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, 22I;--+72, /4J;./27., /+ ? )?# 0I7, /0J;+JJ7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, /0J;+JJ7,, /+.;I.J72I /. 0I7, < JJ;4-,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, JJ;4-,7,, 0.;04,7,, /I )# 0I7, < ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, /+2;+2,7,, /+2;+2,7,, /+2;+2,7,, /4 )# 0I7, # /04;.,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, /04;.,,7,, /+2;+,,7,, /0 D ?1 0I7, < -/;,-,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, -/;,-,7,, 4,;-/,7,, /- ?(#<< 0I7, < -,;I4,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, -,;I4,7,, 4,;.2,7,, /J # 0I7, # .JJ;/2-7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, .JJ;/2-7,, +0.;+.47,, 8 2, "? 0I7, < +/.;--,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, +/.;--,7,, 2+4;/4,7,, +,-./0 2,/2/,,-/222 0 - A3: Budget Breakdown Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project) Participant Fund. Requested number in Participant 13 RTD / 12 Ind. costs Demonstration Management Total EU 11 short name % Innovation Other (D) this project (B) (C) A+B+C+D contribution (A) 2/ #77 0I7, # +J.;.,,7,, ,7,, ,7,, ,7,, +J.;.,,7,, 2JI;-,,7,, < 0;2/0;2--74, ,7,, .2,;,,,7,, /+2;+2,7,, 0;04J;4,-74, I;J4I;2-47.I Note that the budget mentioned in this table is the total budget requested by the Beneficiary and associated Third Parties. +,-./0 2,/2/,,-/222 - - * The following funding schemes are distinguished Collaborative Project (if a distinction is made in the call please state which type of Collaborative project is referred to: (i) Small of medium-scale focused research project, (ii) Large-scale integrating project, (iii) Project targeted to special groups such as SMEs and other smaller actors), Network of Excellence, Coordination Action, Support Action. 1. Project number The project number has been assigned by the Commission as the unique identifier for your project, and it cannot be changed. The project number should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents to prevent errors during its handling. 2. Project acronym Use the project acronym as indicated in the submitted proposal. It cannot be changed, unless agreed during the negotiations. The same acronym should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents to prevent errors during its handling. 3. Project title Use the title (preferably no longer than 200 characters) as indicated in the submitted proposal. Minor corrections are possible if agreed during the preparation of the grant agreement. 4. Starting date Unless a specific (fixed) starting date is duly justified and agreed upon during the preparation of the Grant Agreement, the project will start on the first day of the month following the entry info force of the Grant Agreement (NB : entry into force = signature by the Commission). Please note that if a fixed starting date is used, you will be required to provide a detailed justification on a separate note. 5. Duration Insert the duration of the project in full months. 6. Call (part) identifier The Call (part) identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you were addressing, as indicated in the publication of the call in the Official Journal of the European Union. You have to use the identifier given by the Commission in the letter inviting to prepare the grant agreement. 7. Activity code Select the activity code from the drop-down menu. 8. Free keywords Use the free keywords from your original proposal; changes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coulomb Stresses Imparted by the 25 March
    LETTER Earth Planets Space, 60, 1041–1046, 2008 Coulomb stresses imparted by the 25 March 2007 Mw=6.6 Noto-Hanto, Japan, earthquake explain its ‘butterfly’ distribution of aftershocks and suggest a heightened seismic hazard Shinji Toda Active Fault Research Center, Geological Survey of Japan, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), site 7, 1-1-1 Higashi Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8567, Japan (Received June 26, 2007; Revised November 17, 2007; Accepted November 22, 2007; Online published November 7, 2008) The well-recorded aftershocks and well-determined source model of the Noto Hanto earthquake provide an excellent opportunity to examine earthquake triggering associated with a blind thrust event. The aftershock zone rapidly expanded into a ‘butterfly pattern’ predicted by static Coulomb stress transfer associated with thrust faulting. We found that abundant aftershocks occurred where the static Coulomb stress increased by more than 0.5 bars, while few shocks occurred in the stress shadow calculated to extend northwest and southeast of the Noto Hanto rupture. To explore the three-dimensional distribution of the observed aftershocks and the calculated stress imparted by the mainshock, we further resolved Coulomb stress changes on the nodal planes of all aftershocks for which focal mechanisms are available. About 75% of the possible faults associated with the moderate-sized aftershocks were calculated to have been brought closer to failure by the mainshock, with the correlation best for low apparent fault friction. Our interpretation is that most of the aftershocks struck on the steeply dipping source fault and on a conjugate northwest-dipping reverse fault contiguous with the source fault.
