Aftershock seismicity of the 2010 Maule Mw=8.8, Chile, earthquake: Correlation between co-seismic slip models and aftershock distribution?
Article first published online: 28 APR 2012
Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume 39, Issue 8, April 2012
How to Cite
2012), Aftershock seismicity of the 2010 Maule Mw=8.8, Chile, earthquake: Correlation between co-seismic slip models and aftershock distribution?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L08310, doi:10.1029/2012GL051308., , , , , , and (
- Issue published online: 28 APR 2012
- Article first published online: 28 APR 2012
- Manuscript Revised: 12 MAR 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 12 MAR 2012
- Manuscript Received: 10 FEB 2012
- Maule 2010;
 The 27 February 2010 Maule, Chile (Mw=8.8) earthquake is one of the best instrumentally observed subduction zone megathrust events. Here we present locations, magnitudes and cumulative equivalent moment of the first ∼2 months of aftershocks, recorded on a temporary network deployed within 2 weeks of the occurrence of the mainshock. Using automatically-determined onset times and a back projection approach for event association, we are able to detect over 30,000 events in the time period analyzed. To further increase the location accuracy, we systematically searched for potential S-wave arrivals and events were located in a regional 2D velocity model. Additionally, we calculated regional moment tensors to gain insight into the deformation history of the aftershock sequence. We find that the aftershock seismicity is concentrated between 40 and 140 km distance from the trench over a depth range of 10 to 35 km. Focal mechanisms indicate a predominance of thrust faulting, with occasional normal faulting events. Increased activity is seen in the outer-rise region of the Nazca plate, predominantly in the northern part of the rupture area. Further down-dip, a second band of clustered seismicity, showing mainly thrust motion, is located at depths of 40–45 km. By comparing recent published mainshock source inversions with our aftershock distribution, we discriminate slip models based on the assumption that aftershocks occur in areas of rapid transition between high and low slip, surrounding high-slip regions of the mainshock.