HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by TAYLOR, D. W. A. Articles by TAKANAMI, T. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Seismic quiescence before the Urakawa-Oki earthquake

ENSCO, INC., 445 PINEDA COURT, MELBOURNE, FLORIDA 32940
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES VIRGINIA POLYTECNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 24061
DEPARTMENT OF TERRESTRIAL MAGNETISM CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, 5241 BROAD BRANCH ROAD NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20015
RESEARCH CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION FACULTY OF SCIENCE HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY, SAPPORO, Japan

Abstract

There were significant changes in seismicity preceding a large earthquake, the Urakawa-Oki earthquake of 21 March 1982. This event, a M_JMA = 7.1 thrust-fault, crustal earthquake, is the largest from a data set of 35,000 earthquakes beneath the southeastern corner of Hokkaido Island (Japan) during the period July 1976 through December 1986.

There was a quiescence for the 2 years preceding the main shock, surrounding, but not including, the immediate epicenter, and only for magnitudes 3. During the same time span, there was an increase in the number of small (magnitudes 2.4) events restricted to the general focal region of the main shock. The magnitude dependence of the precursory seismicity patterns is a departure from self-similarity, one of the currently prevalent assumptions in earthquake source models.

These seismicity anomalies can be seen using conventional methods such as cumulative number versus time for selected magnitudes in a bounded geographical region. However, such displays require a priori knowledge or assumptions about the prospective target region and magnitude range. For this anomaly, there was no reason to target the epicentral region in advance, and the usual assumption that quiescence should be most evident at small magnitudes was not appropriate here. We have developed an efficient, objective procedure for alerting one to the possible existence of a developing anomaly and then analyzing its spatial bounds and its magnitude dependence. This procedure has potential value as a general monitoring tool.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Mapping Seismic Quiescence in California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2001; 91(1): 64 - 81.