2005
DOI: 10.1038/nature04067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

12
245
0
6

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 360 publications
(270 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
12
245
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…[10] Since the aftershocks of the Parkfield mainshock span about 35 km along the SAF [Bakun et al, 2005], it is difficult to assign magnitudes to aftershocks identified from waveforms at only one or a few nearby stations. Without a common magnitude calibration and threshold magnitude, a direct comparison of the number of events listed in the NCSN catalog and identified from the high-pass-filtered envelope is not feasible.…”
Section: Aftershock Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[10] Since the aftershocks of the Parkfield mainshock span about 35 km along the SAF [Bakun et al, 2005], it is difficult to assign magnitudes to aftershocks identified from waveforms at only one or a few nearby stations. Without a common magnitude calibration and threshold magnitude, a direct comparison of the number of events listed in the NCSN catalog and identified from the high-pass-filtered envelope is not feasible.…”
Section: Aftershock Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[5] Here, we systematically analyze the early aftershock decay rate of the 2004 Mw6.0 Parkfield, California, earthquake [Bakun et al, 2005] by scrutinizing high-frequency signals from seismograms recorded near the source region. The mainshock ruptured the Parkfield section of the San Andreas fault (SAF) (Figure 1).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[3] The Parkfield region is an ideal location to search for a connection between seismicity and precipitation because the SAF in this region is seismically active [Bakun et al, 2005]; an extensive seismic network provides detailed earthquake data [Bakun and Lindh, 1985;Bakun et al, 2005;Roeloffs and Langbein, 1994]; precipitation rates are relatively low (>0.5 m/y on average); the fault is believed to be extremely weak [Zoback et al, 1987;Rice, 1992;Hickman and Zoback, 2004;Townend and Zoback, 2004]; and the characteristics of microearthquakes in the region have been studied extensively [Poley et al, 1987;Rubin et al, 1999;Nadeau and McEvilly, 2004]. Any relation between rainfall and earthquake occurrence in this environment would imply a stress threshold for triggered seismicity that is lower than commonly accepted [Harris, 1998].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there is a fairly large variation in this threshold distance within the literature, recent findings by environmental scientists provide key insights for establishing working estimates. For instance, Bakun et al (2005) calculated that the mean intensity of ground shaking during an earthquake dropped by one-third of the highest intensity when the distance from the fault line increased by 30 km or more. At this point, the peak horizontal acceleration (PHA) value of an earthquake fell below 0.1 g-a threshold of weak to moderate land shaking that only lightly damages buildings-although the damage may also (Forman and McDonald, 2007).…”
Section: Data Collection and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%