Abstract
For each of all 156 largest earthquakes (M ≥ 7.5, depth < 300 km) worldwide in 1985–2020, we characterize the dynamics of the foreshock and aftershock sequences nearby their epicentres in terms of (1) seismic rate, N; (2) the Benioff strain release, Σ; (3) inter-event time, τ; (4) the Utsu estimate of the Gutenberg–Richter constant, b; and (5) the control parameter, η, of the Unified scaling law for earthquakes (USLE), i.e. a generalization of the Gutenberg–Richter relationship accounting for naturally fractal distribution of earthquake loci. Such a multi-parametric description of earthquake activity provides the quantitative evidence for better understanding seismic process in advance and after catastrophic phase transitions in dynamics of the hierarchically organized system of lithospheric blocks-and-faults. The study confirms the existence of the spatiotemporal patterns and different regimes of regional seismic energy release; in particular, the stability of the USLE control parameter levels that are interrupted by mid- or even short-term bursts of activity associated with major catastrophic events, as well as variability of seismic activity in advance and after the main shocks. Statistically, the results of the uniform analysis of series of the moderate earthquakes at locations of 97 thrust, 21 normal, and 38 strike-slip earthquakes do not support the presence of universality in seismic energy release, provide fundamental constraints on modelling realistic earthquake sequences by geophysicists, and, therefore, can be used to improve local time-Dependent Assessment of Seismic Hazard.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program (2017) Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Comprehensive Catalog of Earthquake Events and Products: Various. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7MS3QZH. Nekrasova and Kossobokov (2019) Unified Scaling Law for Earthquakes: Global Map of Parameters. International Seismological Centre (ISC) Seismological Dataset Repository. https://doi.org/10.31905/XT753V44
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Álvarez-Gómez JA (2019) FMC—earthquake focal mechanisms data management cluster and classification. SoftwareX 9:299–307
Arnol’d VI (1984) Catastrophe theory, vol IX, 1st edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-96799-3
Bak P, Christensen K, Danon L, Scanlon T (2002) Unified scaling law for earthquakes. Phys Rev Lett 88:178501–178504
Bolton DC, Shokouhi P, Rouet-Leduc B, Hulbert C, Rivière J, Marone C, Johnson PA (2019) Characterizing acoustic signals and searching for precursors during the laboratory seismic cycle using unsupervised machine learning. Seismol Res Lett 90(3):1088–1098. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180367
Bukchin BG, Fomochkina AS, Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova AK (2020) Characterizing the foreshock, main shock, and aftershock sequences of the recent major earthquakes in Southern Alaska, 2016–2018. Front Earth Sci 8:584659. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.584659
Chen X, Shearer PM (2016) Analysis of foreshock sequences in California and implications for earthquake triggering. Pure Appl Geophys 173(1):133–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-015-1103-0
Crespi MG, Kossobokov VG, Panza GF, Peresan A (2020) Space-time precursory features within ground velocities and seismicity in North-Central Italy. Pure Appl Geophys 177:369–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-019-02297-y
Davis C, Keilis-Borok V, Kossobokov V, Soloviev A (2012) Advance prediction of the March 11, 2011 Great East Japan earthquake: a missed opportunity for disaster preparedness. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 1:17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2012.03.001
Dobrovolsky IP, Zubkov SI, Miachkin VI (1979) Estimation of the size of earthquake preparation zones. Pure Appl Geophys 117(5):1025–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876083
Dziewonski AM, Chou T-A, Woodhouse JH (1981) Determination of earthquake source parameters from waveform data for studies of global and regional seismicity. J Geophys Res 86:2825–2852. https://doi.org/10.1029/JB086iB04p02825
Ekström G, Nettles M, Dziewonski AM (2012) The global CMT project 2004–2010: centroid-moment tensors for 13,017 earthquakes. Phys Earth Planet Inter 200–201:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pepi.2012.04.002
Ellsworth WL, Bulut F (2018) Nucleation of the 1999 Izmit earthquake by a triggered cascade of foreshocks. Nat Geosci 11(7):531–535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0145-1
