scholarly journals Prediction of ground motion and dynamic stress change in Baekdusan (Changbaishan) volcano caused by a North Korean nuclear explosion

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae-Kyung Hong ◽  
Eunseo Choi ◽  
Seongjun Park ◽  
Jin Soo Shin
Keyword(s):  
Ground Motion ◽  
Dynamic Stress ◽  
Nuclear Explosion ◽  
Stress Change ◽  
Changbaishan Volcano ◽  
Dynamic Stress Change

Tests of Remote Dynamic Aftershock Triggering by Small Mainshocks Using Taiwan’s Earthquake Catalog

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Peng ◽  
Shinji Toda
Keyword(s):  
Power Law ◽  
Dynamic Stress ◽  
Geothermal Gradient ◽  
Active Volcano ◽  
Stress Change ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Earthquake Catalog ◽  
Earthquake Triggering ◽  
Power Law Decay ◽  
Dynamic Stress Change

Abstract To understand earthquake interaction and forecast time-dependent seismic hazard, it is essential to determine which static or dynamic stress change due to a mainshock plays a major role in triggering its aftershocks and subsequent mainshocks. Using small mainshocks (2≤M<3) and their aftershocks, Felzer and Brodsky (2006) argued that mainshock induced dynamic stress change is responsible for earthquake triggering in a form of power-law decay within 50 km. Richards-Dinger et al. (2010), however, studied the foreshock decay and claimed that mainshock had no effect at distances outside its static stress triggering range, which required an alternative explanation. We tested these hypotheses using Taiwan’s earthquake catalog by taking advantage of its lack of large events and the absence of active volcano and associated significant seismic swarm. In examining earthquakes occurring in 1994–2010, following Felzer and Brodsky’s method, we found a linear aftershock density with a power-law decay of −1.12±0.38 that is very similar to the one seen in Felzer and Brodsky (2006). None of the mainshock–aftershock pairs were associated with an M 7 rupture event or M 6 event. We further demonstrated that the density decay in a short time period is more likely a randomized behavior than mainshock–aftershock triggering. These pairs were located mostly in high geothermal gradient areas, which are probably triggered by a small-scale aseismic process.

Difference Analysis of Loess Seismic Subsidence between In Situ Experiment and Laboratory Test

2012 ◽  
Vol 594-597 ◽  
pp. 1652-1657
Author(s):  
Shun Hua Xu ◽  
Lan Min Wang ◽  
Jun Jie Sun
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Ground Motion ◽  
Strong Ground Motion ◽  
Dynamic Stress ◽  
Difference Analysis ◽  
Loess Area ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Strong Dynamic ◽  
Strong Ground

Seismic subsidence of loess is a kind of disaster induced by strong ground motion in loess area, while seldom example of this subsidence was found in long time study, usually instead of laboratory test. An explosion ground motion in a typical loess field was designed to verify seismic subsidence of loess with natural condition and laboratory test of loess seismic subsidence was conducted in China. The result proved seismic subsidence of loess could be induced by explosion ground motion, while the maxmuim settlement of 3.3cm in the case of experiment is much less than 53cm with a moderate or strong dynamic stress in laboratory due to an incomplete seismic subsidence of loess in this field. The seismic subsidence of toper loess layers is less than the below in the field test although it is opposite to in laboratory test due to closer distance between the below layers and explosion shots.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document