4.8 Article

Bridging time scales of faulting: From coseismic to postseismic slip of the Mw 6.0 2014 South Napa, California earthquake

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 8, 期 38, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abq2536

关键词

-

资金

  1. Charles University Grant SVV [115-009/260581]
  2. Grant Agency of the Charles University (GAUK) [570120]
  3. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic through the e-INFRA CZ [90140]
  4. French National Research Agency, UCAJEDI Investments in the Future project [ANR-15-IDEX-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized a Bayesian dynamic source inversion method to jointly analyze coseismic and postseismic observations of the 2014 South Napa earthquake, providing insights into how fault stress and friction properties affect the spatial separation between afterslip and coseismic slip, driving deep off-fault aftershocks and influencing rupture shapes.
Transient fault slip spans time scales from tens of seconds of earthquake rupture to years of aseismic afterslip. So far, seismic and geodetic recordings of these two phenomena have primarily been studied separately and mostly with a focus on kinematic aspects, which limits our physical understanding of the interplay between seismic and aseismic slip. Here, we use a Bayesian dynamic source inversion method, based on laboratory-derived friction laws, to constrain fault stress and friction properties by joint quantitative modeling of coseismic and postseismic observations. Analysis of the well-recorded 2014 South Napa, California earthquake shows how the stressing and frictional conditions on the fault govern the spatial separation between shallow coseismic and postseismic slip, the progression of afterslip driving deep off-fault aftershocks, and the oblique ribbon-like rupture shape. Such inferences of stress and frictional rheology can advance our understanding of earthquake physics and pave the way for self-consistent cross-scale seismic hazard assessment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据