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:

Triggering of earthquake aftershocks by dynamic stresses

Abstract

It is thought that small ‘static’ stress changes due to permanent fault displacement can alter the likelihood of, or trigger, earthquakes on nearby faults1. Many studies of triggering in the near-field, particularly of aftershocks, rely on these static changes as the triggering agent2,3,4 and consider them only in terms of equivalent changes in the applied load on the fault3,4,5,6. Here we report a comparison of the aftershock pattern of the moment magnitude Mw = 7.3 Landers earthquake, not only with static stress changes but also with transient, oscillatory stress changes transmitted as seismic waves (that is, ‘dynamic’ stresses). Dynamic stresses do not permanently change the applied load and thus can trigger earthquakes only by altering the mechanical state or properties of the fault zone. These dynamically weakened faults may fail after the seismic waves have passed by, and might even cause earthquakes that would not otherwise have occurred. We find similar asymmetries in the aftershock and dynamic stress patterns, the latter being due to rupture propagation, whereas the static stress changes lack this asymmetry. Previous studies have shown that dynamic stresses can promote failure at remote distances7,8,9,10,11,12, but here we show that they can also do so nearby.

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

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

Figure 1: Cartoon time-histories of complete Coulomb stress change, ΔCFS(t), and its variation with distance.
Figure 2: Pre- and post-Landers seismicity and calculated seismicity rate change.
Figure 3: Maps of modelled ΔCFS and peak ΔCFS(t).
Figure 4: Comparisons of peak ΔCFS(t) and ΔCFS with seismicity rate change.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Reasenberg, P. A., Dieterich, J. & Yoshida, A. Stress transferred by the 1995 Mw=6.9 Kobe, Japan shock: Effect on aftershocks and future earthquake probabilities. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 24543–24566 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. Jaume, S. C. & Sykes, L. R. Changes in state of stress on the southern San Andreas Fault resulting from the California earthquake sequence of April to June, 1992. Science 258, 1325–1328 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Harris, R. A. & Simpson, R. W. Changes in static stress on southern California faults after the 1992 Landers earthquake. Nature 360, 251–254 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. 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 

  9. Gomberg, J. Stress/strain changes and triggered seismicity following the Ms7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 751–764 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hill, D. P. et al. Seismicity remotely triggered by the magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, earthquake. Science 260, 1617–1623 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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  Google Scholar 

  13. 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  Google Scholar 

  14. Boatwright, J. & Cocco, M. Frictional constraints on crustal faulting. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 13895–13909 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gomberg, J., Blanpied, M. L. & Beeler, N. M. Transient triggering of near and distant earthquakes. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 87, 294–309 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Atkinson, B. K. Subcritical crack growth in geologic materials. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 4077–4114 (1984).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Richardson, E. & Marone, C. Effects of normal stress vibrations on frictional healing. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 28857–28878 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dreger, D. S. Investigation of the rupture process of the 28 June 1992 Landers earthquake utilizing TERRAscope. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84, 713–724 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Hauksson, E., Jones, L. M., Hutton, K. & Eberhart-Phillips, D. The 1992 Landers earthquake sequence: seismological observations. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 19835–19858 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cotton, F. & Coutant, O. Dynamic stress variations due to shear faults in a plane-layered medium. Geophys. J. Int. 128, 676–688 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Frohlich, C. & Davis, S. D. Single-link cluster analysis as a method to evaluate spatial and temporal properties of earthquake catalogs. Geophys. J. Int. 100, 19–32 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Davis, S. D. & Frohlich, C. Single-link cluster analysis of earthquake aftershocks: decay laws and regional variations. J. Geophys. Res. 96, 6335–6350 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to F. Cotton, O. Coutant, P. Reasenberg and S. Davis for kindly supplying us with their computer codes. We thank S. Hough, M. Johnston & C. Marone for thoughtful reviews. The US Geological Survey funded this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Gomberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kilb, D., Gomberg, J. & Bodin, P. Triggering of earthquake aftershocks by dynamic stresses. Nature 408, 570–574 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35046046

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35046046

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

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