This electronic supplement gives all available information for each of the 53 earthquakes that were used for the derivation of the scaling relationship connecting moment magnitude M and the logarithm of rupture area A (in km2). The identification number of each event follows the same order as that in Table 1 in the main article (dates are in the format yyyy/mm/dd). The dimensions defining the rupture area are signified by length L and the down-dip width W. Also included is information about focal mechanism determination, where FM signifies focal mechanism derived from P-wave polarities, TMT is the moment tensor derived from teleseismic waveforms (including Global Centroid Moment Tensor and Swiss Seismological Service solutions), and RMT is the moment tensor derived from regional waveforms. DS signifies dip-slip faulting mechanism, and SS refers to strike-slip mechanisms.
Cipar (1980) used the International Seismological Centre (ISC) locations of the largest aftershocks recorded during the first 24 hours and defined a zone with dimensions L = 30 km and W = 18 km. The author also used synthetic seismograms and included the effect of source finiteness, from whichthe fault length for this event was estimated to be in the range of 16–24 km. Aoudia et al. (2000) relocated these largest aftershocks using the joint hypocenter determination (JHD) method and found the dimensions of the aftershock area are L = 25 km and W = 15 km, which is in reasonable agreement with Cipar (1980). More recently, Cheloni et al. (2012) utilized high-precision leveling and triangulation data in order to decipher the geometry and slip pattern of the fault that caused the earthquake. The results showed that the main slip area had dimensions L = 24 km and W = 18 km, which are in agreement with the results of Aoudia et al. (2000).
The earthquake caused significant damage to the nearby city of Thessaloniki, and therefore its aftershock sequence was closely monitored and studied. Soufleris et al. (1982) used data recorded by a temporary local network to locate the aftershocks from 20 July to 31 August. They reported location uncertainties (both horizontal and vertical) of less than 2 km, and their results defined an aftershock zone with dimensions L = 28 km and W = 14 km. Carver and Bollinger (1981) used their dataset to infer the space–time distribution of the aftershock sequence and concluded that the down-dip depth extent should be around 12–14 km. Taking a different approach, Kulhanek and Meyer (1981) analyzed the spectra of teleseismic waveforms and estimated the fault length to be 32 km, which is close to the value yielded by the aftershock zone distribution.
Using data from a regional network, Console and Favali (1981) located the aftershocks of this event for the period 15 April–6 May. They estimated the accuracy of their locations to be better than 5 km horizontally and 10 km vertically, and the source dimensions based on their results are L = 87 km and W = 25 km. Karakaisis et al. (1984) also used travel times from regional networks around Montenegro in order to locate the aftershock sequence for the period 15 April–30 May. Their horizontal errors are on the order of 2 km, and the dimensions of the resulting aftershock zone is L = 83 km and W = 23 km. These estimates seem to be overestimations of the rupture dimensions because the finite-fault model derived by Benetatos and Kiratzi (2006) gives L = 50 km and W = 24 km for the main patch that slipped coseismically.
This is the largest aftershock of the Montenegro mainshock, and the finite-fault model published by Benetatos and Kiratzi (2006) gives L = 17 km and W = 11 km for the main patch that slipped coseismically, which are in agreement with the aftershock zone dimensions.
The event and its aftershock sequence were recorded by a dense local network for the period from 29 February to 9 March. Reported horizontal errors were smaller than 1 km, and the vertical ones were on the order of 3 km. Gagnepain-Beyneix et al. (1982) estimate a down-dip depth extent of the aftershocks to be around 5 km, therefore the fault dimensions are L = 5 km and W = 5 km.
Papazachos et al. (1983) used travel times of data recorded at regional stations in Greece and neighboring countries to locate the aftershock activity for the period from 9 July to 17 August. Their reported location accuracy was 2 km horizontally and 3 km vertically. The distribution of the largest aftershocks gives fault dimensions L = 30 km and W = 13 km.
Many different authors have studied the aftershock sequence of this large event, and different source dimension estimates were available. Scarpa and Slejko (1982) used data from a dense local network and located aftershocks for a long period of time (23 November–30 April 1981); however, they do not specify any error assessment, and their dimension estimates are L = 57 km and W = 14 km. On the other hand, Deschamps and King (1983) used data from a local network and located aftershocks for a much shorter period (30 November–3 December). They estimate the location errors to be smaller than 2 km horizontally and about 3 km vertically, and the source dimensions based on their results are L = 50 km and W = 14 km. Amato and Selvaggi (1993) relocated most of the aftershocks using a 3D tomographic model (thus having a better accuracy than the authors cited previously), and the estimated dimensions of the aftershock zone are the same as the ones given by Deschamps and King (1983). Based on their results, the estimated down-dip extent of the aftershock area is around 14 km. Later, Amoruso et al. (2005) utilized leveling data in order to infer the geometry of the fault and seismic moment released, and their results are in agreement with the aftershock studies.
This earthquake occurred near Athens, the capital of Greece, and its aftershock sequence and source properties were extensively studied. The event was followed almost immediately by a strong aftershock that occurred near the epicentral area of the mainshock and triggered a large event in a nearby fault zone some days afterward. This created confusion as to the real extent of the aftershock zone of the mainshock. King et al. (1985) used data from a temporary network and located aftershocks occurring from 4 March to 10 April, reporting horizontal and vertical errors of 2 and 4 km, respectively. The authors consider the entire aftershock zone as including the triggered event and its aftershocks, thus obtaining source dimensions of L = 60 km and W = 20 km. On the contrary, Papazachos et al. (1984) used regional data from Greece and neighboring countries to locate the largest aftershocks, reporting similar error estimates to those of King et al. (1985) but separating the aftershock zones of the mainshock and that of the triggered event. This allowed the estimation of more reasonable dimensions for an event of this magnitude, with L = 32 km and W = 15 km. These values are close to the extent of the aftershock zone formed by the ISC-located aftershocks during the first 24 hours of the activity, with L = 28 km and W = 17 km (Kim et al., 1984).
This event occurred in the antithetic fault of the fault that ruptured during the 1981/02/24 earthquake. Kim et al. (1984) provide estimates of the aftershock zone dimensions formed by the ISC-located aftershocks during the first 24 hours: L = 25 km and W = 10 km.
Data from a local network were used by Haessler et al. (1988) to locate the entire aftershock sequence for the period 6–10 May. Reported errors were on the order of 0.5 km horizontally and 1 km vertically. The down-dip depth extent of the aftershock zone was estimated to be 6 km. The dimensions of the aftershock zone thus defined are L = 14 km and W = 6 km.
