Paleoseismology: Why can't earthquakes keep on schedule?

Yeats, Robert S.

doi:10.1130/focus092007.1

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Earthquake synchronization has been described in other cases worldwide (see synthesis in Scholz [2010]), along individual faults (fairly synchronous earthquakes on different sections of a fault, and hence clustered earthquakes [e.g., Marco et al, 1996;Barka, 1996;Stein et al, 1997;Ferry et al, 2011;Schlagenhauf et al, 2011]), among a few nearby faults [e.g., Rockwell et al, 2000;Bell et al, 2004;Vanneste et al, 2006;Dolan et al, 2007], and even possibly at the global scale [e.g., Bufe and Perkins, 2005]. The reasons evoked to account for such a synchronization are stress transfers [e.g., Goes, 1996;Chéry et al, 2001aChéry et al, , 2001bFriedrich et al, 2003;Scholz, 2010]-either static [e.g., King et al, 1994;Zöller and Hainzl, 2007], dynamic [e.g., Brodsky 2009], related to visco-elastic post-seismic reloading of lower crust and mantle [e.g., Kagan and Jackson, 1991;Chéry et al, 2001aChéry et al, , 2001bKenner and Simons, 2005], or resulting from fluctuations in loading rate and creep at the base of the seismogenic crust [e.g., Yeats, 2007;Dolan et al, 2007;Scholz, 2010;Sammis and Smith, 2013], and a combination of some of those factors. Stress transfer from a large earthquake would modify the seismic cycles of the nearby faults having a similar cycle (i.e., similar slip rates and similar recurrence times of large earthquakes), and so doing, would produce an emergent alignment of the fault cycles ("phase locking" of the faults) and hence, the clustering and the synchrony of the large events among the faults [Scholz, 2010;Sammis and Smith, 2013].…”

Section: Synchrony Of Large Earthquakes Within Fault Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ³⁶Cl exposure dating

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] We recover the Holocene earthquake history of seven seismogenic normal faults in the Fucino system, central Italy. We collected 800 samples from the well-preserved limestone scarps of the faults and modeled their 36 Cl concentrations to derive their seismic exhumation history. We found that > 30 large earthquakes broke the faults in synchrony over the last 12 ka. The seven faults released strain at the same periods of time, 12-9 ka, 5-3 ka, and 1.5-1 ka. On all faults, the strain accumulation and release occurred in 3-6 ka supercycles, each included a 3-5 ka phase of slow (≤ 0.5-2 mm/yr) strain accumulation in relative quiescence, followed by a cluster of three to four large earthquakes or earthquake sequences that released most of the strain in < 1-2 ka. The large earthquakes repeated every 0.5 ± 0.3 ka during the paroxysmal phases and every 4.3 ± 0.9 ka between those phases. Earthquakes on the northern faults produced twice larger surface slips (~2 m) and had larger magnitudes (Mw 6.2-6.7) than those on the southern faults. On most faults, the relative strain level was found to control the amount of slip and the time of occurrence of the next large earthquake. Faults entered a phase of clustered activity once they had reached a specific relative strain threshold. The Tre Monti fault is identified as the most prone to break over the next century. Our data document earthquake synchrony and clustering at a broader space and time scale than has been reported to date.

show abstract

Section: Synchrony Of Large Earthquakes Within Fault Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ³⁶Cl exposure dating

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It needs sedimentary archives that are thin enough to access but thick enough to catch all of the paleoevents. On the other hand, not all of the surface‐rupturing earthquakes can be recognized by trenching methods (Yeats, ). In some cases, destructive earthquakes may not produce any surface rupture or can only be manifested as distributed deformation (Atakan, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are U‐Th Dates Correlated With Historical Records of Earthquakes? Constraints From Coseismic Carbonate Veins Within the North Anatolian Fault Zone