    [Show full text]
  • Improved Detection and Coulomb Stress Computations for Gas-Related, Shallow Seismicity, in the Western Sea of Marmara
    1 Earth and Planetary Science Letters Archimer May 2019, Volume 513 Pages 113-123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2019.02.021 https://archimer.ifremer.fr https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00484/59522/ Improved detection and Coulomb stress computations for gas-related, shallow seismicity, in the Western Sea of Marmara Tary Jean-Baptiste 1, * , Géli Louis 2, Lomax Anthony 3, Batsi Evangelia 2, Riboulot Vincent 2, Henry Pierre 4 1 Departamento de Geociencias, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia 2 Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Marine Geosciences Research Unit, BP 70, 29280 Plouzané, France 3 ALomax Scientific, 320 Chemin des Indes, 06370, Mouans Sartoux, France 4 Aix Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, INRA, Collège de France, CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France * Corresponding author : Jean-Baptiste Tary, email address : [email protected] Abstract : The Sea of Marmara (SoM) is a marine portion of the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) and a portion of this fault that did not break during its 20th century earthquake sequence. The NAF in the SoM is characterized by both significant seismic activity and widespread fluid manifestations. These fluids have both shallow and deep origins in different parts of the SoM and are often associated with the trace of the NAF which seems to act as a conduit. On July 25th, 2011, a 5 strike-slip earthquake occurred at a depth of about 11.5 km, triggering clusters of seismicity mostly located at depths shallower than 5 km, from less than a few minutes up to more than 6 days after the mainshock.
    [Show full text]
  • Rupture Process of the 2019 Ridgecrest, California Mw 6.4 Foreshock and Mw 7.1 Earthquake Constrained by Seismic and Geodetic Data, Bull
    Rupture process of the 2019 Ridgecrest, M M California w 6.4 Foreshock and w 7.1 Earthquake Constrained by Seismic and Geodetic Data Kang Wang*1,2, Douglas S. Dreger1,2, Elisa Tinti3,4, Roland Bürgmann1,2, and Taka’aki Taira2 ABSTRACT The 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake sequence culminated in the largest seismic event in California M since the 1999 w 7.1 Hector Mine earthquake. Here, we combine geodetic and seismic data M M to study the rupture process of both the 4 July w 6.4 foreshock and the 6 July w 7.1 main- M shock. The results show that the w 6.4 foreshock rupture started on a northwest-striking right-lateral fault, and then continued on a southwest-striking fault with mainly left-lateral M slip. Although most moment release during the w 6.4 foreshock was along the southwest- striking fault, slip on the northwest-striking fault seems to have played a more important role M ∼ M in triggering the w 7.1 mainshock that happened 34 hr later. Rupture of the w 7.1 main- shock was characterized by dominantly right-lateral slip on a series of overall northwest- striking fault strands, including the one that had already been activated during the nucleation M ∼ of the w 6.4 foreshock. The maximum slip of the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake was 5m, – M located at a depth range of 3 8kmnearthe w 7.1 epicenter, corresponding to a shallow slip deficit of ∼ 20%–30%. Both the foreshock and mainshock had a relatively low-rupture veloc- ity of ∼ 2km= s, which is possibly related to the geometric complexity and immaturity of the eastern California shear zone faults.
