Nucleation and Cascade Features of Earthquake Mainshock Statistically Explored from Foreshock Seismicity

The relation between the size of an earthquake mainshock preparation zone and the magnitude of the forthcoming mainshock is different between nucleation and domino-like cascade models. The former model indicates that magnitude is predictable before an earthquake’s mainshock because the preparation zone is related to the rupture area. In contrast, the latter indicates that magnitude is substantially unpredictable because it is practically impossible to predict the size of final rupture, which likely consists of a sequence of smaller earthquakes. As this proposal is still controversial, we discuss both models statistically, comparing their spatial occurrence rates between foreshocks and aftershocks. Using earthquake catalogs from three regions, California, Japan, and Taiwan, we showed that the spatial occurrence rates of foreshocks and aftershocks displayed a similar behavior, although this feature did not vary between these regions. An interpretation of this result, which was based on statistical analyses, indicates that the nucleation model is dominant.

[1]  W. Ellsworth,et al.  Seismic Evidence for an Earthquake Nucleation Phase , 1995, Science.

[2]  Guoqing Lin,et al.  Southern California Hypocenter Relocation with Waveform Cross- Correlation, Part 2: Results Using Source-Specific Station Terms and Cluster Analysis , 2005 .

[3]  H. Thio,et al.  Source‐Scaling Relations of Interface Subduction Earthquakes for Strong Ground Motion and Tsunami Simulation , 2016 .

[4]  D. Turcotte,et al.  Precursory Seismic Activation and Critical-point Phenomena , 2000 .

[5]  Y. Iio.  Scaling relation between earthquake size and duration of faulting for shallow earthquakes in seismic moment between 1010 and 1025 dyne. cm , 1986 .

[6]  Richard M. Allen,et al.  The deterministic nature of earthquake rupture , 2005, Nature.

[7]  K. Nanjo,et al.  Seismicity prior to the 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes , 2016, Earth, Planets and Space.

[8]  Shinji Toda,et al.  Decay of aftershock density with distance does not indicate triggering by dynamic stress , 2010, Nature.

[9]  R. Allen,et al.  Revised ML Determination for Crustal Earthquakes in Taiwan , 2005 .

[10]  M. Wyss,et al.  Variations in earthquake-size distribution across different stress regimes , 2005, Nature.

[11]  E. Hauksson,et al.  Earthquake Monitoring in Southern California for Seventy-Seven Years (1932-2008) , 2010 .

[12]  Tokihiko Matsuda,et al.  Magnitude and Recurrence Interval of Earthquakes from a Fault , 1975 .

[13]  Lucilla de Arcangelis,et al.  Statistical physics approach to earthquake occurrence and forecasting , 2016 .

[14]  D. Sornette,et al.  Earthquake rupture as a critical point: consequences for telluric precursors , 1990 .

[15]  Gert Zöller,et al.  A systematic spatiotemporal test of the critical point hypothesis for large earthquakes , 2002 .

[16]  K. Felzer,et al.  Decay of aftershock density with distance indicates triggering by dynamic stress , 2006, Nature.

[17]  Sara van,et al.  FOR DETERMINISTIC , 2007 .

[18]  Filippos Vallianatos,et al.  A Complexity View into the Physics of the Accelerating Seismic Release Hypothesis: Theoretical Principles , 2018, Entropy.

[19]  H. Aochi,et al.  Earthquakes as multiscale dynamic ruptures with heterogeneous fracture surface energy , 2005 .

[20]  S. Ide,et al.  Hierarchical rupture growth evidenced by the initial seismic waveforms , 2018, Nature Communications.

[21]  L. de Arcangelis,et al.  Spatial organization of foreshocks as a tool to forecast large earthquakes , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[22]  L. Arcangelis,et al.  Statistical Features of Foreshocks in Instrumental and ETAS Catalogs , 2017, Pure and Applied Geophysics.

[23]  Jeen‐Hwa Wang,et al.  Relationships among Magnitudes and Seismic Moment of Earthquakes in the Taiwan Region , 2007 .