Immediate Foreshocks Indicating Cascading Rupture Developments for 527 M 0.9 to 5.4 Ridgecrest Earthquakes

Meng, Haoran; Fan, Wenyuan

doi:10.1029/2021gl095704

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Near‐field observations with bore‐hole strain meter have reported no similar nucleation signals so far (Roeloffs, 2006), even before the 2004 Parkfield earthquake (Johnston et al., 2006). Meng and Fan (2021) detects immediate foreshocks in the 2019 Ridgecrest aftershocks, but found that they follow mostly the cascade mode, with no scaling between the characteristic of their P wave and the magnitude of target event. Though Tape et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismological Characterization of the 2021 Yangbi Foreshock‐Mainshock Sequence, Yunnan, China: More than a Triggered Cascade

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreshocks are known as smaller earthquakes preceding the large mainshock (Jones & Molnar, 1979). Due to the neighboring location and temporal correlation, foreshocks are considered as a possible precursory phenomenon, for example, the success prediction of 1975 M w 7.0 Haicheng earthquake largely relies on the ∼1-day foreshock activity (Wang et al., 2006). Traditionally, two end-member models are proposed to explain the triggering relationship between the foreshocks and mainshock (Dodge et al., 1996): the cascade model and the pre-slip model. The cascade model describes the seismic sequence as the cascade failure of isolated asperities, where each event is triggered by the stress transfer from the previous earthquake (Ellsworth & Bulut, 2018;Felzer et al., 2004;

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismological Characterization of the 2021 Yangbi Foreshock‐Mainshock Sequence, Yunnan, China: More than a Triggered Cascade

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extending these ideas 12 , we suggest that faults that are more strongly velocity weakening and/or those with significant overstress may host fast creep fronts that can quickly accelerate into subsequent dynamic rupture and may only be identified seismically as a 1-10 s pause between a triggering event and its (potentially larger) aftershock 63,64 . Faults that are strongly velocity strengthening will produce creep fronts with more limited spatial extent 8 , where asperities act in isolation and are less likely to trigger neighboring earthquakes on days-to-years timescales 4 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Creep fronts and complexity in laboratory earthquake sequences illuminate delayed earthquake triggering

Cebry

Shreedharan

et al. 2022

Nat Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earthquakes occur in clusters or sequences that arise from complex triggering mechanisms, but direct measurement of the slow subsurface slip responsible for delayed triggering is rarely possible. We investigate the origins of complexity and its relationship to heterogeneity using an experimental fault with two dominant seismic asperities. The fault is composed of quartz powder, a material common to natural faults, sandwiched between 760 mm long polymer blocks that deform the way 10 meters of rock would behave. We observe periodic repeating earthquakes that transition into aperiodic and complex sequences of fast and slow events. Neighboring earthquakes communicate via migrating slow slip, which resembles creep fronts observed in numerical simulations and on tectonic faults. Utilizing both local stress measurements and numerical simulations, we observe that the speed and strength of creep fronts are highly sensitive to fault stress levels left behind by previous earthquakes, and may serve as on-fault stress meters.

show abstract

“…In real fault systems, the cascade and preslip models of nucleation are not mutually exclusive and indeed may feedback on one another (Cattania & Segall, 2021; McLaskey, 2019; Noda et al., 2013). Recent observations from high‐resolution earthquake catalogs around the world (Cabrera et al., 2022; Durand et al., 2020; Ellsworth & Bulut, 2018; Feng et al., 2021; Gardonio et al., 2020; Malin et al., 2018; H. Meng & Fan, 2021; Moutote et al., 2021; Sánchez‐Reyes et al., 2021; Shelly, 2020; Trugman & Ross, 2019; M. P. A. van den Ende & Ampuero, 2020; Yao et al., 2020; Yoon et al., 2019) are beginning to bridge the gap between laboratory and field scales by providing more complete and holistic observations of the nucleation process. The diverse range of physical processes highlighted by these recent studies suggest that earthquake nucleation does not follow a simple, uniform trajectory common to all earthquakes, but instead may be complex and highly dependent on the details of the faulting environment and stress regime.…”

Section: Science Enabled By Big Data Seismologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Big Data Seismology

Arrowsmith

Trugman

MacCarthy

et al. 2022

Reviews of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discipline of seismology is based on observations of ground motion that are inherently undersampled in space and time. Our basic understanding of earthquake processes and our ability to resolve 4D Earth structure are fundamentally limited by data volume. Today, Big Data Seismology is an emergent revolution involving the use of large, data‐dense inquiries that is providing new opportunities to make fundamental advances in these areas. This article reviews recent scientific advances enabled by Big Data Seismology through the context of three major drivers: the development of new data‐dense sensor systems, improvements in computing, and the development of new types of techniques and algorithms. Each driver is explored in the context of both global and exploration seismology, alongside collaborative opportunities that combine the features of long‐duration data collections (common to global seismology) with dense networks of sensors (common to exploration seismology). The review explores some of the unique challenges and opportunities that Big Data Seismology presents, drawing on parallels from other fields facing similar issues. Finally, recent scientific findings enabled by dense seismic data sets are discussed, and we assess the opportunities for significant advances made possible with Big Data Seismology. This review is designed to be a primer for seismologists who are interested in getting up‐to‐speed with how the Big Data revolution is advancing the field of seismology.

show abstract

Immediate Foreshocks Indicating Cascading Rupture Developments for 527 M 0.9 to 5.4 Ridgecrest Earthquakes

Abstract: Identifying and observing geophysical signals of slip events preceding earthquakes have been of paramount importance because of their direct linkage with earthquake nucleation and rupture processes (e.g., Bou-

Cited by 18 publications

References 91 publications

Seismological Characterization of the 2021 Yangbi Foreshock‐Mainshock Sequence, Yunnan, China: More than a Triggered Cascade

Seismological Characterization of the 2021 Yangbi Foreshock‐Mainshock Sequence, Yunnan, China: More than a Triggered Cascade

Creep fronts and complexity in laboratory earthquake sequences illuminate delayed earthquake triggering

Big Data Seismology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About