    [Show full text]
  • Triggered Earthquakes Suppressed by an Evolving Stress Shadow from a Propagating Dyke
    Triggered earthquakes suppressed by an evolving stress shadow from a propagating dyke Robert G. Green1 Tim Greenfield1 Robert S. White1 *Corresponding Author: Green, Robert G. [email protected] CONTACT AUTHOR TO REQUEST AN ARTICLE PDF 1Bullard Laboratories, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0EZ. Small static stress increases resulting from large radiation patterns have also been invoked to explain earthquakes may trigger aftershock earthquake aftershock clustering3, but dynamic triggering cannot swarms, while stress reductions may reduce impart a stress shadow that would reduce seismicity earthquake failure rates1,2 (stress shadowing). in response to stress decrease at a given location6. However, seismic waves from large earthquakes also Many studies have suggested that in regions where cause transient dynamic stresses which may trigger the static stress is decreased, aftershocks are rare or seismicity3,4. This makes it difficult to separate the seismicity rates are reduced as a consequence of the relative influence of static and dynamic stress negative stress shadow caused by the fault changes on aftershocks. Here we present an rupture1,6,7,8,9. However, convincing observations of excellent demonstration of static stress triggering the stress shadowing effect have been notoriously and shadowing during the intrusion of a 46 km long, hard to demonstrate, and some have argued that 5 m wide igneous dyke in central Iceland. During the there is a lack of evidence that they exist at all3,10,11. emplacement, bursts of seismicity 5‒15 km away The challenge has been to demonstrate convincing from the dyke are first triggered and then abruptly and significant earthquake rate drops that correlate switched off as the dyke tip propagated away from unambiguously with a stress decrease, because a high Bárðarbunga volcano and along the neovolcanic rift preceding seismicity rate is required.
    [Show full text]
  • 3-D Numerical Modeling of Coupled Crustal Deformation and Fluid
    3-D Numerical Modeling of Coupled Crustal Deformation and Fluid Pressure Interactions Final Technical Report U. S. Geological Survey Award No. 08HQGR0031 Lorraine W. Wolf Ming-Kuo Lee Auburn University Department of Geology and Geography 210 Petrie Hall Auburn, Alabama 36849 Ph: 334-844-4282 Fax: 334-844-4486 [email protected]; [email protected] 1/10/08-12/31/09 Program Element II ABSTRACT This report summarizes the results from a project aimed at investigating the interrelationships of crustal deformation and pore fluid pressures. The project had three main goals: (1) to develop an algorithm for simulating crustal deformation and fluid flow processes, (2) to implement and validate numerical models based on selected benchmark hydrogeophysical problems related to specified boundary conditions, and (3) to use the numerical simulations to explore poroelastic processes in realistic geologic domains. The results of the project should be useful for reducing seismic hazard by increasing our understanding of fluid pressures in postseismic deformation and by providing a coupled crustal deformation and pore pressure propagation modeling tool available to others for use in exploring the poroelastic response of brittle crustal rocks and sedimentary basins to strong earthquakes. The codes developed as part of this grant, referred to herein as PFLOW, are described in this report. PFLOW is a 3-D time- dependent pore-pressure diffusion model developed to investigate the response of pore fluids to the crustal deformation generated by strong earthquakes in heterogeneous geologic media. Given crustal strain generated by changes in Coulomb stress, this MATLAB-based code uses Skempton's coefficient to calculate resulting initial change in fluid pressure (initial condition).
