On the Origin of Postseismic Deformation Processes in the Region of the Maule, Chile Earthquake of February 27, 2010

Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth volume 56, pages762–771(2020)Cite this article

Abstract—For the first time, we present a rupture surface model of the 2010 Maule earthquake, Chile, based on the combination of satellite geodesy, InSAR, and satellite gravimetry data. The regularization method used for constructing the model allowed us to find a uniform displacement field on rupture surface provided that a slip rake is close to a given one. On average, the displacements on the rupture surface are about 5 m with a maximum displacement of 13.1 m. The rupture zone extends south of the Arauco Peninsula and reaches a depth of 42 km along the plate surface. Using the constructed seismic rupture model, we have modeled the process of viscoelastic relaxation of stresses that emerged in the lithosphere and upper mantle as a result of the earthquake in order to estimate the contribution of this process in the observed postseismic displacements. Surface displacement velocities mainly depend on the viscosity value adopted for the asthenosphere. The comparison of the calculated and measured displacements at low viscosity of the asthenosphere shows that when the displacements are measured far from rupture surface as it is the case with the ocean–ocean subduction zone earthquakes, the observed displacements can be explained by the process of viscoelastic relaxation with a low viscosity of the asthenosphere. In the cases when there are data on the displacements above rupture surface, e.g., for the 2010 Maule earthquake, explaining the observed displacements by stress relaxation process in the near zone of the rupture is not possible at any viscosity: the displacements substantially differ both in amplitude and direction. At the same time, the postseismic creep models fairly well agree with the entire set of the existing data. Therefore, there is no need to accept the hypothesis of a low-viscous asthenosphere in the region of the 2010 Maule earthquake. Previously, we arrived at the similar conclusion considering the modeling results for the Sumatran earthquake of 2004, Simushir earthquakes of 2006, and a number of other large earthquakes in the subduction zones.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

REFERENCES

  1. 1

    Baba, T., Hirata, K., Hori, T., and Sakaguchi, H., Offshore geodetic data conducive to the estimation of the afterslip distribution following the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2006, vol. 241, pp. 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2005.10.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Beck, S., Barientos, S., Kausel, E., and Reyes, M., Source characteristics of historic earthquake along the central Chile subduction zone, J. South Am. Earth Sci., 1998, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 115–129. doi 00005-4https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-9811(98)

  3. 3

    De Mets, C., Gordon, R.G., and Argus, D.F., Geologically current plate motions, Geophys. J. Int., 2010, vol. 181, no. 1, pp. 1–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04491.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Delouis, B., Nocquet, J.-M., and Vallee, M., Slip distribution of the February 27, 2010 Mw = 8.8 Maule Earthquake, central Chile, from static and high-rate GPS, InSAR, and broadband teleseismic data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2010, vol. 37, no. 17, Paper ID L17305. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043899

  5. 5

    Diament, M., Mikhailov, V., and Timoshkina, E., Joint inversion of GPS and high-resolution GRACE gravity data for the 2012 Wharton basin earthquakes, J. Geodyn., 2020, vol. 136, Paper ID 101722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2020.101722

  6. 6

    Han, S., Sauber, J., and Pollitz, F., Postseismic gravity change after the 2006–2007 great earthquake doublet and constraints on the asthenosphere structure in the central Kuril Island, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2016, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 3169–3177. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Heki, K. and Matsuo, K., Coseismic gravity changes of the 2010 earthquake in central Chile from satellite gravimetry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2010, vol. 37, Paper ID L24306. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045335

  8. 8

    Hsu, Y.-J., Simons, M., Avouac, J.-P., Galetzka, J., Sieh, K., Chlieh, M., Natawidjaja, D., Prawirodirdjo, L., and Bock, Y., Frictional afterslip following the 2005 Nias-Simeulue earthquake, Sumatra, Science, 2006, vol. 312, no. 5782, pp. 1921–1926. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1126960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Hu, Y., Wang, K., He, J., Klotz, J., and Khazaradze, G., Three-dimensional viscoelastic finite element model for postseismic deformation of the great 1960 Chile earthquake, J. Geophys. Res., 2004, vol. 109, Paper ID B12403. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JB003163

