Fault slip rates at depth from recurrence intervals of repeating microearthquakes

Science

Volumn 285, Issue 5428, 1999, Pages 718-721

  Nadeau, Robert M ^a   McEvilly, Thomas V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE PRECURSOR; EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION; FAULT SLIP; RECURRENCE INTERVAL;

ARTICLE; EARTHQUAKE; GEOLOGY; PHYSICAL PHENOMENA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENCE RISK; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033618559     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5428.718     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. W. H. Bakun and A. G. Lindh, Science 229, 619 (1985).
2. R. M. Nadeau, W. Foxall, T. V. McEvilly, ibid. 267, 503 (1995); R. M. Nadeau and T. V. McEvilly, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 1463 (1997).
3. R. M. Nadeau, W. Foxall, T. V. McEvilly, ibid. 267, 503 (1995); R. M. Nadeau and T. V. McEvilly, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 1463 (1997).
4. R. M. Nadeau and L. R. Johnson, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 790 (1998).
5. W. L. Ellsworth, in Urban Disaster Mitigation: The Role of Science and Technology, F. Y. Cheng and M. S. Sheu, Eds. (Elsevier, Oxford, 1995); D. P. Schaff, G. C. Beroza, B. E. Shaw, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 4549 (1998). In sequences of similar aftershocks, seismic moment release and recurrence rates were related to measured surface deformation and loading rate at depth to investigate postseismic deformation. An aftershock sequence differs from the more nearly steady-state microearthquake occurrence seen at Parkfield.
6. W. L. Ellsworth, in Urban Disaster Mitigation: The Role of Science and Technology, F. Y. Cheng and M. S. Sheu, Eds. (Elsevier, Oxford, 1995); D. P. Schaff, G. C. Beroza, B. E. Shaw, Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 4549 (1998). In sequences of similar aftershocks, seismic moment release and recurrence rates were related to measured surface deformation and loading rate at depth to investigate postseismic deformation. An aftershock sequence differs from the more nearly steady-state microearthquake occurrence seen at Parkfield.
7. J. B. Fletcher and P. Spudich, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 835 (1998).
8. E. Karageorgi, T. V. McEvilly, R. Clymer, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 39 (1997); E. G. Quilty and E. A. Roeloffs, ibid., p. 310.
9. E. Karageorgi, T. V. McEvilly, R. Clymer, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 39 (1997); E. G. Quilty and E. A. Roeloffs, ibid., p. 310.
10. J. Langbein, R. Gwyther, R. Hart, M. T. Gladwin, Geophys. Res. Lett., in press.
11. av, for subsets before and after 1992, broadens the peak. The combined effects are evident in Fig. 2.
12. av.
13. R. A. Harris and P. Segall, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 7945 (1987).
14. J. Langbein, unpublished data. Short baseline creep- meters do not measure the off-fault deformation present in the creep-to-locked transition zone.
15. i is unknown because the next event in the sequence has not yet occurred.
16. J. O. Langbein, R. O. Burford, L. E. Slater, J. Geophys. Res. 95, 2533 (1990).
17. R. E. Burgmann, R. E. Fielding, J. Sukhatme, Geology 26, 559 (1998).
18. i, supporting a fault-heating process. Laboratory data suggest 3 to 8% for a 10-fold increase in recurrence interval [J. Dieterich, J. Geophys. Res. 77, 3690 (1972); C. Scholl, P. Molnar, T. Johnson, ibid., p. 6382; C. Scholz and T. Engelder, Int. J. Rock Mech. Miner. Sci. 13, 149 (1976)].
19. i, supporting a fault-heating process. Laboratory data suggest 3 to 8% for a 10-fold increase in recurrence interval [J. Dieterich, J. Geophys. Res. 77, 3690 (1972); C. Scholl, P. Molnar, T. Johnson, ibid., p. 6382; C. Scholz and T. Engelder, Int. J. Rock Mech. Miner. Sci. 13, 149 (1976)].
20. i, supporting a fault-heating process. Laboratory data suggest 3 to 8% for a 10-fold increase in recurrence interval [J. Dieterich, J. Geophys. Res. 77, 3690 (1972); C. Scholl, P. Molnar, T. Johnson, ibid., p. 6382; C. Scholz and T. Engelder, Int. J. Rock Mech. Miner. Sci. 13, 149 (1976)].
21. Supported by the U.S. Geological Survey through award 1434-95-G2540. Data processing at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Partial support (R.N.) came from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics Campus-Laboratory Collaboration project.