Bounif and Dorbath (1998) used data from a local network and a 3D tomographic velocity model to locate the aftershock sequence of this event for the period from 30 October to 23 November. Reported errors were smaller than 1.5 km horizontally and 3 km vertically, while the down-dip depth extent was estimated to be 7 km. Their estimated fault dimensions are L = 25 km and W = 11 km. Recently, Ousadou et al. (2013) have reprocessed regional and local seismic data and relocated the mainshock and aftershocks for the first three weeks using the double-difference relocation method. This defined an aftershock zone with dimensions L = 14 km and W = 10 km, indicating the previous results had considerably overestimated the length of the zone. Additionally, the authors calculated focal mechanisms using P-wave polarities for the mainshock and a number of aftershocks.
Two studies are available for extracting information about the aftershock sequence of this event: Papazachos et al. (1988) and Lyon-Caen et al. (1988). The first study uses regional and local data for a small period of time (13–19 September) and locates the largest aftershocks with reported errors of 2 km, both horizontally and vertically. The second study uses only local data for a period of time between 18 and 27 September, locating even smaller aftershocks with an accuracy of 0.6 km horizontally and 1.2 km vertically. It is interesting to note that both studies define an aftershock zone with almost the same dimensions, L = 10 km and W = 10–11 km.
Bounif et al. (2003) have processed local seismic data obtained from temporary stations deployed one day after the mainshock for the period 7–18 November. Their results depict an elongated area of a length L = 13 km and down-dip width W = 10 km. The authors also used teleseismic P and SH waveforms to determine the moment tensor for the mainshock.
Eyidogan and Akinci (1999) used data from a local network for the period 4–8 April. They located aftershocks with a horizontal error of less than 1 km and defined a zone with dimensions L = 40 km and W = 13 km. Fuenzalinda et al. (1997) also used local data and located aftershocks for a longer period of time (30 March–22 April) without mentioning any formal location errors, but they state that the residuals of located events were smaller than 0.25 s. The dimensions of their aftershock zone were smaller than the one referred to previously (L = 30 km, W = 10 km). Kaypak and Eyidogan (2005) have re-examined the locations of the aftershock sequence using a minimum 1D velocity model for the area and essentially confirmed the dimension estimates of Fuenzalinda et al. (1997).
Data recorded by a local network during the period from 13 October to 3 November were used to locate the aftershock sequence (Elenean et al., 2000). Reported location errors were smaller than 2.3 km, both horizontally and vertically. The dimensions of the fault are L = 12 km and W = 10 km.
Calvert et al. (1997) used regional data for a period of almost one year after the mainshock and located all aftershocks with a grid-search method, without mentioning any error assessment. The resulting aftershock zone had dimensions L = 29 km and W = 14 km. El-Alami et al. (1998) used data recorded by a local network and located aftershocks for the period between 27 May and 10 June, reporting location errors that did not exceed (horizontally or vertically) 2 km. The source dimensions stemming from their analysis are L = 30 km and W = 10 km. Recent analysis of Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) observations published by Akoglu et al. (2006) and Biggs et al. (2006) point to much smaller dimensions for the activated fault (L = 16 km, W = 8 km), implying that the aftershock area expansion was quite significant.
This event caused major damage to several towns and villages in northern Greece, so its aftershock sequence was closely monitored. Hatzfeld et al. (1997) analyzed data from a local network for the period 19–25 May and located aftershocks with a horizontal accuracy better than 1 km.
The fault dimensions estimated from the aftershock zone is L = 35 km and W = 14 km. Resor et al. (2005) reprocessed this dataset using the double-difference method to obtain high-precision locations for the aftershocks and augmented their observations with InSAR data. Their results show a complex rupture zone with several smaller faults being activated. The dimensions of the main fault, however, are smaller than the previous estimates (L = 28 km, W = 10 km).
The earthquake caused casualties and significant damages to the nearby town of Aegio. Tselentis et al. (1996) analyzed data recorded by a local permanent network for the period from 15 June until 2 July and located aftershocks with reported horizontal and vertical location errors on the order of 3 km. The source dimensions of the aftershock zone are estimated to be L = 33 km and W = 16 km, with down-dip depth extent of 12 km. Bernard et al. (1997) also used local data for a smaller period (22–28 June) and located the aftershocks with an accuracy of 1 km, both horizontally and vertically. The source dimensions of their aftershock zone are smaller (L = 27 km, W = 11 km), which could be attributed to the smaller location errors involved.
Öncel et al. (1998) used data recorded by a local network for the period 1–13 October and located the aftershocks for this event, reporting small location errors. Pinar (1998) in his study of the source properties of this event, also presents a map of the aftershock sequence that consisted of events located using data from the regional network of the Kandilli Observatory for the period 1–4 October without specifying any location error estimates. Both studies give similar fault lengths (33–35 km) and widths (20–25 km). However, Utkucu et al. (2002) have performed an analysis of the aftershock sequence and a finite-fault inversion using teleseismic waveform data. Their fault dimensions estimates are L = 24 km and W = 12 km, which imply significant overestimation of the rupture area for the previous studies.
Both Fattah et al. (1997) and Hofstetter et al. (2003) present maps of the aftershock activity using local and regional data, respectively, for their locations. Neither specifies the location procedure, the analysis time window, or any errors, but their source dimension estimates are almost the same (L = 88 km, W = 40 km). On the contrary, Klinger et al. (1999) give a detailed analysis of the aftershock sequence using data from a regional network of stations in Israel, Syria, and Jordan, allowing a very good azimuthal coverage of the seismogenic structure. For the period between late November and December, the dimensions of the aftershock zone are estimated to be L = 70 km and W = 23 km, using events with an rms residual smaller than 0.5 s. Shamir et al. (2003) have integrated both seismological and InSAR data to infer geometry and slip distribution of this event, giving dimensions L = 48 km and W = 24 km and highlighting that the previous seismological estimates were affected by aftershock area expansion and/or location errors.
Pauchet et al. (1999) used data recorded by a dense temporary network of 18 seismometers immediately after the mainshock for the period 19–23 Febraury and located 336 aftershocks with horizontal and vertical errors on the order of 1.5 km. This aftershock zone defined an area with L = 5 km and W = 7 km.
Cocco et al. (1999) used regional seismic network data in order to locate the mainshock and a significant number of aftershocks. The horizontal and vertical errors are o the order of 1 km or smaller. The fault dimensions estimated from the distribution of aftershocks are L = 9 km and W = 4 km.
