2018
DOI: 10.1002/2017jb014617
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Temporal Stress Changes Caused by Earthquakes: A Review

Abstract: Earthquakes can change the stress field in the Earth's lithosphere as they relieve and redistribute stress. Earthquake‐induced stress changes have been observed as temporal rotations of the principal stress axes following major earthquakes in a variety of tectonic settings. The stress changes due to the 2011 Mw9.0 Tohoku‐Oki, Japan, earthquake were particularly well documented. Earthquake stress rotations can inform our understanding of earthquake physics, most notably addressing the long‐standing problem of w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
91
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 113 publications
(102 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
5
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At such depths, brittle seismic failure of the dry anorthosite host rock requires differential stresses in excess of hundreds of megapascals (Figure a). Hence, even when the stress drop is nearly complete (i.e., for Δ τ / τ in the range of 0.6–0.9, where Δ τ is the earthquake stress drop and τ is the maximum shear stress on the seismogenic fault plane in the pre‐earthquake stress field; Hardebeck & Okada, ), residual differential stresses during the postseismic period could be expected to be on the order of 100 MPa after a ~1‐GPa coseismic stress drop. While long‐term, steady‐state viscous creep localized on the shear zones (including along the mylonitized pseudotachylytes) in Nusfjord may generally have taken place at more typical geological strain rates of 10 −15 –10 −13 s −1 (Fagereng & Biggs, ) under relatively low differential stresses during the interseismic period (i.e., blue curves in Figure a), transient higher differential stresses and strain rates, such as 10 −9 s −1 derived in this study, can also be supported by localized viscous creep in the same material (orange curve in Figure a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At such depths, brittle seismic failure of the dry anorthosite host rock requires differential stresses in excess of hundreds of megapascals (Figure a). Hence, even when the stress drop is nearly complete (i.e., for Δ τ / τ in the range of 0.6–0.9, where Δ τ is the earthquake stress drop and τ is the maximum shear stress on the seismogenic fault plane in the pre‐earthquake stress field; Hardebeck & Okada, ), residual differential stresses during the postseismic period could be expected to be on the order of 100 MPa after a ~1‐GPa coseismic stress drop. While long‐term, steady‐state viscous creep localized on the shear zones (including along the mylonitized pseudotachylytes) in Nusfjord may generally have taken place at more typical geological strain rates of 10 −15 –10 −13 s −1 (Fagereng & Biggs, ) under relatively low differential stresses during the interseismic period (i.e., blue curves in Figure a), transient higher differential stresses and strain rates, such as 10 −9 s −1 derived in this study, can also be supported by localized viscous creep in the same material (orange curve in Figure a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A stress drop of E1 on the order of differential stress (i.e., σ 1 − σ 3 ) in the crust can produce a localized, transient rotation of the stress field (Hardebeck & Okada, and references therein), which can preferentially orient the local stress field temporarily to promote rupture on faults suboptimally oriented. Using Yin and Rogers' () equations and principal stress magnitudes estimated by Nelson et al () for the Gippsland Basin, we estimated that E1 rotated the local stress field by about 10° toward the normal to Fault 1.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Except for the faulting style, the stress fields within the aftershock area, estimated from the two datasets (before and after the mainshock), have common characteristics. The difference in the faulting style is likely caused by coseismic stress perturbation (Hardebeck and Okada 2018). However, as shown later (Section 5.2), we infer that this temporal change in the stress field is an artifact caused by incomplete data sampling before the mainshock.…”
Section: Stress Field In and Around The Awaji Island Earthquakementioning
confidence: 52%