Wesnousky e-supplements

Electronic Supplement to
Displacement and Geometrical Characteristics of Earthquake Surface Ruptures: Issues and Implications for Seismic Hazard Analysis and the Process of Earthquake Rupture

by S. G. Wesnousky

The supplement is divided into four sections:

Section 1: Compilation of maps and earthquake slip distributions for earthquakes listed in Table 1 of the manuscript.

Section 2: Digitized slip distributions of earthquakes displayed in Section 1 and listed in Table 1.

Section 3: Curve fits to digitized slip distributions in same format as illustrated in Figure 9 of the manuscript.

Section 4: Notes and references for Table 1 and Table 2 of the manuscript.

A brief explanation is provided at the beginning of each section.

Section 1: Compilation of maps and earthquake slip distributions for earthquakes listed in Table 1.

The maps and slip distributions of the earthquakes listed in Table 1 of the manuscript are provided for download. Eachis annotated in the same manner as shown and described in the captions of Figure 1a and 1b of the manuscript. The distance scale and map scale are set to be the same in the respective plots. The sources of information are referenced in Table 1. Fault maps and slip distributions are presented by geologists in varying formats and styles and, as well, the resolution, type of measurement (e.g. scarp height or vertical separation or slip) and density of slip measurements vary between earthquakes. The characteristics of the individual maps and slip distributions will thus differ because I have attempted to preserve the original presentation when redrafting the data. In some cases I have not explained particular symbols used in the original manuscripts and it may be necessary to refer to the original papers for explanation of particular symbols used by the authors that originally drafted the maps and slip distributions. The intent is to allow the reader to quickly assess the relative detail of the original slip distributions and observe the particular assignments of discontinuity locations and sizes used in development of various plots in the manuscript. The reader interested in presentation of the slip distributions in a systematic and singular format should refer to plots of the digitized slip curves presented in Section 2. Sources of information are referenced in Table 1 which is repeated below in Section 4 for convenience.

(Download (~21Mb):2007111-Section01.pdf.gz

Section 2: Digitized surface slip distributions.

The digitization and plots of the digitization for each of the earthquake slip distributions are provided in the accompanying files. There are two files for each earthquake. The first contains plot(s) of the respective digitized slip distribution(s) and is in pdf format. The second contains the digitized data in text/ascii format. The data is comma-delimited and thus readily imported into various plotting or analysis software. The large open circles in the plots are the points digitized along the slip distribution curves. Values interpolated between those points are interpolated values. A given file may contain more than one slip distribution curve if for example the earthquake trace is composed of distinct segments. The user is advised to first look at the respective plot files to determine how many slip digitization curves are in the respective files. Generally, the digitized files contain four columns of data. The first two columns are generally the interpolated values of the slip distribution (distance along strike and offset) and the next two columns are the actual digitized values. Headers for each column are provided for clarity.

Event Date	Plot File Downloads	Digitized Slip Distribution Downloads
1857-01-09	(~140kb): 1857-01-09-plot.pdf.gz	(~8kb): 1857-01-09.txt.gz
1887-05-03	(~85kb): 1887-05-03-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1887-05-03.txt.gz
1891-10-28	(~300kb): 1891-10-28-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1891-10-28.txt.gz
1896-08-31	(~425kb): 1896-08-31-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1896-08-31.txt.gz
1915-10-02	(~610kb): 1915-10-02-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1915-10-02.txt.gz
1930-11-02	(~155kb): 1930-11-02-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1930-11-02.txt.gz
1939-12-25	(~20kb): 1939-12-25-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1939-12-25.txt.gz
1940-05-19	(~20kb): 1940-05-19-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1940-05-19.txt.gz
1942-12-20	(~16kb): 1942-12-20-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1942-12-20.txt.gz
1943-09-10	(~55kb): 1943-09-10-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1943-09-10.txt.gz
1943-11-26	(~85kb): 1943-11-26-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1943-11-26.txt.gz
1944-02-01	(~35kb): 1944-02-01-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1944-02-01.txt.gz
1945-01-31	(~16kb): 1945-01-31-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1945-01-31.txt.gz
1954-12-16 Dixie	(~44kb): 1954-12-16Dixie-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1954-12-16Dixie.txt.gz
1954-12-16 Fairview	(~170kb): 1954-12-16Fairview-Plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1954-12-16Fair.txt.gz
1959-08-17	(~30kb): 1959-08-17-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1959-08-17.txt.gz
1967-07-22	(~20kb): 1967-07-22-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1967-07-22.txt.gz
1968-04-08	(~20kb): 1968-04-1968-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1968-04-1968.txt.gz
1971-02-09	(~25kb): 1971-02-09-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1971-02-09.txt.gz
1979-06-02	(~20kb): 1979-06-02-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1979-06-02.txt.gz
1979-10-15	(~35kb): 1979-10-15-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1979-10-15.txt.gz
1980-10-10	(~20kb): 1980-10-10-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1980-10-10.txt.gz
1981-07-29	(~35kb): 1981-07-29-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1981-07-29.txt.gz
1983-10-28	(~60kb): 1983-10-28-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1983-10-28.txt.gz
1986-03-03	(~320kb): 1986-03-03-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1986-03-03.txt.gz
1987-11-23	(~80kb): 1987-11-23-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1987-11-23.txt.gz
1988-01-22	(~45kb): 1988-01-22-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1988-01-22.txt.gz
1989-03-02	(~30kb): 1989-03-02-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1989-03-02.txt.gz
1990-07-16	(~30kb): 1990-07-16-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1990-07-16.txt.gz
1992-06-22	(~130kb): 1992-06-22-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1992-06-22.txt.gz
1998-03-14	(~30kb): 1998-03-14-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1998-03-14.txt.gz
1999-08-17	(~24kb): 1999-08-17-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1999-08-17.txt.gz
1999-09-21	(~36kb): 1999-09-21-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1999-09-21.txt.gz
1999-10-16	(~40kb): 1999-10-16-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1999-10-16.txt.gz
1999-11-12	(~32kb): 1999-11-12-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 1999-11-12.txt.gz
2001-11-14	(~24kb): 2001-11-14-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 2001-11-14.txt.gz
2001-11-14klinger	(~24kb): 2001-11-14klinger06-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 2001-11-14klinger06.txt.gz
2002-11-03E	(~24kb): 2002-11-03E-plot.pdf.gz	(~8b): 2002-11-03E.txt.gz
2002-11-03H	(~725kb): 2002-11-03H-plots.pdf.gz	(~8b): 2002-11-03H.txt.gz

Section 3: Curve fits to digitized slip distributions.

Digitized surface slip distributions of earthquakes listed in Table 1 and curve-fits to those distributions are arranged in reverse chronological order in the accompanying file. The name and date of each earthquake are labeled on vertical axis of each plot. Type of curve-fit is labeled and discussed in main text and caption to Figure 9 of main text. Position of epicenter with respect to fault strike is labeled when available and indicated by downward pointing arrow. Integration of the digitized values of surface slip allows definition of a point where half the cumulative slip falls on either side. That value is defined for each slip distribution (value in circle) by the distance in km to nearest fault endpoint. Values in parentheses are distances in km of nearest fault endpoint of peak of the asymmetric sine and ellipse curves.

Download (7.4 Mb): 2007111-Section03.pdf.gz

back to supplement 2

Section 4: Notes and References for Tables 1 and 2

Links to copies of Tables 1 and 2 of the manuscript are given here for convenience. They are then followed by Notes for Table 1, Notes for Table 2, and a list of the references cited within the Notes.

