Advertisement

Geotectonics

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 578–588 | Cite as

Numerical Modeling of the Stress–Strain State and Results of GPS Monitoring of the Epicentral Area of the August 24, 2014 Earthquake (Napa, California, USA)

  • V. N. Morozov
  • V. I. Kaftan
  • V. N. Tatarinov
  • I. Yu. Kolesnikov
  • A. I. Manevich
  • A. Yu. Melnikov
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

This paper reports the results of numerical modeling of the stress–strain state of the epicentral area before and after the August 24, 2014 earthquake in Napa, California, USA, compared to calculated data obtained in instrumental studies in the dilatation areas based on GPS observation results. Numerical modeling has made it possible to calculate the stress–strain state of the epicentral area affected by the tectonic fault system. GPS observation data on the epicentral area of the earthquake and the results of numerical modeling of the stress–strain state before and after the considered earthquake have been analyzed. A trend toward localization of earthquake epicenters in the region of high stress intensity concentration has been confirmed. It has been proved that aftershock development is due to the drop in stress caused by a new fracture and that the aftershock cluster that occurred was localized in the area of decreased stress intensity.

Keywords:

modeling stress–strain state earthquake aftershocks earthquake prediction southern Napa earthquake 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to colleagues from the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory of the University of Nevada (Reno, Nevada, USA) for providing data on changes in the coordinates of GPS stations.The work was carried out under the state assignment of the Geophysical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences (project no. 0145-2016-004).

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    P. A. Dokukin, V. I. Kaftan, and R. I. Krasnoperov, “Implication of shapes of triangles in a geodetic network on results of determination of earth surface deformation,” Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved., Geod. Aerofotos’emka, No. 5, 6–11 (2010).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. N. Morozov, I. Yu. Kolesnikov, S. V. Belov, and V. N. Tatarinov, “Stress-strain state of the Lower Kan massif, possible nuclear waste disposal site,” Geoekologiya, No. 3, 232‒243 (2008).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Yu. Kolesnikov, V. N. Morozov, and V. N. Tatarinov, GEODYN 1.0 Program for Calculation of Stress-Strain State in a Rock Massif on the Basis of Heterogeneous Finite-Element Modeling (Fed. Inst. Prom. Sobstvennosti, Moscow, 2011).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. N. Morozov and A. I. Manevich, “Simulation of stress-strain state in the epicentral zone of the earthquake of January 26, 2001 with M = 6.9 in India,” Geofiz. Issled. 17 (4), 23‒36 (2016). doi 10.21455/gr2016.4-2Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. N. Morozov and A. I. Manevich, “Simulation of stress-strain state in the epicentral zone of the earthquake of March 13, 1992 with M = 6.9 in Turkey,” Geofiz. Issled. 19 (1), 17‒29 (2018).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Neumayr, History of Earth, 2nd ed. (Bibliogr. Inst., Leipzig, 1895), Vol. 1 [in German].Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. A. Rogozhin, “Tectonics of source zones of strong earthquakes in North Eurasia occurred in the end of the 20th century,” Ross. Zh. Nauk Zemle 2, 37–62 (2000).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. A. Rogozhin, A. N. Ovsyuchenko, A. V. Marakhanov, and E. A. Ushanova, “Tectonic setting and geological manifestations of the 2003 Altai earthquake,” Geotectonics 41, 87‒104 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. V. Shebalin, Strong Earthquakes: Selected Papers (Akad. Gorn. Nauk, Moscow, 1997) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. I. Sherman, S. A. Seminskii, S. A. Bornyakov, V. Yu. Buddo, R. M. Lobatskaya, A. N. Adamovich, V. A. Truskov, and A. A. Babichev, Faulting in the Lithosphere: Strike-Slip Zones (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1992) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Benioff, “Earthquake source mechanisms,” Science 143, 1399–1406 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, Earthquake Catalog. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/. Accessed October 17, 2017.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guohua Gu, W. Wuxing, Yueren Xu, and Wenjun Li, “Horizontal crustal movement before the great Wenchuan earthquake obtained from GPS observations in the regional network,” Earthquake Sci. 22, 471‒478 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International GNSS service. http://www.igs.org/. Accessed October 17, 2017.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Kanamori, “Mechanics of earthquakes,” Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 22, 207‒237 (1994). doi 10.1146/ annurev.ea.22.050194.001231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Kaftan and A. Melnikov, “Local deformation precursors of large earthquakes derived from GNSS observation data,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 95 (2017). doi 10.1088/1755-1315/95/3/032030Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Kouba and P. Héroux, “Precise point positioning using IGS orbit and clock products,” GPS Solutions 5 (2), 12‒28 (2001). doi 10.1007/PL00012883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Lisa, M 6 South Napa, California earthquake—August 24, 2014, USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/ 2014napa/. Accessed October 17, 2017.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mian Liu, Zhengkang Shen, Shimin Wang, Min Wang, and Yongge Wan, “Active tectonics and intracontinental earthquakes in China: The kinematics and geodynamics,” in Continental Intraplate Earthquakes: Science, Hazard, and Policy Issues, Vol. 425 of Geol. Soc. Am., Spec. Pap., Ed. by S. Stein and S. Mazzotti (2007), pp. 299‒318.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. N. Morozov, I. Yu. Kolesnikov, and V. N. Tatarinov, “Modeling the hazard levels of stress-strain state in structural blocks in Nizhnekanskii granitoid massif for selecting nuclear waste disposal sites,” Water Resour. 39, 756–769 (2012). doi 10.1134/S009780781207007XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. F. Reid, “The mechanics of the earthquake,” in The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906: Report of the State Investigation Commission (Carnegie Inst. Wash., Washington, D.C., 1910), Vol. 2, pp. 16‒28.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Rikitake, Earthquake Prediction (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, Preliminary coseismic offsets for American Canyon earthquake, Northern California Bay area. http://geodesy.unr.edu/billhammond/ earthquakes/nc72282711/nc72282711.html. Accessed October 17, 2017.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Towned and M. D. Zoback, “Regional tectonic stress near the San Andreas fault in central and southern California,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 (2004). doi 10.1029/2003GL018918Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    V. G. Trifonov, A. M. Korzhenkov, and Kh. M. Omar, “Recent geodynamics of major strike-slip zones,” Geod. Geodyn. 6, 361‒383 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. L. Zoback and M. D. Zoback, “Tectonic stress field of the continental united states,” in Geophysical Framework of the Continental United States, Vol. 172 of Geol. Soc. Am., Mem., Ed. by L. C. Paksier and W. D. Mooney (1989), pp. 523–539.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. N. Morozov
    • 1
  • V. I. Kaftan
    • 1
    • 2
  • V. N. Tatarinov
    • 1
  • I. Yu. Kolesnikov
    • 1
  • A. I. Manevich
    • 1
  • A. Yu. Melnikov
    • 2
  1. 1.Geophysical Center, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.People’s Friendship University of RussiaMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations