DOCSLIB.ORG

Foreshock Cascade to Failure in the MW 6.4 July 4, 2019 Ridgecrest, California Earthquake William L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Foreshock Cascade to Failure in the MW 6.4 July 4, 2019 Ridgecrest, California Earthquake William L 096 Foreshock Cascade to Failure in the MW 6.4 July 4, 2019 Ridgecrest, California Earthquake William L. Ellsworth1; Andrew J Barbour2; David R. Shelly3 1Stanford University, 2U. S. Geological Survey, Mountain View, CA, 3U. S. Geological Survey, Golden, CO Introduction Cascade to Failure No Evidence of Aseismic Slip Our current understanding of how earthquakes The foreshocks form a cascade to failure, following the Constraining aseismic slip is notoriously difficult. For nucleate leaves open critical questions about the same pattern of closely packed ruptures observed in the MW 6.4 July 4, 2019 Ridgecrest earthquake we did physical processes that occur before dynamic rupture precision seismological analyses of the MW 7.6 1999 not detected slow seismic or aseismic slip before including whether or not foreshocks have other than Izmit, Turkey (Ellsworth and Bulut, 2018) and MW 7.1 rupture initiation on either seismometers or a borehole weak statistical value as a precursor. Two end-member 1999 Hector Mine, California (Yoon et al., 2019) tensor strainmeter located 18 km from the epicenter. hypotheses that describe the underlying mechanisms earthquakes. The absence of repeating earthquakes in We can, however, place a limit on undetectable are the preslip and cascade model, which take opposing all three of the foreshock sequences argues against aseismic slip during the half hour between the MW 4.0 views on the role of aseismic deformation in the significant aseismic slip in the initiation process as a foreshock and mainshock. A strain with an amplitude nucleation process. Here we examine the foreshocks to silent driver of the foreshock process. greater than 0.2 nanostrain would have been observed, the MW 6.4 July 4, 2019 Ridgecrest, California corresponding to an upper limit for aseismic slip earthquake. We used template matching to identify the equivalent to MW 3.5. We searched for evidence of events, cross correlation and first-motion timing with repeating foreshocks but found none. If any occurred, hypoDD to determine hypocentroids for all event and they would be MW > 0.6 with an average slip of a few the initial hypocenters for the M > 2 foreshocks and the mm. Consequently, if aseismic slip occurred it played at initiation point of the mainshock. most a minor role in this foreshock sequence and we can rule out slip acceleration as the time to failure approached. Collectively, the evidence from this foreshock sequences strongly favors the cascade model. Left: Horizontal components of strain at NOTA strainmeter 921 recorded during the 30 minutes between the MW 4.0 foreshock NOTA Strainmeter B921 Earthquakes shown by rupture area for 5 MPa stress drop, and MW 6.4 mainshock. Note the absence of any change in strain centered on hypocentroid determined with hypoDD except for as the time of the mainshock approaches. Harmonic signals are the largest foreshock which had a measured stress drop of 20 electronic noise, likely from the solar power supply system MPa. Initial rupture point of the largest foreshock shown by gray [Barbour and Agnew, 2011]. Location of Ridgecrest earthquake sequence in eastern circle with 2-sigma uncertainty. Initial rupture point of M 6.4 Right: Comparison of observed strain with theoretical detection California. Stars mark mainshock epicenters for July 4, M W W mainshock shown by red circle with 2-sigma uncertainty. limits at this site. Aseismic slip with an equivalent moment 6.4 (south, aftershocks in blue) and July 6, M 7.1 (north, W M >3.5 would have been observed, had it occurred, or less than aftershocks in red). [Shelly, 2020] W 1/5 the moment of the MW 4.0 foreshock. Foreshocks Details of seismicity near Discussion the hypocenter of the July The foreshock sequence initiated 2.5 hours before the The foreshocks form a cascade to failure, following the 4 MW 6.4 earthquake MW 6.4 July 4 mainshock on a northwest-southeast [Shelly, 2020]. Arrow same pattern of closely packed ruptures observed for striking fault. The initial events cluster at base of the identifies the location of the 1999 Izmit, Turkey and 1999 Hector Mine sequence at 12 km depth. Thirty minutes before the the foreshock sequence earthquakes. All of these earthquakes began abruptly mainshock, the largest foreshock, M 4.0 nucleated on [Shelly, 2020]. without direct evidence of a nucleation process in the W Earthquakes with right the edge of area ruptured by the first foreshocks and lateral strike slip motion initial P-wave arrival for over 6 orders of magnitude ruptured unilaterally upward and to the northwest (see occurred on this vertical, below the mainshock. In each case, the mainshock figure). We estimate a rupture dimension of 250 m, northwest-striking plane nucleated on the edge of the foreshock rupture area, in based on spectral ratio measurements. This event was during the 2 1/2 hours