Thouvenot et al. (1998) used data recorded by a dense temporary network and obtained well-constrained locations for 174 aftershocks with horizontal and vertical errors of 0.2 km or smaller. The fault dimensions are defined as L = 2.5 km and W = 4 km.
Selvaggi et al. (2001) used data recorded by the regional seismic network and six temporary stations that were installed after the mainshock for the period 16–26 October. The errors of the located aftershocks are less than 2 km, both vertically and horizontally. The aftershock distribution gives fault dimensions of L = 9 km and W = 5 km.
Chiaraluce et al. (2003) reprocessed the dataset of arrival times for the aftershock sequence using the double-difference relocation method. The errors associated with the relocated foci are on the order of some hundreds of meters, both horizontally and vertically, with average rms error of 0.03 s. The aftershock zone dimensions are L = 7 km and W = 4 km. These estimates are confirmed by the InSAR observations modeling of Hernandez et al. (2004).
From the same study of Chiaraluce et al. (2003) described in event 25, the fault dimensions are L = 12 km and W = 5 km. These estimates are confirmed by the InSAR observation modeling of Hernandez et al. (2004).
Again from the study of Chiaraluce et al. (2003), the fault dimensions are L = 7 km and W = 4 km. These estimates are confirmed by the InSAR observation modeling of Hernandez et al. (2004).
Bajc et al. (2001) used waveform data recorded by the regional networks of Slovenia, Croatia, Italy, and Austria in order to locate the aftershock sequence using the JHD method. The associated horizontal and vertical errors are smaller than 5 km. The fault dimensions that are inferred from the aftershock zone are L = 13 km and W = 7 km.
Local network data were used in order to locate the aftershock sequence for the period from 27 June to 4 July, employing a minimum 1D velocity model derived for that area. Reported errors are smaller than 5 km vertically (Aktar et al., 2000). The fault dimensions defined by the aftershock zone are L = 30 km and W = 18 km.
Brozzetti et al. (2009) have analyzed seismological, photogeological, and field survey data to infer the geometry and kinematics of the seismogenic fault. The seismic data were recorded by the national regional network and a local network installed by the University of Calabria. The aftershocks that were located consisted of 182 events, and the horizontal and vertical errors were smaller than 2.5 km. There are indications that after September 30 there is an expansion of the aftershock zone, therefore the fault dimensions determined from earlier aftershocks are L = 9 km and W = 6 km.
The source properties and aftershock sequence of this disastrous event have been studied by different research groups in great detail using mostly local data. Three studies (Polat et al., 2002; Ozalaybey et al., 2002; Ito et al., 2002) have located the early aftershocks of this event (17–24 August) using minimum 1D or even 3D velocity models with formal errors smaller than 1 km horizontally and 2.5 km vertically. The source dimensions derived from these results were found to be very similar (L = 155 km, W = 20 km). On the other hand, Güllen et al. (2002) considered a much longer time period (17 August–12 December) and located aftershocks, reporting formal errors smaller than 3 km both horizontally and vertically. The estimated dimensions of the aftershock zone are far larger than the ones mentioned above, with L = 222 km and W = 55 km indicating a significant expansion of the aftershock area. Additionally, several studies have published finite-fault models of the rupture process that could also help deciphering a better estimate of the rupture area dimensions. Yalcinkaya et al. (2012) performed an evaluation of all these models by stochastic simulations in order to predict peak ground motion at nearby stations. The optimal fitting between observed and synthetic values was obtained for fault dimensions L = 150 km and W = 18 km, which are in good agreement with the aforementioned three studies.
This event occurred very near the center of Athens; and, despite its moderate magnitude, it caused numerous casualties and damage. Early aftershocks (7–10 September), located using local and regional stations, reveal a seismogenic structure with dimensions L = 25 km and W = 14 km (Papadopoulos et al., 2001). Papadimitriou et al. (2002) used local data for a longer period (September to December 1999) and located aftershocks, reporting formal errors smaller than 1 km both horizontally and vertically; their source dimensions were close to those referred to above. Tselentis and Zahradnik (2000) also used local data and located aftershocks for the period 13–25 September without specifying any formal location errors. The dimension estimates derived from their work are, however, somewhat different from the ones mentioned earlier (L = 20 km, W = 16 km). Baumont et al. (2004) derived a finite-fault model by inverting strong-motion and InSAR data. The results showed that considerable coseismic slip existed at depths larger than those of the deepest aftershocks (i.e., below the brittle-ductile boundary), in which case the fault dimensions are L = 15 km and W = 17 km.
Data from local network stations were used to locate the aftershock sequence of this event for the period from 12 November to 31 March, reporting horizontal and vertical errors smaller than 3 km (Bayrak and Öztürk, 2004). The fault dimensions defined by the aftershocks zone extent are L = 65 km and W = 22 km. As these dimensions may be the result of aftershock zone expansion, several studies of finite-fault models have also been considered before defining the rupture area. Most of these studies (Utkucu, Nalbant, et al., 2003; Bouin et al., 2004; Umutlu et al., 2004; Birgören et al., 2004) used teleseismic data or strong-motion and Global Positioning System (GPS) data to derive the finite-fault model, and the dimensions they infer are L = 40–45 km and W = 15 km. Konca et al. (2010) performed a very detailed finite-fault study in which the modeled fault segments were defined by surface slip observations and the inversion included GPS, InSAR, and strong-motion data. The fault dimensions defined by their analysis are L = 55 km and W = 17 km, which are much more constrained than the previous estimates.
Utkucu, Alptekin, Pinar (2003) have located the early aftershocks of the event using data from a regional seismic network and for a period of four months. The aftershock zone has dimensions L = 21 km and W = 12 km; however, there is an issue whether this estimate is affected by expansion. Inversion of teleseismic waveforms for a finite-fault model produces fault dimensions for the main slip patch area of L = 13 km and W = 8 km, confirming the possibility of aftershock zone expansion.
Papadopoulos et al. (2002) present a map of the aftershock activity from 26 July to 14 August, using the routine locations determined by the Institute of Geodynamics of the National Observatory of Athens. The dimensions of this aftershock zone are quite large for an event of this magnitude (L = 40 km, W = 23 km) and probably are the result of aftershock area expansion and/or mislocation of the smaller events. Roumelioti et al. (2003) relocated these events using the same travel times by employing the double-difference method and lowered the formal (horizontal and vertical) location error to 1 km. The aftershock area during the first 24 hours after the mainshock thus had much smaller dimensions (L = 27 km, W = 14 km). Roumelioti, Kiratzi, and Dreger (2004) also derived a finite-fault model using regional waveform data, and the dimensions of the main co-seismic slip patch agree with those obtained from the aftershock zone extent.
