Coulomb stress changes and secondary stress triggering during the 2003 (Mw 6.6) Bam (Iran) earthquake

Asayesh, Behnam Maleki; Zafarani, Hamid; Tatar, M.

doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2019.228304

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the spatial distribution of aftershocks around the mainshock is generally not isotropic. Many studies show that anisotropic spatial distribution of aftershocks correlates well with coseismic stress changes due to mainshock (e.g., Asayesh, Zafarani, et al., 2020; Asayesh, Zarei, et al., 2020; Hainzl et al., 2010; King et al., 1994; Meade et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2020). The assumption of isotropic aftershock distributions in the ETAS model can significantly bias the estimation of the model parameters, in particular, the α value (Hainzl et al., 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depth‐Dependent Aftershock Trigger Potential Revealed by 3D‐ETAS Modeling

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is a widely used stochastic point process model for describing the distribution and clustering of earthquakes in space and time. According to the ETAS model, any earthquake, irrespective of its size, can trigger other (larger or smaller) earthquakes. This model fits the earthquake rate as a linear superposition of a constant background rate and decaying rates of ongoing aftershock sequences triggered by past events, where the expected number of triggered events (aftershock productivity) is an exponential function of magnitude, the temporal decay follows the Omori-Utsu law (Utsu, 1961), and the aftershocks spatial distribution is usually described by an isotropic powerlaw decay as a function of the epicentral distance to the source.In the past decades, the ETAS model has been widely used and further developed in many applications (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depth‐Dependent Aftershock Trigger Potential Revealed by 3D‐ETAS Modeling

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results indicated that almost all the aftershocks were generated within areas of increased co-seismic stress. Furthermore, Asayesh et al (2020) investigated in detail the existence of M6.6 co-seismic stress and the aftershock distribution in Iran. The results indicated that more than 81% of the aftershocks were generated within the areas of increased co-seismic stress.…”

Section: Figure 1 Added Herementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several criteria have been used to analyze the conditions of the co-seismic stress and failure of rocks. One of the most extensively used criteria is the Coulomb failure criterion (King et al, 1994;King and Cocco, 2001;Ansari, 2016;Ahadov and Jin, 2019;Asayesh et al, 2020). Based on the Coulomb criterion, failure occurs on a fault plane when the Coulomb stress exceeds a certain value causing an earthquake to occur (Yazdanfar et al, 2018).…”

Section: Coulomb Stressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of co-seismic stress and aftershock distribution along the Sumatra-Andaman Subduction Zone

Sukrungsri,

Khamsiri,

Pailoplee

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate co-seismic stress and aftershock distribution along the Sumatra-Andaman subduction zone (SASZ). The fault parameters of six major earthquakes with an M ≥ 7 that occurred during 2010 – 2022 along the SASZ, were utilized to determine the Coulomb stress change using numerical modeling techniques calculated on the receiver faults with similar focal mechanisms of the mainshock, strike-slip, thrust, and normal faulting, respectively. The earthquake events were then classified to analyze the aftershocks of major earthquakes in the area. These aftershocks were mapped in order to determine the relationship between the aftershock distribution and the areas of increased or decreased stress. The relationship between the co-seismic stress and distribution of aftershocks in the SASZ was found to mainly depend on the focal mechanism of major earthquakes and the type of receiver fault used for calculation. After a major earthquake in the SASZ, there are two possible patterns that most aftershocks will be generated from in the areas of increased stress. First, a major earthquake is a type of thrust fault calculated on the receiver fault using the focal mechanism of the mainshock. Second, a major earthquake is a type of strike-slip fault calculated on the receiver fault with an optimum-oriented strike-slip fault. This relationship is likely to represent the specific pattern of the seismotectonic stress in the SASZ that can be used to evaluate the risk areas of aftershocks after a major earthquake has occurred. Furthermore, two earthquake events with large magnitudes were generated following the respective major earthquake in the SASZ that were located around the areas of increased stress, indicating that these two earthquake events were likely triggered in areas of increased stress following the respective major earthquake. Therefore, this study concluded that after a major earthquake occurrence in the SASZ, the areas of increased stress have a higher risk of generating both a large number of aftershocks and a new large-magnitude mainshock event. The investigation of co-seismic stress is very important to estimate areas of increased stress after a major earthquake, as this can be useful for monitoring both earthquake and tsunami hazards in the area.