agreement with the cascade model. The observations followed by its own aftershock sequence, all located on leading up to the MW 6.4 also agree with the predictions of rate-and-state theory mainshock the periphery of the M 4.0 event, including the MW 6.4 if the laboratory measured meter-scale dimension of which nucleated on the edge of the M 4.0 rupture. the nucleation zone applies to faults in nature. W Ellsworth, W.L. and Bulut, F., 2018. Nucleation of the 1999 Izmit earthquake by a triggered cascade of foreshocks. Nature Geoscience, 11(7), pp.531-535. Shelly, D.R., A High-Resolution Seismic Catalog for the Initial 2019 Ridgecrest Earthquake Sequence: Barbour, A.J. and Agnew, D.C., 2011. Noise leVels on Plate Boundary ObserVatory borehole Foreshocks, Aftershocks, and Faulting Complexity. Seismological Research Letters ; 91 (4): 1971–1978. Yoon, C.E., Yoshimitsu, N., Ellsworth, W.L. and Beroza, G.C., 2019. Foreshocks and Mainshock strainmeters in southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 101(5), doi: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220190309 Nucleation of the 1999 M w 7.1 Hector Mine, California, Earthquake. Journal of Geophysical pp.2453-2466. Research: Solid Earth, 124(2), pp.1569-1582..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seismic Rate Variations Prior to the 2010 Maule, Chile MW 8.8 Giant Megathrust Earthquake
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Seismic rate variations prior to the 2010 Maule, Chile MW 8.8 giant megathrust earthquake Benoit Derode1*, Raúl Madariaga1,2 & Jaime Campos1 The MW 8.8 Maule earthquake is the largest well-recorded megathrust earthquake reported in South America. It is known to have had very few foreshocks due to its locking degree, and a strong aftershock activity. We analyze seismic activity in the area of the 27 February 2010, MW 8.8 Maule earthquake at diferent time scales from 2000 to 2019. We diferentiate the seismicity located inside the coseismic rupture zone of the main shock from that located in the areas surrounding the rupture zone. Using an original spatial and temporal method of seismic comparison, we fnd that after a period of seismic activity, the rupture zone at the plate interface experienced a long-term seismic quiescence before the main shock. Furthermore, a few days before the main shock, a set of seismic bursts of foreshocks located within the highest coseismic displacement area is observed. We show that after the main shock, the seismic rate decelerates during a period of 3 years, until reaching its initial interseismic value. We conclude that this megathrust earthquake is the consequence of various preparation stages increasing the locking degree at the plate interface and following an irregular pattern of seismic activity at large and short time scales. Giant subduction earthquakes are the result of a long-term stress localization due to the relative movement of two adjacent plates. Before a large earthquake, the interface between plates is locked and concentrates the exter- nal forces, until the rock strength becomes insufcient, initiating the sudden rupture along the plate interface.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreshock Sequences and Short-Term Earthquake Predictability on East Pacific Rise Transform Faults
    NATURE 3377—9/3/2005—VBICKNELL—137936 articles Foreshock sequences and short-term earthquake predictability on East Pacific Rise transform faults Jeffrey J. McGuire1, Margaret S. Boettcher2 & Thomas H. Jordan3 1Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and 2MIT-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1541, USA 3Department of Earth Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-7042, USA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... East Pacific Rise transform faults are characterized by high slip rates (more than ten centimetres a year), predominately aseismic slip and maximum earthquake magnitudes of about 6.5. Using recordings from a hydroacoustic array deployed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we show here that East Pacific Rise transform faults also have a low number of aftershocks and high foreshock rates compared to continental strike-slip faults. The high ratio of foreshocks to aftershocks implies that such transform-fault seismicity cannot be explained by seismic triggering models in which there is no fundamental distinction between foreshocks, mainshocks and aftershocks. The foreshock sequences on East Pacific Rise transform faults can be used to predict (retrospectively) earthquakes of magnitude 5.4 or greater, in narrow spatial and temporal windows and with a high probability gain. The predictability of such transform earthquakes is consistent with a model in which slow slip transients trigger earthquakes, enrich their low-frequency radiation and accommodate much of the aseismic plate motion. On average, before large earthquakes occur, local seismicity rates support the inference of slow slip transients, but the subject remains show a significant increase1. In continental regions, where dense controversial23.