    [Show full text]
  • Rate/State Coulomb Stress Transfer Model for the CSEP Japan Seismicity Forecast
    Earth Planets Space, 63, 171–185, 2011 Rate/state Coulomb stress transfer model for the CSEP Japan seismicity forecast Shinji Toda1 and Bogdan Enescu2 1Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University, Gokasho, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan 2National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention (NIED), 3-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0006, Japan (Received June 25, 2010; Revised January 13, 2011; Accepted January 13, 2011; Online published March 4, 2011) Numerous studies retrospectively found that seismicity rate jumps (drops) by coseismic Coulomb stress increase (decrease). The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Prediction (CSEP) instead provides us an opportunity for prospective testing of the Coulomb hypothesis. Here we adapt our stress transfer model incorporating rate and state dependent friction law to the CSEP Japan seismicity forecast. We demonstrate how to compute the forecast rates of large shocks in 2009 using the large earthquakes during the past 120 years. The time dependent impact of the coseismic stress perturbations explains qualitatively well the occurrence of the recent moderate size shocks. Such ability is partly similar to that of statistical earthquake clustering models. However, our model differs from them as follows: the off-fault aftershock zones can be simulated using finite fault sources; the regional areal patterns of triggered seismicity are modified by the dominant mechanisms of the potential sources; the imparted stresses due to large earthquakes produce stress shadows that lead to a reduction of the forecasted number of earthquakes. Although the model relies on several unknown parameters, it is the first physics based model submitted to the CSEP Japan test center and has the potential to be tuned for short-term earthquake forecasts.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Better Than Coulomb Failure Stress?
    PUBLICATIONS Geophysical Research Letters RESEARCH LETTER What Is Better Than Coulomb Failure Stress? A Ranking 10.1002/2017GL075875 of Scalar Static Stress Triggering Mechanisms Key Points: from 105 Mainshock-Aftershock Pairs • What are good stress based predictors of aftershock locations? Brendan J. Meade1,2 , Phoebe M. R. DeVries1, Jeremy Faller2, Fernanda Viegas2, • Coulomb failure stress is a poor 2 predictor, but the third invariant of the and Martin Wattenberg stress tensor is quite good 1 2 • Large-scale analysis of mainshocks Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, Google, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA and aftershocks suggests very different patterns than commonly assumed Abstract Aftershocks may be triggered by the stresses generated by preceding mainshocks. The temporal frequency and maximum size of aftershocks are well described by the empirical Omori and Bath laws, but Supporting Information: spatial patterns are more difficult to forecast. Coulomb failure stress is perhaps the most common criterion • Supporting Information S1 invoked to explain spatial distributions of aftershocks. Here we consider the spatial relationship between patterns of aftershocks and a comprehensive list of 38 static elastic scalar metrics of stress (including stress Correspondence to: tensor invariants, maximum shear stress, and Coulomb failure stress) from 213 coseismic slip distributions B. J. Meade, [email protected] worldwide. The rates of true-positive and false-positive classification of regions with and without aftershocks are assessed with receiver operating characteristic analysis. We infer that the stress metrics that are most consistent with observed aftershock locations are maximum shear stress and the magnitude of the second Citation: Meade, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Fault Interaction in Alaska: Static Coulomb Stress Transfer
    Fault Interaction in Alaska: Static Coulomb Stress Transfer Charles G. Bufe U.S. Geological Survey, Golden, Colorado, USA Oliver S. Boyd U.S. Geological Survey, Memphis, Tennessee, USA Between 1938 and 2002, most of the known major active fault segments in southern Alaska with estimated recurrence intervals of less than 700 years have ruptured. Static (coseismic) Coulomb stress transfer has been modeled from the nine largest (M ≥ 7.5) of these earthquakes. Stresses transferred from these sources, ranging from less than 0.001 MPa (0.01 bar) to 1 MPa (10 bars) locally, were computed on 30 target fault segments, including 16 segments associated with the above major earthquake sources. Post-1938 cumulative static Coulomb stress transfer in excess of 0.1 MPa preceded failure of the Denali–Totschunda, Sitka, Kodiak, and southern Gulf of Alaska segments. Stress transfer since 1938 indicates the presence of transferred stresses in excess of 0.1 MPa, locally approaching 1 MPa, at seismogenic depths on target fault segments that have not ruptured since 1938, including the Denali Park segments of the western Denali fault, the Castle Mountain fault, the Cross Creek fault, the southern part of the Totschunda–Fairweather gap, and the west Yakataga gap. Some segments that have ruptured during or since 1938 have received static Coulomb stress reloading locally in excess of 0.1 MPa. These include the Alaska Peninsula, offshore Fairweather, and northern Queen Charlotte fault segments. Stresses transferred to the slowly slipping Denali–Totschunda fault system can result in significant earthquake probability changes, whereas high slip rates on the Fairweather–Queen Charlotte transform fault system limit the advance toward (or retreat from) time of failure due to transferred stresses.