Vallée and Di Luccio (2005) have determined the size of the main coseismic slip patch by inverting teleseismic P and SH waveforms, along with regional relative source time functions. The fault dimensions of the patch are L = 6 km and W = 13 km. Di Luccio et al. (2005) also inverted regional waveforms in order to derive a finite-fault model and obtained similar dimensions of the coseismic slip patch.
Vallée and Di Luccio (2005) have determined the size of the main coseismic slip patch by inverting teleseismic P and SH waveforms along with regional relative source time functions. The fault dimensions of the patch are L = 8 km and W = 8 km. Di Luccio et al. (2005) also inverted regional waveforms to derive a finite-fault model and obtained similar dimensions of the coseismic slip patch.
Roumelioti, Benetatos, et al. (2004) has used regional waveform data in order to locate the aftershock sequence of this event and produce a finite-fault model by inverting relative source time functions. Aftershocks were relocated using the double-difference model and yielded fault dimensions L = 5 km and W = 6 km. These estimates are in agreement with the main coseismic slip patch.
Bounif et al. (2004) used permanent and temporary seismic stations deployed briefly after the mainshock and used the the double-difference method to relocate 557 aftershocks, with horizontal and vertical errors smaller than 2 km. For the period 25–30 May, the fault dimensions are L = 50 km and W = 15 km. A later study (Ayadi et al., 2008) also performed a relocation of aftershocks for a longer period using a 3D velocity model and the double-difference method, obtaining dimensions of L = 65 km and W = 15 km. Ayadi et al. (2008) interpret the larger fault length as a result of aftershock area expansion; the estimate of Bounif et al. (2004) therefore can be considered more accurate.
Karabulut et al. (2006) have relocated 130 aftershocks using data from both Greek and Turkish national networks and the double-difference method, with horizontal and vertical errors of less than 3 km. The resulting aftershock zone defines an area of L = 25 km and W = 10 km, which the authors note is too large for an earthquake of this magnitude. The same study also included the derivation of a finite-fault model in which the main coseismic slip patch had smaller dimensions (L = 10 km, W = 6 km) that are compatible with an earthquake of this magnitude.
This event had a complex rupture history as indicated by the aftershock spatial pattern and waveform characteristics; therefore, its source properties and fault geometry was studied in detail. Zahradnik et al. (2005) analyzed the mainshock and found it consists of two subevents separated in space by 40 km and in time by 14 s. Benetatos et al. (2007) studied the aftershock distribution and produced a finite-fault model using teleseismic waveform data. They confirmed the results of Zahradnik et al. (2005) and interpreted the second subevent as the effect of static stress triggering. The fault dimensions defined by the aftershock zone and the finite-fault model of the first subevent agree well with each other and are L = 25 km and W = 10 km.
Al-Tarazi et al. (2006) used seismic data recorded by stations in both Jordan and Israel to relocate 42 aftershocks using the double-difference method. The fault dimensions that can be inferred are L = 8 km and W = 7 km. The authors also calculated focal mechanism for the mainshock using P polarities.
Akoglu et al. (2006) and Biggs et al. (2006) have used seismological and InSAR data to model the fault geometry and extent of the mainshock. The fault dimensions they infer are similar: L = 19 km and W = 12 km.
Fréchet et al. (2011) have used data from a dense local network of 28 seismic stations that were deployed one day after the mainshock. The authors used the double-difference method in order to relocate the aftershock sequence, with horizontal and vertical errors of order of 2 km and average rms residuals of 0.019 s. The dimensions of the zone defined by the early aftershocks are L = 2.5 km and W = 2 km. A focal mechanism of the mainshock using P-wave polarities was also calculated.
Sylvander et al. (2008) used data from the French and Spanish national seismic networks and a 3D velocity model to locate the aftershock sequence of this event. The zone defined by 250 of the best-located (horizontal and vertical errors smaller than 0.3 km) aftershocks has dimensions L = 2 km and W = 4 km. The authors also determined the focal mechanism of the mainshock by full waveform inversion of regional data.
Konstantinou et al. (2009) have used data from the Greek national network and a finite-fault model for the mainshock to obtain accurate absolute and relative locations of 438 aftershocks for the period of June 6–July 13. The aftershock zone that resulted from their analysis had dimensions L = 30 km and W = 10 km. The authors examined the aftershock distribution for different time periods and concluded there is no significant aftershock zone expansion. The finite-fault model has much larger dimensions (L = 40 km, W = 25 km), which result from the existence of smaller slip patches. If only the main slip patch is considered, then the dimensions L = 30 km and W = 15 km are closer to those obtained from the aftershock zone.
Chiaraluce et al. (2011) used data recorded by the national Italian network and temporary stations deployed after the mainshock to obtain high-precision locations of 2643 aftershocks, with horizontal and vertical errors of 40–80 m. The aftershock zone that results has dimensions L = 25 km and W = 12 km, which are in agreement with the dimensions of the finite-fault model derived by Cirella et al. (2012) using strong-motion, GPS, and Differential Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (DInSAR) data (L = 25 km, W = 14 km). The finite-fault models of Atzori et al. (2009) and Serpelloni et al. (2012) are based only on geodetic data (GPS or DInSAR) and seem to somewhat underestimate the fault dimensions (L = 16 km, W = 12 km). On the other hand, the finite-fault model of Poiata et al. (2012) was derived using teleseismic and strong-motion data, and its dimensions are closer to the estimates determined by aftershocks.
Kiratzi (2010) relocated 25 of the largest aftershocks of this sequence and inverted regional waveforms for the purpose of deriving moment tensors. The aftershocks zone has dimensions L = 6 km and W = 6 km. The author also determined a finite-fault model by inverting relative source time functions, which show an elliptical shape of the main slip patch having similar dimensions.
Kiratzi (2011) presented locations of the largest aftershocks using arrival times from neighboring regional networks and calculated their corresponding moment tensors. A finite-fault model was also determined by inverting relative source time functions, which show an elliptical main slip patch of dimensions L = 9 km and W = 6 km; this is in agreement with the extent of the aftershock zone.
Sokos et al. (2012) relocated the aftershock sequence using data recorded by both regional and local seismic networks and employing the double-difference method, along with determining moment tensors of selected events. A finite-fault model of the event shows that the main slip patch has dimensions L = 6 km and W = 6 km, which are similar to those derived from the aftershock zone.
