More Like this

1. The 30 November 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage Earthquake

   https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190176  

   West, Michael E. ; Bender, Adrian ; Gardine, Matthew ; Gardine, Lea ; Gately, Kara ; Haeussler, Peter ; Hassan, Wael ; Meyer, Franz ; Richards, Cole ; Ruppert, Natalia ; et al ( October 2019 , Seismological Research Letters)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract The Mw 7.1 47 km deep earthquake that occurred on 30 November 2018 had deep societal impacts across southcentral Alaska and exhibited phenomena of broad scientific interest. We document observations that point to future directions of research and hazard mitigation. The rupture mechanism, aftershocks, and deformation of the mainshock are consistent with extension inside the Pacific plate near the down‐dip limit of flat‐slab subduction. Peak ground motions >25%g were observed across more than 8000  km2, though the most violent near‐fault shaking was avoided because the hypocenter was nearly 50 km below the surface. The ground motions show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of regional geology and near‐surface soil conditions. Aftershock activity was vigorous with roughly 300 felt events in the first six months, including two dozen aftershocks exceeding M 4.5. Broad subsidence of up to 5 cm across the region is consistent with the rupture mechanism. The passage of seismic waves and possibly the coseismic subsidence mobilized ground waters, resulting in temporary increases in stream flow. Although there were many failures of natural slopes and soils, the shaking was insufficient to reactivate many of the failures observed during the 1964 M 9.2 earthquake. This is explained by the much shorter duration of shaking as well as the lower amplitude long‐period motions in 2018. The majority of observed soil failures were in anthropogenically placed fill soils. Structural damage is attributed to both the failure of these emplaced soils as well as to the ground motion, which shows some spatial correlation to damage. However, the paucity of instrumental ground‐motion recordings outside of downtown Anchorage makes these comparisons challenging. The earthquake demonstrated the challenge of issuing tsunami warnings in complex coastal geographies and highlights the need for a targeted tsunami hazard evaluation of the region. The event also demonstrates the challenge of estimating the probabilistic hazard posed by intraslab earthquakes. 

   more » « less
2. Slip distribution of the February 6, 2023 Mw 7.8 and Mw 7.6, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey earthquake sequence in the East Anatolian Fault Zone

   https://doi.org/10.26443/seismica.v2i3.502  

   Barbot, Sylvain ; Luo, Heng ; Wang, Teng ; Hamiel, Yariv ; Piatibratova, Oksana ; Javed, Muhammad Tahir ; Braitenberg, Carla ; Gurbuz, Gokhan ( February 2023 , Seismica)

   On February 6, 2023, two large earthquakes occurred near the Turkish town of Kahramanmaraş. The moment magnitude (Mw) 7.8 mainshock ruptured a 310 km-long segment of the left-lateral East Anatolian Fault, propagating through multiple releasing step-overs. The Mw 7.6 aftershock involved nearby left-lateral strike-slip faults of the East Anatolian Fault Zone, causing a 150 km-long rupture. We use remote-sensing observations to constrain the spatial distribution of coseismic slip for these two events and the February 20 Mw 6.4 aftershock near Antakya. Pixel tracking of optical and synthetic aperture radar data of the Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 satellites, respectively, provide near-field surface displacements. High-rate Global Navigation Satellite System data constrain each event separately. Coseismic slip extends from the surface to about 15 km depth with a shallow slip deficit. Most aftershocks cluster at major fault bends, surround the regions of high coseismic slip, or extend outward of the ruptured faults. For the mainshock, rupture propagation stopped southward at the diffuse termination of the East Anatolian fault and tapered off northward into the Pütürge segment, some 20 km south of the 2020 Mw 6.8 Elaziğ earthquake, highlighting a potential seismic gap. These events underscore the high seismic potential of immature fault systems. 

   more » « less
3. What Controls Variations in Aftershock Productivity?

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018111  

   Dascher‐Cousineau, Kelian ; Brodsky, Emily E. ; Lay, Thorne ; Goebel, Thomas H. W. ( February 2020 , Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth)

   The number of aftershocks increases with mainshock size following a well‐defined scaling law. However, excursions from the average behavior are common. This variability is particularly concerning for large earthquakes where the number of aftershocks varies by factors of 100 for mainshocks of comparable magnitude. Do observable factors lead to differences in aftershock behavior? We examine aftershock productivity relative to the global average for all mainshocks () from 1990 to 2019. A global map of earthquake productivity highlights the influence of tectonic regimes. Earthquake depth, lithosphere age, and plate boundary type correspond well with earthquake productivity. We investigate the role of mainshock attributes by compiling source dimensions, radiated seismic energy, stress drop, and a measure of slip heterogeneity based on finite‐fault source inversions for the largest earthquakes from 1990 to 2017. On an individual basis, stress drop, normalized rupture width, and aspect ratio most strongly correlate with aftershock productivity. A multivariate analysis shows that a particular set of parameters (dip, lithospheric age, and normalized rupture area) combines well to improve predictions of aftershock productivity on a cross‐validated data set. Our overall analysis is consistent with a model in which the volumetric abundance of nearby stressed faults controls the aftershock productivity rather than variations in source stress. Thus, we suggest a complementary approach to aftershock forecasts based on geological and rupture properties rather than local calibration alone.