Download (~100kb):2007111-Table1.pdf.gz

Download (~100kb): 2007111-Table2.pdf.gz

Notes for Table 1.

a.	Value in parentheses is that reported in text of original reference. Other is maximum of digitized slip curve as provided in original reference. Value of width taken from average depth of microseismicity along fault observed in Hill et al. (1990). Rigidity of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed. Digitized slip curve value used in plots and regressions. Epicenter assumed to be at northern end of trace based on Sieh (1978).
b.	Digitized slip curve taken from (3) and is scarp height and for this reason may overestimate actual displacement. Max Suter (pers. comm.) suggests the rupture is significantly longer but chose not to share his observations at this time. Moment calculated assuming 60° dip. Rigidity and fault depth assumed same as used for 1954 Fairview Peak earthquake.
c.	Moment calculated from vector sum of left-lateral and vertical slip measurements. Fault depth assumed same as average base (15 km) of seismogenic layer (e.g., Wesnousky et al., 1982). Rigidity assumed same as used for 1943 Tottori earthquake. Epicenter taken from Research Group for Active Faults (1991).
d.	Total length measured along average strike from ends of Obanai and Senya fault segments . Vertical component of slip provided in original surface slip distribution. Values in brackets are corrected for dip and used when calculating moment and making plots and regressions. Individual segment values are original values from slip distribution and not corrected for dip. Values of maximum and average slip for entire trace are obtained after summing slip of main and conjugate traces. Dip of Senya fault is 45-70° from field observation (Matsuda et al., 1980). Thatcher et al. (1980) use rigidity of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 in geodetic analysis of event. Fault depth assumed same as average base (15 km) of seismogenic layer (e.g. Takagi et al., 1977; Wesnousky et al., 1982). Epicenter taken from Research Group for Active Faults (1991).
e.	Fault dip ‘well-defined’ at 44°±8° (Doser, 1988). Vertical component of slip provided in original surface slip distribution. Values in brackets are corrected for dip and used when calculating moment. Individual segment values are original values from slip distribution and not corrected for dip. Values of fault width assumed same as used for 1954 Fairview Peak earthquake. Value of rigidity is back calculated from parameters of moment, fault width, and displacement given to the event by (Doser, 1988).
f.	Slip distribution curve is modified by author to more closely approximate distribution of measurements. Original curve of Matsuda (1972) appears to consistently be greater than maximum values of measurement. Only horizontal values of slip used here because they are dominant and vertical components alternate along fault strike and likely reflect in large part the horizontal displacement. Epicenter for event is that reported by Nakata et al. (1998). Fault depth (12 km) is depth of aftershock distribution for nearby 1974 Izu-Oki earthquake and also same as elastic model that gives best fit to displacements measured with triangulation data in 1930 (Abe, 1978). Rigidity value assumed similar to that used in geodetic moment determination of Abe (1978). Epicenter taken from Research Group for Active Faults (1991).
g.	Fault depth 12.5 and shear modulus (3.2) are those used by Stein et al. (1997) in modeling of stress transfer along Anatolian fault. Source cites McKenzie (1972) for focal mechanism and presumably epicenter, and incorporates measurements of Pamir and Ketin (1941) and Kocyigit (1989; 1990) into his slip distribution curve. Epicenter taken from Barka (1996) who cites Dewey (1976).
h.	Rigidity and fault depth values are assumed same as used for 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. Best-fitting geodetic analysis confines slip to upper 13 km of crust (Reilinger, 1984; Doser and Kanamori, 1987). Subdivision of segments ‘north’ and ‘south’ reflects measures to north and south of All American Canal, respectively, where there is abrupt change in displacement values in apparent absence of any structural discontinuity along fault trace. Epicenter taken from maps of Trifunac (1972) and also Anderson and Bodin (1987).
i.	Fault depth 12.5 and shear modulus (3.2) are those used by Stein et al. (1997) in modeling of stress transfer along Anatolian fault. Slip distribution also incorporates measurements of (Pamir and Aykol, 1943). Epicenter is taken from [Stein et al. (1997). Uncertainty in epicenter location is comparable to rupture length (Dewey, 1976).
j.	Fault depth 12.5 and shear modulus (3.2) are those used by Stein et al. (1997) in modeling of stress transfer along Anatolian fault. Slip distribution also incorporates measurements of (Blumenthal, 1945a; Blumenthal, 1945b; Ketin, 1969; Ando, 1974b; Ozturk, 1980). Epicenter is taken from [Stein et al. (1997) and he cites relocated ISC earthquakes by Engdahl et al (1998).
k.	Mean and max slip values are taken from vector sum of displacement components along trace. Slip distribution plot shows interpolated values used by author (thick dashed lines) and those originally interpreted (thin dashed lines) by source. Rigidity assumed on basis of Kanamori’s (1973) seismological analysis (see Table 2). Fault depth assumed same as average base (15km) of seismogenic layer (e.g., Wesnousky et al., 1982).
l.	Fault depth 12.5 and shear modulus (3.2) are those used by Stein et al. (1997) in modeling of stress transfer along Anatolian fault. Slip distribution includes new measures of slip and compilations of older observations (Tasman, 1944; Ketin, 1948; Allen, 1969; Ketin, 1969; Ambraseys, 1970). Epicenter is taken from [Stein et al. (1997) and he cites relocated ISC earthquakes by Engdahl et al. (1998).
m.	Fault dip (30°) and depth (8km) are from seismological analysis of Kikuchi et al. (2003). Value of rigidity assumed to same as used in that same analysis (see Table 2). Assumption is made that lateral values of slip are apparent. Calculations include only measures of vertical slip.
n.	Moment value is sum of all segments (SMo). Average displacement calculated as SMo/(3x10^11dyne/cm^2)(15km/sin(60))(62km). Fault depth (15km) and dip (60°) based on long-period body-wave analysis of Doser (1986). Geodetic fault models of Hodgkinson et al. (1996) suggest most slip occurred at depths shallower than 8 km. Value of rigidity taken to be same as used by Hodgkinson et al. (1996). Epicenter taken from Doser (1986).
s.	Slip distribution constructed by author from original measurements of displacement on Plate 2 of Witkind (1964). Range of epicenter estimates shown by oval in slip distribution plot encompasses estimates of Doser (1985) and Ryall (1962). Average value of rigidity is that used by Barrientos et al. (1987) in their geodetic analysis of event. Depth extent of faulting (15 km) in concert with focal depth determination and geodetic modeling of source (Doser, 1985; Barrientos et al., 1987). Average dip (50°) assumed based on long-period body wave analysis of Doser (1985). Epicenter reflects range of values from Doser and Smith (1985) and Ryall (1962).
t.	Original slip distribution gives measures of vertical separation. Values in square brackets are corrected for fault dip (sum of vertical separations / sin(60°). Geologic moment calculated assuming 60° dipping fault and reflect vector sum of displacements on all traces. Fault depth assumed to be 12 km based on hypocentral depth calculation of Doser (1986). The lesser value as compared to the Fairview Peak earthquake is consistent with geodetic modeling of Hodgkinson et al. (1996) that suggests slip was confined to shallower depths than Fairview Peak. Value of rigidity taken to be same as used by Hodgkinson et al. (1996). Epicenter assumed to be at south end of rupture and triggered by 1954 Fairview Peak but in reality simply assumed.
u.	Length and moment calculation for main fault trace between about Kanlicay and Guney. The single reported measure near Sapanca is not included. Epicenter adapted from Stein et al. (1997). Value of rigidity is derived from average velocity-density crustal model used by Pinar et al (1996) to compute Green’s functions. Analysis of teleseismic body waves place most moment release at 10 km. Depth extend assumed 12 km on that basis. Epicenter is taken from Stein et al. (1997) and he cites relocated ISC earthquakes by Engdahl et al. (1998).
v.	Central and south strands recorded afterslip. Values in this table also reflect measurements in April and June after earthquake. Depth extent of aftershocks limited to 12 km (Hamilton, 1972). Value of rigidity assumed similar to that used at source depth in analyses determining seismic moment (see Table 2). Epicenter taken from Allen and Nordquist (1972).
w.	Aftershocks and geodetic models indicate slip limited to upper 13 km of crust (Reilinger, 1984; Doser and Kanamori, 1986). Rigidity of 2.53x10^11dyne/cm^2 based on velocity density model of Hartzell and Heaton (1983). See notes for Table 2. Range of surface displacement values is for measurements taken 4 days and 160 days after event. Values for 160 days used in plots.
