Spatial relationships between coseismic slip, aseismic afterslip, and on‐fault aftershock density in continental earthquakes

Churchill, R. M., Werner, M. J., Biggs, J. and Fagereng, Å. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6335-8534 2024. Spatial relationships between coseismic slip, aseismic afterslip, and on‐fault aftershock density in continental earthquakes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 129 (1) , e2023JB027168. 10.1029/2023jb027168

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (3MB)

Abstract

Damaging aftershock sequences often exhibit considerable spatio‐temporal complexity. The stress changes associated with coseismic slip and aseismic afterslip are commonly proposed to drive aftershock sequences, but few systematic studies exist and do not always support strong, universal driving relationships. To investigate the roles that these two sources of stress changes may play in driving aftershocks, we assess the spatio‐temporal relationships between coseismic slip, afterslip, and on‐fault (within 5 km) aftershock density following seven M w 6.0–7.6 continental‐settings earthquakes, using available high‐quality slip models and regional seismic data. From previous empirical work and frictional considerations, near the mainshock we expect coseismic slip and afterslip to be anti‐correlated, and aftershocks to occur where coseismic slip is low/zero, near high slip gradients, and/or to migrate with afterslip. However, we find that spatial relationships between afterslip and coseismic slip, and between afterslip and aftershock density differ between earthquakes. Aftershock density correlates with coseismic slip following five of the earthquakes, and with total cumulative slip (coseismic slip + afterslip) following six: indicating that on‐fault aftershock distributions may be approximated by total slip (at current resolutions). Additionally, we find that the gradients of coseismic slip and afterslip (proxies for new stress concentrations) do not clearly correlate with aftershock distributions and that the choice of spatial domain over which relationships are tested can affect results significantly. A possible explanation of these results is that fault zones contain considerable fine‐scale structural and frictional heterogeneity. Nonetheless, the empirical evidence for frequently assumed relationships between coseismic slip, afterslip and on‐fault aftershocks is mixed.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Earth and Environmental Sciences
Additional Information:	License information from Publisher: LICENSE 1: URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Publisher:	American Geophysical Union
ISSN:	2169-9313
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	24 January 2024
Date of Acceptance:	2 January 2024
Last Modified:	24 Jan 2024 10:30
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/165798

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item