    [Show full text]
  • BY JOHNATHAN EVANS What Exactly Is an Earthquake?
    Earthquakes BY JOHNATHAN EVANS What Exactly is an Earthquake? An Earthquake is what happens when two blocks of the earth are pushing against one another and then suddenly slip past each other. The surface where they slip past each other is called the fault or fault plane. The area below the earth’s surface where the earthquake starts is called the Hypocenter, and the area directly above it on the surface is called the “Epicenter”. What are aftershocks/foreshocks? Sometimes earthquakes have Foreshocks. Foreshocks are smaller earthquakes that happen in the same place as the larger earthquake that follows them. Scientists can not tell whether an earthquake is a foreshock until after the larger earthquake happens. The biggest, main earthquake is called the mainshock. The mainshocks always have aftershocks that follow the main earthquake. Aftershocks are smaller earthquakes that happen afterwards in the same location as the mainshock. Depending on the size of the mainshock, Aftershocks can keep happening for weeks, months, or even years after the mainshock happened. Why do earthquakes happen? Earthquakes happen because all the rocks that make up the earth are full of fractures. On some of the fractures that are known as faults, these rocks slip past each other when the crust rearranges itself in a process known as plate tectonics. But the problem is, rocks don’t slip past each other easily because they are stiff, rough and their under a lot of pressure from rocks around and above them. Because of that, rocks can pull at or push on each other on either side of a fault for long periods of time without moving much at all, which builds up a lot of stress in the rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Parameters of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 81- 98, February 1991 SOURCE PARAMETERS OF THE 1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE BY EGILL HAUKSSON AND SUSANNA GROSS ABSTRACT Regional seismographic network and teleseismic data for the 1933 (M L -- 6.3) Long Beach earthquake sequence have been analyzed, Both the teleseismic focal mechanism of the main shock and the distribution of the aftershocks are consistent with the event having occurred on the Newport-lnglewood fault. The focal mechanism had a strike of 315 °, dip of 80 o to the northeast, and rake of - 170°. Relocation of the foreshock- main shock-aftershock sequence using modern events as fixed refer- ence events, shows that the rupture initiated near the Huntington Beach-Newport Beach City boundary and extended unilaterally to the northwest to a distance of 13 to 16 km. The centroidal depth was 10 +_ 2 km. The total source duration was 5 sec, and the seismic moment was 5.102s dyne-cm, which corresponds to an energy magnitude of M w = 6.4. The source radius is estimated to have been 6.6 to 7.9 km, which corresponds to a Brune stress drop of 44 to 76 bars. Both the spatial distribution of aftershocks and inversion for the source time function suggest that the earthquake may have consisted of at least two subevents. When the slip estimate from the seismic moment of 85 to 120 cm is compared with the long-term geological slip rate of 0.1 to 1.0 mm I yr along the Newport-lnglewood fault, the 1933 earthquake has a repeat time on the order of a few thousand years.