    [Show full text]
  • Earthquake Static Stress Transfer in the 2013 Gulf of Valencia (Spain) Seismic Sequence
    Solid Earth, 8, 857–882, 2017 https://doi.org/10.5194/se-8-857-2017 © Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Earthquake static stress transfer in the 2013 Gulf of Valencia (Spain) seismic sequence Lluís Saló1,2, Tànit Frontera1, Xavier Goula1, Luis G. Pujades2, and Alberto Ledesma2 1Geophysics and Seismology Department, Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya, 08038 Barcelona, Spain 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08034 Barcelona, Spain Correspondence to: Lluís Saló ([email protected]) Received: 21 October 2016 – Discussion started: 29 November 2016 Revised: 9 April 2017 – Accepted: 2 August 2017 – Published: 5 September 2017 Abstract. On 24 September 2013, an Ml 3.6 earthquake which is highly dependent on incoming gas from northern struck in the Gulf of Valencia (Spain) near the Mediterranean Africa and Europe. The geological structure selected to store coast of Castelló, roughly 1 week after gas injections con- gas (Fig. 1b) was the depleted Amposta oil field, which had ducted in the area to develop underground gas storage had been operated by Shell in the period 1970–1990 by exploit- been halted. The event, felt by the nearby population, led to ing its naturally contained heavy oil of 17◦ API (Seeman et a sequence build-up of felt events which reached a maximum al., 1990; Batchelor et al., 2007; Escal, 2014). of Ml 4.3 on 2 October. Natural seismicity in the area is very low (Instituto Ge- Here, we study the role of static stress transfer as an ológico y Minero de España, IGME, 2015a, b) despite the earthquake-triggering mechanism during the main phase of fact that several faulting structures had been described or in- the sequence, as expressed by the eight felt events.
    [Show full text]
  • Short-Term Foreshocks As Key Information for Mainshock Timing and Rupture: the Mw6.8 25 October 2018 Zakynthos Earthquake, Hellenic Subduction Zone
    sensors Article Short-Term Foreshocks as Key Information for Mainshock Timing and Rupture: The Mw6.8 25 October 2018 Zakynthos Earthquake, Hellenic Subduction Zone Gerassimos A. Papadopoulos 1,*, Apostolos Agalos 1 , George Minadakis 2,3, Ioanna Triantafyllou 4 and Pavlos Krassakis 5 1 International Society for the Prevention & Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 10681 Athens, Greece; [email protected] 2 Department of Bioinformatics, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, 6 International Airport Avenue, Nicosia 2370, P.O. Box 23462, Nicosia 1683, Cyprus; [email protected] 3 The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, 6 International Airport Avenue, Nicosia 2370, P.O. Box 23462, Nicosia 1683, Cyprus 4 Department of Geology & Geoenvironment, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece; [email protected] 5 Centre for Research and Technology, Hellas (CERTH), 52 Egialias Street, 15125 Athens, Greece; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 28 August 2020; Accepted: 30 September 2020; Published: 5 October 2020 Abstract: Significant seismicity anomalies preceded the 25 October 2018 mainshock (Mw = 6.8), NW Hellenic Arc: a transient intermediate-term (~2 yrs) swarm and a short-term (last 6 months) cluster with typical time-size-space foreshock patterns: activity increase, b-value drop, foreshocks move towards mainshock epicenter. The anomalies were identified with both a standard earthquake catalogue and a catalogue relocated with the Non-Linear Location (NLLoc) algorithm. Teleseismic P-waveforms inversion showed oblique-slip rupture with strike 10◦, dip 24◦, length ~70 km, faulting depth ~24 km, velocity 3.2 km/s, duration 18 s, slip 1.8 m within the asperity, seismic moment 26 2.0 10 dyne*cm.
