EGU23-4934, updated on 09 Jan 2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4934
EGU General Assembly 2023
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Slow rupture propagation and large stress drop during the 2020 Mw6.4 Petrinja earthquake

Iva Lončar1, Mathieu Causse2, Martin Vallée3, and Snježana Markušić1
Iva Lončar et al.
  • 1University of Zagreb, Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Science, Croatia
  • 2Université Grenoble-Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS, IRD, UGE, ISTerre, Grenoble, France
  • 3Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, CNRS, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

Seismological data from almost 100 broadband stations (70 < Δ < 420 km) from Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Montenegro, and Slovakia have been used in the rupture analysis of the Petrinja (Croatia) MW6.4 earthquake, that occurred on the 29th of December 2020. Several foreshocks and aftershocks have been used as empirical Green’s function (EGF) to isolate source effects from propagation and local soil effects. First, P-wave mainshock seismograms are deconvolved from the EGF seismograms in the frequency domain to obtain the corner frequency (fc). Assuming Brune’s source model, the spectral analysis results in a large stress drop of 25 MPa. Second, using time-domain deconvolution of the Love wave time windows, apparent source time functions (ASTFs) have been computed and indicate an average source duration of 5 seconds. No significant directivity effects can be seen in both the fc values and source durations, whose weak variability suggests a bilateral rupture. Lastly, physical rupture parameters, such as rupture velocity, rupture dimensions, slip model and rise time, have been extracted from the ASTFs by two different techniques: (1) the Bayesian inversion method (Causse et al. 2017) and (2) the backprojection of the ASTFs on the isochrones (Király‐Proag et al. 2019). Both techniques indicate a slow rupture velocity (about 50% of the shear-wave velocity) and a rather short rupture length for an MW6.4 event (about 8 km), consistent with the obtained large seismological stress drop. Such features may be explained by the relatively complex and segmented fault system, typical of immature fault contexts.

 

References:

Causse, M., Cultrera, G., Moreau, L., Herrero, A., Schiappapietra, E. and Courboulex, F., 2017. Bayesian rupture imaging in a complex medium: The 29 May 2012 Emilia, Northern Italy, earthquake. Geophysical Research Letters44(15), pp.7783-7792.

Király‐Proag, E., Satriano, C., Bernard, P. and Wiemer, S., 2019. Rupture process of the M w 3.3 earthquake in the St. Gallen 2013 geothermal reservoir, Switzerland. Geophysical Research Letters46(14), pp.7990-7999.

How to cite: Lončar, I., Causse, M., Vallée, M., and Markušić, S.: Slow rupture propagation and large stress drop during the 2020 Mw6.4 Petrinja earthquake, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-4934, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4934, 2023.