Artwork

Innhold levert av USGS, Menlo Park (Scott Haefner) and U.S. Geological Survey. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av USGS, Menlo Park (Scott Haefner) and U.S. Geological Survey eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast-app
Gå frakoblet med Player FM -appen!

Stress Shadows: Insights into the Physics of Aftershock Triggering

1:00:00
 
Del
 

Manage episode 419719032 series 1399341
Innhold levert av USGS, Menlo Park (Scott Haefner) and U.S. Geological Survey. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av USGS, Menlo Park (Scott Haefner) and U.S. Geological Survey eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.

Jeanne Hardebeck, U.S. Geological Survey

Aftershock triggering is commonly attributed to static Coulomb stress changes from the mainshock. A Coulomb stress increase encourages aftershocks in some areas, while in other areas termed “stress shadows” a decrease in Coulomb stress suppresses earthquake occurrence. While the predicted earthquake rate decrease is rarely seen, lower aftershock rates are observed in the stress shadows compared to stress increase regions. However, the question remains why some aftershocks occur in the stress shadows. I examine three hypotheses: (1) Aftershocks appear in shadows because of inaccuracy in the computed stress change. (2) Aftershocks in the shadows occur on faults with different orientations than the model receiver faults, and these unexpected fault orientations experience increased Coulomb stress. (3) Aftershocks in the shadows are triggered by other physical processes, specifically dynamic stress changes. For the 2016 Kumamoto, Japan, and 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequences, the first two hypotheses seem unlikely. Over many realizations of the stress calculations with different modeling inputs, numerous aftershocks consistently show negative static Coulomb stress changes both on the model receiver faults and the individual event focal mechanisms. Hypothesis 3 appears more likely, as the spatial and temporal distribution of aftershocks in the stress shadows are consistent with the expectations of dynamic triggering: the aftershocks occur mainly in a burst over the first few days to weeks, and decay with distance like near-field body waves. The time series of dynamic stress can be modeled, and numerous metrics explored, such as the maximum dynamic Coulomb stress change, and the period and duration of the stressing. Determining which metrics correspond to aftershock occurrence in the stress shadows may be useful in discriminating between various proposed physical mechanisms of dynamic stress triggering.

  continue reading

20 episoder

Artwork
iconDel
 
Manage episode 419719032 series 1399341
Innhold levert av USGS, Menlo Park (Scott Haefner) and U.S. Geological Survey. Alt podcastinnhold, inkludert episoder, grafikk og podcastbeskrivelser, lastes opp og leveres direkte av USGS, Menlo Park (Scott Haefner) and U.S. Geological Survey eller deres podcastplattformpartner. Hvis du tror at noen bruker det opphavsrettsbeskyttede verket ditt uten din tillatelse, kan du følge prosessen skissert her https://no.player.fm/legal.

Jeanne Hardebeck, U.S. Geological Survey

Aftershock triggering is commonly attributed to static Coulomb stress changes from the mainshock. A Coulomb stress increase encourages aftershocks in some areas, while in other areas termed “stress shadows” a decrease in Coulomb stress suppresses earthquake occurrence. While the predicted earthquake rate decrease is rarely seen, lower aftershock rates are observed in the stress shadows compared to stress increase regions. However, the question remains why some aftershocks occur in the stress shadows. I examine three hypotheses: (1) Aftershocks appear in shadows because of inaccuracy in the computed stress change. (2) Aftershocks in the shadows occur on faults with different orientations than the model receiver faults, and these unexpected fault orientations experience increased Coulomb stress. (3) Aftershocks in the shadows are triggered by other physical processes, specifically dynamic stress changes. For the 2016 Kumamoto, Japan, and 2019 Ridgecrest, California, sequences, the first two hypotheses seem unlikely. Over many realizations of the stress calculations with different modeling inputs, numerous aftershocks consistently show negative static Coulomb stress changes both on the model receiver faults and the individual event focal mechanisms. Hypothesis 3 appears more likely, as the spatial and temporal distribution of aftershocks in the stress shadows are consistent with the expectations of dynamic triggering: the aftershocks occur mainly in a burst over the first few days to weeks, and decay with distance like near-field body waves. The time series of dynamic stress can be modeled, and numerous metrics explored, such as the maximum dynamic Coulomb stress change, and the period and duration of the stressing. Determining which metrics correspond to aftershock occurrence in the stress shadows may be useful in discriminating between various proposed physical mechanisms of dynamic stress triggering.

  continue reading

20 episoder

Tất cả các tập

×
 
Loading …

Velkommen til Player FM!

Player FM scanner netter for høykvalitets podcaster som du kan nyte nå. Det er den beste podcastappen og fungerer på Android, iPhone og internett. Registrer deg for å synkronisere abonnement på flere enheter.

 

Hurtigreferanseguide

Copyright 2024 | Sitemap | Personvern | Vilkår for bruk | | opphavsrett