Abstract
The technique for forecasting the spatial domain where fairly intense aftershocks should be expected after a strong earthquake is considered. The paper presents the task of estimating the area prone to the strong future aftershocks using the data for the first 12 h after the main shock. The existing aftershock identification techniques are inapplicable to this task because they either analyze the distributions of the epicenters of the aftershock process that has been already completed or only consider the parameters of the main shock and only provide rough estimates. Using the developed criteria of estimating the quality of the prediction, we quantitatively compared quite a few different candidates. The latter included the main known techniques and their modifications suggested by us. In these modifications, we took into account the results of the recent studies on the dynamics of the aftershock process. This enabled us to select the optimal procedure which demonstrated the best results of the quantitative tests for more than 120 aftershock sequences with the magnitudes starting from 6.5 all over the world. This procedure can be used in the seismological monitoring centers for forecasting the area prone to the aftershock activity after a strong earthquake based on the data of operative processing.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ANSS Catalogue, Northern California Earthquake Data Center, UCBerkeley Seismological Laboratory. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/. Cited February 11, 2016. doi 10.7932/NCEDC10.7932/NCEDC
Baranov, S.V. and Shebalin, P.N, Forecasting aftershock activity: 1. Adaptive estimates based on the Omori and Gutenberg–Richter laws, Izv., Phys. Solid Earth, 2016, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 413–431. doi 10.7868/S0002333716020034
Brodsky, E., Long-range triggered earthquakes that continue after the wave train passes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2006, vol. 33, L15313. doi 10.1029/2006GL026605
Cattania, C., Hainzl, S., Wang, L., Enescu, B., and Roth, F, Aftershock triggering by postseismic stresses: a study based on Coulomb rate-and-state models, J. Geophys. Res., 2015, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 2388–2407. doi 10.1002/2014JB011500
Cisternas, A., Godefroy, P., Gvishiani, A., Gorshkov, A.I., Kosobokov, V., Lambert, M., Ranzman, E., Sallantin, J., Saldano, H., Soloviev, A., and Weber, C., A dual approach to recognition of earthquake prone areas in the Western Alps, Ann. Geophys., 1985, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 249–270.
Cisternas, A., Philip, H., Bousquet, J.C., Cara, M., Deschamps, A., Dorbath, L., Dorbath, C., Haessler, H., Jimenez, E., Nercessian, A., Rivera, L., Romanowicz, B., Gvishiani, A., Shebalin, N.V., Aptekman, I., et al., The Spitak (Armenia) earthquake of 7 December 1988: field observations, seismology and tectonics, Nature, 1989, vol. 339, no. 6227, pp. 675–679.
Davis, C., Keilis-Borok, V., Molchan, G., Shebalin, P., Lahr, P., and Plumb, C, Earthquake prediction and disaster preparedness: interactive analysis, Nat. Hazards Rev., 2010, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 173–184.
Gardner, J.K. and Knopoff, L, Is the sequence of earthquakes in Southern California, with aftershocks removed, Poissonian?, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1974, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1363–1367.
Knopoff, L, The magnitude distribution of declustered earthquakes in Southern California, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2000, vol. 97, no. 22, pp. 11880–11884.
Kossobokov, V. and Shebalin, P., Earthquake prediction, in Nonlinear Dynamics of the Lithosphere and Earthquake Prediction, Keilis-Borok, V.I. and Soloviev, A.A., Eds., Berlin: Springer, 2003, pp. 141–207.
Marsan, D., and Lengline, O, Extending earthquakes’ reach through cascading, Science, 2008, vol. 319, pp. 1076–1079.
Marsan, D., Helmstetter, A., Bouchon, M., and Dublanchet, P, Foreshock activity related to enhanced aftershock production, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2014, vol. 41, pp. 1–7. doi 10.1002/2014GL061219
Mignan, A. and Woessner, J., Estimating the magnitude of completeness for earthquake catalogs, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, 2012. http://www.corssa.org. doi 10.5078/corssa-00180805
Molchan, G, Structure of optimal strategies in earthquake prediction, Tectonophysics, 1991, vol. 193, pp. 267–276.
Molchan, G.M. and Dmitrieva, O.E., Identifying the aftershocks: a review and new approaches, in Vychislitel’naya seismologiya, vyp. 24 (Computational Seismology, vol. 24), Moscow, 1991, pp. 19–50.
Molchan, G.M. and Dmitrieva, O.E, Aftershock identification: methods and new approaches, Geophys. J. Int., 1992, vol. 109, pp. 501–516.
