Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Comparison of repeating earthquake selection and slip estimation methods for selected papers

From: Detection of repeating earthquakes and their application in characterizing slow fault slip

References Region Detection method Time window Frequency range M range Slip scaling Comments
Nadeau and McEvilly (1999) Parkfield, California CC 0.98 N/A (M − 1 to 5 used) N&J  
Igarashi et al. (2003); Uchida et al. (2003) Tohoku, Japan CC 0.95 40 s 1–4 hz 4.6 M > =3 (Igarashi et al.), M 2 (Uchida et al.) N&J  
Nadeau and McEvilly (2004) San Andreas fault CC, Coh, visual inspection, relocation, arrival time analysis 3.4 M -0.4 N&J (constants different)  
Matsubara et al. (2005) Hokkaido, Japan CC 0.95 40 s or until 5 s after S arrival 1–8 Hz M 2 N&J  
Kimura et al. (2006) Kanto, Japan CC 0.95 2 s before P arrival to 5 s after S arrival 1–20 Hz 4.56 M 2.0 N&J  
Uchida et al. (2006, 2009a, b, 2011) Miyagi-oki, Tohoku Japan Coh 0.95 40 s 1–8 Hz 4.8 M 2.5 N&J Upper range of M is from Uchida et al. (2009a, 2009b)
Rau et al. (2007) Longitudinal valley fault, Taiwan waveform (CC) and differential S-P time 10.5 s (CC), 2.5 s (differential S-P) 2–18 Hz 4.6 M 2.1 N&J CC has several thresholds
Chen et al. (2008) Chihshang fault, Taiwan CC and differential S-P time 10.5 s (CC), 2.5 s (differential S-P) 2–18 Hz 3.7 M 1.9 N&J CC has several thresholds
Lengliné and Marsan (2009) Parkfield, California Coh0.9 and location (overlapping > 70%) 1.28 s (P wave) 1.5–18 Hz M 1.2 N&J 3 MPa stress drop, magnitude difference < 0.2
Igarashi (2010) Japan CC 0.95 P arrival to 3 s after S arrival 1–4, 2–8, and 4–16 Hz M 2 N&J Frequency range depends on magnitude.
Li et al. (2011) Longmen Shan fault, China CC 0.9 and internal consistency of time picking 1 s before a P arrival to 5 s after S arrival 1–10 Hz 2.8 M 0.9 Crack Average recurrence interval of > 100 days
Yamashita et al. (2012) Hyuganada, southwest Japan CC 0.95 40 s 2–8 Hz 4.3 M 2.5 N&J Duration < 3 years removed, focal mechanism checked
Kato et al. (2012) Tohoku, Japan Matched filter detection and CC 0.95 P-wave onset to 4 s after direct S-wave arrival. 1–4, 2–8, and 4–16 Hz   N&J Frequency range depends on magnitude
Uchida et al. (2013, 2016a, b) Tohoku, Japan Coh 0.95 (1–8 Hz) or Coh 0.8 (1/2–2 fc) 40 s 1–8 Hz or around the corner frequency (fc) M 2.5 N&J  
Yu et al. (2013) Tonga–Kermadec–Vanuatu CCC 0.8 30 s 0.8–2.0 Hz 5.7 M 4.7 N&J  
Taira et al. (2014) San Juan Bautista, San Andreas fault CC and Coh 0 .95 51.2 s (M 2), 5.12 s (M 2.5) 1–8 Hz (M 2), 8–24 Hz (M 2.5) 3.5 M 0.5 N&J  
Meng et al. (2015) Northern Chile CC0.95 3 s before a P arrival to 10 s after S arrival 1–8 Hz (3 > Mw 2.5) 1–4 Hz (Mw 3) 4.8 Mw 2.9 N&J  
Mavrommatis et al. (2015) Tohoku, Japan Co 0.95 (1–8 Hz) or Coh 0.8 (1/2–2 fc) 40 s 1–8 Hz or around the corner frequency (fc) M 2.5 Beeler Event selected by M, variation in M and duration
Gardonio et al. (2015) Kanto, Japan Coh 0.90 and location (overlapping > 50%) 5.12 s 1.5–8 Hz M 1.0 No slip estimate Magnitude difference < 0.5
Dominguez et al. (2016) Middle America Trench, Mexico CC and Coh 0.90(threshold A), CC, and Coh 0.95(B) 25.6 s 1–8 Hz 4.5 M 2.5 (A), 4.5 M  3.1 (B) N&J  
Schmittbuhl et al. (2016) Marmara fault, Turkey CC 0.9 15 s 1–10 Hz 2.5 > M > 1 Crack  
Yao et al. (2017) Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica Matched filter method (mean CC 0.9) 6 s 3.2 M 0.5 Crack Template events have S/N 5 for more than 9 traces
Materna et al. 2018) Mendocino Triple Junction Coh 0.97 30 s before the P arrival to 20 s after the P wave arrival 0.5–15 Hz (S/N 5) 3 M 1.5 N&J  
  1. CC waveform cross-correlation, Coh waveform coherence, N&J Nadeau and Johnson (1998)‘s scaling relationship (Eq. (1)), Beeler: Beeler et al. (2001)’s relationship (Eq. (2)), Crack crack model (Eq. (3) or others)