    [Show full text]
  • Improved Detection and Coulomb Stress
    Improved detection and Coulomb stress computations for gas-related, shallow seismicity, in the Western Sea of Marmara Jean Baptiste Tary, Louis Geli, Anthony Lomax, Evangelia Batsi, Vincent Riboulot, Pierre Henry To cite this version: Jean Baptiste Tary, Louis Geli, Anthony Lomax, Evangelia Batsi, Vincent Riboulot, et al.. Im- proved detection and Coulomb stress computations for gas-related, shallow seismicity, in the West- ern Sea of Marmara. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Elsevier, 2019, 513, pp.113-123. 10.1016/j.epsl.2019.02.021. hal-02103394 HAL Id: hal-02103394 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02103394 Submitted on 18 Apr 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Preprint: Improved detection and Coulomb stress computations for gas-related, shallow seismicity, in the Western Sea of Marmara Jean Baptiste Tarya, Louis Geli´ b, Anthony Lomaxc, Evangelia Batsib, Vincent Riboulotb, Pierre Henryd aDepartamento de Geociencias, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogot´a,Colombia bInstitut Fran¸caisde Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Marine Geosciences Research Unit, BP 70, 29280 Plouzan´e,France cALomax Scientific, 320 Chemin des Indes, 06370, Mouans Sartoux, France dAix Marseille University, CNRS, IRD, INRA, Collge de France, CEREGE, Aix-en-Provence, France Abstract The Sea of Marmara (SoM) is a marine portion of the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) and a portion of this fault that did not break during its 20th century earthquake sequence.
    [Show full text]
  • Observations D'interactions Sismiques Et D'une Phase De Nucléation De Grands Séismes
    THÈSE Pour obtenir le grade de DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DE GRENOBLE Spécialité : Sciences de la Terre, de l'Univers et de l'Environnement Arrêté ministériel : 7 août 2006 Présentée par Virginie DURAND Thèse dirigée par Michel BOUCHON et David MARSAN et co-dirigée par Jean SCHMITTBUHL préparée au sein de l'Institut des Sciences de la Terre dans l'École Doctorale Terre Univers Environnement Observations d'interactions sismiques et d'une phase de nucléation de grands séismes Thèse soutenue publiquement le 1er février 2013 devant le jury composé de : Raùl MADARIAGA Professeur à l'ENS, Paris, Président Hélène LYON-CAEN Directeur de Recherche CNRS ENS, Paris, Rapporteur Pascal BERNARD Physicien IPG, Paris, Rapporteur Marie-Paule BOUIN Chargée de Recherche CNRS IPG, Paris, Examinatrice Michel Campillo Professeur à ISTerre Université de Grenoble, Grenoble, Examinateur Michel BOUCHON Directeur de Recherche CNRS ISTerre, Grenoble, Directeur de thèse David MARSAN Professeur à ISTerre Université de Savoie, Chambéry, Directeur de thèse Jean SCHMITTBUHL Directeur de Recherche CNRS EOST, Strasbourg, Co-Directeur de thèse Université Joseph Fourier / Université Pierre Mendès France / Université Stendhal / Université de Savoie / Grenoble INP We have to understand not only faults but also how they interact with one another. We have to understand not only the earth's crust but also how the brittle crust interacts with the more plasticky layers below. We have to understand not only individual earthquakes, but also how earthquakes interact with other earthquakes. (Hough (2010)) R´esum´e Dans cette th`ese, nous pr´esentons trois ´etudes concernant les interactions entre s´eismes et la phase de nucl´eation des forts tremblements de terre.
    [Show full text]