Response of Regional Seismicity to the Static Stress Change Produced by the Loma Prieta Earthquake

Reasenberg, Paul A.; Simpson, Robert W.

doi:10.1126/science.255.5052.1687

Cited by 740 publications

(521 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

485

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, precursory activation has been studied under various names such as M8 [Keilis-Borok and Malinovskaya, 1964], precursory swarms [Sekiya, 1976;Evison, 1977] and accelerating seismic moment release [Sykes and Jaume, 1990] in addition to foreshock activity in the wider sense. On the other hand, that the stress changes due to a slip can explain the mechanism of triggering another event, has been getting more attention than ever [Reasenberg and Simpson, 1992;King et al, 1994;Stein, 1999;. More importantly, shear stress changes in a receiver fault system, transferred from a rupture or silent slip elsewhere, can cause seismic changes in the region [Harris and Simpson, 1998;Ogata et al, 2003;Ogata, 2004cOgata, , 2004d.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of anomalous seismicity as a stress change sensor

Ogata

2005

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Anomalous seismicity such as quiescence and activation is defined by a systematic deviation of seismic activity from the predicted rate by the epidemic-type aftershock sequence (ETAS) model that represents the normal occurrence rate of earthquakes in a region indicating the empirical triggering effect by the previous events. The model is fitted to a data set of origin times and magnitudes of earthquakes or aftershocks during MayAugust 2003 in and around northern Japan. The detected quiescence and activation relative to the predicted seismicity rate are consistent with the coseismic changes of Coulomb failure stress (CFS) in the corresponding regions, transferred from certain strong earthquakes. Few results in this paper agree with the claim that there should be a threshold value of DCFS capable of affecting seismic changes. Thus we expect that significant deviation of actual activity from the predicted rates is sensitive enough to detect a slight stress change. Furthermore, I offer a similar interpretation of the detected seismicity lowering relative to the modeled rates preceding the strong earthquakes, assuming some aseismic slips.Citation: Ogata, Y. (2005), Detection of anomalous seismicity as a stress change sensor,

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of anomalous seismicity as a stress change sensor

Ogata

2005

J. Geophys. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Soon after the earthquake's location and mechanism were determined, it became apparent that the estimated static stress effect of the Landers earthquake was to reduce the normal stress on part of the San Andreas fault. Calculations made shortly after the Landers earthquake estimated that Landers had hastened the next large earthquake on the San Andreas fault by about 1-2 decades [Harris and Simpson, 1992; Jaum• and Sykes, 1992; Stein et al, 1992] if its nucleation point were to fall in the area of reduced normal stress. Unfortunately, the timing of the next large San Andreas fault earthquake could not be assigned an absolute value since no one knew precisely when the next San Andreas earthquake was due to occur, or where it might nucleate, even without the normal stress change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to Special Section: Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard

Harris¹

1998

J. Geophys. Res.

1,043

828

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Many aspects of earthquake mechanics remain an enigma as we enter the closing years of the twentieth century. One potential bright spot is the realization that simple calculations of stress changes may explain some earthquake interactions, just as previous and on going studies of stress changes have begun to explain human-induced seismicity. This paper, which introduces the special section "Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard," reviews many published works and presents a compilation of quantitative earthquake interaction studies from a stress change perspective. This synthesis supplies some clues about certain aspects of earthquake mechanics. It also demonstrates that much work remains before we can understand the complete story of how earthquakes work. IntroductionLarge earthquakes nucleate, propagate, and terminate. That much we do know. But what about the physics of why, when, and where these actions occur? The complete picture of earthquake mechanics remains unresolved as we enter the closing years of the twentieth century. To help solve at least part of the complex puzzle, we have focused on the role of stress changes in earthquake mechanics. In this paper, and with this special section, we tackle the topics of earthquake promotion, or triggering, and earthquake delay, or prevention, due to changes in stress. Among the questions that we attempt to answer: Can we understand and adequately model the mechanics of interearthquake and intraearthquake triggering and prevention? Do earthquake-induced. static or dynamic stress changes trigger subsequent earthquakes? Is there a triggering threshold? Can stress shadow (regions where faults are relaxed) calculations be used to estimate where and when future earthquakes will not occur?These issues, among others, were addressed at the two-day workshop "Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard" sponsored by the Southern California Earthquake Center and the U.S. Geological Survey on March 21 and 22, 1997, in Menlo Park, California. Invited talks and discussions during the meeting centered on the theme of earthquake interactions. One goal was to determine how or if our findings could be translated into probabilities for future earthquake occurrence. With this special Journal of Geophysical Research section we delve into some earthquake interaction topics that have drawn special attention. Because of space limitations, this paper primarily concentrates on research that has performed quantitative estimates of earthquake-generated stress changes and applied these calculations to the study of earthquake interactions. This paper also introduces the special section papers. This paper is not subject to U.S. copyright. Published in 1998 by the American Geophysical Union.Paper number 98JB01576. BackgroundAlthough man-made earthquake triggering, through activities such as fluid injection and withdrawal, mining, and hydrocarbon recovery, has been recognized for decades [ [1983] presented calculations of mainshoc...

show abstract

“…We adopt the Coulomb failure hypothesis to judge loading or unloading according to the sign of the increment of Coulomb failure stress which is denoted by CFS in recent literature (e.g., HARRIS, 1998;REASENBERG and SIMPSON, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a New Approach to Earthquake Prediction: Load/Unload Response Ratio (LURR) Theory

Yin¹,

Wang²,

Peng³

et al. 2000

Microscopic and Macroscopic Simulation: Towards Predictive Modelling of the Earthquake Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The seismogenic process is nonlinear and irreversible so that the response to loading is different from unloading. This difference reflects the damage of a loaded material. Based on this insight, a new parameter-load/unload response ratio (LURR) was proposed to measure quantitatively the proximity to rock failure and earthquake more than ten years ago. In the present paper, we review the fundamental concept of LURR, the validation of LURR with experimental and numerical simulation, the retrospective examination of LURR with new cases in different tectonic settings (California, USA, and Kanto region, Japan), the statistics of earthquake prediction in terms of LURR theory and the random distribution of LURR under Poisson's model. Finally we discuss LURR as a parameter to judge the closeness degree to SOC state of the system and the measurement of tidal triggering earthquake.The Load/Unload Response Ratio (LURR) theory was first proposed in 1984 (YIN, 1987). Subsequently, a series of advances were made (YIN and

show abstract

Response of Regional Seismicity to the Static Stress Change Produced by the Loma Prieta Earthquake

Cited by 740 publications

References 24 publications

Detection of anomalous seismicity as a stress change sensor

Detection of anomalous seismicity as a stress change sensor

Introduction to Special Section: Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard

Development of a New Approach to Earthquake Prediction: Load/Unload Response Ratio (LURR) Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About