Sokos et al. (2012) relocated the aftershock sequence using data recorded by both regional and local seismic networks and employing the double-difference method, along with determining moment tensors of selected events. A finite-fault model of the event shows that the main slip patch has dimensions L = 6 km and W = 5 km, which are similar to those derived from the aftershock zone.
Kiratzi (2013) located 550 aftershocks of the sequence and estimated moment tensors for the largest aftershocks using regional seismic data from permanent and temporary stations deployed at Santorini. A finite-fault model was determined by inverting relative source time functions, and its dimensions are in agreement with those obtained from the aftershock distribution (L = 8 km, W = 6 km).
Kiratzi and Svigkas (2013) relocated 195 aftershocks that occurred up to one month after the mainshock using data recorded by Greek and Turkish national seismic networks and employing the double-difference method. The dimensions of the aftershocks zone are L = 14 km and W = 7 km. A finite-fault model was also determined using relative source time functions, and the dimensions of the main slip patch were found to be somewhat smaller (L = 10 km, W = 8 km), which implies the aftershock area expansion may have increased the initial dimension estimates.
Akoglu A. M., Z. Cakir, M. Meghraoui, S. Belabbes, A. O. El-Alami, S. Ergintav, and H. S. Akyüz (2006). The 1994–2004 Al Hoceima (Morocco) earthquake sequence: Conjugate fault ruptures deduced from InSAR, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 252, 467–480, doi: 10.1016/j.epsl.2006.10.010.
Aktar, M., M. Ergin, S. Ozalaybey, C. Tapirdamaz, A. Yörük, and F. Bicmen (2000). A lower crustal event in the northeast Mediterranean: The 1998 Adana earthquake (Mw = 6.2) and its aftershocks, Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2361–2364.
Al-Tarazi E., E. Sandvol, and F. Gomez (2006). The February 11, 2004 Dead Sea earthquake ML = 5.2 in Jordan and its tectonic implication, Tectonophysics 422, 149–158, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2006.05.010.
Amato A., and G. Selvaggi (1993). Aftershock location and P-velocity structure in the epicentral region of the 1980 Irpinia earthquake, Ann. Geophys. XXXVI, 3–15.
Amoruso A., L. Crescentini, and R. Scarpa (2005). Faulting geometry for the complex 1980 Campania-Lucania earthquake from leveling data, Geophys. J. Int. 162, 156–168, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2005.02652.x.
Aoudia, A., A. Saraò, B. Bukchin, and P. Suhaldoc (2000). The 1976 Friuli (NE Italy) thrust faulting earthquake: A reappraisal 23 years later, Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 577–580.
Atzori S., I. Hunstad, M. Chini, S. Salvi, C. Tolomei, C. Bignami, S. Stramondo, E. Trasatti, A. Antonioli, and E. Boschi (2009). Finite fault inversion of DInSAR coseismic displacement of the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake (central Italy), Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15305, doi: 10.1029/2009GL039293.
Ayadi A., C. Dorbath, F. Ousadou, S. Maouche, M. Chikh, M. A. Bounif, and M. Meghraoui (2008). Zemmouri earthquake rupture zone (Mw 6.8, Algeria): Aftershocks sequence relocation and 3D velocity model, J. Geophys. Res. 113, no. B09301, doi: 10.1029/2007JB005257.
Bajc J., A. Aoudia, A. Saraò, and P. Suhaldoc (2001). The 1998 Bovec-Krn mountain (Slovenia) earthquake sequence, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1839–1842.
Baumont D., O. Scotti, F. Courboulex, and N. Melis (2004). Complex kinematic rupture of the Mw 5.9, 1999 Athens earthquake as revealed by the joint inversion of regional seismological and SAR data, Geophys. J. Int. 158, 1078–1087, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02374.x.
Bayrak, Y., and S. Öztürk (2004). Spatial and temporal variations of the aftershock sequences of the 1999 İzmit and Düzce earthquakes, Earth Planets Space 56, 933–944.
Benetatos C., and A. Kiratzi (2006). Finite-fault slip models for the 15 April 1979 (Mw 7.1) Montenegro earthquake and its strongest aftershock of 24 May 1979 (Mw 6.2), Tectonophysics 421, 129–143, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2006.04.009.
Benetatos, C., D. Dreger, and A. Kiratzi (2007). Complex and segmented rupture associated with the 14 August 2003 Mw 6.2 Lefkada, Ionian islands, earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97, 35–51, doi: 10.1785/0120060123.
Bernard P., P. Briole, B. Meyer, H. Lyon-Caen, J.-M. Gomez, C. Tiberi, C. Berge, R. Cattin, D. Hatzfeld, C. Lachet, et al. (1997). The Ms = 6.2 June 15, 1995 Aegion earthquake (Greece): Evidence for low-angle normal faulting in the Corinth rift, J. Seismol. 1, 131–150.
Biggs J., E. Bergman, B. Emmerson, G. J. Funning, J. Jackson, B. Parsons, and T. J. Wright (2006). Fault identification for buried strike-slip earthquakes using InSAR: The 1994 and 2004 Al Hoceima, Morocco, earthquakes, Geophys. J. Int. 166, 1347–1362, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2006.03071.x.
Birgören G., H. Sekiguchi, and K. Irikura (2004). Rupture model of the 1999 Düzce, Turkey, earthquake deduced from high and low frequency strong motion data, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L05610, doi: 10.1029/2003GL019194.
Bounif, M., and C. Dorbath (1998). Three-dimensional velocity structure and relocated aftershocks for the 1985 Constantine, Algeria (Ms = 5.9) earthquake, Ann. Geophys. 41, 93–104.
Bounif A., M. Bezzeghoud, L. Dorbath, D. Legrand, A. Deschamps, L. Rivera, and H. Benhallou (2003). Seismic source study of the 1989, October 29, Chenoua (Algeria) earthquake from aftershocks, broad-band and strong-ground motion records, Ann. Geophys. 46, 625–646.
Bounif A., C. Dorbath, A. Ayadi, M. Meghraoui, H. Beldjoudi, N. Laouami, M. Frogneoux, A. Slimani, P. J. Alasset, A. Kharroubi, et al. (2004). The 21 May 2003 Zemmouri (Algeria) earthquake Mw 6.8: Relocation and aftershock sequence analysis, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L19606, doi: 10.1029/2004GL020586.
Bouin M.-P., M. Bouchon, H. Karabulut, and M. Aktar (2004). Rupture process of the 1999 November 12 Düzce (Turkey) earthquake deduced from strong motion and Global Positioning System measurements, Geophys. J. Int. 159, 207–211, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02367.x.
