|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Search all papers
|
Relation between mainshock rupture process and Omori's law for aftershock moment release rate Yan Y. Kagan, UCLA H Houston
ABSTRACT: We compare the source time functions (i.e., moment release rates) of
three large California mainshocks with the seismic moment release rates during
their aftershock sequences. Aftershock moment release rates, computed by
summing aftershock moments in time intervals, follow a power-law time
dependence similar to Omori's law from minutes to months after the mainshock;
furthermore, in contrast to the previously observed saturation in numbers of
aftershocks shortly after the mainshock rupture, no such saturation is seen in
the aftershock moment release rates, which are dominated by the largest
aftershocks. We argue that the observed saturation in aftershock numbers
described by the 'time offset' parameter c in Omori's law is likely an artefact
due to the underreporting of small aftershocks, which is related to the
difficulty of detecting large numbers of small aftershocks in the mainshock
coda. We further propose that it is more natural for c to be negative (i.e.
singularity follows the onset of mainshock rupture) than positive (singularity
precedes onset of rupture). To make a more general comparison of mainshock
rupture process and aftershock moment rates, we then scale mainshock time
functions to equalize the effects of the varied seismic moments. For the three
California mainshocks, we compare the scaled time functions with similarly
scaled aftershock moment rates. Finally, we compare global averages of scaled
time functions of many shallow events to the average scaled aftershock moment
release rate for six California mainshocks. In each of these comparisons, the
extrapolation, using Omori's law, of the aftershock moment rates back in time
to the onset of the mainshock rupture indicates that the temporal intensity of
the aftershock moment release is about 1.5 orders of magnitude less than the
maximum reached by the mainshock rupture. This may be due to the differing
amplitudes and relative importance of static and dynamic stresses in aftershock
initiation compared to mainshock rupture propagation.
SUGGESTED CITATION:
REQUIRED PUBLISHER STATEMENT:
| |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||