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U‐Th dating of carbonate veins in connection with active tectonics has recently been used as an attractive tool for constraining the absolute timing of late Quaternary crustal deformations. In this study, for the first time we correlate U‐Th ages of travertine deposits in coseismic fissures along the North Anatolian Fault Zone with records of paleoseismological studies supported by historical earthquake catalogued data. U‐Th ages are assessed in relation to the recurrence interval and the size and epicenter distance of major Holocene earthquakes. Our statistical evaluations on age correlations indicate that the carbonate vein precipitation is concentrated in eight different periods along the North Anatolian Fault Zone. The periods are well correlated with historical earthquake records and with previous dating results of the nearby trench studies. At least six of the periods correspond to the earthquakes reported in the historical catalogues. The age correlations of carbonate precipitation intervals for the last millennium show a recurrence along the eastern North Anatolian Fault Zone with a mode at 130–330 years that is consistent with a previously proposed paleoseismic recurrence interval of the fault. Recorded events in carbonate veins indicate a close‐epicenter (d < 200 km) and high‐intensity (I > VI) paleoearthquakes. Our results suggest that coseismic carbonate veins could be used to determine paleoseismic records as a supplementary tool to augment paleoseismological techniques. This tool has advantages over traditional paleoseismological methods for the understanding of long‐term earthquake behavior, particularly for prehistoric late Pleistocene events which cannot be dated easily by traditional paleoseismological methods.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, we are still far from a satisfactory and comprehensive understanding of the earthquake occurrence process. This is one of the main reasons that stand behind the use of different, if not antithetical, models in earthquake forecasting [2007Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the occurrence of large earthquakes: New insights from a model based on interacting faults embedded in a realistic tectonic setting

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Earthquake occurrence stems from a complex interaction of processes that are still partially unknown. This lack of knowledge is revealed by the different statistical distributions that have been so far proposed and by the different beliefs about the role of some key components as the tectonic setting, fault recurrence, seismic clusters, and fault interaction. Here, we explore these issues through a numerical model based on a realistic interacting fault system. We use an active fault system in central Italy responsible for moderate to large earthquakes, where geometric and kinematic parameters of each structure can be confidently assessed. Then, we generate synthetic catalogs by modeling different seismogenic processes and allowing coseismic and postseismic fault interaction. The comparison of synthetic and real seismic catalogs highlights many interesting features: (1) synthetic seismic catalogs reproduce the short-term clustering and the long-term modulation observed in the historical catalog of the last centuries; (2) a recurrent model of earthquake occurrence on faults is more effective than a Poisson model to explain such short-term and long-term time features; (3) a realistic fault pattern is a key component to generate stochasticity in the seismic catalog, preventing a systematic time ''synchronization'' of strongly coupled faults; (4) such a stochasticity may put strong limits to the forecasting capability of models based on fault interaction, even though the latter is a key component of the process. Finally, the model allows explicit predictions on future paleoseismological observations to be made.

show abstract

Paleoseismology: Why can't earthquakes keep on schedule?

Cited by 10 publications

References 11 publications

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ³⁶Cl exposure dating

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ³⁶Cl exposure dating

Are U‐Th Dates Correlated With Historical Records of Earthquakes? Constraints From Coseismic Carbonate Veins Within the North Anatolian Fault Zone

On the occurrence of large earthquakes: New insights from a model based on interacting faults embedded in a realistic tectonic setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Paleoseismology: Why can't earthquakes keep on schedule?

Cited by 10 publications

References 11 publications

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ36Cl exposure dating

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ36Cl exposure dating

Are U‐Th Dates Correlated With Historical Records of Earthquakes? Constraints From Coseismic Carbonate Veins Within the North Anatolian Fault Zone

On the occurrence of large earthquakes: New insights from a model based on interacting faults embedded in a realistic tectonic setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ³⁶Cl exposure dating

Earthquake synchrony and clustering on Fucino faults (Central Italy) as revealed from in situ³⁶Cl exposure dating