Brozzetti F., G. Lavecchia, G. Mancini, G. Milana, and M. Cardinali (2009). Analysis of the 9 September 1998 Mw 5.6 Mercure earthquake sequence (southern Apennines, Italy): A multidisciplinary approach, Tectonophysics 476, 210–225, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2008.12.007.
Calvert, A., F. Gomez, D. Seber, B. Barazangi, N. Jabour, A. Ibenbrahim, and A. Denmati (1997). An integrated geophysical investigation of recent seismicity at Al-Hoceima region of north Morocco, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 637–651.
Carver, D., and G. Bollinger (1981). Distribution of the seismicity related to the June 20 1978 Ms = 6.5, northern Greece earthquake, in The Thessaloniki Northern Greece earthquake of June 20 1978 and its seismic sequence, B. C. Papazachos and P. G. Carydis (Editors), Technical Chamber of Greece, Athens, Greece.
Cheloni, D., N. D’Agostino, E. D’Anastasio, and G. Selvaggi (2012). Reassessment of the source of the 1976 Friuli, NE Italy, earthquake sequence from the joint inversion of high-precision leveling and triangulation data, Geophys. J. Int. 190, 1279–1294, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05561.x.
Chiaraluce L., W. L. Ellsworth, C. Chiarabba, and M. Cocco (2003). Imaging the complexity of an active normal fault system: The 1997 Colfiorito (central Italy) case study, J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2294, doi: 10.1029/2002JB002166.
Chiaraluce L., L. Valoroso, D. Piccinini, R. Di stefano, and P. De Gori (2011). The anatomy of the L’Aquila normal fault system (central Italy) imaged by high resolution foreshock and aftershock locations, J. Geophys. Res. 116, no. B12311, doi: 10.1029/2011JB008352.
Cipar, J. (1980). Teleseismic observations of the 1976 Friuli, Italy earthquake sequence, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, 963–983.
Cirella A., A. Piatanesi, E. Tinti, M. Chini, and M. Cocco (2012). Complexity of the rupture process during the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake, Geophys. J. Int. 190, 607–621, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05505.x.
Cocco M., C. Chiarabba, M. Di Bona, G. Selvaggi, L. Margheritti, A. Frepoli, F. P. Lucente, A. Basili, D. Jongmans, and M. Campillo (1999). The April 1996 Irpinia seismic sequence: Evidence for fault interaction, J. Seismol. 3, 105–117.
Console, R., and P. Favali (1981). Study of the Montenegro earthquake sequence (March–July 1979), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 71, 1233–1248.
Deschamps, A., and G. C. P. King (1983). The Campania-Lucania (southern Italy) earthquake of 23 November 1980, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 62, 296–304.
Di Luccio, F., E. Fukuyama, and N. A. Pino (2005). The 2002 Molise earthquake sequence: What can we learn about the tectonics of southern Italy?, Tectonophysics 405, 141–154, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2005.05.024.
El-Alami, S., B. A. Tadilli, BT. Cherkaoui, F. Medina, M. Ramdami, L. A. Brahim, and M. Harnafi (1998). The Al-Hoceima earthquake of May 26, 1994 and its aftershocks: A seismotectonic study, Ann. Geophys. 41, 519–537.
Elenean, K. M. A., H. M. Hussein, A. S. A. El-Ata, and E. M. Ibrahim (2000). Seismological aspects of the Cairo earthquake, 12th October 1992, Ann. Geophys. 43, 485–504.
Eyidogan, H., and M. Akinci (1999). Site attenuation and source parameters on the North Anatolian fault zone, eastern Turkey, estimated from the aftershocks of March 1992 Erzincan earthquake, J. Seismol. 3, 363–373.
Fattah, A. K., H. M. Hussein, E. M. Ibrahim, and A. S. El-Atta (1997). Fault plane solutions of the 1993 and 1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquakes and their tectonic implications, Ann. Geophys. XL, 1555–1564.
Fréchet J., F. Thouvenot, M. Frogneux, N. Deichmann, and M. Cara (2011). The Mw 4.5 Vallorcine (French Alps) earthquake of 8 September 2005 and its complex aftershock sequence, J. Seismol. 15, 43–58, doi: 10.1007/s10950-010-9205-8.
Fuenzalinda, H., L. Dorbath, A. Cisternas, H. Eyidogan, A. Barka, L. Rivera, H. Haessler, H. Philip, and N. Lyberis (1997). Mechanism of the 1992 Erzincan earthquake and its aftershocks, tectonics of the Erzincan basin and decoupling on the North Anatolian fault, Geophys. J. Int. 129, 1–28.
Gagnepain-Beyneix, J., H. Haessler, and T. Modiano (1982). The Pyrenean earthquake of February 29, 1980: An example of complex faulting, Tectonophysics 85, 273–290.
Güllen, L., A. Pinar, D. Kalafat, N. Özel, G. Horasan, M. Yilmazer, and A. M. Isikara (2002). Surface fault breaks, aftershock distribution, and rupture process of the 17 August 1999 İzmit, Turkey, earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 230–245.
Haessler, H., R. Gaulon, L. Rivera, R. Console, M. Frogneux, G. Gasperini, L. Martel, G. Patau, M. Siciliano, and A. Cisternas (1988). The Perugia (Italy) earthquake of 29 April 1984: A microearthquake survey, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 78, 1948–1964.
Hatzfeld, D., V. Karakostas, M. Ziazia, G. Selvaggi, S. Leborgne, C. Berge, R. Guiguet, A. Paul, P. Voidomatis, and D. Diagourtas (1997). The Kozani-Grevena earthquake of 13 May 1995 revisited from a detailed seismological study, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 463–473.
Hernandez, B., M. Cocco, F. Cotton, S. Stramondo, O. Scotti, F. Courboulex, and M. Campillo (2004). Rupture history of the 1997 Umbria-Marche (central Italy) main shocks from the inversion of GPS, DinSAR and near field strong motion data, Ann. Geophys. 47, 1355–1376.
Hofstetter, A., H. K. Thio, and G. Shamir (2003). Source mechanism of the 22/11/1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake and its aftershock sequence, J. Seismol. 7, 99–114.
Ito, A., B. Ücer, S. Baris, A. Nakamura, Y. Honkura, T. Kono, S. Hori, A. Hasegawa, R. Pektas, and A. M. Isikara (2002). Aftershock activity of the 1999 İzmit, Turkey, earthquake, revealed from microearthquake observations, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 418–427.
