Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011...

19
Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY

Transcript of Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011...

Page 1: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Some Properties of “aftershocks”

Some properties of AftershocksDave Jackson

UCLA

Oct 25, 2011

UC BERKELEY

Page 2: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Conclusions

• Aftershocks are not clearly defined• Whether aftershocks have different

magnitude dependence or triggering potential depends upon their definition

• For most reasonable definition, there is suggestive but weak evidence that triggered earthquakes have different magnitude distributions and triggering potential.

Page 3: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

ETAS model of earthquake triggering, from Zhuang et al 2008

Page 4: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 5: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Stochastic Declustering

Page 6: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Definitions

• Mainshock: largest earthquake in a cluster• Foreshock : An earthquake in a cluster,

occuring before the mainshock• Aftershock: An earthquake in a cluster,

occuring after the mainshock• Triggered event: An earthquake with a low

value of the independence probablity , findependent of its own magnitude

• Spontaneous event: An earthquake with a high value of the independence probability

Page 7: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 8: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 9: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 10: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 11: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 12: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Empirical, So Cal, mt=4.2 plus = triggered, triangle = spontaneous

Page 13: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Synthetic data, same parameters as for empirical study

Page 14: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Synthetic data, triggering of mag 4.2+ by mag 3.7+

Page 15: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Magnitude distributions for spontaneous and triggered quakes, California m4.7+ after 1933

Page 16: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Magnitude distribution after randomizing the independence weightings

Page 17: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 18: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.
Page 19: Some Properties of “aftershocks” Some properties of Aftershocks Dave Jackson UCLA Oct 25, 2011 UC BERKELEY.

Conclusions

• Aftershocks are not clearly defined• Whether aftershocks have different magnitude

dependence or triggering potential depends upon their definition

• For most reasonable definition, there is suggestive but weak evidence that triggered earthquakes have different magnitude distributions and triggering potential. Conclusions depend on clustering model