Abstract
Field experiments for testing the hypotheses related to earthquake preparation and earthquake forecast have been facing dual challenges due to the nature of the study of earthquakes. On the one hand, physical laws derived from laboratory experiments, when applied to field, have the problems of scaling, which necessitate field experiments. On the other hand, due to the limitation of earthquake ‘samples’ and the complicated factors controlling the preparation of an earthquake, the tests of the physical hypotheses by field experiments have vague significance. Such challenges are not only in the field of earthquake studies. In ecology and environmental science, ‘few samples, many factors’ is also one of the difficulties blocking the test of scientific hypotheses. To tackle this problem, in those fields, ‘Coordinated Distributed Experiments (CDEs)’ was proposed as an operational tool for hypothesis testing. Such an idea also provides earthquake studies with a new vision. In connection to the top-level design of the China Seismic Experiment Site (CSES), in this chapter, we discuss the concept CDEs applied to the test sites of earthquake forecast. We propose that an ‘earthquake rupture scenario’ be used for the coordination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Hoshiba (2006).
- 2.
- 3.
http://iaspei.org/about/resolutions-statements, last access: July 31, 2018.
- 4.
Here we use the words of late Prof. Leon Knopoff who commented world seismicity as ‘SO but not C’ in which SO stands for self-organized and C criticality.
References
Audet, P. 2010. Temporal variations in crustal scattering structure near Parkfield, California, using receiver functions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 100: 1356–1362.
Bakun, W.H., and A.G. Lindh. 1985. The Parkfield, California, earthquake prediction experiment. Science 229: 619–624.
Barbot, S., N. Lapusta, and J.P. Avouac. 2012. Under the hood of the earthquake machine, toward predictive modeling of the Seismic Cycle. Science 336: 707–710. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218796.
Bennett, R.A. 2007. Instantaneous slip rates from geology and geodesy. Geophysical Journal International 169: 19–28.
Beroza, G.C., and S. Ide. 2011. Slow earthquake and non-volcanic tremor. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 39: 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152531.
Chao, K., and Z. Peng. 2009. Temporal changes of seismic velocity and anisotropy in the shallow crust induced by the 1999 October 22 M6.4 Chia-Yi, Taiwan earthquake. Geophysical Journal International 179: 1800–1816.
Davis, J.F., and P. Somerville. 1982. Comparison of earthquake prediction approaches in the Tokai area of Japan and in California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 72: S367–S392.
Evans, R., D. Beamish, S. Crampin, and S.B. Ucer. 1987. The Turkish dilatancy project (TDP3), multidisciplinary studies of a potential earthquake source region. Geophysical Journal of Royal Astronomical Society 91: 265–286.
Field, E.H., T.H. Jordan, M.T. Page, K.R. Milner, B.E. Shaw, T.E. Dawson, G.P. Biasi, T. Parsons, J.L. Hardebeck, A.J. Michael, R.J. Weldon II, P.M. Powers, K.M. Johnson, Y.H. Zeng, K.R. Felzer, N. van der Elst, C. Madden, R. Arrowsmith, M.J. Werner, and W.R. Thatcher. 2017. A synoptic view of the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Seismological Research Letters 88: 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170045.
Field, E.H., R.J. Arrowsmith, G.P. Biasi, P. Bird, T.E. Dawson, K.R. Felzer, D.D. Jackson, K.M. Johnson, T.H. Jordan, C. Madden, A.J. Michael, K.R. Milner, M.T. Page, T. Parsons, P.M. Powers, B.E. Shaw, W.R. Thatcher, R.J. Weldon II, and Y.H. Zeng. 2014. Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 104: 1122–1180. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120130164.
Fraser, L.H., H.A.L. Henry, C.N. Carlyle, S.R. White, C. Beierkuhnlein, J.F. Cahill Jr., B.B. Casper, E. Cleland, S.L. Collins, J.S. Dukes, A.K. Knapp, E. Lind, R. Long, Y. Luo, P.B. Reich, M.D. Smith, M. Sternberg, and R. Turkington. 2012. Coordinated distributed experiments, an emerging tool for testing global hypotheses in ecology and environmental science. Frontier in Ecology and Environment Science 11: 147–155.
Hoshiba, M. 2006. Current strategy for prediction of Tokai earthquake and its recent topics. http://cais.gsi.go.jp/UJNR/6th/orally/O04_UJNR_Hoshiba.pdf. Last access: 31 July 2018.
Ide, S., G.C. Beroza, D.R. Shelly, and T. Uchide. 2007. A scaling law for slow earthquakes. Nature 447: 76–79.
Kaneko, Y., Y. Fialko, D.T. Sandwell, X. Tong, and M. Furuya. 2013. Interseismic deformation and creep along the central section of the North Anatolian Fault (Turkey), InSAR observations and implications for rate-and-state friction properties. Journal of Geophysical Research 118: 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JB009661.
