Scientific Session Search
| Previous page | Back to Search page |
| S04: | The Debate on to What Extent Static or Dynamic Stresses Triggers Earthquakes |
| Sponsor: |
Seismology
|
| CoSponsor: |
Tectonophysics |
| Convener: |
Ross S Stein U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park, CA, USA 650 329-4840 rstein@usgs.gov Keith Richards-Dinger University of California Riverside 900 University Ave Riverside, CA, USA 851 9273450 keithrd@ucr.edu Zhigang Peng Georgia Institute of Technology School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 311 Ferst Drive Atlanta, GA, USA 404-894-0231 zpeng@gatech.edu Nicholas van der Elst University of California Santa Cruz Earth & Planetary Sciences Department Earth & Marine Sci. Santa Cruz, CA, USA 831.459.4089 nvandere@ucsc.edu Shinji Toda DPRI, Kyoto University Gokasho, Uji Kyoto, JPN 81 774 38 4234 toda@rcep.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp |
|
7215 7215 8118 7209 .
|
|
| Description: | During the past decade a debate has been joined over whether aftershocks and subsequent mainshocks are triggered principally by static or dynamic stress. Arguments for static stress changes are principally founded on the spatial correlation of calculated Coulomb stress change with aftershocks or seismicity rate change; and on observations that fault creep and tidal Coulomb stresses, which have no dynamic component, have been shown to trigger and inhibit earthquakes. Strong evidence for dynamic earthquake triggering comes from preferred triggering in rupture propagation directions of large mainshocks, and a common decay of aftershock density from the near to far field. Which type of triggering is more important, especially in the near field, and how can we explain the time delay. We invite abstracts on all aspects of this debate, including tests of current hypotheses and proposals for other triggering mechanisms, such as reservoir loading, afterslip, pore fluids, or viscoelastic relaxations. |