Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Earthquake triggering by seismic waves following the Landers and Hector Mine earthquakes

Nature volume 411, pages 462–466 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

The proximity and similarity of the 1992, magnitude 7.3 Landers and 1999, magnitude 7.1 Hector Mine earthquakes in California permit testing of earthquake triggering hypotheses not previously possible. The Hector Mine earthquake confirmed inferences that transient, oscillatory ‘dynamic’ deformations radiated as seismic waves can trigger seismicity rate increases, as proposed for the Landers earthquake1,2,3,4,5,6. Here we quantify the spatial and temporal patterns of the seismicity rate changes7. The seismicity rate increase was to the north for the Landers earthquake and primarily to the south for the Hector Mine earthquake. We suggest that rupture directivity results in elevated dynamic deformations north and south of the Landers and Hector Mine faults, respectively, as evident in the asymmetry of the recorded seismic velocity fields. Both dynamic and static stress changes seem important for triggering in the near field with dynamic stress changes dominating at greater distances. Peak seismic velocities recorded for each earthquake suggest the existence of, and place bounds on, dynamic triggering thresholds. These thresholds vary from a few tenths to a few MPa in most places, depend on local conditions, and exceed inferred static thresholds by more than an order of magnitude. At some sites, the onset of triggering was delayed until after the dynamic deformations subsided. Physical mechanisms consistent with all these observations may be similar to those that give rise to liquefaction or cyclic fatigue.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Seismicity rate increases associated with Hector Mine and Landers mainshocks.
Figure 2: Time histories of seismicity for the areas showing significantly increased rates after the Hector Mine earthquake.
Figure 3: Comparison of spatial patterns of seismicity rate increases and dynamic deformation.
Figure 4: Approximate bounds on dynamic triggering velocity thresholds, which serve as proxies for triggering stress or strain thresholds.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hill, D. P. et al. Remote seismicity triggered by the M7.5 Landers, California earthquake of June 28, 1992. Science 260, 1617–1623 (1993).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J. G. et al. Seismicity in the western Great Basin apparently triggered by the Landers, California, earthquake 28 June 1992. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 863–891 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gomberg, J. & Bodin, P. Triggering of the Little Skull Mountain, Nevada earthquake with dynamic strains. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 844–853 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spudich, P., Steck, L. K., Hellweg, M., Fletcher, J. B. & Baker, L. M. Transient stresses at Parkfield, California, produced by the M 7.4 Landers earthquake of June 28, 1992: observations from the UPSAR dense seismograph array. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 675–690 (1995).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gomberg, J. Stress/strain changes and triggered seismicity following the Ms7.4 Landers, California earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 751–764 (1996).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gomberg, J. & Davis, S. Stress/strain changes and triggered seismicity at The Geysers, California. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 733–749 (1996).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Matthews, M. V. & Reasenberg, P. A. Statistical methods for investigating quiescence and other temporal seismicity patterns. Pure Appl. Geophys. 126, 357–372 (1988).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kilb, D., Gomberg, J. & Bodin, P. Earthquake triggering by dynamic stresses. Nature 408, 570–574 (2000).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dreger, D. & Kaverina, A. Seismic remote sensing for the earthquake source process and near-source strong shaking: a case study of the October 16, 1999 Hector Mine earthquake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1941–1944 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ji, C., Wald, D. J. & Helmberger, D. V. Source description of the 1999 Hector Mine, California earthquake; Part II: complexity of slip history. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. (in the press).

  11. Hill, D. P., Johnston, M. J. S., Langbein, J. O. & Bilham, R. Response of Long Valley caldera to the Mw = 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 100, 12985–13005 (1995).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomberg, J., Beeler, N. & Blanpied, M. On rate-state and Coulomb failure models. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 7857–7871 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gomberg, J. The failure of earthquake failure models. J. Geophys. Res. (in the press).

  14. Das, S. & Scholz, C. H. Theory of time-dependent rupture in the Earth. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 6039–6051 (1981).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dieterich, J. A constitutive law for rate of earthquake production and its application to earthquake clustering. J. Geophys. Res. 99, 2601–2618 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Harris, R. A. Introduction to special section: stress triggers, stress shadows, and implications for seismic hazard. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24347–24358 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. King, G. C. P., Stein, R. S. & Lin, J. Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 935–953 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hardebeck, J. L., Nazareth, J. J. & Hauksson, E. The static stress change triggering model: constraints from two southern California aftershock sequences. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24427–24438 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. Reasenberg, P. A. & Simpson, R. W. Response of regional seismicity to the static stress change produced by the Loma Prieta earthquake. Science 255, 1687–1690 (1992).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ziv, A. & Rubin, A. M. Static stress transfer and earthquake triggering: no lower threshold in sight? J. Geophys. Res. 103, 13631–13642 (2000).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gomberg, J. & Agnew, D. C. The accuracy of seismic estimates of dynamic strains from Pinon Flat Observatory, California, strainmeter and seismograph data. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 86, 212–220 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cramer, C. H. & Darragh, R. B. Peak accelerations from the 1992 Landers and Big Bear, California earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 589–595 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wald, D. J. & Heaton, T. H. Spatial and temporal distribution of slip for the 1992 Landers, California earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 668–691 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gomberg, J., Beeler, N. M., Blanpied, M. L. & Bodin, P. Earthquake triggering by transient and static deformations. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24411–24426 (1998).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Nur, A. & Booker, J. R. Aftershocks caused by pore fluid flow? Science 175, 885–887 (1972).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Linde, A., Sacks, I., Johnston, M., Hill, D. & Bilham, R. Increased pressure from rising bubbles as a mechanism for remotely triggered seismicity. Nature 371, 408–410 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sturtevant, B., Kanamori, H. & Brodsky, E. E. Seismic triggering by rectified diffusion in geothermal systems. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 25269–25282 (1996).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sornette, D. & Sammis, C. G. Complex critical exponents from renormalization group theory of earthquakes: implications for earthquake predictions. J. Phys. Ser. I 5, 607–619 (1995).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Seismic data were obtained from the Northern California Earthquake Data Center operated by the Berkeley Seismological Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, and from the Southern California Seismic Network and TriNet operated by the US Geological Survey, the California Institute of Technology, and the California Division of Mines and Geology. R. Castro and C. Rebollar of CICESE also provided data. We also thank D. Hill, L. Jones, C. Marone and D. Agnew for comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. US Geological Survey, Center for Earthquake Research and Information, 3876 Central Avenue Suite 2, Memphis, 38152-3050, Tennessee, USA

    J. Gomberg

  2. US Geological Survey, MS 977, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, 94025, California, USA

    P. A. Reasenberg & R. A. Harris

  3. Center for Earthquake Research and Information, The University of Memphis, 3876 Central Avenue, Suite 1, Memphis, 38152-3050, Tennessee, USA

    P. Bodin

Authors
  1. J. Gomberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. A. Reasenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Bodin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. A. Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Gomberg.

Supplementary information

TABLE 1 Summary of recorded peak velocities and associated triggering
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gomberg, J., Reasenberg, P., Bodin, P. et al. Earthquake triggering by seismic waves following the Landers and Hector Mine earthquakes. Nature 411, 462–466 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35078053

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35078053

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing