4.7 Article

Aftershock triggering by complete Coulomb stress changes

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2001JB000202

关键词

Aftershock triggering; Landers earthquake 1992; Coulomb stress; reflectivity; dynamic stress changes; seismicity rate change

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] We examine the correlation between seismicity rate change following the 1992, M7.3, Landers, California, earthquake and characteristics of the complete Coulomb failure stress (CFS) changes (DeltaCFS(t)) that this earthquake generated. At close distances the time-varying dynamic'' portion of the stress change depends on how the rupture develops temporally and spatially and arises from radiated seismic waves and from permanent coseismic fault displacement. The permanent static'' portion (DeltaCFS) depends only on the final coseismic displacement. DeltaCFS diminishes much more rapidly with distance than the transient, dynamic stress changes. A common interpretation of the strong correlation between DeltaCFS and aftershocks is that load changes can advance or delay failure. Stress changes may also promote failure by physically altering properties of the fault or its environs. Because it is transient, DeltaCFS( t) can alter the failure rate only by the latter means. We calculate both DeltaCFS and the maximum positive value of DeltaCFS( t) (peak DeltaCFS( t)) using a reflectivity program. Input parameters are constrained by modeling Landers displacement seismograms. We quantify the correlation between maps of seismicity rate changes and maps of modeled DeltaCFS and peak DeltaCFS( t) and find agreement for both models. However, rupture directivity, which does not affect DeltaCFS, creates larger peak DeltaCFS( t) values northwest of the main shock. This asymmetry is also observed in seismicity rate changes but not in DeltaCFS. This result implies that dynamic stress changes are as effective as static stress changes in triggering aftershocks and may trigger earthquakes long after the waves have passed.

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

4.7
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