  10. 10

    Kogan, M.G., Vasilenko, N.F., Frolov, D.I., and Frymueller, J.T., Rapid postseismic relaxation after the great 2006–2007 Kuril earthquakes from GPS observations in 2007–2011, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 2013, vol. 118, no. 7, pp. 3691–3706. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Kusche, J., Approximate decorrelation and non-isotropic smoothing of time-variable GRACE-type gravity field models, J. Geod., 2007, vol. 81, no. 11, pp. 733–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Lay, T., Ammon, C.J., Kanamori, H., Koper, K.D., Sufri, O., and Hutko, A.R., Teleseismic inversion for rupture process of the 27 February 2010 Chile (Mw 8.8) earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2010, vol. 37, no. 13, Paper ID L13301.

  13. 13

    Lin, Y.N., Sladen, A., Ortega-Culaciati, F., Simons, M., Avouac, J.-P., Fielding, E., Brooks, B., Bevis, M., Genrich, J., Rietbrock, A., Vigny, C., Smalley, R., and Socquet, A., Coseismic and postseismic slip associated with the 2010 Maule earthquake, Chile: characterizing the Arauco Peninsula barrier effect, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 2013, vol. 118, no. 6, pp. 3142–3159. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Lorito, S., Romano, F., Atzori, S., Tong, X., Avallone, A., McCloskey, J., Cocco, M., Boschi, E., and Piatanesi, A., Limited overlap between the seismic gap and coseismic slip of the great 2010 Chile earthquake, Nat. Geosci., 2011, vol. 4, pp. 173–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Mikhailov, V., Lyakhovsky, V., Panet, I., van Dinther, Y., Diament, M., Gerya, T., deViron, O., and Timoshkina, E., Numerical modelling of postseismic rupture propagation after the Sumatra 26.12.2004 earthquake constrained by GRACE gravity data, Geophys. J. Int., 2013, vol. 194, no. 2, pp. 640–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Mikhailov, V.O., Timoshkina, E.P., Khairetdinov, S.A., and Diament, M., Assessment of the relative roles of viscoelastic relaxation and postseismic creep in the area of the Simushir earthquake of November 15, 2006, using space geodesy and gravimetry, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull., 2018, vol. 73, no. 5. pp. 551–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Mikhailov, V.O., Timoshkina, E.P., Kiseleva, E.A., Khairetdinov, S.A., Dmitriev, P.N., Kartashov, I.M., and Smirnov, V.B., Problems of the joint inversion of temporal gravity variations with the data on land and seafloor displacements: a case study of the Tohoku-Oki earthquake of March 11, 2011, Izv. Phys. Solid Earth, 2019, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 746–752. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0002-33372019553-60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Miyazaki, S., Segall, P., Fukuda, J., and Kato, T., Space time distribution of afterslip following the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake: Implications for variations in fault zone frictional properties, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2004, vol. 31, no. 6, Paper ID L06623. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL019410

  19. 19

    Moreno, M., Melnick, D., Rosenau, M., Baez, J., Klotz, J., Oncken, O., Tassara, A., Chen, J., Bataille, K., Bevis, M., Socquet, A., Bolte, J., Vigny, C., Brooks, B., Ryder, I., et al., Toward understanding tectonic control on the Mw 8.8 2010 Maule Chile earthquake, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2012, vols. 321–322, pp. 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Ozawa, S., Kaidzu, M., Murakami, M., Imakiire, T., and Hatanaka, Y., Coseismic and postseismic crustal deformation after the Mw 8 Tokachi-oki earthquake in Japan, Earth, Planets Space, 2004, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 675–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Ozawa, S., Nishimura, T., Munekane, H., Suito, H., Kobayashi, T., Tobita, M., and Imakiire, T., Preceding, coseismic, and postseismic slips of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, Japan, J. Geophys. Res., 2012, vol. 117, Paper ID B07404. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JB009120

  22. 22

    Perfettini, H. and Avouac, J.P., Postseismic relaxation driven by brittle creep: A possible mechanism to reconcile geodetic measurements and the decay rate of aftershocks, application to the Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 2004, vol. 109, no. B2, Paper ID B02304. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002488

