Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/7607
AuthorsGasperini, P.* 
Lolli, B.* 
TitleAn empirical comparison among aftershock decay models
Issue DateJul-2009
Series/Report no.3–4 /175
DOI10.1016/j.pepi.2009.03.011
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/7607
KeywordsAftershock; Omori's model; Stretched exponential law; Band Limited Power Law; Background rate; Rate- and state-dependent friction law
Subject Classification05. General::05.01. Computational geophysics::05.01.04. Statistical analysis 
AbstractWe compare the ability of three aftershock decay models proposed in the literature to reproduce the behavior of 24 real aftershock sequences of Southern California and Italy. In particular, we consider the Modified Omori Model (MOM), the Modified Stretched Exponential model (MSE) and the Band Limited Power Law (LPL). We show that, if the background rate is modeled properly, the MSE or the LPL reproduce the aftershock rate decay generally better than the MOM and are preferable, on the basis of the Akaike and Bayesian information criteria, for about one half of the sequences. In particular the LPL, which is usually preferable with respect to the MSE and fits well the data of most sequences, might represent a valid alternative to the MOM in real-time forecasts of aftershock probabilities. We also show that the LPL generally fits the data better than a purely empirical formula equivalent to the aftershock rate equation predicted by the rate- and state-dependent friction model. This indicates that the emergence of a negative exponential decay at long times is a general property of many aftershock sequences but also that the process of aftershock generation is not fully described by current physical models.
Appears in Collections:Papers Published / Papers in press

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
07_Gasperini_Lolli_2009_PEPI.pdf1.03 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record

Page view(s)

105
Last Week
0
Last month
10
checked on Aug 17, 2017

Download(s)

22
checked on Aug 17, 2017

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric