Literature DB >> 16222291

Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake.

W H Bakun1, B Aagaard, B Dost, W L Ellsworth, J L Hardebeck, R A Harris, C Ji, M J S Johnston, J Langbein, J J Lienkaemper, A J Michael, J R Murray, R M Nadeau, P A Reasenberg, M S Reichle, E A Roeloffs, A Shakal, R W Simpson, F Waldhauser.   

Abstract

Obtaining high-quality measurements close to a large earthquake is not easy: one has to be in the right place at the right time with the right instruments. Such a convergence happened, for the first time, when the 28 September 2004 Parkfield, California, earthquake occurred on the San Andreas fault in the middle of a dense network of instruments designed to record it. The resulting data reveal aspects of the earthquake process never before seen. Here we show what these data, when combined with data from earlier Parkfield earthquakes, tell us about earthquake physics and earthquake prediction. The 2004 Parkfield earthquake, with its lack of obvious precursors, demonstrates that reliable short-term earthquake prediction still is not achievable. To reduce the societal impact of earthquakes now, we should focus on developing the next generation of models that can provide better predictions of the strength and location of damaging ground shaking.

Year:  2005        PMID: 16222291     DOI: 10.1038/nature04067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  17 in total

1.  Seismology: Shaking up earthquake theory.

Authors:  Glennda Chui
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 2.  Statistical physics models for aftershocks and induced seismicity.

Authors:  Molly Luginbuhl; John B Rundle; Donald L Turcotte
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Results of the Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) test of earthquake forecasts in California.

Authors:  Ya-Ting Lee; Donald L Turcotte; James R Holliday; Michael K Sachs; John B Rundle; Chien-Chih Chen; Kristy F Tiampo
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Aseismic transient slip on the Gofar transform fault, East Pacific Rise.

Authors:  Yajing Liu; Jeffrey J McGuire; Mark D Behn
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Afterslip Moment Scaling and Variability From a Global Compilation of Estimates.

Authors:  R M Churchill; M J Werner; J Biggs; Å Fagereng
Journal:  J Geophys Res Solid Earth       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 4.390

6.  Machine Learning Predicts the Timing and Shear Stress Evolution of Lab Earthquakes Using Active Seismic Monitoring of Fault Zone Processes.

Authors:  Srisharan Shreedharan; David Chas Bolton; Jacques Rivière; Chris Marone
Journal:  J Geophys Res Solid Earth       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 4.390

7.  Stable creeping fault segments can become destructive as a result of dynamic weakening.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Noda; Nadia Lapusta
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Shallow deformation of the San Andreas fault 5 years following the 2004 Parkfield earthquake (Mw6) combining ERS2 and Envisat InSAR.

Authors:  Guillaume Bacques; Marcello de Michele; Daniel Raucoules; Hideo Aochi; Frédérique Rolandone
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Across-Fault Velocity Gradients and Slip Behavior of the San Andreas Fault Near Parkfield.

Authors:  N Piana Agostinetti; G Giacomuzzi; C Chiarabba
Journal:  Geophys Res Lett       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 4.720

10.  The debate on the prognostic value of earthquake foreshocks: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arnaud Mignan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.