x.	Net surface displacements taken from Table 3 of source. Dip and depth taken from teleseismic body-wave inversion of Fredrich et al. (1988). Depth is twice centroid depth. Rigidity is derived from velocity-density structure at source used by Fredrich et al. (1988).
y.	Original slip distribution gives measures of throw (vertical). Values given reflect vertical throw, except for those in square brackets which are corrected for dip. Fault dip and depth are from Doser and Smith (1985) and Richins et al. (1987). Value of rigidity is average of values that have been used in calculating seismic moment from waveforms (see Table 2). Note segments in digitized slip curve are separated by decay in displacement to 0 and discontinuities and bends in fault strike. Segments 1 and 2 show distinct patches of relatively increased slip with long ‘tails’ of lesser slip. Values in parenthesis are those for the ‘slip patch’ and ‘tails’. 1983 Borah Peak epicenter from Richins et al. (1987).
z.	Original slip distribution gives measures of throw (vertical). Values in square brackets are corrected for fault dip. Dip and depth of fault plane taken to equal 35° and 3 km, respectively, based on centroid moment determination of Fredrich et al. (1988). Rigidity assumed on basis of velocity-density structure at source given by Fredrich et al. (1988). Length of slip distribution curve measured along curved trace. Separate values are for smoothed (s) and unsmoothed slip distribution curves. Unsmoothed is used in plots. Epicenter from Fredrich et al. (1988) and/or Machette et al. (1993)
aa.	Results provided for slip after 1 day and final displacement predicted to power-law fit to observed decay of after-slip with time. Aftershocks limited to upper 12 km of crust (Magistrale et al., 1989). Rigidity computed from velocity-density structure used by Frankel and Wennerberg (1989). Plots use final displacement value. Epicenter taken from Sharp et al. (1989).
ab.	Dip and depth of faulting from aftershock and waveform analysis of Choy and Bowman (1990). Rigidity (3.3) is value used in that same analysis (George Choy, USGS, pers. comm.). Vertical component of slip provided in original surface slip distribution. Values in brackets are corrected for dip and used when calculating moment. Individual segment values are original values from slip distribution and not corrected for dip. Epicenter taken from Choy and Bowman (1990).
ac.	Source provides a cumulative slip distribution which is sum of contributions of individual strands composing rupture. Assessment of characteristics of individual traces required differencing the contributions of individual traces. Aftershock distribution extends to 15km depth (Sieh et al., 1993). Rigidity assumed same as generally used in seismological analyses of event. Epicenter taken from Sieh et al. (1993).
ad.	Displacement values are the vector sum of the original slip distributions which provide vertical and lateral components of slip separately. Values in brackets take into account fault dip. Geologic moment calculated assuming fault dips at 70°. Aftershocks mostly confined to upper 20 km of crust (Lin, 2001). Rigidity reflects average of velocity-density structures used in seismological analyses of event (see Table 2). Epicenter taken from Lin et al. (2002).
ae.	Fault depth 12.5 and shear modulus (3.2) are those used by Stein et al. (1997) in modeling of stress transfer along Anatolian fault. Length of slip and, hence, geologic estimate of Mo is minimum because trace is submerged beneath Marmara sea at west end. Total length is probably about 145 km. Similarly, characteristics of Golcuk and Herzek sections of the fault are incomplete and not considered separately. Depth of aftershocks generally limited to upper 15 km of crust (Ergin et al., 1999). Epicenter taken from Akyuz et al. (2002) but note fault extends offshore which is not reflected in surface distribution plot.
af.	Displacement values are vector sum of vertical and horizontal slip. Values of rigidity and fault depth kept same as used for events on eastern Anatolian fault. Thus, fault depth 12.5 and rigidity (3.2) are those used by Stein et al. (1997) in modeling of stress transfer along Anatolian fault, although aftershocks of the earthquake were generally limited to above 17 km (Milkereit et al., 1999; Umutlu et al., 2004). Epicenter taken from Akyuz et al. (2002).
ag.	Fault dip from teleseismic analysis (Berberian et al., 2001) and fault depth is twice the centroid moment depth and equal to depth of found with INSAR modeling of source by same authors. Original slip distribution gives values of vertical and lateral components of slip separately. Value of slip is for total fault slip including effect of dip (sqrt((vertical/sin(54))2+(strike slip)2).
ah.	Fault width of 10 km assumed based on range of aftershock depths reported by (Eberhart-Phillips et al., 2003). Rigidity (3.2) assumed between that used by Ozacar and Beck (2004) and Frankel (2004)(see Table 2).
ai.	Original slip distribution provides measures of vertical separation and horizontal slip separately. Slip values are vector sums of two components and that in brackets is corrected for fault dip (e.g. slip/sin(dip)). Values of dip (69°) on basis of teleseismic analysis by Berberian et al. (2001). Fault depth of 15 km assumed. Centroid moment solution depths reported by Berberian et al. (2001) are 15 to 18 km but he notes ‘depths are not well resolved’. Same authors note surface slip appears small for length of fault and suggest most slip concentrated at depth.
aj.	Mechanism and slip calculated same as for 1998 Fandoqa earthquake. Each occurred on same fault. Exception to this is that dip and fault depth assumed to be 15km based on body-wave analysis of Berberian (2001)(see Table 2).
ak.	Values reflect vector sum of vertical and horizontal slip. Fault width of 10 km assumed based on range of aftershock depths reported by Eberhart-Phillips et al. (2003). al. Ozacar and Beck (2004) note regional seismicity limited to about 15 km depth. Rigidity (3.2) assumed between that used by Ozacar and Beck (2004) and Frankel (2004)(see Table 2). Epicenter taken from Haeussler et al (2005).
al.	Digitized slip distribution is that of Xu et al. (2002) modified in central portion where reexamined by Klinger et al. (2005). Fault trace is taken from Klinger et al. (2005). Depth of rupture assumed to be same as depth of background seismicity (15) as stated by Ozacar and Beck (2004). Rigidity (3) is that used by Ozacar and Beck (2004) (Arda Ozacar, Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Arizona, pers. comm.). Epicenter taken from Klinger et al. (2006).
am.	Width based on depth extent of aftershocks (Shibutani, 1991; Yoshida and Abe, 1992) and value of rigidity of 3.5 follows assumption of (Velasco et al., 1996). Epicenter taken from map of Nakata (1990). Epicenter taken from Klinger et al. (2006).
an.	Depth of aftershocks extends to and is limited to above 15 km (Hauksson et al., 2002). Rigidity value is approximate average value from zero to 15 km (Jones and Helmberger, 1998; see figure 10 in Simons et al., 2002). Two values of average and max offset are given. First includes only offsets on main trace. Second also includes contribution from secondary traces. Differences do not change estimates of geologic moment or potency at level of significance listed in table. Epicenter as reported in Treiman et al. (2002).
ao.	Slip distribution describes vertical component of displacement. Range of dip values reported for fault range from 55°-71°. Values of offset in brackets are corrected for dip (offset/sin(60°)). Moment is calculated with corrected values of slip. Depth of aftershocks is limited to upper 10 km (Robinson, 1989). Rigidity of 2.6x10^11dyne/cm^2 is computed from average velocity-density structure (Ozacar and Beck, 2004)in upper 15 km of crust (see Table 1 of Anderson and Webb, 1989).
ap.	Slip distribution is for total slip. Dip of 45° assumed on basis of waveform and focal mechanism analysis. Rigidity of 3.4x10^11dyne/cm^2 is average of values explicitly stated in Table 2. Depth extent of faulting assumed from depth of aftershocks and bodywave form analyses cited.
aq.	Slip profile is for vertical component. Aftershock analyses indicate depth of seismicity reaches 12 km. Focal mechanism and waveform modeling indicate average dip of 50°, leading to ~15 km fault plane width. Only displacement from fault offset at surface considered, not folding component. Epicenter taken from Yielding et al (1981).
ar.	Slip profile from computer analysis of SPOT imagery (Klinger et al., 2006). Fault trace is taken from Klinger et al. (2005). Depth of rupture assumed to be same as depth of background seismicity (15) as stated by Ozacar and Beck (2004). Rigidity (3) is that used by Ozacar and Beck, 2004](2004) (Arda Ozacar, Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Arizona, pers. comm.)

