The global aftershock zone

Parsons, Tom; Segou, Margarita; Marzocchi, Warner

doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2014.01.038

Cited by 49 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They find, however, that Kyushu (characterized by extensional tectonics and intense volcanism) shows some limited triggering following teleseismic events. Parsons et al (2014) found as well that Japan has a relatively low triggering potential compared with other seismotectonic regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Remote triggering of seismicity at Japanese volcanoes following the 2016 M7.3 Kumamoto earthquake

Enescu

Shimojo

Opris

et al. 2016

Earth Planets Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The M JMA 7.3 Kumamoto earthquake occurred on April 16, 2016, in the western part of Kyushu, at a depth of 12 km, on an active strike-slip fault. Here, we report on a relatively widespread activation of small remote earthquakes, which occurred as far as Hokkaido, detected by analyzing the continuous waveform data recorded at seismic stations all over Japan. Such relatively widespread remote seismicity activation, following a large inland earthquake, has not been reported before for Japan. Our analysis demonstrates that the remote events were triggered dynamically, by the passage of the surface waves from the Kumamoto earthquake. Most of the remotely triggered events in the Tohoku and Hokkaido regions, as well as close to Izu Peninsula, occur at or close to volcanoes, which suggests that the excitation of crustal fluids, by the passage of Rayleigh waves, played an important triggering role. Nevertheless, remote activation in other regions, like Noto Peninsula, occurred away from volcanoes. The relatively large-amplitude Love waves, enhanced by a source directivity effect during the Kumamoto earthquake, may have triggered seismicity on local active faults. The dynamic stresses in the areas where remote activation has been observed range from several kPa to tens of kPa, the thresholds being lower than in previous dynamic triggering cases for Japan; this might relate to a change in the crustal conditions following the 2011 M9.0 Tohoku-oki earthquake, in particular at volcanoes in NE Japan.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Remote triggering of seismicity at Japanese volcanoes following the 2016 M7.3 Kumamoto earthquake

Enescu

Shimojo

Opris

et al. 2016

Earth Planets Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both the template matching and STA/LTA results for all three study areas do not suggest a change in earthquake rates that initiates with the timing of IOE surface waves. Instead, the change is seismicity rates we observe occurs more than 2 h after the onset of shaking and this delayed response is consistent with catalog studies [ Parsons et al , ]. Pollitz et al [] postulate the long duration (hundreds of seconds) of shaking at elevated strains (>0.1 μstrain or ~3 kPa) is a contributing factor for dynamically triggering large‐magnitude events.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The absence of remote M > 5 dynamically triggered earthquakes may suggest that these larger events are not susceptible to immediate failure during the rapidly changing transient stresses during the surface wave passage [ Parsons et al , ]. Instead, a >8 h delay period after the passage of surface waves appears to be required before the onset of triggered larger events [ Bodin and Gomberg , ; Gonzalez‐Huizar et al , ; Parsons et al , ; Pollitz et al , ]. Our results indicating an increase in seismicity rates in the BFZ (Figure ) and the TFZ (Figure ) are consistent with a >8 h delay period before a triggered M > 5 main shock with the largest perceptible change in microseismicity detected many hours after the onset of transient loading from the IOE earlier that day.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pollitz et al [] quantify the significance of the 6 day increase in remote M ≥ 5.5 earthquakes following the IOE, and Johnson et al [] document the rare occurrence of M ≥ 5.5 events triggered by global remote M ≥ 7.5 main shocks, indicating the uniqueness of the large‐magnitude remote aftershocks of the IOE. Interestingly, M > 5 triggering candidates appear to only occur after a delay period on the order of hours to weeks following the stress perturbation [ Gomberg , ; Gomberg and Bodin , ; Gonzalez‐Huizar et al , ; Parsons et al , ; Pollitz et al , ] and physical evidence to connect these M > 5 events to a transient stress via a seismic or aseismic process is lacking. The delay period coupled with a limited number of observations of M > 5 triggered events [ Parsons et al , ] seems to contradict the ubiquity of M < 5 triggered earthquakes [ Hill and Prejean , ; Velasco et al , ], and the physical process of delayed dynamic triggering still requires a full explanation [ Parsons et al , ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Delayed dynamic triggering: Local seismicity leading up to three remote M ≥ 6 aftershocks of the 11 April 2012 M8.6 Indian Ocean earthquake

Johnson

Bürgmann

2016

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 11 April 2012 M8.6 strike‐slip Indian Ocean earthquake (IOE) was followed by an increase in global seismic activity, with three remote M ≥ 6.0 earthquakes within 24 h. We investigate delayed dynamic triggering by systematically examining three offshore regions hosting these events for changes in microseismic activity preceding the IOE, and during the hours between the IOE surface‐wave arrival and the triggered‐event candidate. The Blanco Fault Zone, USA, and the Tiburón Fault Zone, Mexico, each host a strike‐slip event, and the Michoacán Subduction Zone, Mexico, hosts a reverse event. At these locations we estimate transient Coulomb stresses of ±1–10 kPa during the IOE. Each study area contains a regional seismic network allowing us to examine continuous waveforms at one or more nearby stations. We implement a short‐/long‐term‐average algorithm and template matching to detect events and assess the seismicity with the β‐statistic. Our results indicate low‐magnitude seismicity in the days prior to the IOE and the occurrence of earthquakes during the surface‐wave passage after more than 2 h of transient loading. We find both transtensional tectonic environments respond to the transient stresses with a substantial increase observed in the seismicity rates during the hours after the passage of surface waves. In contrast, seismicity rates remain constant in the subduction zone we investigate during the 14 h delay between the IOE and the large‐magnitude earthquake. The seismicity rate increases we observe occur after many hours of dynamic stresses and suggest the long duration of transient loading initiated failure processes leading up to these M ≥ 6.0 events.

show abstract

“…Parsons et al (2014) found the alignment of dynamic stressing may be more important than magnitude and distance to trigger remote seismicity. This can also explain why the northern Sumatra event did not trigger the local seismicity with M w > 1:6.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed Dynamic Triggered Seismicity in Northern Baja California, México Caused by Large and Remote Earthquakes

Castro

Gonzalez-Huizar

Zúñiga

et al. 2015

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The global aftershock zone

Cited by 49 publications

References 125 publications

Remote triggering of seismicity at Japanese volcanoes following the 2016 M7.3 Kumamoto earthquake

Remote triggering of seismicity at Japanese volcanoes following the 2016 M7.3 Kumamoto earthquake

Delayed dynamic triggering: Local seismicity leading up to three remote M ≥ 6 aftershocks of the 11 April 2012 M8.6 Indian Ocean earthquake

Delayed Dynamic Triggered Seismicity in Northern Baja California, México Caused by Large and Remote Earthquakes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About