Freund F, Mignan A, Ouillon G, Sornette D (2021) The global earthquake forecasting system: towards using non-seismic precursors for the prediction of large earthquakes. Eur Phys J Spec Top 230(1):490
Hardebeck JL, Felzer KR, Michael AJ (2008) Improved tests reveal that the accelerating moment release hypothesis is statistically insignificant. J Geophys Res 113:B08310. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005410
Healy JH, Kossobokov VG, Dewey JW (1992) A test to evaluate the earthquake prediction algorithm M8. U.S Geol Surv Open-File Report 92-401, 117 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr92401
Ismail-Zadeh A, Kossobokov V (2021) Earthquake prediction, M8 algorithm. In: Gupta HK (ed) Encyclopedia of solid earth geophysics. Encyclopedia of earth sciences series. Springer, Cham, pp 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58631-7_157
Kagan YY (2005) Double-couple earthquake focal mechanism: random rotation and display. Geophys J Int 163:1065–1072
Kaverina AN, Lander AV, Prozorov AG (1996) Global creepex distribution and its relation to earthquake-source geometry and tectonic origin. Geophys J Int 125(1):249–265
Keilis-Borok V, Gabrielov A, Soloviev A (2009) Geo-complexity and earthquake prediction. In: Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. Springer, New York, pp 4178–4194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_246
Keilis-Borok VI (1990) The lithosphere of the earth as a nonlinear system with implications for earthquake prediction. Rev Geophys 28:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1029/RG028i001p00019
Keilis-Borok VI (1994) Symptoms of instability in a system of earthquake-prone faults. Physica D 77(1–3):193–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(94)90133-3
Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov VG (1984) A complex of long-term precursors for the strongest earthquakes of the world. In: Proceedings of the 27th international geological congress: Moscow 4–14 August 1984, vol 61, pp 56–66. Nauka Publishers, Moscow
Keilis-Borok VI, Kossobokov VG (1990) Premonitory activation of seismic flow: algorithm M8. Phys Earth Planet Inter 61(73):83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(90)90096-G
Keylis-Borok VI, Malinovskaya LN (1964) One regularity in the occurrence of strong earthquakes. J Geophys Res 69(14):3019–3024. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ069i014p03019
Kijko A (1988) Maximum likelihood estimation of Gutenberg-Richter b parameter for uncertain magnitude values. Pure Appl Geophys 127:573–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881745
Kijko A, Smit A (2012) Extension of the Aki-Utsu b-value estimator for incomplete catalogs. Bullet Seismol Soc Amer 102(3):1283–1287. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110226
Koper KD, Pankow KL, Pechmann JC, Hale JM, Burlacu R, Yeck W L, Benz HM, Herrmann RB, Trugman DT, Shearer PM (2018) Afterslip enhanced aftershock activity during the 2017 earthquake sequence near Sulphur Peak, Idaho. Geophys Res Lett 45(11):5352–5361. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078196
Kosobokov VG, Mazhkenov SA (1994) On similarity in the spatial distribution of seismicity. In: Chowdhury DK (ed) Computational seismology and geodynamics/American geophysics union 1. The Union, Washington, DC, pp 6–15
Kossobokov V, Shebalin P (2003) Earthquake prediction. In: Keilis-Borok VI, Soloviev AA (eds) Nonlinear dynamics of the lithosphere and earthquake prediction. Springer series in synergetics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 141–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05298-3_4
Kossobokov VG (1986) The test of algorithm M8. In: Sadovsky MA (ed) Algorithms of long-term earthquake prediction. CERESIS, Lima, pp 42–52
Kossobokov V (2021) Unified scaling law for earthquakes that generalizes the fundamental Gutenberg–Richter relationship. In: Gupta HK (ed) Encyclopedia of solid earth geophysics. Encyclopedia of earth sciences series. Springer, Cham, pp 1893–1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58631-7_257
Kossobokov VG, Lepreti F, Carbone V (2008) Complexity in sequences of solar flares and earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys 165:761–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-008-0330-z
Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova A (2019) Aftershock sequences of the recent major earthquakes in New Zealand. Pure Appl Geophys 176:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-018-2071-y
Kossobokov VG, Nekrasova AK (2017) Characterizing aftershock sequences of the recent strong earthquakes in central Italy. Pure Appl Geophys 174:3713–3723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-017-1624-9