Notes for Table 2

be.	Rigidity not cited in original text of source. Value used was 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 (Diane Doser, University of Texas, El Paso, pers. comm).
bh.	Rigidity for moment estimates (2.3 and 4.8) not cited in original texts of sources (Doser and Kanamori, 1987; Doser, 1990). Value used was 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 (Diane Doser, University of Texas, El Paso, pers. comm.]. The value of rigidity used in Thatcher and Hanks’ (1973) estimate of body-wave moment (3.0) is incorporated into expression for shear displacement spectra but not explicitly stated in text. Value of 3.0 for rigidity is assumed. Trifunac and Brune’s (1970) do not state the value of rigidity used in estimate of body-wave moment (4.4). They used value of rigidity = 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 when using geologic data to compute moment. Assumed here that same value was used in their estimate of seismic moment. The geodetic moment (8.4) arises from Doser and Kanamori’s (1987) interpretation of Reilinger’s (1984) geodetic model. The interpretation does not state value of rigidity used. Value of 3.3 is assumed here.
bk.	Value of rigidity used in estimate of body-wave moment (3.6) not explicitly stated. Value of rigidity 3.35x10^11 dyn/cm^2 is back calculated from Kanamori’s (1973) statement of source dimensions and moment estimate (m=Mo/LWD).
bm.	Value of rigidity not explicitly stated in text of Kikuchi et al. (2003). It is inferred to equal 3.0x10^11 dyn//cm^2 from their statement of source dimensions (20km x 15km), average coseismic slip (1.1m), and moment (1.0). Ando (1974a) uses rigidity 3.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2 to calculate seismic moment (0.87) from geodetic model. Kakehi and Iwata (1992) report seismic moment (1.0), source dimensions (12km x 11km), and average slip (3m) from which it is calculated here that they used average rigidity of 2.5 x 10^11 dyn/cm^2.
br.	Rigidity for moment estimate (5.5) not cited in original text of source (Doser, 1985). Value used was 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 (Diane Doser, University of Texas, El Paso, pers. comm.]. Hodgkinson et al. (1996) use a value of rigidity 3.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2 too calculate geodetic moment from model fault parameters.
bs.	Rigidity for moment estimates (10 and 13) not cited in original texts of sources (Doser, 1985; Doser and Kanamori, 1987). Values used were 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 (Diane Doser, University of Texas, El Paso, pers. comm.]. Barrientos et al. (1987) explicitly state rigidity of 3.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2 used in calculation of geodetic moment.
bt.	Value of rigidity used in calculation of body wave moment (1.0) by Doser (1986) not provided. Assumed here to be 3.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2. Hodgkinson et al. (1996) use a value of rigidity 3.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2 too calculate geodetic moment from model fault parameters.
bu.	Hanks and Wyss (1972) do not state value of rigidity used in moment (8.8) calculation but assume 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 when computing moment from field data. Assumed here same value used in estimate of seismic moment. Value or rigidity (2.4) calculated from velocity-density structure used by Pinar et al., (1996) to calculate body-wave moment (11). The body-wave moment (15) of Stewart and Kanamori (1982) is not accompanied by information bearing on value of rigidity used. Here assumed to equal 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2.
bv.	Hanks and Wyss (1972) do not state value of rigidity used in moment (0.9): 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed for this analysis. Burdick and Mellman (1976) report use of rigidity 3.4x10^11 dyn/cm^2 in estimate of body wave moment (1.1). Butler (1983) provides no estimate of velocity-density structure or rigidity used in estimate of surface wave moment (1.1): 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed for this analysis. Ebel and Helmberger’s (1982) body wave moment (0.7) accompanied by velocity-density structure at source from which rigidity calculated to equal 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2. Swanger et al. (1978) do not cite value of rigidity used in body wave moment (1.2) but provide velocity-density at assumed 8 km source depth from which rigidity of 3.8x10^11 dyn/cm^2 listed here is calculated. Vidale et al.(1985) give velocity-density structure at source depth from which rigidity 3.8x10^11 dyn/cm^2 listed here is derived.
bw.	Hartzell and Helmberger (1982) state rigidity is 2.5x10^11 dyn/cm^2 when extracting displacement from moment estimate (0.5). Hartzell and Heaton’s (1983) do not state rigidity explicitly in calculation of moment (0.5) but displacements of their model are distributed primarily between 5 and 11 km depth where shear velocity (3.07 km/s) and density (2.67 g/cc) model: rigidity derived from velocity model assumed 2.5x10^11 dyn/cm^2. The surface wave moment (0.7) of Kanamori and Reagan (1982) is computed assuming point source at 9.75 km and velocity-density model 5.08M reported in Kanamori (1970), implying rigidity 3.9 x10^11 dyn/cm^2 used for source excitation functions (but when estimating slip from moment – they assume rigidity of 3.0 x10^11 dyn/cm^2).
bx.	Fredrich et al., (1988) provide velocity- density structure at source used to compute seismic moment (15): 3.2 x10^11 dyn/cm^2.
by.	Rigidity used to calculate body wave moment (2.1) not cited in original text of source. Value used was 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 (Diane Doser, University of Texas, El Paso, pers. comm). Mendoza and Hartzell (1988) provide velocity-density structure used to calculate synthetics and moment (2.3): average rigidity in source region of maximum slip is 2.5x10^11 dyn/cm^2. Ward and Barrientos (1986) calculation of moment (2.6) accompanied by use of rigidity of 3.2 x10^11 dyn/cm^2 when calculating average fault slip yielding best fit of geodetic model deformation to that observed. Inferred that Barrientos et al. (1987) calculate moment (2.9) using rigidity of 3.2 x10^11 dyn/cm^2 : they calculate average fault slip from geodetic moment using this value. Assumed rigidity used in Tanimoto and Kanamori ‘s (1986) surface wave moment (3.5) was 3 x10^11 dyn/cm^2.
bz.	Fredrich et al. (1988) provide velocity-density structure at source used to compute seismic moment (.06), from which rigidity is estimated here.
baa.	Wald et al. (1990) do not state rigidity explicitly in calculation of seismic moment (0.5). They use average value of rigidity rigidity 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 when deriving estimate of stress drop from seismic moment. The centroid moment tensor solution of Hwang et al. (1990) (0.8) gives depth of event at 4-6 km. Velocity (Vs=2.6 km/s) – density (2.6 g/cm3) structure which equates to rigidity 1.8x10^11 dyn/cm^2. Velocity-density structure used by Frankel and Wennerberg (1989) to calculate moment (0.2) implies rigidity of 2.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2. Value of rigidity 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed for Sipkin’s (1989) estimate of moment (1.0): no explicit statement of rigidity or velocity-density structure. Rigidity of 2.8x10^11 dyn/cm^2 used in estimate of moment (0.9) by Larsen et al. (1992). The depth (15km) and velocity-density model of PREM used in centroid solution of Dziewonki et al. (1989)indicates rigidity 4.4x10^11 dyn/cm^2 used in estimate of moment (0.7). Note depth is at boundary of upper and lower crust and method assumes velocity-density structure of lower when final location is at boundary (Goran Ekstrom, Harvard University, personal comm. 2005).