Molchan, G., Space-time earthquake prediction: the error diagrams, Pure Appl. Geophys., 2010, vol. 167, nos. 8–9, pp. 907–917. doi 10.1007/s00024-010-0087-z
Narteau, C., Byrdina, S., Shebalin, P., and Schorlemmer, D, Common dependence on stress for the two fundamental laws of statistical seismology, Nature, 2009, vol. 462, no. 2, pp. 642–645.
Ogata, Y, Seismicity analysis through point-process modeling: a review, Pure Appl. Geophys., 1999, vol. 155, nos. 2–4, pp. 471–507.
Prozorov, A.G., Dynamic algorithm for aftershock elimination from the global earthquake catalog, in Matematicheskie metody v seismologii i geodinamike. Vychislitel’naya seismologiya, vyp. 19 (Mathematical Methods in Seismology and Geodynamics. Computational Seismology, vol. 19), Moscow: Nauka, 1986, pp.58–62.
Reasenberg, P., Second-order moment of Central California seismicity, 1969–1982, J. Geophys. Res., 1985, vol. 90, no. B7, pp. 5479–5495.
Schorlemmer, D., Gerstenberger, M., Wiemer, S., Jackson, D.D., and Rhoades, D.A, Earthquake likelihood model testing, Seismol. Res. Lett., 2007, vol. 78, pp. 17–29.
Shebalin, P., Zaliapin, I., and Keilis-Borok, V, Premonitory raise of the earthquakes’ correlation range: Lesser Antilles, Phys. Earth Planet. Int., 2000, vol. 122, pp. 241–249.
Shebalin, P., Narteau, C., Holschneider, M., and Schorlemmer, D., Short-term earthquake forecasting using early aftershock statistics, Bull. Seimol. Soc. Am., 2011, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 297–312.
Shebalin, P., Narteau, C., Holschneider, M., and Zechar, J, Combining earthquake forecast models using differential probability gains, Earth, Planets Space, 2014, vol. 66, no. 37, pp. 1–14.
Smirnov, V.B, Prognostic anomalies of seismic regime. I. Technique for preparation of original data, Geofiz. Issled., 2009, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 7–22.
Smirnov, V.B., Ponomarev, A.V., Bernard, P., and Patonin, A.V, Regularities in transient modes in the seismic process according to the laboratory and natural modeling, Izv., Phys. Solid Earth, 2010, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 104–135.
Soloviev, A.A., Gorshkov, A.I., Novikova, O.V., Gvishiani, A.D., and Dobrovolsky, M.N, Recognition of earthquake-prone areas: methodology and analysis of the results, Izv., Phys. Solid Earth, 2014, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 151–168.
Stiphout, T., Zhuang, J., and Marsan, D., Seismicity declustering. Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis. 2012. http://www.corssa.org. doi 10.5078/corssa-52382934
Tsuboi, C, Earthquake energy, earthquake volume, aftershock area, and strength of the Earth’s crust, J. Phys. Earth, 1956, vol. 4, pp. 63–66.
Utsu, T.A, Statistical study on the occurrence of aftershocks, Geophys. Mag., 1961, vol. 30, pp. 521–605.
Vorobieva, I.A, Prediction of a subsequent strong earthquake, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 1999, vol. 111, pp. 197–206.
Vorobieva, I., Narteau, C., Shebalin, P., Beauducel, F., Nercessian, A., Clouard, V., and Bouin, M.P, Multiscale mapping of completeness magnitude of earthquake catalogs, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2013, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 2188–2202.
Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith, K.J, New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 1994, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 974–1002.
Wiemer, S. and Wyss, M, Minimum magnitude of completeness in earthquake catalogs: examples from Alaska, the western United States, and Japan, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2000, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 859–869.
Zechar, J.D. and Jordan, T.H, Testing alarm-based earthquake predictions, Geophys. J. Int., 2008, vol. 172, pp. 715–724.
Zechar, J.D., Gerstenberger, M.C., and Rhoades, D.A, Likelihood-based tests for evaluating space-rate-magnitude earthquake forecasts, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 2010, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 1184–1195. doi 10.1785/0120090192
Zhuang, J., Ogata, Y., and Vere-Jones, D, Analyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction, J. Geophys. Res., 2004, vol. 109, no. B5, pp. 1–17. doi 10.1029/2003JB002879
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Original Russian Text © S.V. Baranov, P.N. Shebalin, 2017, published in Fizika Zemli, 2017, No. 3, pp. 43–61.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baranov, S.V., Shebalin, P.N. Forecasting aftershock activity: 2. Estimating the area prone to strong aftershocks. Izv., Phys. Solid Earth 53, 366–384 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351317020021
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351317020021