    

   more » « less
4. Implications of Receiver Plane Uncertainty for the Static Stress Triggering Hypothesis

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB023589  

   Hanagan, C. ; Bennett, R. A. ; Chiaraluce, L. ; Hughes, A. ; Cocco, M. ( April 2022 , Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth)

   Static stress transfer from major earthquakes is commonly invoked as the primary mechanism for triggering aftershocks, but evaluating this mechanism depends on aftershock rupture plane orientations and hypocenter locations, which are often subject to significant observational uncertainty. We evaluate static stress change for an unusually large data set comprising hundreds to thousands of aftershocks following the 1997 Umbria‐Marche, 2009 L’Aquila (Italy), and 2019 Ridgecrest (California) earthquake sequences. We compare failure stress resolved on aftershock focal mechanism planes and planes that are optimally oriented (OOPs) in the regional and earthquake perturbed stress field. Like previous studies, we find that failure stress resolved on OOPs overpredicts the percentage (>70%) of triggered aftershocks relative to that predicted from observed aftershock rupture planes (∼50%–65%) from focal mechanisms solutions, independent of how nodal plane ambiguity is resolved. Further, observed aftershock nodal planes appear statistically different from OOPs. Observed rupture planes, at least for larger magnitude events (M > 3), appear to align more closely with pre‐existing tectonic structures. The inferred observational uncertainty associated with nodal plane ambiguity, plane orientation, and, to second order, hypocentral location yields a broad range of aftershocks potentially triggered by static stress changes, ranging from slightly better than random chance to nearly any aftershock promoted, particularly those further than 5 km from the causative fault. Dynamic stresses, afterslip, pore fluids, and other sources of unresolved small‐scale heterogeneity in the post‐mainshock stress field may also contribute appreciably to aftershock occurrence closer to the mainshock.

    

   more » « less
5. Cascading foreshocks, aftershocks and earthquake swarms in a discrete fault network

   https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggad278  

   Im, Kyungjae ; Avouac, Jean-Philippe ( July 2023 , Geophysical Journal International)

   Earthquakes come in clusters formed of mostly aftershock sequences, swarms and occasional foreshock sequences. This clustering is thought to result either from stress transfer among faults, a process referred to as cascading, or from transient loading by aseismic slip (pre-slip, afterslip or slow slip events). The ETAS statistical model is often used to quantify the fraction of clustering due to stress transfer and to assess the eventual need for aseismic slip to explain foreshocks or swarms. Another popular model of clustering relies on the earthquake nucleation model derived from experimental rate-and-state friction. According to this model, earthquakes cluster because they are time-advanced by the stress change imparted by the mainshock. This model ignores stress interactions among aftershocks and cannot explain foreshocks or swarms in the absence of transient loading. Here, we analyse foreshock, swarm and aftershock sequences resulting from cascades in a Discrete Fault Network model governed by rate-and-state friction. We show that the model produces realistic swarms, foreshocks and aftershocks. The Omori law, characterizing the temporal decay of aftershocks, emerges in all simulations independently of the assumed initial condition. In our simulations, the Omori law results from the earthquake nucleation process due to rate and state friction and from the heterogeneous stress changes due to the coseismic stress transfers. By contrast, the inverse Omori law, which characterizes the accelerating rate of foreshocks, emerges only in the simulations with a dense enough fault system. A high-density complex fault zone favours fault interactions and the emergence of an accelerating sequence of foreshocks. Seismicity catalogues generated with our discrete fault network model can generally be fitted with the ETAS model but with some material differences. In the discrete fault network simulations, fault interactions are weaker in aftershock sequences because they occur in a broader zone of lower fault density and because of the depletion of critically stressed faults. The productivity of the cascading process is, therefore, significantly higher in foreshocks than in aftershocks if fault zone complexity is high. This effect is not captured by the ETAS model of fault interactions. It follows that a foreshock acceleration stronger than expected from ETAS statistics does not necessarily require aseismic slip preceding the mainshock (pre-slip). It can be a manifestation of a cascading process enhanced by the topological properties of the fault network. Similarly, earthquake swarms might not always imply transient loading by aseismic slip, as they can emerge from stress interactions.

    

   more » « less