bai.	Anderson and Webb (1989) best estimate of moment (0.4) is for source depth at 8±3 km. Average rigidity at this depth based on velocity-density structure they use is 3.5x10^11 dyn/cm^2. Rigidity values of Priestly’s (1987) seismic moment estimates from body (0.6) and surface waves (0.9) appear to use average velocity (Vs = 3.6 km/s) and density (2.8 g/ cm3) at source equivalent to rigidity of 3.6x10^11 dyn/cm^2.
bab.	Rigidity of 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 used in Choy and Bowman’s (1990) estimate of seismic moment (George Choy, USGS, Menlo Park, personal comm., 2005). Value of moment is sum of 3 distinct subevents. Value of Harvard moment tensor catalog is also sum of 3 subevents over span of 12 hours.
baj.	Rigidity used in calculation of synthetics and surface wave moment (39) of Yoshida and Abe (1992) is 7.3x10^11 dyn/cm^2: derived from shear wave velocity (4.7 km/s) – density (3.3 g/cc) at source depth of 30 km (Yasuhiro Yoshida, Meteorological Research Institute, Japan, personal comm., 2005). Rigidity used in calculation of synthetics and body wave moment (36) of Yoshida and Abe (1992) is 4.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2: derived from shear wave velocity (3.74 km/s) – density (2.87 g/cc) at at depth of source (Yasuhiro Yoshida, Meteorological Research Institute, Japan, personal comm., 2005). Velasco et al. (1996) use numerous velocity models to find best fitting centroid moment (42) depth between 15 and 45 km: Rigidity at these depths in PREM is 4.4x10^11 dyne/cm^2.
bac.	Cohee and Beroza (1994) do not provide or recall exact estimate of rigidity (velocity-density structure) used in estimating body wave moment (7) (Greg Beroza, Stanford University, personal comm., 2005): Value of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed. Dreger (1994) do not provide velocity-density structure nor explicitly state value of rigidity used in estimate of moment (8): Value of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed. Geodetic moment (9) of Freymueller (1994) not accompanied by explicit notation of value of rigidity used in model. He generally uses 3.0x10^11 dyn/cm^2 (Jeff Freymueller, University of Alaska, personal comm., 2005), which is used here. Johnson et al (1994) do not explicitly state value of rigidity in their use of geodetic data to estimate moment (10): Value of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed. Wald and Heaton (1994) do not provide information bearing on value of rigidity used in body-wave analysis of moment (7.5): Value of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 assumed.
bad.	Zeng and Chen (2001) use average rigidity of 2.1x10^11 dyn/cm^2 in their estimate of seismic moment (29) (Yuehua Zeng, USGS, Golden, Co, personal comm.). Average value of rigidity of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 is estimated here from velocity structure used by Wu et al (2001) in their joint inversion of GPS and strong-ground motion observations to calculate moment (27): they do not explicitly state average value displacement or rigidity. Average value of rigidity of 3x10^11 dyn/cm^2 is estimated here from velocity structure used by Chi et al. (2001) to determine moment (41): they do not explicitly state average value displacement or rigidity.
bae.	Delouis et al. (2002) use rigidity 3.3x10^11 dyn/ cm^2 in calculating synthetics for inversion for moment (24). Rigidity of 3.5x10^11 indicated for Sekiguchi and Iwata’s (2002) estimate of seismic moment (1.5) is derived from velocity-density structure at depth of 10 km. Rigidity for Li et al. (2002) moment (22) estimate is that for their velocity-density model structure at 5 to 15km depth. Feigl et al (2002) explicity state rigidity 3.3x10^11 dyn/cm used in seismic moment (18) calculation. Wright et al (2001) use rigidity 3.4x10^11 dyn/cm^2 in calculation of moment (26).
baf.	Burgmann et al (2002) use rigidity 3.4x10^11 dyn/cm^2 in estimating moment (5.4). Body-wave analysis of Umutlu, et al. (2004) does not state value of rigidity used in moment calculation (5.0) nor estimate of fault slip.
bag.	Berberian et al. (2001) use Vs=3.7 km/s in body-wave analsysis and estimate of seismic moment (0.91). Assume density of 2.6g/ cm3 yields value of 3.3x10^11 dyne/cm^2 listed. Harvard moment (0.95) is constrained at 15km, a layer boundary in PREM model. Assume here rigidity of lower layer (Goran Ekstron, personal communication). Moment (1.2) derived by Berberian et al by SAR assumes 3.4exp11 dyn/cm^2 for rigidity and is average of two solutions for differing boundary conditions.
bah.	Berberian et al. (2001) use Vs=3.7 km/s. Assume density of 2.6g/cc yields value of 3.3x10^11 dyne/cm^2 assumed here. Harvard moment (0.95) centroid is 15 km, a layer boundary in PREM model. Assume here rigidity (4.4x10^11 dyn/cm^2. of lower layer (Goran Ekstrom, personal communication).
bai.	Moment (71) estimated from INSAR by Lasserre et al. (2005) does not state value of rigidity used in analysis. Value of 3.3x10^11 dyn/ cm^2 assumed. Rigidity of 3 used by Ozacar and Beck (2004) in calculation of seismic moments (46) (Arda Ozacar, Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Arizona, pers. comm.). Rigidity of 4.4 x10^11 dyne/cm^2 based on PREM and centroid depth for Harvard moment-tensor estimate (59). Rigidity of 3.0x10^11 dyn/ cm^2 used by Antolik, et al. (2004) when estimating length parameters from estimated value of seismic moment (50).
baj.	Rigidity of 3.3x10^11 dyne/cm^2 derived from velocity model at average source depth of 6 km for Mo (68) estimate of Frankel (2004). Choy and Boatwright (2004) do not state value of rigidity used in calculation of seismic moments (38 and 49) . . Rigidity of 3 used by Ozacar and Beck (2004) in calculation of seismic moment (56) (Arda Ozacar, Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Arizona, pers. comm.). Rigidity of 2.6 x10^11 dyne/cm^2 based on PREM and centroid depth for Harvard moment-tensor estimate (75).
bak.	Rigidity of 3.3x10^11 dyne/cm^2 is that assumed by Abe (1978) when estimating moment (2.7) from geodetic data.
bal.	Moment estimate (6.2) of Ji et al. (2002) does not state nor provide velocity-density structure from which averge rigidity may be calculated. The same is true for the moment estimates (6.8 and 5.9) of Kaverina et al. (2002) and Jonsson et al (2002). Rigidity value (3.0) used by Simons et al. (2002) when estimating moment (7.0) is average of rigidity structure in upper 15 km of crust (Jones and Helmberger, 1998; see figure 10 in Simons et al., 2002).
bam.	Moment estimates of Wyss (1971) for surface (1.9) and body (1.3) wave moments not accompanied by statement of value of rigidity used. Velocity-density model used by Langston (1978) to calculte Mo (1.9) equivalent to rigidity of 3.5x10^11 dyne/cm^2. Velocity-density model used by Langston (1978) to calculate Mo (1.7) equivalent to rigidity of 3.3x10^11 dyne/cm^2. Dip or 45° taken from analysis of Heaton (1982). Seismicity (Allen et al., 1971) extends to depth of about 15 km.
ban.	Rigidity of 3.0x10^11 dyne/cm^2 assumed by Yielding et al. (1981) in estimating moment (2.5).