Karabulut, H., Z. Roumelioti, C. Benetatos, A. K. Mutlu, S. Özalaybey, M. Aktar, and A. Kiratzi (2006). A source study of the 6 July 2003 (Mw 5.7) earthquake sequence in the Gulf of Saros (northern Aegean Sea): Seismological evidence for the western continuation of the Ganos fault, Tectonophysics 412, 195–216, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2005.09.009.
Karakaisis, G. F., B. G. Karakostas, E. E. Papadimitriou, and B. C. Papazachos (1984). Properties of the 1979 Monte Negro (southwest Yugoslavia) seismic sequence, Pure Appl. Geophys. 122, 25–35.
Kaypak B., and H. Eyidogan (2005). One-dimensional crustal structure of the Erzincan basin, eastern Turkey and relocations of the 1992 Erzincan earthquake (Ms= 6.8) aftershock sequence, Phys. Earth Planet. In. 151, 1–20, doi: 10.1016/j.pepi.2004.11.009.
Kim, W. Y., O. Kulhanek, and K. Meyer (1984). Source processes of the 1981 Gulf of Corinth, earthquake sequence from body-wave analysis, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 74, 459–477.
King, G. C. P., Z. X. Ouyang, P. Papadimitriou, A. Deschamps, J. Gagnepain, G. Houseman, J. A. Jackson, C. Soufleris, and J. Virieux (1985). The evolution of the Gulf of Corinth (Greece): An aftershock study of the 1981 earthquakes, Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 80, 677–693.
Kiratzi, A. (2010). The 24 May 2009 Mw 5.2 earthquake sequence near Lake Doirani (FYROM-Greek borders): Focal mechanisms and slip model using empirical source time functions inversion, Tectonophysics 490, 115–122, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2010.04.035.
Kiratzi, A. (2011). The 6 September 2009 Mw 5.4 earthquake in eastern Albania-FYROM border: Focal mechanisms, slip model, ShakeMap, Turkish J. Earth Sci. 20, 475–488, doi: 10.3906/yer-1001-7.
Kiratzi, A. (2013). The January 2012 earthquake sequence in the Cretan basin, south of the Hellenic volcanic arc: Focal mechanisms, rupture directivity and slip models, Tectonophysics 586, 160–172, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2012.11.019.
Kiratzi, A., and N. Svigkas (2013). A study of the 8 January 2013 Mw 5.8 earthquake sequence (Lemnos Island, east Agean Sea), Tectonophysics 608, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2013.09.002.
Klinger, Y., L. Rivera, H. Haessler, and J. C. Maurin (1999). Active faulting in the Gulf of Aqaba: New knowledge from the Mw 7.3 earthquake of 22 November 1995, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89, 1025–1036.
Konca, A. O., S. Leprince, J.-P. Avouac, and D. V. Helmberger (2010). Rupture process of the 1999 Mw 7.1 Düzce earthquake from joint analysis of SPOT, GPS, InSAR, strong-motion, and teleseismic data: A supershear rupture with variable rupture velocity, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100, 267–288, doi: 10.1785/0120090072.
Konstantinou, K. I., N. S. Melis, S.-J. Lee, C. P. Evangelidis, and K. Boukouras (2009). Rupture process and aftershocks relocation of the 8 June 2008 Mw 6.4 earthquake in northwestern Peloponnese, western Greece, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 99, 3374–3389, doi: 10.1785/0120080301.
Kulhanek, O., and K. Meyer (1981). Spectral study of the June 20 1978, Thessaloniki earthquake, in The Thessaloniki Northern Greece earthquake of June 20 1978 and its seismic sequence, B. C. Papazachos and P. G. Carydis (Editors), Technical Chamber of Greece.
Lyon-Caen, H., R. Armijo, J. Drakopoulos, J. Baskoutass, N. Delibasis, R. Gaulon, V. Kouskouna, J. Latousakis, K. Makropoulos, P. Papadimitriou, D. Papanastasiou, and G. Pedotti (1988). The 1986 Kalamata (south Peloponnesus) earthquake: Detailed study of a normal fault, evidences for east-west extension in the Hellenic arc, J. Geophys. Res. 93, 14,967–15,000.
Öncel, A. O., H. Koral, and O. Alptekin (1998). The Dinar earthquake (Mw = 6.2; October 1, 1995; Afyon-Turkey) and earthquake hazard of the Dinar-Çivril fault, Pure Appl. Geophys. 152, 91–105.
Ousadou, F., L. Dorbath, C. Dorbath, M. A. Bounif, and H. Benhallou (2013). The Constantine (Algeria) seismic sequence of 27 October 1985: A new rupture model from aftershock relocation, focal mechanisms, and stress tensors, J. Seismol. 17, 207–222, doi: 10.1007/s10950-012-9320-9.
Ozalaybay, S., M. Ergin, M. Aktar, C. Tapirtamaz, F. Bicmen, and A. Yörük (2002). The 1999 İzmit earthquake sequence in Turkey: Seismological and tectonic aspects, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 376–386.
Papadimitriou, P., N. Voulgaris, I. Kassaras, G. Kaviris, N. Delibasis, and K. Makropoulos (2002). The Mw = 6.0, 7 September 1999 Athens earthquake, Nat. Hazards 27, 15–33.
Papadopoulos, G. A., A. Ganas, and S. Pavlidis (2001). Instrumental and field observations for the determination of the seismogenic structure of the 7 September 1999 Athens earthquake, Bull. Geol. Soc. Greece XXXIV, 1457–1464.
Papadopoulos, G. A., A. Ganas, and A. Plessa (2002). The Skyros earthquake (Mw = 6.5) of 26 July 2001 and precursory seismicity patterns in the north Aegean Sea, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92, 1141–1145.
Papazachos, B. C., P. E. Comninakis, E. E. Papadimitriou, and E. M. Scordilis (1984). Properties of the February–March 1981 seismic sequence in the Alkyonides Gulf of central Greece, Ann. Geophys. 2, 537–544.
Papazachos, B. C., A. Kiratzi, B. Karakostas, D. G. Panagiotopoulos, E. Scordilis, and D. M. Mountrakis (1988). Surface fault traces, fault plane solution and spatial distribution of the aftershocks of the September 13, 1986 earthquake of Kalamata (southern Greece), Pure Appl. Geophys. 126, 55–68.
Papazachos, B. C., D. G. Panagiotopoulos, T. M. Tsapanos, D. M., Mountrakis, and G. C. Dimopoulos (1983). A study of the 1980 summer seismic sequence in the Magnesia region of central Greece, Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 75, 155–168.
Pauchet, H., A. Rigo, L. Rivera, and A. Souriau (1999). A detailed analysis of the February 1996 aftershock sequence in the eastern Pyrenees, France, Geophys. J. Int. 137, 107–127.