Kano, M., N. Aso, T. Matsuzawa, S. Ide, S. Annoura, R. Arai, S. Baba, M. Bostock, K. Chao, K. Heki, S. Itaba, Y. Ito, N. Kamaya, T. Maeda, J. Maury, M. Nakamura, T. Nishimura, K. Obana, K. Ohta, N. Poiata, B. Rousset, H. Sugioka, R. Takagi, T. Takahashi, A. Takeo, Y. Tu, N. Uchida, Y. Yamashita, and K. Obara. 2018. Development of a slow earthquake database. Seismological Research Letters 89: 1566–1575. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180021.
Lachenbruch, A.H., J.H. Sass, G.D. Clow, and R. Weldon. 1995. Heat flow at Cajon Pass, California. Journal Geophysical Research 100: 2005–2012.
Mogi, K. 2004. Two grave issues concerning the expected Tokai Earthquake. Earth, Plants and Space 56: li–lxvi. https://doi.org/10.1186/bf03353074.
Mora, P., and D. Place. 1998. Numerical simulation of earthquake faults with gouge: Toward a comprehensive explanation for the heat flow paradox. Journal Geophysical Research 103: 21067–21089. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JB01490.
Nekrasova, A., V. Kossobokov, A. Peresan, and A. Magrin. 2014. The comparison of the NDSHA, PSHA seismic hazard maps and real seismicity for the Italian territory. Natural Hazards 70: 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0832-6.
Roeloffs, E. 2000. The Parkfield California earthquake experiment, an update in 2000. Current Science 79: 1226–1236.
Roeloffs, E., and L. Langbein. 1994. The earthquake prediction experiment at Parkfield, California. Review of Geophysics 32: 315–336.
Schorlemmer, D., M.J. Werner, W. Marzocchi, T.H. Jordan, Y. Ogata, D.D. Jackson, S. Mak, D.A. Rhoades, M.C. Hirata, N. Gerstenberger, M. Liukis, P.J. Maechling, A. Strader, M. Taroni, S. Wiemer, J.D. Zechar, and J. Zhuang. 2018. The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability: achievements and priorities. Seismological Research Letters 89: 1305–1313. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220180053.
Schwartz, S.Y., and J.M. Rokosky. 2007. Slow slip events and seismic tremor at circum-Pacific subduction zones. Review of Geophysics 45: RG3004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006RG000208.
Semenov, A.M. 1969. Variations in the travel-time of transverse and longitudinal waves before violent earthquakes. Izvestia Academy of Science. USSR Physics of Solid Earth (Engl. Transl.) 4: 245–248.
Stefansson, R., F. Bergerat, M. Bonafede, R. Boovarsson, S. Crampin, K.L. Feigl, F. Roth, F. Sigmundsson, and R. Slunga. 2001. PRENLAB-TWO—Final report. Veourstofa Islands Report.
Stefansson, R., F. Bergerat, M. Bonafede, R. Boovarsson, S. Crampin, P. Einarsson, K.L. Feigl, A. Guomundsson, F. Roth, F. Sigmundsson, and R. Slunga.1998. PRENLAB final report. Reykjavik.
Tong, X., D.T. Sandwell, and B.R. Smith-Konter. 2015. An integral method to estimate the moment accumulation rate on the Creeping Section of the San Andreas Fault. Geophysical Journal International 203: 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggv269.
Wegler, U., H. Nakahara, C. Sens-Schönfelder, M. Korn, and K. Shiomi. 2009. Sudden drop of seismic velocity after the 2004 Mw6.6 mid-Niigata earthquake, Japan, observed with passive image interferometry. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 114: B06305. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jb005869.
Werner, M.J., K. Ide, and D. Sornette. 2011. Earthquake forecasting based on data assimilation: sequential Monte Carlo methods for renewal point process. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 18: 49–70. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-18-49-2011.
Zechar, J.D., and K.L. Frankel. 2009. Incorporating and reporting uncertainties in fault slip rates. Journal Geophysical Research 114: B12407. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JB006325.
Zuccolo, E., F. Vaccari, A. Peresan, and G.F. Panza. 2010. Neo-deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard assessments: A comparison over the Italian territory. Pure and Applied Geophysics 168: 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-010-0151-8.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Drs. Paramesh Banerjee and Li Li, President and Secretary-General of the Asian Seismological Commission (ASC), for invitation to the 12th ASC General Assembly in connection to the 4th ICCE, and to Prof. Yong-Gang Li for invitation to the current monograph.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Higher Education Press and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wu, Z., Zhang, Y., Li, J. (2019). Coordinated Distributed Experiments (CDEs) Applied to Earthquake Forecast Test Sites. In: Li, YG. (eds) Earthquake and Disaster Risk: Decade Retrospective of the Wenchuan Earthquake. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8015-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8015-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8014-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8015-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)