Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) An erratum has been published Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hill, D. P. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Dynamic Stresses, Coulomb Failure, and Remote Triggering

U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 94025

Dynamic stresses associated with crustal surface waves with 15–30-sec periods and peak amplitudes <1 MPa are capable of triggering seismicity at sites remote from the generating mainshock under appropriate conditions. Coulomb failure models based on a frictional strength threshold offer one explanation for instances of rapid-onset triggered seismicity that develop during the surface-wave peak dynamic stressing. Evaluation of the triggering potential of surface-wave dynamic stresses acting on critically stressed faults using a Mohr’s circle representation together with the Coulomb failure criteria indicates that Love waves should have a higher triggering potential than Rayleigh waves when incident on vertical, strike-slip faults. That (1) the onset of triggered seismicity often appears to begin during the Rayleigh wave rather than the earlier-arriving Love wave, (2) vertical strike-slip faults pervade the crust in most tectonic regimes, and (3) Love-wave amplitudes typically exceed those for Rayleigh waves suggests that the explanation for rapid-onset dynamic triggering may not reside solely with a simple static-threshold friction mode. The results also indicate that thrust faults should be more susceptible to dynamic triggering by Rayleigh-wave stresses than normal faults in the shallow seismogenic crust (<5 km), while the reverse should be true in the lower seismogenic crust (>5 km). The latter is consistent with the observation that extensional or transtensional tectonic regimes are more susceptible to remote triggering by Rayleigh-wave dynamic stresses than compressional or transpressional regimes. Locally elevated pore pressures may have a role in the observed prevalence of dynamic triggering in extensional regimes and geothermal/volcanic systems.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. R. Felzer and D. Kilb A Case Study of Two M~5 Mainshocks in Anza, California: Is the Footprint of an Aftershock Sequence Larger Than We Think? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, October 1, 2009; 99(5): 2721 - 2735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. P. Hill Erratum to Dynamic Stresses, Coulomb Failure, and Remote Triggering Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, June 1, 2009; 99(3): 2050 - 2051. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T.R. Walter, R. Wang, V. Acocella, M. Neri, H. Grosser, and J. Zschau Simultaneous magma and gas eruptions at three volcanoes in southern Italy: An earthquake trigger? Geology, March 1, 2009; 37(3): 251 - 254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]