Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; October 2009; v. 99; no. 5; p. 2721-2735; DOI: 10.1785/0120080268
© 2009 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Electronic Supplement
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Felzer, K. R.
Right arrow Articles by Kilb, D.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

A Case Study of Two M~5 Mainshocks in Anza, California: Is the Footprint of an Aftershock Sequence Larger Than We Think?

Karen R. Felzer

U. S. Geological Survey, 525 South Wilson, Pasadena, California 91106

Debi Kilb

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0225


Online Material: Movies exploring the spatial extent of aftershocks from the 2001 and 2005 Anza sequences.


It has been traditionally held that aftershocks occur within one to two fault lengths of the mainshock. Here we demonstrate that this perception has been shaped by the sensitivity of seismic networks. The 31 October 2001 Mw 5.0 and 12 June 2005 Mw 5.2 Anza mainshocks in southern California occurred in the middle of the densely instrumented ANZA seismic network and thus were unusually well recorded. For the June 2005 event, aftershocks as small as M 0.0 could be observed stretching for at least 50 km along the San Jacinto fault even though the mainshock fault was only ~4.5 km long. It was hypothesized that an observed aseismic slipping patch produced a spatially extended aftershock-triggering source, presumably slowing the decay of aftershock density with distance and leading to a broader aftershock zone. We find, however, the decay of aftershock density with distance for both Anza sequences to be similar to that observed elsewhere in California. This indicates there is no need for an additional triggering mechanism and suggests that given widespread dense instrumentation, aftershock sequences would routinely have footprints much larger than currently expected. Despite the large 2005 aftershock zone, we find that the probability that the 2005 Anza mainshock triggered the M 4.9 Yucaipa mainshock, which occurred 4.2 days later and 72 km away, to be only 14%±1%. This probability is a strong function of the time delay; had the earthquakes been separated by only an hour, the probability of triggering would have been 89%.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Seismological Society of America