show abstract

“…The Coulomb stress change analysis computes stress variations transpiring on a designated recipient fault based on the fault slip model (King et al, 1994;Lin and Stein, 2004;Ma et al, 2005;Toda, 2008;Toda, 2008;Ishibe et al, 2011). In addition, various researchers have assimilated the fault plane solutions in computing the Coulomb stress variation (Hardebeck et al, 1998;Meier et al, 2014;Asayesh et al, 2020). Furthermore, using the Coulomb stress analysis, several researchers have inferred that the fault planes may undergo induced stress along the nodal planes ( Wu et al, 2017;Asayesh et al, 2020).…”

Section: Coulomb Stress Change Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, various researchers have assimilated the fault plane solutions in computing the Coulomb stress variation (Hardebeck et al, 1998;Meier et al, 2014;Asayesh et al, 2020). Furthermore, using the Coulomb stress analysis, several researchers have inferred that the fault planes may undergo induced stress along the nodal planes ( Wu et al, 2017;Asayesh et al, 2020). The present study is focused on two consequent significant earthquakes (M4.6 of July 2020 and M4.2 of December 2020) that had occurred in the northern part of the Alwar district and to the southwest of the Delhi NCR, within a very short span of time of about 5 months.…”

Section: Coulomb Stress Change Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Unravelling seismogenesis and characterizing the unique features of two significant felt earthquakes (M > 4.0) of 2020 in the southwestern parts of the Delhi region

Prajapati,

Pandey,

Bhattacharjee

et al. 2024

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two significant earthquakes (M4.6 and 4.2) occurred close to a NE–SW-trending lineament in the southwestern part of the Delhi NCR (National Capital Region) within a short time span of about 5 months in 2020. These events were located to the north of the Alwar district in Rajasthan and generated a significant ground shaking in and around Delhi. In the present study, we tried to understand a causal relationship between the events and a nearby source in the region, geologically demarcated as the lineament. We analyzed the broadband waveform data from 26 seismic stations that recorded the recent events of 03 July 2020 (M4.6) and 17 December 2020 (M4.2). Typically, the epicentral area has been devoid of significant earthquakes since the past six decades; however, a few minor events (M < 4.0) have been recorded till date. Analysis of the earthquake database for two decades (2000–2022) revealed low seismicity (nearly quiescent-like situation) in ∼100 sq km area around the epicentral zone, unlike considerable seismicity along faults/lineaments close to the Delhi region. The full-waveform inversion analyses of the events indicate normal faulting with a minor strike–slip components. The source parameters, viz., source radius, stress drop, and seismic moment, were estimated to be 6 km, 166 bars, and 8.28E+15 Nm, respectively, for the 03 July 2020 event and 4 km, 138 bars, and 2.29E+15 Nm, respectively, for the 17 December 2020 event. The causative source of these events is ascertained based on the stress inversion modeling that indicated a NW–SE tensile stress corroborating well with the NE–SW-trending lineament mapped in the study region. The static Coulomb stress modeling indicated that the event which occurred on 3 July 2020 had advanced the triggering process of the event in the northeast segment of the same source that occurred on 17 December 2020. We further emphasize that the aforementioned lineament probably activated due to the regional tectonics of the study area. The causative source of these events with strike 48°, dip 86°, and rake −60° is found to be in the conformity with the local tectonics and is well-supplemented by a high stress ratio (0.70 ± 0.05) and low friction coefficient (0.5).

show abstract

Coulomb stress changes and secondary stress triggering during the 2003 (Mw 6.6) Bam (Iran) earthquake

Cited by 14 publications

References 83 publications

Depth‐Dependent Aftershock Trigger Potential Revealed by 3D‐ETAS Modeling

Depth‐Dependent Aftershock Trigger Potential Revealed by 3D‐ETAS Modeling

Investigation of co-seismic stress and aftershock distribution along the Sumatra-Andaman Subduction Zone

Unravelling seismogenesis and characterizing the unique features of two significant felt earthquakes (M > 4.0) of 2020 in the southwestern parts of the Delhi region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About