    [Show full text]
  • Mamuju–Majene
    Supendi et al. Earth, Planets and Space (2021) 73:106 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-021-01436-x EXPRESS LETTER Open Access Foreshock–mainshock–aftershock sequence analysis of the 14 January 2021 (Mw 6.2) Mamuju–Majene (West Sulawesi, Indonesia) earthquake Pepen Supendi1* , Mohamad Ramdhan1, Priyobudi1, Dimas Sianipar1, Adhi Wibowo1, Mohamad Taufk Gunawan1, Supriyanto Rohadi1, Nelly Florida Riama1, Daryono1, Bambang Setiyo Prayitno1, Jaya Murjaya1, Dwikorita Karnawati1, Irwan Meilano2, Nicholas Rawlinson3, Sri Widiyantoro4,5, Andri Dian Nugraha4, Gayatri Indah Marliyani6, Kadek Hendrawan Palgunadi7 and Emelda Meva Elsera8 Abstract We present here an analysis of the destructive Mw 6.2 earthquake sequence that took place on 14 January 2021 in Mamuju–Majene, West Sulawesi, Indonesia. Our relocated foreshocks, mainshock, and aftershocks and their focal mechanisms show that they occurred on two diferent fault planes, in which the foreshock perturbed the stress state of a nearby fault segment, causing the fault plane to subsequently rupture. The mainshock had relatively few after- shocks, an observation that is likely related to the kinematics of the fault rupture, which is relatively small in size and of short duration, thus indicating a high stress-drop earthquake rupture. The Coulomb stress change shows that areas to the northwest and southeast of the mainshock have increased stress, consistent with the observation that most aftershocks are in the northwest. Keywords: Mamuju–Majene, Earthquake, Relocation, Rupture, Stress-change Introduction mainshock from two of the nearest stations in Mamuju On January 14, 2021, a destructive earthquake (Mw 6.2) and Majene are 95.9 and 92.8 Gals, respectively, equiva- between Mamuju and Majene, West Sulawesi, Indonesia, lent to VI on the MMI scale (Additional fle 1: Figure S1).
    [Show full text]
  • High Probability of Foreshock Occurrence and Significant Probability of Multiple Events Associated with Magnitude Greater Than O
    High Probability of Foreshock Occurrence and Significant Probability of Multiple Events Associated with Magnitude ≥6 Earthquakes in Nevada, U.S.A. by Craig M. dePolo INTRODUCTION moment magnitudes (M w) when possible; otherwise they are catalog or historical values (M; dePolo, 2013). Sixty percent of magnitude 5.5 and larger earthquakes in the western Cordillera were preceded by foreshocks (Doser, 1989). M ≥6 M FORESHOCKS PRIOR TO NEVADA Foreshocks also preceded the 2008 Wells ( w 6.0; Smith et al., EARTHQUAKES 2011) and the 2008 Mogul (M w 5.0; Smith et al., 2008; de- Polo, 2011) earthquakes in Nevada. Understanding foreshocks There have been several studies of earthquake foreshocks, in- and their behavior is important because of their potential use cluding a classic paper on foreshocks along the San Andreas for earthquake forecasting and foreshocks felt by communities fault system by Jones (1984), which concluded that 35% of act as a natural alarm that can motivate people to engage in M ≥5 earthquakes were preceded by an immediate foreshock seismic mitigation. A majority of larger earthquakes in Nevada within one day and 5 km of the mainshock. Considering a two- had foreshocks, and several were multiple earthquakes of mag- ≥6 month time window and a 40 km radius, Doser (1989) studied nitude . Multiple major earthquakes can shake a community M ≥5:5 earthquakes in the western Cordillera and found that with damaging ground motion multiple times within a short 60% of these events had foreshocks and that 58% of these fore- period of time, such as happened in Christchurch, New shocks occurred within 24 hours of their mainshock (35% of Zealand, in 2010 and 2011 (Gledhill et al., 2011; Bradley the total).
