Estimating recurrence times and seismic hazard of large earthquakes on an individual fault

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 170, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 1300-1310

  Zoller G ^a   Ben Zion, Y ^b   Holschneider, M ^a   Hainzl, S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c GFZ GERMAN RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GEOSCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Dynamics; Earthquakes; Fault model; Rates; Seismic event; Seismicity

Indexed keywords

EARTHQUAKE CATALOGUE; EARTHQUAKE EVENT; EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE; EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; PARKFIELD EARTHQUAKE 2004; SAN ANDREAS FAULT; SEISMICITY; SIMULATION; STOCHASTICITY; STRESS;

EID: 34548142307     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: 1365246X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03480.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Ben-Zion, Y., 1996. Stress, slip, and earthquakes in models of complex single-fault systems incorporating brittle and creep deformations, J. geophys. Res., 101, 5677-5706.
2. Ben-Zion, Y. & Rice, J.R., 1993. Earthquake failure sequences along a cellular fault zone in a three-dimensional elastic solid containing asperity and nonasperity regions, J. geophys. Res., 98, 14109-14131.
3. Ben-Zion, Y. & Zhu, L., 2002. Potency-magnitude scaling relations for southern California earthquakes with 1.0 ≤ M L ≤ 7.0, Geophys. J. Int., 148, F1-F5.
4. Ben-Zion, Y., Dmowska, R. & Rice, J.R., 1993. Interaction of the San-Andreas fault creeping section with adjacent great rupture zones and earthquake recurrence at Parkfield, J. geophys. Res., 98, 2135-2144.
5. Bakun, W.H. et al., 2005. Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake, Nature, 437.
6. Bernardo, J.M. & Smith, A.F.M., 1994. Bayesian Theory, Wiley, Chichester.
7. Campbell, K.W., 1982. Bayesian analysis of extreme earthquake occurrences. Part I. Probabilistic hazard model, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 72, 1689-1705.
8. Campbell, K.W., 1983. Application to the San Jacinto fault zone of southern California, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 73, 1099-1115.
9. Chinnery, M., 1963. The stress changes that accompany strike-slip faulting. Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 53, 921-932.
10. Coleman, B.D., 1958. Statistics and time dependence of mechanical breakdown in fibers, J. Appl. Phys., 29, 968-983.
11. Corral, A., 2004. Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 108 501.
12. Gumbel, E.J., 1960. Multivariate Extremal Distributions, Bull. Inst. Internat. de Statistique, 37, 471-475.
13. Langbein, J. et al., 2005. Preliminary Report on the 28 September 2004, M 6.0 Parkfield, California Earthquake, Seism. Res. Lett., 76, 1-17.
14. Ferraes, S.G., 1992. The Bayesian probabilistic prediction of the next earthquake in the Ometepec segment of the Mexican subduction zone, Pure Appl. Geophys. 139, 309-329.
15. Lindh, A.G., 2005. Opinion: Success and failure at Parkfield, Seism. Res. Lett., 76, 3-6.
16. Madariaga, R., 1976, Dynamics of an expanding circular fault, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 66, 639-666.
17. Matthews, M.V., Ellsworth, W.L. & Reasenberg, P.A., 2002. A Brownian model for recurrent earthquakes, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 92, 2233-2250.
18. Miller, S.A., 1996. Fluid-mediated influence of adjacent thrusting on the seismic cycle at Parkfield, Nature, 382, 799-802.
19. Papoulis, A., 1984. Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, pp. 103-104, 2nd edn McGraw-Hill, New York.
20. Parvez, I.A., 2006. On the Bayesian analysis of the earthquake hazard in the North-East Indian peninsula, Nat. Hazards, 40, 397-412.
21. Patel, J.K., Kapadia, C.H. & Owen, D.B., 1976. Handbook of Statistical Distributions, Marcel Dekker, New York.
22. Reid, H.F., 1910. The Mechanics of the Earthquake, The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906, Report of the State Investigation Commission, Vol. 2, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.
23. Rundle, J.B., Rundle, P.B., Donnellan, A., Li, P., Klein, W., Morein, G., Turcotte, D.L. & Grant, L., 2006. Stress transfer in earthquakes, hazard estimation and ensemble forecasting: Inferences from numerical simulations, Tectonophysics, 413, 109-125.
24. Sornette, D., 2000. Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
25. Weatherley, D. & Abe, S., 2004. Earthquake statistics in a block slider model and a fully dynamic fault model, Nonlin. Proc. Geophys., 11, 503-560.
26. Weibull, W., 1951. A statistical distribution of wide applicability, J. Appl. Mech., 18, 293-297.
27. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003. Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region, US Geol. Survey Open File Report 03-214, US Geological Survey, 2003.
28. Yakovlev, G., Turcotte, D.L., Rundle, J.B. & Rundle, P.B., 2006. Simulation based distributions of earthquake recurrence times on the San Andreas fault system, Bull. seism. Soc. Am., 96, 1995-2007.
29. Zöller, G., Holschneider, M. & Ben-Zion, Y., 2004. Quasi-static and quasi-dynamic modeling of earthquake failure at intermediate scales, Pure. appl. Geophys. 161, 2103-2118.
30. Zöller, G., Hainzl, S., Holschneider, M. & Ben-Zion, Y., 2005a. Aftershocks resulting from creeping sections in a heterogeneous fault, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L03 308.
31. Zöller, G., Holschneider, M. & Ben-Zion, Y., 2005b. The role of heterogeneities as a tuning parameter of earthquake dynamics. Pure. Appl. Geophys. 162, 1027-1049.
32. Zöller, G., Hainzl, S., Ben-Zion, Y. & Holschneider, M., 2006. Earthquake activity related to seismic cycles in a model for a heterogeneous strike-slip fault, Tectonophysics, 423, 137-145.