Pinar, A. (1998). Source inversion of the October 1 1995, Dinar earthquake (Ms = 6.1): A rupture model with implications in seismotectonics in SW Turkey, Tectonophysics 292, 255–266.
Poiata, N., K. Koketsu, A. Vuan, and H. Miyake (2012). Low-frequency and broad-band source models for the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy, earthquake, Geophys. J. Int. 191, 224–242, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2012.05602.x.
Polat, O., H. Eyidogan, H. Haessler, A. Cisternas, and H. Philip (2002). Analysis and interpretation of the aftershock sequence of the August 17, 1999, İzmit (Turkey) earthquake, J. Seismol. 6, 287–306.
Resor, P. G., D. D. Pollard, T. J. Wright, and G. C. Beroza (2005). Integrating high-precision aftershock locations and geodetic observations to model co-seismic deformation associated with the 1995 Kozani-Grevena earthquake, Greece, J. Geophys. Res. 110, no. B09402, doi: 10.1029/2004JB003263.
Roumelioti, Z., A. Kiratzi, and D. Dreger (2004). The source process of the 2001 July 26 Skyros Island (Greece) earthquake, Geophys. J. Int. 156, 541–548, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02124.x.
Roumelioti, Z., A. Kiratzi, and N. Melis (2003). Relocation of the 26 July 2001 Skyros Island (Greece) earthquake sequence using the double-difference technique, Phys. Earth Planet. In., 138, doi: 10.1016/S0031-9201(03)00138-9.
Roumelioti, Z., C. Benetatos, A. Kiratzi, G. Stavrakakis, and N. Melis (2004). A study of the 2 December 2002 (M 5.5) Vartholomio (western Greece) earthquake and of its largest aftershocks, Tectonophysics 387, 65–79, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2004.06.008.
Scarpa, R., and D. Slejko (1982). The southern Italy November 23, 1980 earthquake: Some analysis of seismological data (published report), The Italian Geodynamics Project, Publication Number 503, National Research Council of Italy.
Selvaggi, G., F. Ferulano, M. Di Bona, A. Frepoli, R. Azzara, A. Basili, C. Chiarabba, M. G. Ciaccio, F. Di Luccio, F. P. Lucente, L. Margheriti, and C. Nostro (2001). The Mw 5.4 Reggio Emilia 1996 earthquake: Active compressional tectonics in the Po Plain, Italy, Geophys. J. Int. 144, 1–13.
Serpelloni, E., L. Anderlini, and M. E. Belardinelli (2012). Fault geometry, coseismic slip distribution and Coulomb stress change associated with the 2009 April 6, Mw 6.3 L’Aquila earthquake from inversion of GPS displacement, Geophys. Res. Lett. 188, 473–489, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05279.x.
Shamir, G., G. Baer, and A. Hofstetter (2003). Three-dimensional elastic earthquakes modeling based on integrated seismological and InSAR data: The Mw = 7.2 Nuweiba earthquake, Gulf of Elat/Aqaba 1995 November, Geophys. J. Int. 154, 731–744.
Sokos, E., J. Zahradnik, A. Kiratzi, J. Jansky, F. Gallovic, O. Novotny, J. Kostelecky, A. Serpetsidaki, and G.-A. Tselentis (2012). The January 2010 Efpalio earthquake sequence in the western Corinth Gulf (Greece), Tectonophysics 530/531, 299–309, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2012.01.005.
Soufleris, C., J. A. Jackson, G. C. P. King, C. H. Scholz, and C. P. Spencer (1982). The 1978 earthquake sequence near Thessaloniki (northern Greece), Geophys. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. 68, 429–458.
Sylvander, M., A. Souriau, A. Rigo, A. Tocheport, J.-P. Toutain, C. Ponsolles, and S. Benahmed (2008). The 2006 November ML = 5.0 earthquake near Lourdes (France): New evidence for the NS extension across the Pyrenees, Geophys. J. Int. 175, 649–664, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2008.03911.x.
Thouvenot, F., J. Frechet, P. Tapponier, J.-C. Thomas, B. LeBrun, G. Menard, R. Lacassin, L. Jenatton, J.-R. Grasso, O. Coutant, A. Paul, and D. Hatzfeld (1998). The ML 5.3 Epagny (French Alps) earthquake of the 1996 July 15: A long-awaited event on the Vuache fault, Geophys. J. Int. 135, 876–892.
Tselentis, G. A., N. S. Melis, E. Sokos, and K. Papatsimpa (1996). The Egion June 15 (6.2 ML) earthquake, western Greece, Pure Appl. Geophys. 147, 83–98.
Tselentis, G. A., and J. Zahradnik (2000). The Athens earthquake of September 1999, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 90, 1143–1160.
Umutlu, N., K. Koketsu, and C. Milkereit (2004). The rupture process during the 1999 Düzce, Turkey, earthquake from joint inversion of teleseismic and strong-motion data, Tectonophysics 391, doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2004.07.019.
Utkucu M., Ö. Alptekin, and A. Pinar (2003). A detailed source study of the Orta (Çankiri) earthquake of June 6 2000 (Ms = 6.1): An intraplate earthquake in central Anatolia, J. Seismol. 7, 193–202.
Utkucu M., A. Pinar, and Ö. Alptekin (2002). A detailed slip model for the 1995, October 1, Dinar Turkey earthquake (Ms = 6.1) determined from inversion of teleseismic P and SH waveforms, Geophys. J. Int. 151, 184–195.
Utkucu, M., S. Nalbant, J. McCluskey, S. Stacey, and Ö. Alptekin (2003). Slip distribution and stress changes associated with the 1999 November 12, Düzce (Turkey) earthquake (Mw = 7.1), Geophys. J. Int. 153, 229–241.
Vallée M., and F. Di Luccio (2005). Source analysis of the 2002 Molise, southern Italy, twin earthqukes (10/31 and 11/01), Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L12309, doi: 10.1029/2005GL022687.
Yalcinkaya, E., A. Pinar, O. Uskuloglu, S. Tekebas, and B. Firat (2012). Selecting the most suitable rupture model for the stochastic simulation of the 1999 İzmit earthquake and prediction of peak ground motions, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 42, 1–16, doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.018.
Zahradnik J., A. Serpetsidaki, E. Sokos, G.-A. Tselentis (2005). Iterative deconvolution of regional waveforms and a double event interpretation of the 2003 Lefkada earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 95, 159–172, doi: 10.1785/0120040035.
[ Back ]