    [Show full text]
  • Foreshock Seismic-Energy-Release Functions: Tools for Estimating Time and Magnitude of Main Shocks
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Foreshock Seismic-Energy-Release Functions: Tools for Estimating Time and Magnitude of Main Shocks David J. Varnes Open-File Report 87-^29 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards. Golden, Colorado 1987 CONTENTS Page Abstract......................................................... 1 Introduction..................................................... 1 Theoretical and Experimental Background in Deformation Kinetics....................................................... 3 Interim Discussion............................................... 13 Method of Foreshock Analysis..................................... 15 Example Solution, Cremasta Lake Earthquake....................... 1 6 Analyses of Other Foreshock Sequences............................ 23 Synthetic Foreshock Series Controlled by IMPORT SERF............. 33 Discussion and Conclusions ....................................... 35 References....................................................... 37 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Typical curves showing primary and tertiary creep..... 10 2. A creep curve illustrating the "pure Saito" relation in which the product of the strain rate and the time remaining is a constant........................ 11 3. Foreshocks of the Cremasta, Greece, earthquake of February 5, 1966.................................... 17 /T I/O M. Log(Z/E/10 )ergs versus time, Cremasta earthquake of February 5, 1966, M=5.9.......................... 19 5. Log1Q
    [Show full text]
  • Waveform Analysis of the 1999 Hector Mine Foreshock Sequence Eva E
    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 8, 1429, doi:10.1029/2002GL016383, 2003 Waveform analysis of the 1999 Hector Mine foreshock sequence Eva E. Zanzerkia and Gregory C. Beroza Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA John E. Vidale Department of Earth and Space Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA Received 2 October 2002; revised 5 December 2002; accepted 6 February 2003; published 23 April 2003. [1] By inspecting continuous Trinet waveform data, we [4] Although the Hector Mine foreshock sequence find 42 foreshocks in the 20-hour period preceding the 1999 occurred in an area of sparse instrumentation, we are able Hector Mine earthquake, a substantial increase from the 18 to obtain precise locations for 39 of the 42 foreshocks by foreshocks in the catalog. We apply waveform cross- making precise arrival time measurements from waveform correlation and the double-difference method to locate these data even at low signal to noise ratio (snr) and double- events. Despite low signal-to-noise ratio data for many of difference relocation. After relocation we find that the the uncataloged foreshocks, correlation-based arrival time foreshocks occurred on the mainshock initiation plane and measurements are sufficient to locate all but three of these that the extent of the foreshock zone expands as the time of events, with location uncertainties from 100 m to 2 km. the mainshock approaches. We find that the foreshocks fall on a different plane than the initial subevent of the mainshock, and that the foreshocks spread out over the plane with time during the sequence as 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Seismic Acceleration, Nature Geoscience
    correspondence Artificial seismic acceleration To the Editor — In their 2013 Letter, magnitude of completeness threshold of earthquake catalogues from California, Bouchon et al.1 claim to see a significant M = 2.5 (Supplementary Information), can produce acceleration comparable acceleration of seismicity before magnitude either in individual sequences or when to the data used by Bouchon et al. ≥6.5 mainshock earthquakes that occur combined. As a result, we argue the (Supplementary Information). Although in interplate regions, but not before statistical analysis of the data, such the ETAS parameters for California may not intraplate mainshocks. They suggest as their finding that the Gutenberg– be applicable to other regions that are part that this accelerating seismicity reflects Richter value b = 0.63, and simulations of the data set used by Bouchon et al., they a preparatory process before large plate- based on that analysis are flawed (see demonstrate the existence of reasonable boundary earthquakes. We concur that Supplementary Information). parameters that produce different behaviour their interplate data set has significantly Bouchon and colleagues compare their than the simulations in Bouchon et al. more foreshocks than their intraplate data with simulations that use the cascade- Bouchon and colleagues also compare data set; however, we disagree that the model-based epidemic type aftershock the acceleration seen before the mainshocks foreshocks indicate a precursory phase that sequence (ETAS) model5. The individual with activity seen before nearby smaller is predictive of large events in particular. data sets are too small to constrain the ETAS earthquakes. The cascade model predicts Acceleration of seismicity in stacked parameters, so Bouchon et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreshock Activity of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, California
