A functional form for the spatial distribution of aftershocks

Karen FelzerUSGS Pasadena

Summary

• Aftershock density decays with distance, r, from the mainshock surface as r-n where n=1.3 -- 2.5 and may vary for different mainshocks.

• This decay holds out to distances of at least 50-100 km for mainshocks of all magnitudes.

• The azimuthal distribution of aftershocks appears to vary according to receiver fault locations (Powers, 2009) and mainshock propagation direction (Kilb et al. 2000).

1) Evidence from small mainshocks

Advantages & disadvantages of using small mainshocks

• Mainshocks can be treated as point sources at most distances – no worries about main shock fault plane location and complexity.

• Many aftershock sequences are stacked to see the signal. The use of many sequences => results provide a good regional average.

• The use of many sequences also drives up inclusion of background earthquakes => may make the decay appear too slow.

Small mainshocks and the background earthquake problem

Big Mainshock

Observe aftershocks for 60 minutes after mainshock

Observations include 60 minutes of background earthquakes

10 small main shocks

Observe aftershocks for 60 minutes after mainshocks

Observations include 600 minutes of background earthquakes

8656 M 1—2 Northern California

mainshocks from the NCSN catalog, not preceded by larger event for 3

days/200 km

Best fit aftershock decay for M 1—2 main shocks in Northern California from 1-10 km: Density ~ r-1.3

M ≥2 Aftershocks taken from the first 5 minutes after each mainshockFrom Felzer and Brodsky (2006)

Best fit aftershock decay for M 2—4 main shocks in Southern California from 1-100 km: Density ~ r-1.4

2) Evidence from big main shocks

Advantages and disadvantages of using big main shocks

• Main shocks can be inspected individually, decreasing interference from background seismicity.

• Results may be specific to a particular location or event.

• Unknown complexity of the main shock fault plane and incomplete catalogs may cause error.

Best fit aftershock decay for M ~ 5 Anza earthquakes, 4-40 km: Density ~ r-1.8

68 M≥0.5 aftershocks from 4-40 km

49 M≥0.5 aftershocks from 4-40 km

From Felzer and Kilb (2009)

M 7.2 El Mayor-Cucapah earthquake: Density ~ r-2.0

Aftershocks to the north clearly concentrated on the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones

Similar work by other authors

Marsan and Lengline (2010)

M 3—6 main shocks, hard work to decrease

background seismicity interference

Density ~ r-1.7--r-2.1

Conclusions

• Aftershock density decays with distance, r, from the mainshock surface as r-n where n ~ 1.3 – 2, probably 1.8--2??

• This decay is seen out to distances of 50—100 km for mainshocks as small as M 1.0.

• The azimuthal distribution of aftershocks may be influenced by existing faults.

More to come about big mainshocks in my next talk!

Hector Mine earthquake scarp