References Cited

Abe, K. (1978). Dislocations, source dimensions and stresses associated with earthquakes in the Izu Peninusula, Japan. Journal of Physics of the Earth, 26, 253-274.
Akyuz, H.S., Hartleb, R., Barka, A., Altunel, E., Sunal, G., Meyer, B. and Armijo, R. (2002). Surface rupture and slip distribution of the 12 November 1999 Duzce Earthquake (M 7.1), North Anatolian Fault, Bolu, Turkey. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 92(1), 61-66.
Allen, C.R. (1969). Active faulting in northern Turkey. Contr. No. 1577, Div. Geol. Sci. Calif Inst. Tech., 32 pp.
Allen, C.R., Engen, G.R., Hanks, T.C., Nordquist, J.M. and Thatcher, W.R. (1971). Main shock and larger aftershocks of the San Fernando earthquake, February 9 through March 1, 1971, The San Fernando, California, earthquake of February 9, 1971. U. S. Professional Paper 733, Washington, pp. 17-20.
Allen, C.R. and Nordquist, J.M. (1972). Foreshock, mainshock, and larger aftershocks of the Borrego mountain earthquake, The Borrego mountain earthquake of April 9, 1968: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Ambraseys, N.N. (1970). Some characteristic features of the North Anatolian fault zone. Tectonophysics, 9, 143-165.
Anderson, H. and Webb, T. (1989). The rupture process of the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 32, 43-52.
Anderson, J.G. and Bodin, P. (1987). Earthquake recurrence models and historical seismicity in the Mexicali-Imperial valley. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77, 562-578.
Ando, M. (1974a). Faulting in the Mikawa earthquake of 1945. Tectonophysics, 22, 173-186.
Ando, M. (1974b). Faulting in the Mikawa Earthquake of 1945 (in accompaniment with Japanese reprint provided by A. Okada with slip measurements but I have lost translation of Journal name). Tectonophysics, 22, 173-186.
Antolik, M., Abercrombie, R.E. and Ekstrom, G. (2004). The 14 November 2001 Kokoxili (Kunlunshan), Tibet, earthquake: Rupture transfer through a large extensional step-over. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(4), 1173-1194.
Barka, A. (1996). Slip distribution along the North Anatolian fault associated with the large earthquakes of the period 1939 to 1967. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 86, 1238-1254.
Barrientos, S.E., Stein, R.S. and Ward, S.N. (1987). Comparison of the 1959 Hebgen Lake, Montana and the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquakes from geodetic observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77, 784-808.
Berberian, M., Jackson, J.A., Fielding, E.J., Parsons, B.E., Priestly, K.F., Qorashi, M., Talebian, M., Walker, R., Wright, T.J. and Baker, C. (2001). The 1998 March 14 Fandoqa earthquake (Mw 6.6) in Kerman province, southeast Iran: re-rupture of the 1981 Sirch earthquake fault, triggering of slip on adjacent thrusts and the active tectonics of the Gowk fault zone. Geophy. J. Int., 146, 371-398.
Blumenthal, M. (1945a). Ladik deprem atti. Bull. Mineral Res. Explor. Ints. Turkey, 1/33, 153-174.
Blumenthal, M. (1945b). Die Kelkit dislocation und ihre tectonische rolle. Bull. Mineral Res. Explor. Ints. Turkey, 2/34, 372-386.
Burdick, L. and Mellman, G.R. (1976). Inversion of the body waves from the Borrego Mountain earthquake to source mechanism. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66, 1485-1499.
Burgmann, R., Ayhan, M.E., Fielding, E.J., Wright, T.J., McClusky, S., Aktug, B., Demir, C., Lenk, O. and Turkezer, A. (2002). Deformation during the 12 November 1999 Duzce, Turkey, earthquake, from GPS and InSAR data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 161-171.
Butler, R. (1983). Surface wave analysis of the 9 April 1968 Borrego mountain earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73, 879-883.
Chi, W.C., Dreger, D. and Kaverina, A. (2001). Finite-source modeling of the 1999 Taiwan (Chi-Chi) earthquake derived from a dense strong-motion network. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91, 1144-1157.
Choy, G.L. and Boatwright, J. (2004). Radiated energy and the rupture process of the Denali fault earthquake sequence of 2002 from broadband teleseismic body waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6B), S269-S277.
Choy, G.L. and Bowman, J.R. (1990). Rupture process of a multiple main shock sequence; analysis of teleseismic, local, and field observations of the Tennant Creek, Australia, earthquakes of Jan 22, 1988. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95, 6867-6882.
Cohee, B.P. and Beroza, G.C. (1994). Slip distribution of the 1992 Landers earthquake and its implications for earthquake source mechanics. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 692-712.
Delouis, B., Giardini, D., Lundgren, P. and Salichon, J. (2002). Joint inversion of InSAR, GPS, Teleseismic, and Strong-motion data for the spatial and temporal distribution of earthquake slip: application to the 1999 Izmit mainshock. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 278-299.
Dewey, J.W. (1976). Seismicity of northern Anatolia. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 66, 843-868.
Doser, D.I. (1985). Source parameters and faulting processes of the 1959 Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake sequence. Journal of Geophysical Research, 90, 4537-4555.
Doser, D.I. (1986). Earthquake processes in the Rainbow Mountain-Fairview Peak-Dixie Valley, Nevada, region 1954-1959. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91, 12572-12586.
Doser, D.I. (1988). Source parameters of earthquakes in the Nevada seismic zone, 1915-1943. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, 15001-15015.
Doser, D.I. (1990). Source characteristics of earthquakes along the southern San Jacinto and Imperial fault zones (1937 to 1954). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 80, 1099-1117.
Doser, D.I. and Kanamori, H. (1986). Depth of seismicity in the Imperial Valley region (1977-1983) and its relationship to heat flow, crustal structure, and the October 15, 1979, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91(B1), 675-688.
Doser, D.I. and Kanamori, H. (1987). Long period surface waves of four western United States earthquakes recorded by the Pasadena strainmeter. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77, 236-243.
Doser, D.I. and Smith, R.B. (1985). Source parameters of the 28 October 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake from body wave analysis. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75, 1041-1051.
Dreger, D. (1994). Investigation of the rupture process of the 28 June 1992 Landers earthquake utilizing TERRAscope. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 713-724.
Dziewonki, A.M., Ekstrom, G., woodhouse, J.H. and Zwart, G. (1989). Centroid-moment tensor solutions for October-December 1987. Physics of Earth and Planetary Interiors, 54, 10-21.
Ebel, J.E. and Helmberger, D.V. (1982). P-wave complexity and fault asperities: the Borrego Mountain, California, earhquake of 1968. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 72, 413-437.
Eberhart-Phillips, D., Haeussler, P.J., Freymueller, J.T., Franckel, A.D., Rubin, C.M., Craw, P., Ratchkovski, N.A., Anderson, G., Carver, G.A., Crone, A.J., Dawsson, T.E., Fletcher, H., Hansen, R., Harp, E.L., Harris, R.A., Hill, D.P., Hreinsdottiir, S., Jibson, R.W., Jones, L.M., Kayen, R., Keefer, D.K., Larsen, C.F., Moran, S.C., Personius, S.F., Plafker, G., Sherrod, B., Sieh, K., Sitar, N. and K., W.W. (2003). The 2002 Denali fault earthquake, Alaska: A large magnitude, slip-partitioned event. Science, 300, 1113-1118.
Engdahl, E.R., Van der Hilst, R.D. and Buland, R.P. (1998). Global teleseismic earthquake location with improved travel times and procedures for depth determination. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88, 722-743.
Ergin, M., Ozalaybey, M.T., Aktar, C., Tapirdamaz, C., Yoruk, A. and Bicmen, F. (1999). Aftershock analysis of the August 17, 1999 Izmit, Turkey, Earthquake. In: A. Barka, O. Kozaci, S. Akyuz and E. Altunel (Editors), The 1999 Ismit and Duzce Earthquakes: preliminary results. Istanbul Technical University, pp. 171-178.
Feigl, K., Sarti, F., Vadon, H., McClusky, S., Ergintav, S., Durand, P., Burgmann, R., Rigo, A., Massonnet, D. and Reilinger, R. (2002). Estimating slip distribution for the Izmit mainshock from coseismic GPS, ERS1, RADARSAT, and SPOT measurements. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 138-160.
Frankel, A. (2004). Rupture process of the M 7.9 Denali fault, Alaska, earthquake: Subevents, directivity, and scaling of high-frequency ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6B), S234-S255.
