Loading in 5 sec....

The rate of aftershock density decay with distancePowerPoint Presentation

The rate of aftershock density decay with distance

- 83 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

The rate of aftershock density decay with distance

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The rate of aftershock density decay with distance

Mainshocks

Karen Felzer1 and Emily Brodsky2

1. U.S. Geological Survey 2. University of California, Los Angeles

- Methods
- Observations
- Robustness of observations
- Physical Implications

1. Methods

Previous work on spatial aftershock decay include:

- Ichinose et al. (1997), Ogata(1998), Huc and Main(2003)

Ogata

Main

What’s different about our work?

- Relocated catalog (Shearer et al. (2003))
- Small mainshocks (& lots of ‘em!)
- Only the first 30 minutes of each aftershock sequence used

We make composite data sets from aftershocks of the M 2-3 & M 3-4 mainshocks

Temporal stack

Spatial stack, M 3-4 mainshocks

Mainshocks = gray star

Mainshocks are shifted to the origin in time and space

Spatial aftershock decay follows a pure power law with an exponent slightly < -1

Aftershocks > M 2.

The aftershocks may extend out to100 km

Aftershock from the first 5 minutes of each sequence

The distribution of aftershocks with distance is independent of mainshock magnitude

Data from 200 aftershocks of M 2-3 mainshocks and from 200 aftershocks of M 3-4 mainshocks are plotted together

3. Robustness of observations

Is our decay pattern from actual aftershock physics, or just from background fault structure?

A)

Random earthquakes have a different spatial pattern: Our results are from aftershock physics

B)

Does the result hold at longer times than 30 minutes?

Aftershocks from 30 minutes to 25 days

Yes: the power law decay is maintained at longer times but is lost in the background at r > two fault lengths

C)

Do we have power law decay in the near field?

Distances tomainshock fault plane calc. from focal mechs. of Hardebeck & Shearer (2002)

Yes -- the same power law holds until within 50 m of the fault plane

Linear density ===cr-1.4

Fault Geometry

Physics

Felzer & Brodsky

Kagan & Knopoff, (1980)

Helmstetter et al. (2005)

Max. pos. for r>10 km

= r

= c

rDrcr-1.4

Solutions consistent with observations

Static stress triggering not consistent with observations

Joan Gomberg

r -1.4 using D=1 from Felzer and Brodsky. This agrees with max. shaking amplitudes (based on our work with Joan Gomberg & known attenuation relationships)

r -2.4using D=2 from Helmstetter et al. (2005).

Static stress triggering plus rate and state friction predicts exp(r-3) at short times (Dieterich 1994). This is not consistent with the observations.

- The fraction of aftershocks at a distance, r, goes as cr -1.4.
- Aftershocks of M 2-4 mainshocks may extend out to 100 km.
- Our results are consistent with probabilityof having an aftershock amplitude of shaking.
- Our results are inconsistent with triggering by static stress change + rate and state friction

Mainshocks are moved to the origin in time and space to obtain a composite data set

Aftershocks from Northern Cal and Japan also follow power law decay

Another way to observe distant triggering: Time series peaks at the time of the mainshocks in different distance annuli

Peak at time of mainshocks