  23. 23

    Perfettini, H., Tavera, H., Kositsky, A., Nocquet, J.M., Bondoux, F., Chlieh, M., Sladen, A., Audin, L., Farber, D., and Soler, P., Seismic and aseismic slip on the Central Peru megathrust, Nature, 2010, vol. 465, no. 7294, pp. 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Pollitz, F.F., Coseismic deformation from earthquake faulting on a layered spherical Earth, Geophys. J. Int., 1996, vol. 125, no. 1, pp. 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Pollitz, F.F., Gravitational-viscoelastic postseismic relaxation on a layered spherical Earth, J. Geophys. Res., 1997, vol. 102, no. B8, pp. 17921–17941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Pritchard, M.E. and Simons, M., An aseismic slip pulse in northern Chile and along-strike variations in seismogenic behavior, J. Geophys. Res.: Solid Earth, 2006, vol. 111, no. B8, Paper ID B08405. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JB004258

  27. 27

    Tong, X., Sandwell, D., Luttrell, K., Brooks, B., Bevis, M., Shimada, M., Foster, J., Smalley, Jr. R., Parra, H., Baez Soto, J.C., Blanco, M., Kendrick, E., Genrich, J., and Caccamise, D.J. II, The 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake: downdip rupture limit revealed by space geodesy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2010, vol. 37, Paper ID L24311.

  28. 28

    Vigny, C., Socquet, A., Peyrat, S., Ruegg, J.C., Métois, M., Madariaga, R., Morvan, S., Lancieri, M., Lacassin, R., Campos, J., Carrizo, D., et al., The 2010 Mw 8.8 Maule megathrust earthquake of central Chile, monitored by GPS, Science, 2011, vol. 332, no. 6036, pp. 1417–1421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Wang, L., Shum, C.K., Simons, F.J., Tassara, A., Erkan, K., Jekeli, C., Braun, A., Kuo, Ch., Lee, H., and Yuan, D.N., Coseismic slip of the 2010 Mw 8.8 Great Maule, Chile, earthquake quantified by the inversion of GRACE observations, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 2012, vols. 335–336, pp. 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to F. Pollitz for providing the Static1D and Visco1D software. The GRACE satellite gravity models of the Center for Space Research, University of Texas, USA, are accessed at http://icgem.gfz-potsdam.de/series. We are grateful to X. Tong and D. Sandwell for the displacement data calculated from ALOS-1 satellite measurements and uploaded to the supersite http://supersites.unavco.org/chile.php.

Funding

The development of the regularization method for inverse problem solution and the filters used for comparing the measured gravity anomalies with the anomalies calculated from GRACE gravity models was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation under project no. 14.W03.31.0033 “Geophysical research, monitoring, and forecast of the development of catastrophic geodynamic processes in the Far East of the Russian Federation.” Acquisition and interpretation of the data and the numerical modeling of seismic and postseismic processes for the 2010 Maule, Chile, earthquake was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 18-05-00159).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, 123242, Moscow, Russia

    V. O. Mikhailov, E. P. Timoshkina, V. B. Smirnov, S. A. Khairetdinov & P. N. Dmitriev

  2. Faculty of Physics, Moscow State University, 119991, Moscow, Russia

    V. O. Mikhailov & V. B. Smirnov

Authors
  1. V. O. Mikhailov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. P. Timoshkina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. B. Smirnov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. A. Khairetdinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. N. Dmitriev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. O. Mikhailov.

Additional information

Translated by M. Nazarenko

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mikhailov, V.O., Timoshkina, E.P., Smirnov, V.B. et al. On the Origin of Postseismic Deformation Processes in the Region of the Maule, Chile Earthquake of February 27, 2010. Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 56, 762–771 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S106935132006004X

Download citation

Keywords:

  • Maule
  • Chile
  • earthquake on February 27
  • 2010
  • GPS
  • InSAR
  • gravity models
  • GRACE satellites
  • rupture surface model
  • viscoelastic stress relaxation
  • postseismic creep