Precise Estimation of Repeating Earthquake Moment: Example from Parkfield, California

Rubinstein, Justin L.; Ellsworth, William L.

doi:10.1785/0120100007

Cited by 35 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rupture overlap is now commonly confirmed using cross‐correlation and double‐difference earthquake relocation methods [e.g., Waldhauser and Ellsworth , 2000; Schaff et al , 2002; Uchida et al , 2006, 2007; Waldhauser and Schaff , 2008]. Repeating earthquakes have also been shown to be of very similar sizes [e.g., Rubinstein and Ellsworth , 2010]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We choose to analyze the time‐ and slip predictable models with repeating earthquakes because they offer many advantages over the data sets previously used to analyze the time‐ and slip‐predictable models. First, the highly similar waveforms of repeating earthquakes (Figure 2) allow for very precise estimation of relative moment, such that the uncertainty in moment is approximately ±6.6%, equivalent to an uncertainty in magnitude of M w ± 0.02 [ Rubinstein and Ellsworth , 2010]. This is drastically lower than the uncertainty in magnitude for most earthquakes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fixed recurrence and slip models better predict earthquake behavior than the time‐ and slip‐predictable models: 1. Repeating earthquakes

Rubinstein¹,

Ellsworth²,

Chen³

et al. 2012

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] The behavior of individual events in repeating earthquake sequences in California, Taiwan and Japan is better predicted by a model with fixed inter-event time or fixed slip than it is by the time-and slip-predictable models for earthquake occurrence. Given that repeating earthquakes are highly regular in both inter-event time and seismic moment, the time-and slip-predictable models seem ideally suited to explain their behavior. Taken together with evidence from the companion manuscript that shows similar results for laboratory experiments we conclude that the short-term predictions of the time-and slip-predictable models should be rejected in favor of earthquake models that assume either fixed slip or fixed recurrence interval. This implies that the elastic rebound model underlying the time-and slip-predictable models offers no additional value in describing earthquake behavior in an event-to-event sense, but its value in a long-term sense cannot be determined. These models likely fail because they rely on assumptions that oversimplify the earthquake cycle. We note that the time and slip of these events is predicted quite well by fixed slip and fixed recurrence models, so in some sense they are time-and slip-predictable. While fixed recurrence and slip models better predict repeating earthquake behavior than the time-and slip-predictable models, we observe a correlation between slip and the preceding recurrence time for many repeating earthquake sequences in Parkfield, California. This correlation is not found in other regions, and the sequences with the correlative slip-predictable behavior are not distinguishable from nearby earthquake sequences that do not exhibit this behavior.Citation: Rubinstein, J. L., W. L. Ellsworth, K. H. Chen, and N. Uchida (2012), Fixed recurrence and slip models better predict earthquake behavior than the time-and slip-predictable models: 1.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixed recurrence and slip models better predict earthquake behavior than the time‐ and slip‐predictable models: 1. Repeating earthquakes

Rubinstein¹,

Ellsworth²,

Chen³

et al. 2012

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown that a combined search for seismogram references observed for the same event at different stations, can be used to detect weaker earthquake signals, even in presence of a strong seismic noise (e.g., Plenkers, Ritter, & Schindler, 2013). Finally, the analysis of body waves cross-correlation can help to measure precise differential times (Schaff et al, 2004) and relative phases amplitudes (Rubinstein & Ellsworth, 2010) and thus contribute to improve the location of microseismic sources, by means of relative (i.e., doubledifference) location techniques.…”

Section: Waveform Correlationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Full Waveform Seismological Advances for Microseismic Monitoring

Cesca¹,

Grigoli²

2015

Advances in Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The most prominent examples are the M up to 2 repeaters along the Parkfield section in central California (Nadeau et al 1995;Rubinstein & Ellsworth 2010) and several repeater spots along the Hayward-Calaveras section in the eastern San Francisco bay area (Waldhauser & Ellsworth 2002;Chaussard et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%