Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; February 2005; v. 95; no. 1; p. 361-366; DOI: 10.1785/0120040109
© 2005 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liu, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Teng, T.-L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Reply

Reply to "Comment on ‘Systematic Analysis of Shear-Wave Splitting in the Aftershock Zone of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake: Shallow Crustal Anisotropy and Lack of Precursory Changes,’ by Yunfeng Liu, Ta-Liang Teng, and Yehuda Ben-Zion," by Stuart Crampin and Yuan Gao

Yunfeng Liu1, Yehuda Ben-Zion1 and Ta-Liang Teng1

1 Department of Earth Sciences
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California 90089-0740

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
We thank Crampin and Gao (2005, hereinafter referred to as CG) for their interest in the analysis and results of Liu et al. (2004, hereinafter referred to as LTBZ). We disagree that the lines they draw through some of the data points of figure 14a of LTBZ (reproduced here as Fig. 1) carry quantitative scientific information, and we maintain our assessment that the results of LTBZ do not show systematic temporal evolution of anisotropy parameters that could be used to forecast impending large earthquakes in our study area. Our response to CG focuses on features involving directly the results of LTBZ. We do not discuss the broader claims of CG on general scaling relations, associated with their figures 2 and 3, other than to note that they have been controversial (e.g., Aster et al., 1990, 1991; Seher and Main, 2004). Prompted by the comment of CG, we perform a more detailed analysis of spatio-temporal variations of the time delays between fast and slow shear waves in our data. The detailed examination indicates clearly that the apparent precursory pattern identified by CG is dominated by spatial rather than temporal variations of properties.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Observed time-delay values for the section deeper than 0.2 km versus time. Each data point is a time-delay measurement with an error given by the vertical line. The mean values and standard deviations of the measurements before and after the Chi-Chi mainshock are indicated by solid and dashed lines, respectively. The numbers near the points mark the sequential ordering of the measurements.

 


   Results
 
Figure 1 is an enlarged version of figure 14a of LTBZ, with sequential numbering of the data points before the 1999 Chi-Chi mainshock and several later points. The "subtle temporal changes" referred to by CG . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Summary
 



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
S. Crampin and Y. Gao
Comment on "Systematic Analysis of Shear-Wave Splitting in the Aftershock Zone of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake: Shallow Crustal Anisotropy and Lack of Precursory Changes, by Yungfeng Liu, Ta-Liang Teng, and Yehuda Ben-Zion"
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 2005; 95(1): 354 - 360.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the Seismological Society of America.