Frankel, A. and Wennerberg, L. (1989). Ruture process of the Ms 6.6 Superstition Hills earthquake determined from strong-motion recordings: application of tomographic source inversion. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 79, 515-541.
Fredrich, J., McCaffrey, R. and Denham, D. (1988). Source parameters of seven large Australian earthquakes determined by body waveform inversion. Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 95, 1-13.
Freymueller, J. (1994). The co-seismic slip distribution of the Landers earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 646-659.
Haeussler, P.J., Schwartz, D.P., Dawson, T., Stenner, H., Lienkaemper, J.L., Sherrod, B., Cinti, F.R. and Montone, P. (2005). Surface rupture and slip distribution of the Denali and Totschunda faults in the 3 November 2002 M7.9 earthquake, Alaska. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6B), S23-252.
Hamilton, R.M. (1972). Aftershocks of the Borrego Mountain earthquake from April 12 to June 12, 1968, The Borrego Mountain earthquake of April 9, 1968: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper. U. S. Government Printing Office, Wahsington, pp. 31-54.
Hanks, T.C. and Wyss, M. (1972). The use of body-wave spectra in determination of seismic-source parameters. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 62, 561-589.
Hartzell, S.H. and Heaton, T. (1983). Inversion of strong groundmotion and teleseismic waveform data for the fault rupture history of the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake sequence. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 73, 1553-1584.
Hartzell, S.H. and Helmberger, D.V. (1982). Strong-motion modeling of the Imperial Valley earthquake of 1979. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 72, 571-596.
Hauksson, E., Jones, L.M. and Hutton, K. (2002). The 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake sequence: complex conjugate strike-slip faulting. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(4), 1154-1171.
Heaton, T.H. (1982). The 1971 San Fernando earthquake: a double event? Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 72, 2037-2062.
Hill, D.P., Eaton, J.P. and Jones, L.M. (1990). Seismicity, 180-1986. In: R.E. Wallace (Editor), The San Andreas Fault System, California. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., pp. 115-152.
Hodgkinson, K.M., Stein, R.S. and Marshall, G. (1996). Geometry of the 1954 Fairview Peak-Dixie Valley earthquake sequence from a joint inversion of leveling and triangulation data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 25437-25457.
Hwang, L.J., Magistrale, H. and Kanamori, H. (1990). Teleseismic source parameters and rupture characteristics of the 24 November 1987, Superstition Hills earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 80, 43-56.
Ji, C., Wald, D.J. and Helmberger, D.V. (2002). Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California, earthquake, Part II: Complexity of slip history. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 92(4), 1208-1226.
Johnson, H.O., Agnew, D.C. and Hudnut, K. (1994). Extremal bounds on earthquake movement from geodetic data - application to the Landers earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 660-667.
Jones, L.M. and Helmberger, D.V. (1998). Earthquake source parameters and fault kinematics of eastern California shear zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 88, 1337-1352.
Jonsson, S., Zebker, H., Segall, P. and Amelung, F. (2002). Fault slip distribution of the 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, California earthquake, estimated from satellite radar and gps measurements. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(4), 1377-1389.
Kakehi, Y. and Iwata, T. (1992). Rupture process of the 1945 Mikawa earthquake as determined from strong ground motion records. Journal of Physics of the Earth, 40, 635-655.
Kanamori, H. (1970). Velocity and Q of mantle waves. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, 2(4), 259-275.
Kanamori, H. (1973). Mode of strain release associated with major earthquakes in Japan. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 1, 213-239.
Kanamori, H. and Reagan, J. (1982). Long-period surface waves. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1254, 55-58.
Kaverina, A., Dreger, D. and Price, E. (2002). The combined inversion of seismic and geodetic data for the source process of the 16 October 1999 Mw 7.1 Hector Mine, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(4), 1266-1280.
Ketin, I. (1948). Uber die tektonisch-mechanischen Folgerungen aus des grossen anatolischen Erdbeben des letzten Dezenniums. Geol. Rundsch., 36, 77-83.
Ketin, I. (1969). Uber die nordanatolische Horizontalverschiebung. Bull. Mineral Res. Explor. Ints. Turkey, 72, 1-28.
Kikuchi, M., Nakamura, M. and Yoshikawa, K. (2003). Source rupture processes of the 1944 Tonankai earthquake and the 1945 Mikawa earthquake derived from low-gain seismograms. Earth Planets and Space, 55, 159-172.
Klinger, Y., Michel, R. and King, G.C.P. (2006). Evidence for an earthquake barrier model from Mw~7.8 Kokozili (Tibet) earthquake slip distribution. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 242, 354-364.
Klinger, Y., Xu, X., Tapponier, P., Van der Woerd, J., Lasserre, C. and King, G.C.P. (2005). High-resolution satellite imagery mapping of the surface rupture and slip distribution of the Mw ~7.8, 114 November 2001 Kokoxili earthquake, Kunlun fault, northern Tibet, China. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 95, 1970-1987.
Kocyigit, A. (1989). Susehri Basin; an active fault wedge bnasin. Tectonophysics, 167, 13-29.
Kocyigit, A. (1990). Tectonic setting of the Golova basin; total offset of the North Anatolian fault zone, E Pontide, Turkey. Annales Tectonicae, IV, 155-170.
Langston, C.A. (1978). The February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake: A study of source finiteness in teleseismic body waves. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 68, 1-29.
Larsen, S., Reilinger, R., Neugebauer, H. and Strange, W. (1992). Global positioning system measurements of deformations associated with the 1987 Superstition Hills earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97, 4885-4902.
Lasserre, C., Peltzer, G., Crampe, F., Klinger, Y., Van der Woerd, J. and Tapponnier, P. (2005). Coseismic deformation of the 2001 M-w=7.8 Kokoxili earthquake in Tibet, measured by synthetic aperture radar interferometry. Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth, 110(B12).
Li, X., Cormier, V. and Toksoz, M.N. (2002). Complex source process of the 17 August 1999 Izmit, Turkey, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 267-277.
Lin, A., Bihong, F., Guo, J., Zeng, Q., Dang, G., He, W. and Zhao, Y. (2002). Co-seismic strike-slip and rupture length produced by the 2001 Ms 8.1 central Kunlun earthquake. Science, 296, 2015-2017.
Lin, C.-H. (2001). The 1999 Taiwan earthquake: A proposed stress-focusing, heel-shaped model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91, 1053-1061.
Machette, M.N., Crone, A.J. and Bowman, J.R. (1993). Geologic investigations of the 1986 Marryat Creek, Australia, earthquake - implications for paleoseismicity in stable continental regions. United States Geological Survey Bulletin, 2032 B, p. 29p.
Magistrale, H., Jones, L.M. and Kanamori, H. (1989). The Superstition Hills, California, earthquakes of 24 November 1987. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 79, 239-252.
Matsuda, T. (1972). Surface faults associated with Kita-Izu Earthquake of 1930 in Izu Peninsula, Japan. In: M. Hoshino and H. Aoki (Editors), Izu Peninsula. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp. 73-102.
Matsuda, T., Yamazaki, H., Nakata, T. and Imaizumi, T. (1980). The surface faults associated with the Rikuu Earthquake of 1896. Bulletin of Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 55, 795-855.
McKenzie, D. (1972). Active tectonics of the Mediterranean region. Geophy. Journal Royal Astronomical Society, 30, 109-185.
Mendoza, C. and Hartzell, S.H. (1988). Inversion for slip distribution using teleseismic P waveforms: North Palm Springs, Borah Peak, and Michoacan earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 78, 1092-1111.
Milkereit, C., Zunbul, S., Karakisa, S., Iravul, Y., Zschau, J., Baumbach, M., Grosser, H., Gunther, G.E., Umutlu, N., Kuru, N., Erkul, E., Klinge, K., von Seht, M. and Karahan, A. (1999). Preliminary aftershock analysis of the Mw=7.4 and Mw=7.1 Duzce earthquake in western Turkey. In: A. Barka, O. Kozaci, H.S. Akyuz and E. Altunel (Editors), 1999 Izmit and Duzce earthquakes: preliminary results. Istanbul Technical University, pp. 179-187.
Nakata, T. (1990). Surface faulting associated with the Philippine earthquake of 1990 (in Japanese). Journal of Geography, 99(5), 95-112.
