Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/16147
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-09T10:37:53Z-
dc.date.available2023-02-09T10:37:53Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/16147-
dc.description.abstractStatic 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 mainshocken_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.publisher.nameWiley-AGUen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earthen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries5/127 (2022)en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/*
dc.titleImplications of Receiver Plane Uncertainty for the Static Stress Triggering Hypothesisen_US
dc.typearticleen
dc.description.statusPublisheden_US
dc.description.pagenumbere2021JB023589en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1029/2021JB023589en_US
dc.description.obiettivoSpecifico3T. Fisica dei terremoti e Sorgente Sismicaen_US
dc.description.journalTypeJCR Journalen_US
dc.relation.issn2169-9356en_US
dc.contributor.authorHanagan, Catherine-
dc.contributor.authorBennett, R. A.-
dc.contributor.authorChiaraluce, Lauro-
dc.contributor.authorHughes, A-
dc.contributor.authorCocco, Massimo-
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione ONT, Roma, Italiaen_US
dc.contributor.departmentIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italiaen_US
item.openairetypearticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione ONT, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.deptIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Sezione Roma1, Roma, Italia-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-2966-5175-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0002-9697-6504-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-6798-4225-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.author.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
crisitem.department.parentorgIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia-
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
AGU_JGR_Hanaganetal_2021_tracked_changes.pdfsubmitted manuscript7.67 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

73
checked on Apr 24, 2024

Download(s)

7
checked on Apr 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric