Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byGabriel Cooke Modified over 4 years ago

1
Ilya Zaliapin Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Nevada, Reno SAMSI workshop Dynamics of Seismicity Thursday, October 10, 2013 Yehuda Ben-Zion Department of Earth Sciences University of Southern California Spatio-temporal evolution of seismic clusters in southern and central California

2
Earthquake clusters: existence, detection, stability Clusters in southern California 1 2 3 1 2 3 Outline o Main types of clusters o Topological cluster characterization Evolution of clustering with relation to large events 44 Cluster type vs. physical properties of the lithosphere

3
Data Southern California catalog: Hauksson, Yang, Shearer (2012) available from SCEC data center; 111,981 earthquakes with m 2 Heat flow data from www.smu.edu/geothermal

4
Baiesi and Paczuski, PRE, 69, 066106 (2004) Zaliapin et al., PRL, 101, 018501 (2008) Zaliapin and Ben-Zion, GJI, 185, 1288–1304 (2011) Zaliapin and Ben-Zion, JGR, 118, 2847-2864 (2013) Zaliapin and Ben-Zion, JGR, 118, 2865-2877 (2013)

5
(Fractal) dimension of epicenters Intercurrence timeSpatial distanceGutenberg-Richter law [M. Baiesi and M. Paczuski, PRE, 69, 066106 (2004)] [Zaliapin et al., PRL, 101, 018501 (2008)] Distance from an earthquake j to an earlier earthquake i : Definition: Property:

6
Separation of clustered and background parts in southern California Earthquake j Parent (nearest neighbor) i Zaliapin and Ben-Zion, JGR (2012) Zaliapin et al., PRL (2008)

7
Background and clustered parts in models Zaliapin and Ben-Zion, JGR (2013) Zaliapin et al., PRL (2008) Homogeneous Poisson processETAS model

8
Separation of clustered and background parts in southern California Background = weak links (as in stationary, inhomogeneous Poisson process) Clustered part = strong links (events are much closer to each other than in the background part) Zaliapin and Ben-Zion, JGR (2013) Zaliapin et al., PRL (2008)

10
weak link strong link Cluster #3Cluster #2 Cluster #1 Identification of clusters: data driven Time

11
Foreshocks Aftershocks Mainshock Identification of event types: problem driven Time Single

13
ETAS declustering: Example 29,671 events 9,536 mainshocks

14
Burst-like clusters Represent brittle fracture. Large b-value (b=1), small number of events, small proportion of foreshocks, short duration, small area, isotropic spatial distribution. Tend to occur in regions with low heat flow, non-enhanced fluid content, relatively large depth => increased effective viscosity. Swarm-like clusters Represent brittle-ductile fracture. Small b-value (b=0.6), large number of events, large proportion of foreshocks, long duration, large area, anisotropic channel-like spatial pattern. Tend to occur in regions with high heat flow, increased fluid content, relatively shallow depth => decreased effective viscosity. Singles Highly numerous in all regions; some but not all are related to catalog resolution. Clusters of the largest events Most prominent clusters; object of the standard cluster studies. Not representative of the majority of clusters (mixture of types 1-2).

15
M5.75 M5.51 M5.75 L= 417, tree depth = 9, ave. depth = 3.8L= 572, tree depth = 44, ave. depth = 30.3 Swarm vs. burst like clusters: Topologic representation Burst-likeSwarm-like Time

16
Average leaf depth (number of generations from a leaf to the root): Bimodal structure HYS (2012), m M 2 Large topological depth: Swarm-like clusters Small topological depth: Burst-like clusters ETAS model

18
Heat flow in southern California http://www.smu.edu/geothermal

19
Preferred spatial location of burst/swarm like clusters 195 clusters with m 4, N 10; spatial average within 50 km

20
Moment of foreshocks relative to that of mainshock 195 clusters with m 4, N 10; spatial average within 50 km

21
Family size 112 Δ- clusters with m 4, N 10; spatial average within 50 km

23
X-zone D-zone Time Space N-zone Statistical analysis of premonitory patterns: zero-level approach

24
D = 2 years, X = 1 year, R = 200 km, M=6.5 mainshocks with m>3 are examined All mainshocks Topological depth (average leaf depth)

25
Δ = X = 3 years, R = 100km m > 3, N > 20 ANOVA p =7x10 -7 : Significant difference Large families, N > 20 Topological depth (average leaf depth)

26
Δ = X = 2 years, R = 100km m > 3 All mainshocks Proportion of families

27
Δ = X = 2 years, R = 100km m > 3, N >1 Families (N > 1) Proportion of large families (N>=5)

28
Large earthquakes in California, M6.5 2) Landers, M7.3, 1992 4) Hector Mine, M7.1, 1999 1) Superstition Hills, M6.6, 1987 5) El Mayor Cucapah, M7.2, 2010 3) Northridge, M6.7, 1994

29
L EMC L

30
San Jacinto Fault SH EMC L N HM

31
Families with 3 < m < 4 Families with size L > 10 San Jacinto Fault SH EMC LNHM

32
Topological depth d > 6, mainshock m< 5 100 km from Superstition Hills, M6.6 of 1987 SHEMCLNHM

33
Salton Trough

34
Average leaf depth > 1, Family size > 5 SHEMCLNHM Salton Trough

35
Baja California

36
Average leaf depth > 1, Family size > 5 Baja California SHEMCLNHM

37
Average leaf depth > 1, Family size > 5 R < 5 km R < 20 km R < 100 km R < 300 km El Mayor Cucapah, M7.2

38
Topological depth d > 5 20 km from Landers, M7.3 of 1992 In this region: 613 mainshocks; 139 families; 11 mainshocks/10 families with m>3.5 Remote aftershock of Superstition Hill, M6.6 of 1987 Landers, M7.3 of 1992 Remote foreshock to Hector Mine, M7.1 of 1999 SHEMCLNHM

39
Seismic clusters in southern California 1 2 3 1 2 3 Summary o Four types of clusters: Burst-like clusters Swarm-like clusters Singles Largest regional clusters o Topological cluster characterization o Swarm-like clusters decreased effective viscosity o Burst-like clusters increased effective viscosity Spatial variability: Relation to physical properties of the crust Temporal variability: Relation to large events

Similar presentations

OK

Detecting Aseismic Fault Slip and Magmatic Intrusion From Seismicity Data A. L. Llenos 1, J. J. McGuire 2 1 MIT/WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography 2 Woods.

Detecting Aseismic Fault Slip and Magmatic Intrusion From Seismicity Data A. L. Llenos 1, J. J. McGuire 2 1 MIT/WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography 2 Woods.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google