Nakata, T., Shimazaki, K., Suzuki, Y. and Tsukuda, E. (1998). Fault branching and directivity of rupture propagation (in Japanese). Journal of Geography, 107(4), 512-528.
Ozacar, A.A. and Beck, S.L. (2004). The 2002 Denali fault and 2001 Kunlun fault earthquakes: Complex rupture processes of two large strike-slip events. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 94(6), S278-S292.
Ozturk, A. (1980). Lakik-Destek yoresinin tektonigi. Bull. Geol. Soc. Turkey, 23(1), 31-38.
Pamir, H.N. and Aykol, H. (1943). Corm ve Erbaa depremieri Tek. tonigi. Bull. Eaerth Sci. Cumhuriyet Univ, 2, 35-52.
Pamir, H.N. and Ketin, I. (1941). Das Anatolische Erdeben Ende 1939. Geol. Rundsch., 32, 278-287.
Pinar, A., Hohkura, Y. and Kikuchi, M. (1996). A rupture model for the 1967 Mudurnu Valley, Turkey earthquake and its implication for seismotectonics in the western part of the North Anatolian fault zone. Geophysical Research Letters, 23, 29-32.
Priestly, K.F. (1987). Source parameters of the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 32, 53-59.
Reilinger, R. (1984). Coseismic and postseismic vertical movements associated with the 1940 M 7.1 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research, 89(4531-4538).
Research, G.f.A.F. (1991). Active faults in Japan: sheet maps and inventories. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 437 pp.
Richins, W.D., Pechmann, J.C., Smith, R.B., Langer, C.J., goter, S.K., Zollweg, J.E. and King, J.J. (1987). The 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake and its aftershocks. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 77, 694-723.
Robinson, R. (1989). Aftershocks of the 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake, New Zealand: seismological and structural studies using portable seismographs in the epicentral region. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 32, 61-72.
Ryall, A. (1962). The Hebgen Lake Montana, earthquake of August 17, 1959. Bulletin of Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 52, 235-271.
Sekiguchi, H. and Iwata, T. (2002). Rupture process of the 199 Kocaeli, Turkey, earthquake estimated from strong motion waveforms. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92, 300-311.
Sharp, R., Budding, K., Boatwright, J., Ader, M., Bonilla, M., Clark, M., Fumal, T., Harms, T., Lienkaemper, J., Morton, D., O’Neill, B., Ostergren, C., Ponti, D., Rymer, M., Saxton, J. and Sims, J. (1989). Surface faulting along the Superstition Hills fault zone and nearby faults associated with the earthquakes of 24 November 1987. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 79, 252-281.
Shibutani, T. (1991). Search for the buried subfault(s) of the 16 July 1990 Luzon earthquake, the Phililppines, using aftershock observations. J. Natural Disas. Sci, 13, 29-38.
Sieh, K., Jones, L., Hauksson, E., Hudnut, K., Eberhart, P., Heaton, T., Hough, T., Hutton, L., Kanamori, H., Lilje, A., Lindvall, S., McGill, S., Mori, J., Rubin, C., Spotila, J., Stock, J., Thio, H., Treiman, J., Wernicke, B. and Zachariasen, J. (1993). Near-field investigations of the Landers earthquake sequence, April to July 1992. Science, 260, 171-176.
Sieh, K.E. (1978). Central California foreshocks of the great 1857 earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68, 1731-1749.
Simons, M., Fialko, Y. and Rivera, L. (2002). Coseismic deformation from the 1999 Mw 7l.1 Hector Mine, California, earthquake as inferred from InSAR and GPS observations. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(4), 1390-1402.
Sipkin, S.A. (1989). Moment-tensor solutions for the 24 November 1987 Superstition Hills, California earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 79, 493-499.
Stein, R.S., Barka, A. and Dieterich, J.H. (1997). Progressive failure on the North Anatolian fault since 1939 by earthquake stress triggering. Geophysical Journal International, 128, 594-604.
Stewart, G.S. and Kanamori, H. (1982). Complexity of rupture in large strike-slip earthquakes in Turkey. Physics of Earth and Planetary Interiors, 28, 70-84.
Swanger, H.J., Boore, D.M. and 1978 (1978). Simulation of strong-motion displacements using surface-wave modal superposition. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 68, 907-922.
Takagi, A., Hasegawa, A. and Umno, N. (1977). Seismic activity in the northeastern Japan arc. Journal of Physics of Earth, 25, S95-S104.
Tanimoto, T. and Kanamori, H. (1986). Linear programming approach to moment tensor inversion of earthquake sources and some tests on the three-dimensional structure of the upper mantle. Geophy. J. R. Astron. Soc., 84, 413-430.
Tasman, C.E. (1944). Gerede-Bou depremi. Bull. Mineral Res. Explor. Ints. Turkey, 1/31, p. 134.
Thatcher, W. and Hanks, T.C. (1973). Source parameters of southern California earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 78, 8547-8576.
Thatcher, W., Matsuda, T., Kato, T. and Rundle, J.B. (1980). Lithospheric loading by the 1896 Riku-u earthquake, northern Japan - implications for plate flexure and asthenospheric rheology. Journal of Geophysical Research, 85, 6429-6435.
Treiman, J., Kendrick, K.J., Bryant, W.A., Rockwell, T.K. and McGill, S.F. (2002). Primary surface rupture associated with the Mw 7.1 16 October 1999 Hector Mine earthquake, San Bernardino County, California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92(4), 1171-1191.
Trifunac, M.D. (1972). Tectonic stress and the source mechanism of the Imperial Valley, California, earthquake of 1940. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 62, 1283-1302.
Trifunac, M.D. and Brune, J. (1970). Complexity of energy release during the Imperial Valley, California, earthquake of 1940. Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 60, 137-160.
Umutlu, N., Koketsu, K. and Milkereit, C. (2004). The rupture process during the 1999 Duzce, Turkey, earthquake from joint inversion of teleseismic and strong-motion data. Tectonophysics, 391, 315-324.
Velasco, A.A., Ammon, J.J., Lay, T. and Hagerty, M. (1996). Rupture process of the 1990 Luzon, Phillippines (Mw=7.7) earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research, 101, 22419-22434.
Vidale, J., Helmberger, D.V. and Clayton, R.W. (1985). Finite difference seismograms for SH waves. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 75, 1765-1782.
Wald, D.J. and Heaton, T. (1994). Spatial and temporal distribution of slip for the 1992 Landers, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 84, 668-691.
Wald, D.J., Helmberger, D.V. and Hartzell, S.H. (1990). Rupture process of the 1987 Superstition Hills earthquake from the inversion of strong-motion data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 80, 1079-1098.
Ward, S.N. and Barrientos, S.E. (1986). An inversion for slip distribution and fault shape from geodetic observations of the 1983 Borah Peak, Idaho, earthquake. Journal of Geophysical Research, 91, 4909-4919.
Wesnousky, S.G., Scholz, C.H. and Shimazaki, K. (1982). Deformation of an island arc: Rates of moment-release and crustal shortening in intraplate Japan determined from seismicity and Quaternary fault data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 87, 6829-2852.
Witkind, I. J. (1964). Reactivated faults north of Hebgen Lake. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 435-G, 37-50.
Wright, T.J., Fielding, E.J., Parsons, B.E. and England, P.C. (2001). Triggered slip: observatons of the 17 August 1999 Ismit (Turkey) earthquake using radar interferometry. Geophysical Research Letters, 28, 1079-1082.
Wu, C.J., Takeo, M. and Ide, S. (2001). Source process of the Chi-Chi earthquake: a joint inversion of strong motion data and global positioning system data with multifault model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91, 1128-1143.
Wyss, M. (1971). Preliminary source parameter determination of the San Fernando earthquake, The San Fernando, California, earthquake of February 9, 1971. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, pp. 38-40.
Xu, X., Chen, W., Ma, W., Yu, G. and Chen, G. (2002). Surface rupture of the Kunlunshan earthquake (Ms 8.1), northern Tibetan plateau, China. Seismological Research Letters, 73(6), 884-892.
Yielding, G., Jackson, J.A., King, G.C.P., Sinvhal, H., Vita-Finzi, C. and Wood, R.M. (1981). Relations between surface deformation, fault geometry, seismicity, and rupture characteristics during the El Asnam (Algeria) earthquake of 10 October 1980. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 56, 287-304.
Yoshida, Y. and Abe, K. (1992). Source Mechanism of the Luzon, Philippines earthquake of July 16, 1990. Geophysical Research Letters, 19, 545-548.
Zeng, Y. and Chen, C.H. (2001). Fault rupture process of the 20 September 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 91, 1088-1098.