To understand whether the 1992 M = 7.4 Landers earthquake changed the proximity to failure on the San Andreas fault system, we examine the general problem of how one earthquake might trigger another. The tendency of rocks to fail in a brittle manner is thought to be a function of both shear and confining stresses, commonly formulated as the Coulomb failure criterion. Here we explore how changes in Coulomb conditions associated with one or more earthquakes may trigger subsequent events. We first consider a Coulomb criterion appropriate for the production of aftershocks, where faults most likely to slip are those optimally orientated for failure as a result of the prevailing regional stress field and the stress change caused by the mainshock. We find that the distribution of aftershocks for the Landers earthquake, as well as for several other moderate events in its vicinity, can be explained by the Coulomb criterion as follows: aftershocks are abundant where the Coulomb stress on optimally orientated faults rose by more than one-half bar, and aftershocks are sparse where the Coulomb stress dropped by a similar amount. Further, we find that several moderate shocks raised the stress at the future Landers epicenter and along much of the Landers rupture zone by about a bar, advancing the Landers shock by 1 to 3 centuries. The Landers rupture, in turn, raised the stress at site of the future M = 6.5 Big Bear aftershock site by 3 bars. The Coulomb stress change on a specified fault is independent of regional stress but depends on the fault geometry, sense of slip, and the coefficient of friction. We use this method to resolve stress changes on the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults imposed by the Landers sequence. Together the Landers and Big Bear earthquakes raised the stress along the San Bernardino segment of the southern San Andreas fault by 2 to 6 bars, hastening the next great earthquake there by about a decade.

/pdf/static-stress-changes-and-the-triggering-of-earthquakes-4r29mmr407.pdf

Static stress changes and the triggering of earthquakes

GEODETIC data, obtained by ground- or space-based techniques, can be used to infer the distribution of slip on a fault that has ruptured in an earthquake. Although most geodetic techniques require a surveyed network to be in place before the earthquake1–3, satellite images, when collected at regular intervals, can capture co-seismic displacements without advance knowledge of the earthquake's location. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) interferometry, first introduced4 in 1974 for topographic mapping5–8 can also be used to detect changes in the ground surface, by removing the signal from the topography9,10. Here we use SAR interferometry to capture the movements produced by the 1992 earthquake in Landers, California11. We construct an interferogram by combining topographic information with SAR images obtained by the ERS-1 satellite before and after the earthquake. The observed changes in range from the ground surface to the satellite agree well with the slip measured in the field, with the displacements measured by surveying, and with the results of an elastic dislocation model. As a geodetic tool, the SAR interferogram provides a denser spatial sampling (100 m per pixel) than surveying methods1–3 and a better precision (∼3 cm) than previous space imaging techniques12,13.

The displacement field of the Landers earthquake mapped by radar interferometry

The traditional view of tectonics is that the lithosphere comprises a strong brittle layer overlying a weak ductile layer, which gives rise to two forms of deformation: brittle fracture, accompanied by earth- quakes, in the upper layer, and aseismic ductile flow in the layer beneath Although this view is not incorrect, it is imprecise, and in ways that can lead to serious misunderstandings The term ductility, for example, can apply equally to two common rock deformation mechanisms: crystal plasticity, which occurs in rock above a critical temperature, and cataclastic flow, a type of granular deformation which can occur in poorly consolidated sediments Although both exhibit ductility, these two deformation mechanisms have very different rheologies Earthquakes, in turn, are associated with strength and brittleness—associations that are likewise sufficiently imprecise that, if taken much beyond the generality implied in the opening sentence, they can lead to serious misinterpretations about earthquake mechanics Lately, a newer, much more precise and predictive model for the earthquake mechanism has emerged, which has its roots in the observation that tectonic earthquakes seldom if ever occur by the sudden appearance and propagation of a new shear crack (or 'fault') Instead, they occur by sudden slippage along a pre-existing fault or plate interface They are therefore a frictional, rather than fracture, phenomenon, with brittle fracture playing a secondary role in the lengthening of faults 1 and frictional wear 2  This distinction was noted by several early workers 3 , but it was not until 1966 that Brace and Byerlee 4 pointed out that earthquakes must be the result of a stick-slip frictional instability Thus, the earthquake is the 'slip', and the 'stick' is the interseismic period of elastic strain accumula- tion Subsequently, a complete constitutive law for rock friction has been developed based on laboratory studies A surprising result is that a great many other aspects of earthquake phenomena also now seem to result from the nature of the friction on faults The properties traditionally thought to control these processes— strength, brittleness and ductility—are subsumed within the over- arching concept of frictional stability regimes Constitutive law of rock friction In the standard model of stick-slip friction it is assumed that sliding begins when the ratio of shear to normal stress on the surface reaches a value ms, the static friction coefficient Once sliding initiates, frictional resistance falls to a lower dynamic friction coefficient, md, and this weakening of sliding resistance may,

/pdf/earthquakes-and-friction-laws-22mbgrykdx.pdf

Earthquakes and friction laws

An earthquake alters the shear and normal stress on surrounding faults. New evidence strengthens the hypothesis that such small, sudden stress changes cause large changes in seismicity rate. Rates climb where the stress increases (aftershocks) and fall where the stress drops. Both increases and decreases in seismicity rate are followed by a time-dependent recovery. When stress change is translated into probability change, seismic hazard is seen to be strongly influenced by earthquake interaction.

/pdf/the-role-of-stress-transfer-in-earthquake-occurrence-4urj8uxv3y.pdf

The role of stress transfer in earthquake occurrence

Many aspects of earthquake mechanics remain an enigma as we enter the closing years of the twentieth century. One potential bright spot is the realization that simple calculations of stress changes may explain some earthquake interactions, just as previous and on going studies of stress changes have begun to explain human-induced seismicity. This paper, which introduces the special section “Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard,” reviews many published works and presents a compilation of quantitative earthquake interaction studies from a stress change perspective. This synthesis supplies some clues about certain aspects of earthquake mechanics. It also demonstrates that much work remains before we can understand the complete story of how earthquakes work.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98JB01576

Introduction to Special Section: Stress Triggers, Stress Shadows, and Implications for Seismic Hazard

The magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake of 28 June 1992 triggered a remarkably sudden and widespread increase in earthquake activity across much of the western United States. The triggered earthquakes, which occurred at distances up to 1250 kilometers (17 source dimensions) from the Landers mainshock, were confined to areas of persistent seismicity and strike-slip to normal faulting. Many of the triggered areas also are sites of geothermal and recent volcanic activity. Static stress changes calculated for elastic models of the earthquake appear to be too small to have caused the triggering. The most promising explanations involve nonlinear interactions between large dynamic strains accompanying seismic waves from the mainshock and crustal fluids (perhaps including crustal magma).

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/260/5114/1617.full.pdf

W.J. Arabaz

Papers

Seismicity Remotely Triggered by the Magnitude 7.3 Landers, California, Earthquake