Kossobokov V, Peresan A, Panza GF (2015) On operational earthquake forecast and prediction problems. Seismol Res Lett 86(2):287–290. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140202
Kossobokov VG, Shchepalina PD (2020) Times of increased probabilities for occurrence of world’s largest earthquakes: 30 years hypothesis testing in real time. Izv Phys Solid Earth 56(1):36–44. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351320010061
Kumazawa T, Ogata Y, Tsuruoka H (2019) Characteristics of seismic activity before and after the 2018 M6.7 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi earthquake. Earth, Planets Space 71:130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-019-1102-y
Lay T, Ye L, Bai Y, Cheung KF, Kanamori H (2018) The 2018 MW7.9 gulf of Alaska earthquake: multiple Fault rupture in the Pacific plate. Geophys Res Lett 45:9542–9551. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079813
Lepreti F, Kossobokov VG, Carbone V (2009) Statistical properties of solar flares and comparison to other impulsive energy release events. Int J Mod Phys B 23(28–29):5609–5618. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979209063894
Liu T, Kossobokov VG (2021) Displacements before and after great earthquakes: geodetic and seismic viewpoints. Pure Appl Geophys 178:1135–1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-021-02694-2
Nekrasova A, Kossobokov V, Parvez IA, Tao X (2015) Seismic hazard and risk assessment based on the unified scaling law for earthquakes. Acta Geod Geophys 50(1):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40328-014-0082-4.ISSN2213-5812
Nekrasova AK, Kossobokov VG (2019) Unified scaling law for earthquakes: global map of parameters. ISC’s Seismological Dataset Repository. https://doi.org/10.31905/XT753V44
Panza GF, Bela J (2020) NDSHA: a new paradigm for reliable seismic hazard assessment. Eng Geol 275, Article 105403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.105403
Panza G, Kossobokov V, De Vivo B, Laor E (eds) (2021) Earthquakes and sustainable infrastructure: neo-deterministic (NDSHA) approach guarantees prevention rather than cure. Elsevier. eBook ISBN: 9780128235416. Paperback ISBN: 9780128235034, 672 p
Richter CF (1964) Discussion of paper by VI Keylis-Borok and LN Malinovskaya ‘one regularity in the occurrence of strong earthquakes.’ J Geophys Res 69(14):3025–3025. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ069i014p03025
Romanowicz B (1993) Spatiotemporal patterns in the energy release of great earthquakes. Science 260:1923–1926. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.260.5116.1923
Ross ZE, Rollins C, Cochran ES, Hauksson E, Avouac J-P, Ben-Zion Y (2017) Aftershocks driven by afterslip and fuid pressure sweeping through a fault-fracture mesh. Geophys Res Lett 44:8260–8267. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074634
Thom R (1975) Structural stability and morphogenesis: an outline of a general theory of models. WA Benjamin Inc., Massachusetts, p 348
Trugman DT, Ross ZE (2019) Pervasive foreshock activity across southern California. Geophys Res Lett 46:8772–8781. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083725
Updike RG (ed) (1989) Proceedings of the national earthquake prediction evaluation council June 6–7 1988 Reston Virginia. US Geol Surv Open-File Report 89-114, 24 p. with 9 Appendixes. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr89144
Utsu T (1965) A method for determining the value of b in the formula log n = a–bM showing the magnitude-frequency relation for earthquakes (with English summary). Geophys Bull Hokkaido Univ 13:99–103
West ME, Bender A, Gardine M, Gardine L, Gately K, Haeussler P, Hassan W, Meyer F, Richards C, Ruppert N, Tape C, Thornley J, Witter R (2020) The 30 November 2018 Mw 7.1 Anchorage earthquake. Seismol Res Lett 91(1):66–84. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190176
Acknowledgements
VGK and AKN are infinitely grateful to Vladimir I. KEILIS-BOROK (1921–2013) whose constant interest, collaboration, and support were and still are illuminating our investigations of seismic phenomena. Thanks to José A. Álvarez-Gómez for making available the computer code for classification of earthquake faulting.
Funding
This study was carried out as part of the Russian Federation State Task of Scientific Research Works on “Seismic hazard assessment, development and testing of earthquake prediction methods” (No. 0143–2019-0006). No other funding received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kossobokov, V.G., Nekrasova, A.K. & Schepalina, P.D. Seismic Dynamics in Advance of and After the Largest Earthquakes, 1985–2020. Surv Geophys 43, 423–436 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-021-09674-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-021-09674-0