USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70262596

The productivity of Cascadia aftershock sequences

Abstract

This study addresses questions about the productivity of Cascadia mainshock–aftershock sequences using earthquake catalogs produced by the Geological Survey of Canada and the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network. Questions concern the likelihood that future moderate to large intermediate depth intraslab earthquakes in Cascadia would have as few detectable aftershocks as those documented since 1949. More broadly, for Cascadia, we consider if aftershock productivities vary spatially, if they are outliers among global subduction zones, and if they are consistent with a physical model in which aftershocks are clock‐advanced versions of tectonically driven background seismicity. A practical motivation for this study is to assess the likely accuracy of aftershock forecasts based on productivities derived from global data that are now being issued routinely by the U.S. Geological Survey. For this reason, we estimated productivity following the identical procedures used in those forecasts and described in Page et al. (2016) . Results indicate that in Cascadia we can say that the next intermediate depth intraslab earthquake will likely have just a few detectable aftershocks and that aftershock productivity appears to be an outlier among global subduction zones, with rates that on average are lower by more than half, except for mainshocks in the upper plate. Our results are consistent with a clock‐advance model; productivities may be related to the proximity of mainshocks to a population of seismogenic fault patches and correlate with background seismicity rates. The latter and a clear correlation between productivities with mainshock depth indicate that both factors may have predictive value for aftershock forecasting.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 40° to 50° latitude; -130° to -120° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joan S. Gomberg, Paul Bodin. 2021-04-13. The productivity of Cascadia aftershock sequences. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120200344

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Re-evaluation of shaking, dynamic strain, and the source of the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake

As the largest historical event in the eastern United States, the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake, plays a prominent role in our nation’s seismological and human history and an outsized role in our probabilistic ground‐motion hazard estimates, affecting building codes, insurance rates, and geophysical monitoring. Thus, constraining the characteristics of the 1886 earthquake source, as well as the nature of its shaking distribution and impacts to the extent possible, is essential. Given its vintage, however, societal, geological, and geophysical datasets are limited compared with those used in modern seismological analyses. Because of these limitations, some characteristics of the rupture model are fundamentally nonunique. Still, by re‐evaluating all available data, I can constrain several key aspects of this earthquake. I show that several interpretations in recent analyses are inconsistent regarding the inferred source; shaking; ground failure; and, particularly, railway impacts. Importantly, I have shown that although dynamic strain caused the ground failure that led to track deformation, without the intermediate liquefaction step, dynamic strain alone was unlikely to be the source of rail deformation, contrary to earlier studies. Had earlier pronouncements that dynamic strain is a real concern for bending railways held true, there would be serious ramifications for railway engineering as well as for other above‐ and below‐ground linear infrastructure.

South Carolina↗

ETAS-positive: Extracting unbiased epidemic-type aftershock models from incomplete earthquake catalogs

Earthquake catalogs are inherently incomplete, and short-term fluctuations in catalog completeness can strongly bias estimates of seismicity parameters. Here, we extend the positive statistics framework recently introduced for estimating Gutenberg–Richter a and b values to the Epidemic-Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model. The approach focuses on complete magnitude–time intervals defined by pairs of earthquakes in which the second event is larger than the first. Comprehensive synthetic tests demonstrate that the proposed ETAS + method retrieves nearly unbiased parameter estimates even from highly incomplete catalogs, whereas parameters obtained using classical estimation approaches are strongly biased. Application to Southern California reveals a similar trend, with the productivity scaling parameter α approaching the b value, consistent with self-similar earthquake triggering within estimation uncertainties. Owing to its robustness against catalog incompleteness and computational efficiency, the ETAS + method provides a powerful new tool for seismicity analysis and earthquake forecasting.

California↗