Physics – Geophysics
Scientific paper
Dec 2003
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2003georl..30xsde2z&link_type=abstract
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 30, Issue 24, pp. SDE 2-1, CiteID 2237, DOI 10.1029/2003GL018665
Physics
Geophysics
Mathematical Geophysics: Modeling, Seismology: Earthquake Dynamics And Mechanics, Seismology: Seismicity And Seismotectonics, Tectonophysics: Stresses-General
Scientific paper
We examine the evolution of and the exchange between two forms of elastic energies stored in the quasi-static fault model of Ziv and Rubin [2003]. The first, Etect, is due to the integrated slip deficit accumulated between the plate boundaries and the fault surface, and the second, Efault, is the result of differential slip along the fault surface. The results of our analysis reveal cyclic exchange between the two energies. On a Efault versus Etect plot, the seismic cycle has a triangular shape with the large earthquakes occurring at the top corner of the triangle (where Efault is maximum), and the foreshocks and the aftershocks occupying the right side and left side, respectively. While both foreshocks and aftershocks dissipate tectonic energies, the cumulative effect of the foreshocks is to increase the potential elastic energy along the fault plane and the cumulative effect of the aftershocks is to reduce it.
Schmittbuhl Jean
Ziv Alon
No associations
LandOfFree
The seismic cycle and the difference between foreshocks and aftershocks in a mechanical fault model does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with The seismic cycle and the difference between foreshocks and aftershocks in a mechanical fault model, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and The seismic cycle and the difference between foreshocks and aftershocks in a mechanical fault model will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-879843