Stress-based aftershock forecasts made within 24 h postmain shock: Expected north San Francisco Bay area seismicity changes after the 2014 M = 6.0 West Napa earthquake

Geophysical Research Letters

Volumn 41, Issue 24, 2014, Pages 8792-8799

  Parsons, Tom ^a   Segou, Margaret ^b   Sevilgen, Volkan ^c   Milner, Kevin ^d   Field, Edward ^e   Toda, Shinji ^f   Stein, Ross S ^a  

^a U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE NICE SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS   (France)

^c Seismicitynet   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^f TOHOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

earthquake interactions; prospective stress based forecasts

Indexed keywords

FAULTING; FORECASTING;

CALIFORNIA; COULOMB STRESS CHANGES; EARTHQUAKE RUPTURE; LARGE EARTHQUAKES; MAIN SHOCK; SAN FRANCISCO BAY; STRESS CHANGES; STRESS TRANSFER;

EARTHQUAKES;

AFTERSHOCK; EARTHQUAKE EVENT; FAULT; FORECASTING METHOD; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; SEISMICITY; STRESS CHANGE;

CALIFORNIA; SAN FRANCISCO BAY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84921834826     PISSN: 00948276     EISSN: 19448007     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062379     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Dawson, T. E., (2013), Appendix A-Updates to the California reference fault parameter database-Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 fault models 3.1 and 3.2, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 2013-1165, 66 pp. [Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/pdf/ofr2013-1165-appendixA.pdf.]
2. Dieterich, J., (1994), A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 2601-2618, doi: 10.1029/93JB02581.
3. Dieterich, J. H., and, B. Kilgore, (1996), Implications of fault constitutive properties for earthquake prediction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 93, 3787-3794.
4. Field, E. H., and, T. H. Jordan, (2014), Time-dependent renewal-model probabilities when date of last earthquake is unknown, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., in press.
5. Field, E. H., et al. (2014), Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)-The time-independent model, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 104, 1122-1180, doi: 10.1785/0120130164.
6. Hardebeck, J. L., and, A. J. Michael, (2004), Stress orientations at intermediate angles to the San Andreas fault, California, J. Geophys. Res., 109, B11303, doi: 10.1029/2004JB003239.
7. Matthews, M. V., W. L. Ellsworth, and, P. A. Reasenberg, (2002), A Brownian model for recurrent earthquakes, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 92, 2233-2250.
8. Okada, Y., (1992), Internal deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 82, 1018-1040.
9. Parsons, T., (2002), Post-1906 stress recovery of the San Andreas fault system from 3-D finite element analysis, J. Geophys. Res., 107 (B8), 2162, doi: 10.1029/2001JB001051.
10. Parsons, T., and, M. Segou, (2014), Stress, distance, magnitude, and clustering influences on the success or failure of an aftershock forecast: The 2013 M = 6.6 Lushan earthquake and other examples, Seismol. Res. Lett., 85, 44-51, doi: 10.1785/0220130100.
11. Parsons, T., R. S. Yeats, Y. Yagi, and, A. Hussain, (2006), Static stress change from the 8 October, 2005 M = 7.6 Kashmir earthquake, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06304, doi: 10.1029/2005GL025429.
12. Parsons, T., C. Ji, and, E. Kirby, (2008), Stress changes from the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake and increased hazard in the Sichuan basin, Nature, 454, 509-510, doi: 10.1038/nature07177.
13. Parsons, T., Y. Ogata, J. Zhuang, and, E. L. Geist, (2012), Evaluation of static stress change forecasting with prospective and blind tests, Geophys. J. Int., 188, 1425-1440, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05343.x.
14. Schorlemmer, D., M. C. Gerstenberger, S. Wiemer, D. D. Jackson, and, D. A. Rhoades, (2007), Earthquake likelihood model testing, Seismol. Res. Lett., 78 (1), 17-29, doi: 10.1785/gssrl.78.1.17.
15. Segou, M., T. Parsons, and, W. Ellsworth, (2013), Evaluation of combined physics based and statistical forecast models, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 118, 6219-6240, doi: 10.1002/2013JB010313.
16. Stein, R. S., (1999), The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence, Nature, 402, 605-609.
17. w = 6.9 Kobe, Japan, shock: Effect on aftershocks and future earthquake probabilities, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 24,543-24,565, doi: 10.1029/98JB00765.
18. Toda, S., R. S. Stein, K. Richards-Dinger, and, S. Bozkurt, (2005), Forecasting the evolution of seismicity in southern California: Animations built on earthquake stress transfer, J. Geophys. Res., 110, B05S16, doi: 10.1029/2004JB003415.
19. Wells, D. L., and, K. J. Coppersmith, (1994), New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84, 974-1002.
20. Werner, M. J., A. Helmstetter, D. D. Jackson, and, Y. Y. Kagan, (2011), High-resolution long-term and short-term earthquake forecasts for California, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 101, 1630-1648.
21. Woessner, J., S. Hainzl, W. Marzocchi, M. J. Werner, A. M. Lombardi, F. Catalli, B. Enescu, M. Cocco, M. C. Gerstenberger, and, S. Wiemer, (2011), A retrospective comparative forecast test on the 1992 Landers sequence, J. Geophys. Res., 116, B05305, doi: 10.1029/2010JB007846.
22. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003), Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2002-2031, U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep., 03-214, 235 pp.