    Bulletinof the SeismologicalSociety of America. Vol. 68, No. 5, pp. 1265-1279. October 1978 THE FORESHOCK ACTIVITY OF THE 1971 SAN FERNANDO EARTHQUAKE, CALIFORNIA BY MIZUHO ISHIDA AND HIROO KANAMORI ABSTRACT All of the earthquakes which occurred in the epicentral area of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake during the period from 1960 to 1970 were relocated by using the master-event method. Five events from 1969 to 1970 are located within a small area around the main shock epicenter. This cluster of activity is clearly separated spatially from the activity in the surrounding area, so these five events are considered foreshocks. The wave forms of these foreshocks recorded at Pasadena are, without exception, very complex, yet they are re- markably similar from event to event. The events which occurred in the same area prior to 1969 have less complex wave forms with a greater variation among them. The complexity is most likely the effect of the propagation path. A well located aftershock which occurred in the immediate vicinity of the main shock of the San Fernando earthquake has a wave form similar to that of the fore- shocks, which suggests that the foreshocks are also located very close to the main shock. This complexity is probably caused by a structural heterogeneity in the fault zone near the hypocenter. The seismic rays from the foreshocks in the inferred heterogeneous zone are interpreted as multiple-reflected near the source region which yielded the complex wave form. The mechanisms of the five foreshocks are similar to each other but different from either the main shock or the aftershocks, suggesting that the foreshocks originated from a small area of stress concentration where the stress field is locally distorted from the regional field.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Characteristics of Foreshock Activity Inferred from The
    Characteristics of foreshock activity inferred from the JMA Title earthquake catalog Tamaribuchi, Koji; Yagi, Yuji; Hirano, Shiro, and, Enescu, Author(s) Bogdan Citation Earth, Planets and Space (2018), 70 Issue Date 2018-05-29 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/234562 © The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which Right permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Type Journal Article Textversion publisher Kyoto University Tamaribuchi et al. Earth, Planets and Space (2018) 70:90 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0866-9 FULL PAPER Open Access Characteristics of foreshock activity inferred from the JMA earthquake catalog Koji Tamaribuchi1* , Yuji Yagi2, Bogdan Enescu3 and Shiro Hirano4 Abstract We investigated the foreshock activity characteristics using the Japan Meteorological Agency Unifed Earthquake Catalog for the last 20 years. Using the nearest-neighbor distance approach, we systematically and objectively classi- fed the earthquakes into clustered and background seismicity. We further categorized the clustered events into fore- shocks, mainshocks, and aftershocks and analyzed their statistical features such as the b-value of the frequency–mag- nitude distribution. We found that the b-values of the foreshocks are lower than those of the aftershocks. This b-value diference suggested that not only the stochastic cascade efect but also the stress changes/aseismic processes may contribute to the mainshock-triggering process.
    [Show full text]
  • Short-Term Foreshocks As Key Information for Mainshock Timing and Rupture: the Mw6.8 25 October 2018 Zakynthos Earthquake, Hellenic Subduction Zone
    sensors Article Short-Term Foreshocks as Key Information for Mainshock Timing and Rupture: The Mw6.8 25 October 2018 Zakynthos Earthquake, Hellenic Subduction Zone Gerassimos A. Papadopoulos 1,*, Apostolos Agalos 1 , George Minadakis 2,3, Ioanna Triantafyllou 4 and Pavlos Krassakis 5 1 International Society for the Prevention & Mitigation of Natural Hazards, 10681 Athens, Greece; [email protected] 2 Department of Bioinformatics, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, 6 International Airport Avenue, Nicosia 2370, P.O. Box 23462, Nicosia 1683, Cyprus; [email protected] 3 The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, 6 International Airport Avenue, Nicosia 2370, P.O. Box 23462, Nicosia 1683, Cyprus 4 Department of Geology & Geoenvironment, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece; [email protected] 5 Centre for Research and Technology, Hellas (CERTH), 52 Egialias Street, 15125 Athens, Greece; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 28 August 2020; Accepted: 30 September 2020; Published: 5 October 2020 Abstract: Significant seismicity anomalies preceded the 25 October 2018 mainshock (Mw = 6.8), NW Hellenic Arc: a transient intermediate-term (~2 yrs) swarm and a short-term (last 6 months) cluster with typical time-size-space foreshock patterns: activity increase, b-value drop, foreshocks move towards mainshock epicenter. The anomalies were identified with both a standard earthquake catalogue and a catalogue relocated with the Non-Linear Location (NLLoc) algorithm. Teleseismic P-waveforms inversion showed oblique-slip rupture with strike 10◦, dip 24◦, length ~70 km, faulting depth ~24 km, velocity 3.2 km/s, duration 18 s, slip 1.8 m within the asperity, seismic moment 26 2.0 10 dyne*cm.
    [Show full text]