English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Onset of Aftershocks: Constraints on the Rate-and-State Model

Authors
/persons/resource/hainzl

Hainzl,  S.
2.1 Physics of Earthquakes and Volcanoes, 2.0 Geophysics, Departments, GFZ Publication Database, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum;

Page,  Morgan T.
External Organizations;

van der Elst,  Nicholas J.
External Organizations;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in GFZpublic
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Hainzl, S., Page, M. T., van der Elst, N. J. (2024): Onset of Aftershocks: Constraints on the Rate-and-State Model. - Seismological Research Letters, 95, 6, 3507-3516.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0220240176


Cite as: https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_5029403
Abstract
Aftershock rates typically decay with time t after the mainshock according to the Omori–Utsu law, ⁠, with parameters K, c, and p. The rate‐and‐state (RS) model, which is currently the most popular physics‐based seismicity model, also predicts an Omori–Utsu decay with p = 1 and a c‐value that depends on the size of the coseismic stress change. Because the mainshock‐induced stresses strongly vary in space, the c‐value should vary accordingly. Short‐time aftershock incompleteness (STAI) in earthquake catalogs has prevented a detailed test of this prediction so far, but the newly developed a‐positive method for reconstructing the true earthquake rate now allows its testing. Using previously published slip models, we calculate the coseismic stress changes for the six largest mainshocks in Southern California in recent decades and estimate the maximum shear as a scalar proxy of the coseismic stress tensor. Aftershock rates reconstructed for events in different stress ranges show that the rates follow a power law with p = 1 independent of stress with no clear sign of a c‐value. The onset of the power‐law decay is abrupt and more delayed in areas with smaller stress changes. The observations do not necessarily contradict the RS model, as STAI limits the resolution for early aftershocks, and the RS model can reproduce the observations for specific values. However, the observations lead to strong constraints, namely and a power‐law decay of the background rate with distance to the fault, with exponent 2.7.